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 – AWC Priority (HB 2483/SB 6238)

As noted in previous Bulletins, non-code cities have different requirements when annexing lands by property-owner petition than code cities. Identical House and Senate bills, HB 2483 and SB 6238, simply standardize the requirements 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. SB 6238 is awaiting action on the Senate Calendar – supportive cities are urged to contact your Senators for their support! HB 2438 has not yet been placed on the floor calendar.

Fire District Commissioner Annexation Reform – AWC OPPOSES (SHB 2938)

Although AWC testified in opposition to SHB 2938, it moved forward from the House Local Government Committee with an amendment requiring job security for District Firefighters upon annexation or incorporation.

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. SHB 2938 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."

The amendment noted above includes provisions for transferring fire protection district employees to a city following incorporation or annexation, on a pro rata basis in order of seniority. It appears the intent is to mandate a certain number of laid-off district employees that must be hired by the city, rather than letting the city determine how many of the district staff are needed to provide services.

Because RCW 35.13.215, 225, and 235 already address employee transfer provisions, we have asked several attorneys to review the language to help determine the impact of this change on cities. If you have comments or concerns about the amendment, please contact Deanna Krell at deannak@awcnet.org. For questions about the underlying bill, please contact Dave Williams at davew@awcnet.org.

AWC urges concerned cities to contact your House members to express your opposition to SHB 2938.

Affordable Housing, GMA, Definitions of Low & Moderate Income - AWC OPPOSES (SHB 2576)

GMA-planning cities are required to have a Housing Element in each local GMA Plan. Current law requires that a variety of types of housing be addressed so that all the needs of each community are met. Not every city has every income level within the community.

This well-intended bill adds definitions of both low and moderate income to the GMA statutes. It bases definitions on overall income levels within each county. The result of adding these definitions would be that each city plan and zone for all income levels – whether or not those income levels now exist in each city. Arguably, cities would have to zone for income levels, not units/acre. Cities could face legal challenges for not providing housing for certain income levels, as well as challenges for denying projects that were available for higher income level buyers.

AWC is working with the bills’ sponsor, Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-Covington), who seems to recognize that his objective of helping to produce more affordable housing might not be attained with this measure. The bill is on "hold," but is on the House Floor Calendar. Stay Tuned!

Local Solutions to Climate Change/GMA (SHB 2797/SSB 6580)

These bills have been significantly scaled back and contain no new direct mandates on cities. Instead, they include the following:

• If funded, grants to help interested cities or counties address climate change in local land use and transportation programs;
• Provisions for the creation of a stakeholder group to evaluate and report back to the Legislature about how cities and counties might best address climate change challenges at the local level; and
• Assignments for both the Departments of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and Ecology (DOE) to develop various tools and models that interested cities and counties could use to address climate change issues at the local level.

AWC supports these parts of each bill. We are concerned they may not be funded.

Both bills also include a new 14th goal to be added to the Growth Management Act (GMA). This is the most controversial part of these scaled back versions. Proponents recognized opposition to adding the goal and included a "sunrise" provision in the most recent version. This clause states that the new goal would not have to be considered, nor could it be used in court as to whether or not it had been considered, until at least 2011 (when the next round of comprehensive GMA updates begin to be due).

Cities have a variety of opinions on whether or not a new GMA goal adds value, has no significant impact or creates significant new legal hurdles. AWC has been asked to meet with Senate and House sponsors of the bill on Monday, February 11 for a discussion on this issue. Both bills are before legislative fiscal committees and their fate is uncertain.

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

All of these bills have essentially the same idea – help cities establish an accurate baseline inventory and assessment of trees and offer help on how to best protect and care for them. This task is assigned to staff at the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The inventory and assessment will cost the state money and will take somewhere between 3-7 years to complete. Cities did not ask for this legislation, but if offered and funded, we support it.

SHB 2844 and SSB 6469 add provisions establishing a stakeholder process to come up with recommendations on how to better manage trees as growth occurs. Once a series of models are developed, interested cities can choose to adopt them and would receive credit for doing so when applying for various state grants and loans.

AWC supports these approaches. SSB 6469 was amended in committee to include a provision that the ten largest cities (by acreage, not population) "must" (rather than "may") adopt new models. AWC is checking with the following ten cities to get their input: Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver, Spokane Valley, Richland, Everett, Bainbridge Island, Bellevue and Pasco.

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

AWC strongly supports this bill that 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 replace the fees waived. The bill passed from the Local Government Committee and is in House Rules awaiting a pull to the floor.

Creating Programs to End Homelessness (2SHB 1115)

The Legislature enacted the Homeless Housing and Assistance Act in 2005, the goal of which is to reduce homelessness by 50% statewide and in each county by July 1, 2015. Thirty-seven counties participate in this program, funded by a $10 surcharge on recorded documents.

Cities that affirmatively elect to participate in the program, agreeing to meet its requirements, are entitled to a portion of these funds. None have done so to date, electing rather to work in cooperation with their county. The Subcommittee on General Local Government passed this bill out of committee on February 7 with the following amendments:

• The name of the act is changed from the Homeless Housing and Assistance Act to the Ending Homelessness Act and the program goal is changed to reduce homelessness by 70% (previously 50%) by 2015 and end homelessness by 2018 (previously no date provided).
• The amended bill requires the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development to provide guidelines to local governments regarding performance measures methods.
• Jurisdictions participating in the program must update the Local Ending Homelessness plan annually; include and report upon performance measures in Local Ending Homelessness plans; and apply to the Washington State Quality Award Program if the jurisdiction receives $500,000 or more in state funding and certain surcharge revenue.

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