Land Use & Housing

For information on any of the following items, please contact either Dave Williams, davew@awcnet.org, or Tim Gugerty, timg@awcnet.org.

Annexation Reform (HB 2483/SB 6238) – AWC Priority

Non-code cities have different requirements when annexing lands by property-owner petition than code cities. Identical House and Senate versions, HB 2483 and SB 6238, simply standardize the requirements among cities so that code and non-code cities may annex by petition if supported by owners of at least 60% of the assessed value of annexable land. Opposition from a few counties and some special districts seems to be based upon their dislike of annexations and, in particular, concerns over their loss of revenue when annexations occur. AWC strongly supports these bills and urges interested cities to help get them to both the House and Senate floors for an affirmative vote.

Fire District Commissioner Annexation Reform (HB 2938)

AWC strongly opposes HB 2938, introduced by the Fire District Commissioners and scheduled for a hearing before the House Local Government Committee on Tuesday, January 29 at 1:30 pm. Fire District Commissioners sometimes oppose annexations which trigger a series of longstanding statutes that require, among other things, asset transfer to the annexing city if over 60% of the assessed valuation of the district is annexed to a city.

Current law provides that once an area is annexed, the city is responsible for fire services and must work out asset transfer issues and whether or not the districts provide continued services by contract. This bill grants fire districts the authority to continue service and hold on to assets if they do not enter into an inter-local agreement. The bill also modifies a section of the Growth Management Act by declaring fire districts equal to cities as units of government "most appropriate to provide urban governmental services."

Local Solutions to Climate Change/GMA (HB 2797/SB 6580)

These identical high priority bills from the environmental community were introduced containing new mandates for larger GMA-planning cities and counties to address climate change in local plans and regulations, appealable to Growth Management Hearings Boards. These bills were met with a range of reactions from local government and other interests and after numerous constructive meetings with proponents, AWC staff has helped retool the bill so that we may be close to giving it our full support.

As currently proposed, both bills would:

• Declare legislative intent that this is an important issue that can, in part, be impacted by actions taken in local communities;
• Establish a new 14th goal in the GMA that, among the other 13 now in statute, would guide local GMA plan implementation and updates;
• Direct the state’s Community, Trade and Economic Development Department (CTED) to work with cities, other governments and stakeholders to evaluate what cities and counties are now doing in response to this issue, develop models and tools to help interested jurisdictions, and report back to the Governor and Legislature on findings and make any needed state legislative recommendations; and
• If funding is provided, allow CTED to fund a series of "pilot projects" in support of up to six cities and three counties to develop or enhance local climate change responses.

The most controversial piece of this new approach is whether or not to legislate a new 14th GMA goal. Some argue that one of the existing GMA goals addressing environmental protection already directs cities to look at climate change when updating local plans and regulations. Others say a new one – to be balanced among the others and not "trump" them - should be included. AWC is seeking input from interested cities on this topic and has not yet indicated either support for or opposition to this component of the bill.

A panel of city officials from Tacoma, Everett and Kennewick are testifying on this bill in the House Local Government Committee on January 24 at 1:30 pm.

Evergreen Cities/Urban Forestry (HB 2844/SB 6469, HB 2468/SB 6249)

Bill proponents want cities to increase inventory, assessment, and protection efforts for existing trees and increase the number of tree plantings. AWC has reached an agreement with proponents that eliminates the mandatory and regulatory approaches contained in both HB 2844/SB 6469 as originally introduced and reported about in last week’s Bulletin.

HB 2844/SB 6469 are being reworked to include provisions also contained in HB 2468/SB 6249 that require the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to, at no cost to cities: 1) inventory trees in all cities around the state (taking up to seven years to complete); 2) assess tree health; and 3) provide assistance to interested cities on managing trees.

In addition, HB 2844/SB 6469 are being reworked to require DNR to work with CTED to develop suggestions and models for cities interested in doing more than is now required to be designated a "Tree City USA" community (there are currently 66 cities voluntarily choosing to be a "Tree City USA"). In the reworked bill, funds would be provided to help cities achieve additional status as an "Evergreen City" and, as an incentive, would provide "extra" points when seeking grants from sources like the Public Works Trust Fund and Centennial Clean Water Fund.

AWC supports these bills in this form and will so testify during upcoming hearings. SB 6469 is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resource, Ocean & Recreation on Wednesday, January 30 at 8 am. HB 2468 is scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Appropriations on Monday, January 28 at 3:30 pm. To be successful, all of these bills require state funding, which we are not sure will be available.

Housing Affordability (HB 2604, HB 2576, HB 2855, HB 1727/SB 6727)

Legislative leadership and the Governor are working jointly to promote numerous consumer protection, funding and reform proposals aimed at helping protect those now owning a home and help make more affordable housing available to those seeking housing.

The following bills are among those "in play" at this point in the session:

Allowing Cities the Option of Exempting Low-Income Housing and Development Activities from Impact Fees (HB 2604)

AWC strongly supports this bill which authorizes cities to exempt low-income housing development from locally imposed GMA impact fees. Current law allows such exemptions only if public funds are used to make up the difference on those fees waived.

Planning to Ensure Sufficient Land and Densities Available to Accommodate Growth (HB 1727, SB 6727)

AWC supports these Realtor promoted bills that were extensively worked last session as HB 1727. Sec. 4 of HB 1727, as currently written, requires counties of 175,000 or more to adopt consistent development regulations with cities for unincorporated lands inside urban growth areas, adjacent to or surrounded by a city. HB 1727 passed from the House floor last week in a slimmed down version including this language. SB 6727, introduced but not yet scheduled for a hearing, contains the same language as noted above in HB 1727. We expect these bills will be worked in the coming weeks and that provisions in Sec. 4 will be debated and refined.

