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)

The House version of this bill passed on basically a party-line vote – Democrats for and Republicans against. HB 2483 simply allows non-code cities to use the same petition-method of annexation rules as code cities. Opposition appears mainly to be coming from Fire District Commissioners who want their bill, SHB 2938, to pass as well. As described below, it would significantly alter the relationship between an annexing city and fire district.

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

In its current form, AWC strongly opposes this bill and encourages interested cities to contact your House members to express your opposition. The bill has been pulled to the House Calendar and may come up for a vote as early as Monday, February 18.

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."

As noted last week, an amendment has been added that includes provisions for transferring fire protection district employees to a city following incorporation or annexation, on a pro rata basis in order of seniority. Although current law already addresses employee transfer provisions, it appears the effect of this provision 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. AWC staff continues to discuss this with proponents.

GMA/Housing/Consistent Development Regulations between Cities and Urbanizing Parts of Counties (ESHB 1727/SSB 6727)

AWC supports ESHB 1727 & SSB 6727. As currently written, Sec. 4 of ESHB 1727 would require counties of 175,000 or more to adopt consistent development regulations with cities for unincorporated lands inside urban growth areas surrounded by a city or cities. ESHB 1727 passed from the House floor at the beginning of the session with the intent that it be "fine tuned," if needed, in the Senate.

The provisions of this bill of most interest to AWC are contained in Sec. 4. It is likely this section as written will be modified to apply only to certain unincorporated "islands" of lands surrounded by a city. It is also likely that some counties will oppose this modification and instead support language that requires cities and counties to discuss adopting consistent regulations and report back to the 2009 Legislature.

ESHB 1727 is now scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee on Thursday, February 21 at 3:30 pm. We will testify that we prefer the current wording in the bill and would be open to other ideas that move the issue of attaining consistent development standards in city and unincorporated parts of urban growth areas. Interested cities are encouraged to contact both your Senators and AWC in support.

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

Neither of these bills has yet been put on the floor calendar for consideration in either the Senate or House. AWC continues to support the sections of the bill that provide help to cities interested in incorporating climate change policies and strategies in land use or other local programs or regulations. AWC also supports getting help from the state to evaluate what else cities can or should do to address this important emerging topic.

We continue to share with both proponents and opponents of these bills that among cities, there are divergent views about whether or not to legislate the need to address climate change as a new 14th goal in the Growth Management Act. The business community in particular is opposed to adding a new goal and the Association of Counties has opposed adding this goal as well.

AWC has met with bill proponents and shared that we are open to looking at alternative ways to express the legislature’s interest in having cities examine climate change issues when making local land use or transportation planning decisions. It is not yet clear whether or not such alternatives are feasible, or whether these bills will move forward.

Evergreen Cities/Urban Forestry (2SHB 2844/SSB 6469, SHB 2468/SSB 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. At this point in the session, it appears that neither of the Senate versions is "alive" and both House versions may move forward for further consideration. This may change once the new state revenue forecast comes out. If, as expected, there is a substantial shortfall in anticipated revenue, bills like these (that require new and continuing infusions of state funds) may be at risk.

AWC continues to support both House bills and is working to move one or both to the House floor for action.

Eminent Domain – Repurchase Option (2ESHB 2016)

2ESHB 2016 passed the House on February 13. The intent of the bill is to provide for an option for repurchase by former owners of property acquired through eminent domain but not utilized.

It also clarifies that eminent domain cannot be used where the substantial purpose would be for transfer to private developers, tax increases, or increased employment. These sections are intended to capture our state’s supreme court interpretation, which is similar to the dissent in the Kelo case and has long held that our state’s constitution prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development.

The bill also requires a written explanation of consideration of alternatives to the project and changes the amount a local government must reimburse a property owner for evaluation of an offer for purchase from a limit of $750 to reasonable licensed appraiser fees.

We have met with key legislators on the bill and have continued to work with a group of cities to evaluate the impact of the legislation and to suggest language to make the process workable and limit potential new liability.

Eminent Domain Pamphlet (HB 2920)

HB 2920 would require cities to send out the proposed pamphlet written by the Attorney General’s Office with the required notice to a property owner of an eminent domain action. It passed the House unanimously on February 13.

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