AWC Legislative Bulletin - Volume 30, No. 9
March 2, 2007  (Plain Text Version)

Return to Graphical Version | Search back issues

In this issue:
What You Need to Know Now
From the Director - Legislative Action Shifts to the Floor: Calls from Home are Vital
Energy & Telecommunications
Environment & Water
General Local Government
Infrastructure, Transportation & Economic Development
Land Use & Housing
Law & Justice
Municipal Finance
Personnel & Labor Relations
Online Legislative Advocacy Tools
AWC Legislative Contacts & Officers

Land Use & Housing

AWC Priority
Annexation Process Reforms

In large part because of opposition by representatives of the firefighters, most of AWC’s annexation reform legislation has been sidelined for the rest of this session.

SB 5594 and HB 2005 would have authorized non-code cities to use the same 60 percent assessed value-based property-owner petition method as code cities use. Current law for some reason requires non-code cities to meet a 75 percent assessed value threshold.

HB 2006 also appears sidelined. This bill would have established a new method of annexation based upon a voluntary interlocal agreement outlining governance transition issues between a city and its county.

While we are disappointed that these important bills did not move forward, AWC will accept the offer made by representatives of the firefighters to work on these bills over the interim.

On a brighter note, both SSB 5836 and SHB 2031 are moving forward. These companion bills expedite the transfer of library and fire district property taxes in areas containing these services when annexed to a city. Both bills contain provisions worked out with interested parties.

AWC Priority
Urban Growth Area Issues (HB 2045)

HB 2045, which appears sidelined for this session, was introduced as an expression of concern and frustration among many cities who want more involvement with their county on how and where lands develop adjacent to city boundaries. This bill would have required that a GMA-planning county, by a date certain, establish consistent development standards with a city in urbanizing unincorporated areas next to the city. It would have also required that these same counties share decision-making authority with their cities when changing existing urban growth area boundaries.

The bill was opposed by counties. A "first step" compromise of sorts was ready for consideration in the House Local Government Committee, but the committee abruptly adjourned before the compromise and several other bills could be considered and approved before the cutoff date. AWC will continue to work on this issue.

AWC Priority
Responding to I-933

Following the defeat of the so-called Property Fairness Initiative this past fall, AWC has been interested in supporting legislation that seeks to address some of the concerns I-933 backers brought forth about how to sustain a rural economy and lifestyle. AWC has also continued to find ways to better ensure that environmentally sensitive lands are protected while not hindering the needs to accommodate growth and development within cities.

HB 1781 and HB 2046 were introduced to clarify the requirement to include "best available science" when identifying and protecting critical areas. Neither bill gained broad-based support and neither will be moving forward. AWC will keep trying to find ways to insure that smaller cities and towns, in particular, can get assurances that if they use science and regulations found in other communities that contain similar critical areas, they can replicate those same protections and not face the costs of creating them from scratch.

SSB 5656 and SHB 1636, both of which are moving forward, seek to encourage more counties and cities to use a process of transferring development rights from rural to urban areas as a way to protect rural character and provide value to rural landowners. These bills offer opportunities to evaluate this process for widespread use, including an evaluation of how to create and sustain a market in cities to accept these development rights.

SHB 2212 seems intended to address one of the main concern of I-933’s rural advocates – how to continue farming operations in concert with new critical area regulations. In somewhat of a surprise move, House leadership has kept SHB 2212 moving. While this bill doesn’t directly impact land use in cities, we are monitoring the progress of this bill.

Other Bills that Appear to be Dead for the Session

AWC opposed or had concerns with the following bills that appear to be dead for this session:

• HB 1640, which would have allowed the siting of new mobile home parks and manufactured housing communities outside of urban growth areas.
• HB 1918, which would have provided that, after January 1, 2006, if a fully-planning GMA county or city amends its comprehensive plan or development regulations in such a way as to preclude development on any piece of land, that county or city must determine how much land can not be built upon and replace that amount with land suitable for development somewhere else.
• HB 2091, which would have required countywide planning policies to be amended to establish performance measures that regularly review progress towards accommodating the twenty-year population and employment growth projections.
• HB 2093, which would have required that urban growth accommodations in King County include zoning regulations that conform to the estimated wages of the residents expected to comprise the growth.
• HB 2169, which would have eliminated the authority of GMA-planning cities and counties to impose and collect impact fees for school facilities. AWC could have supported this if funds equal to or greater than those currently collected were provided.
• SB 5683, which would have provided that if a jurisdiction requires payment of transportation impact fees, that jurisdiction may not prohibit development approvals based on failure to achieve applicable LOS (level of service) standards adopted in the transportation elements of the comprehensive plan. The House version, HB 1753, is also dead.