AWC has concerns with HB 2855. This bill was heard this past week in the House Local Government Committee and directs CTED to report annually to the Legislature on results of implementing city and county GMA housing elements of local comprehensive plans. Our concern is CTED would need to collect extensive data from jurisdictions and such data is not currently available on an annual basis. It is available in the larger I-5 corridor counties based upon their Buildable Lands requirements. We’re concerned smaller counties and their cities would be required to develop similar data without funding or clear statutory direction.

Promoting the Availability of Affordable Housing Through the GMA (HB 2576)

AWC strongly opposes HB 2576. On the surface, it appears benign and adds definitions to GMA statutes on what constitutes both "low-income" and "moderate-income" housing. It includes a requirement that each GMA-planning city must provide housing opportunities for these income levels. Current law requires provision of housing opportunities for "all economic segments of the community," under which there is recognition that all cities have or will ever have all economic segments within the community. We appreciate the desire of proponents to expand the availability of affordable housing, but do not agree that cities should or can zone for all income levels. If this bill becomes law, cities can be appealed for not complying.

Other Bills of Interest

Help for Smaller GMA-Planning Cities (SB 6493, HB 2777)

Last week, the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee heard SB 6493, which would provide access to a new state loan fund for cities under 30,000 whose GMA critical areas ordinances are appealed. SB 6493, sponsored by Sen. Steve Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens), establishes a fund, sets a repayment schedule of 10 years at 4% interest and provides a partial funding source by establishing a $200 Growth Management Hearings Board appeal fee. The most controversial part of the bill provides for triple payment of cities’ attorney’s fees if an appealed city is upheld and the court rules the appeal to be "frivolous." AWC testified in strong support, is working with and appreciates the efforts of Sen. Hobbs. We hope some form of the bill moves forward.

Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island) has introduced HB 2777 with Rep. Doug Eriksen (R-Ferndale) that would provide technical and funding assistance to GMA-planning cities of 7,500 or fewer to help meet their infrastructure needs associated with growth. HB 2777 is scheduled for hearing before the House Local Government Committee on January 31 at 8 am and AWC will testify in strong support.

Eminent Domain Issues (ESHB 2016, HB 2921, HB 2920)

Having passed the House last session, an amended version of ESHB 2016 is expected to move to the House floor for action during the week of January 28. The intent of the bill is to clarify that eminent domain cannot be used for economic development purposes and to provide for an option for repurchase for owners of property acquired through eminent domain but not utilized. The bill is in part a response to concerns about the Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court case from a few years ago. Our state’s supreme court interpretation, which is similar to the dissent in Kelo, has long held that our state’s constitution prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development.

This expected version of the bill is likely to:

• require a written explanation of consideration of alternatives to the project,
• change the amount a local government must reimburse a property owner for evaluation of an offer for purchase from a limit of $750 to appraisal fees,
• provide for an option to repurchase if property is not used, and
• restrict use of eminent domain when it is used substantially for economic development-related  purposes.

We have been working with a group of cities to determine the impact of the legislation and to suggest language to make this new process workable and limit potential new liability.

Community Renewal Law (HB 2921)

Thanks to Hugh Spitzer of the firm Foster Pepper, PLLC, for testifying on behalf of AWC on HB 2921 on January 23. This bill amends the Community Renewal Law in ways that would effectively eliminate it as an economic development tool for cities. Many of the changes would also repeal provisions that the Legislature approved in 2002 to make the tool more usable for less urban and smaller jurisdictions.

The changes go far beyond the stated intent to respond to concerns regarding the blight definition in the statute. Provisions such as a repeal of a section allowing cities to partner with other local agencies on the redevelopment agency would impact ongoing projects such as downtown redevelopment efforts in Bremerton, which is administered by the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority. Other provisions regarding limiting the community renewal area to a patchwork of properties would eliminate the effectiveness of financing tools available in other portions of the statute that are not being amended.

Funding for the Washington Families Fund (SB 6335)

SB 6335, sponsored by Senator Margarita Prentice (D-Renton) passed the full Senate unanimously as one of the first bills to reach that milestone this session. The bill appropriates $6 million to the Washington families fund to provide state matching funds for housing-based supportive services for homeless families. All state money must be matched with private donations. To date, the Gates Foundation and 17 other private, philanthropic, and corporate organizations have contributed, but it is currently fully obligated. Without this infusion of new state dollars, private funding would be lost. It is scheduled to be heard in the House Appropriations committee on Tuesday, January 29, at 3:30.

Additional Assistance to Homeless Families (SB 5959)

ESSB 5959, sponsored by Senator Jim Hargrove (D-Hoquiam) provides funding for the Transitional Housing Operating and Rent (THOR) program in CTED. The purpose of the program is to assist homeless individuals and families secure and retain safe, decent and affordable housing. It replaces a portion of the funding that had been administered by the Department of Corrections to provide transitional housing for ex-offenders. This program allows funding to be used for housing of families or individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless and:

• have children in household incomes at or below 50 percent of the area median income;
• are without children but who have incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income;
• are a household with an adult member who has a mental health or chemical dependency disorder; and
• are a household with an adult member who is an offender released from confinement within the past 18 months.

It is scheduled to be heard in the House Housing Committee on Thursday, January 31, at 10 am, already having passed the Senate unanimously.

[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]