The Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County

REGULAR MEETING

July 8, 2021

Zoom Meeting

1. CALL TO ORDER

   Chair Hamlin convened the meeting at 7:15 P.M.

2. ROLL CALL

   The following members were present:

   • Evangeline Anderson
   • Sylvia Bushnell
   • Mary Lynne Evans
   • Chandler Felt
   • Marlin Gabbert
   • Claudia Hirschey
   • Paul MacCready
   • Hank Margeson
   • James Polhamus
   • Stephen Toy
3. MINUTES:

   Regular Meeting - May 13, 2021

   Chair Hamlin presented the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 13, 2021 for review and action by the Board members.

   Action: Chandler Felt moved and Hank Margeson seconded the motion to adopt the minutes for the Regular Meeting of May, 2021.

   Board members voted unanimously in favor of approving this record of the Regular Meeting.

4. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ORIENTATION – Washington Employment Security Department Conference Report – Chandler Felt; Lenora Blauman

   Lenora Blauman reported that the Washington Employment Security Department (ESD) has held its Annual Conference at which an array of federal, state, and regional officials and experts presented an assessment of current economic situations and forecast future economic landscape for our communities.

   The 2021 Conference – June 15-16 – was attended by Chandler Felt, Marlin Gabbert, Angelica Velasquez, and Ms. Blauman. The Conference Agenda is attached hereto.

   Ms. Blauman reported that Chandler Felt has graciously agreed to provide a report on the Conference presentations:

   Mr. Felt stated that the overall theme of this ESD Conference was “economic recovery trends and strategies.” The ESD is focused on the following matters:

   • Recovery Trends & Strategies

   • Re-engagement and reinvention

   • Recover and Thrive in these Forever Changed Landscapes

     The program was optimistic in its view – and offered numerous creative forecasts -- while being cautious about the possibility of detours on the road to economic recovery.

     ***

   The key Economic Review and Forecast sessions were presented by

   • Steve Lerch, State Economist and Director, Economic and Revenue Forecast Council of Washington

   • Steven Ross, Director, Labor Market and Economic Analysis division of ESD

   • Anneliese Vance-Sherman, Labor Market Economist for central Puget Sound area.

   The presentations included:

   • Review and graphing of employment and unemployment rates in recent years.

   • Twenty-year graphs show downturn in 2002; bigger downturn in 2008-10; off the cliff in 2020

   • Sudden sharp decline in employment, spike of unemployment to unprecedented levels, March-

     May 2020. Washington lost 400,000 jobs; unemployment jumped from 4% to 17% in 3 months.

   • While employment is back almost to 2019 levels, Washington unemployment is still at 5-6% as compared to 4% in 2019).

   • GDP / GRP dipped somewhat, but not as much as anticipated by economists. Consumer spending is back to pre-pandemic.

   • Hardest-hit sectors: food service & bars, hotels, travel; government; trade, arts & entertainment; and manufacturing.

   • Many sectors started to come back after several months, but eating-drinking enterprises, government, and manufacturing are still struggling. Still 200,000 jobs short of pre-pandemic employment. Now unemployment overall is at 5% (but is not evenly distributed by county).

   • Bright spots: housing construction (but not commercial construction). Retail trade is growing but this may be a factor of large businesses (e.g., Amazon) rather than smaller regional and local commerce.

   • Inflation is occurring -- price spikes are due to supply-chain limitations. It is anticipated that shortages will iron out; inflation will return to under 3%.

   • Equity and gender disparities were acknowledged. Job loss and unemployment are higher for those working in businesses affected by pandemic. Women were more affected than men. As the economy moves toward recovery; more men than women are returning to the workforce. Childcare is a critical issue. Childcare shortages and unvaccinated children limit return of women to labor force in the majority of regions of the state

     The Conference speakers also addressed the future of work, including:

   • Challenge of suddenly adjusting to working from home. Ongoing dislocations of workers and businesses continue to be a challenge as the nature of work and workplace are fluid.

   • When the economy opens, some workers will remain at home, some will come back full time, but most will be hybrid workers. It is expected that there will be more growth of exurban/rural areas with remote workers.

   • In 2021, after a year of empty offices, interest in returning to offices is skyrocketing. Seattle office market is strong. (Seattle has 55 million square feet of available space). Space requirements are evolving to address new workforce organizations. Thus, future offices will feature more collaborative and common spaces, fewer individual cubicles.

   • Speakers acknowledged the uncertainty of their statistics and observations, because of measurement issues and that the scale of the situation is outside our experience. They spoke of risk factors such as inflation, evictions, and/or return of a virus variant. Overall, however, forecast speakers were relatively cheery about prospects for successful emergence from this economic situation.

   ***

   Mr. Felt reported that the ESD presentations are available for Board members. Ms. Velasquez can provide those materials upon request.

   Jay Hamlin informed the Board that a report from The New York Times April 19, 2021: “How the Pandemic Did, and Didn't, Change Where Americans Move” is also available to provide relevant information for members of the Board.

5. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD WORKSHOP – 2021: Jay Hamlin, Chair: Robert Kaufman, Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

   Chair Jay Hamlin and Robert Kaufman, Legal Counsel, reported that the “RCW 36.93 Boundary Review Board Enabling Act educational workshop requested by Board members will take place at this Regular Meeting.

   At previous meetings, Mr. Kaufman spoke about the basic provisions of the Revised Code of Washington, for the Boundary Review Board Act (RCW 36.93.) This Act is the major statute guiding the Board’s function and structure. RCW 36.93 and other applicable statutes – e.g., Growth Management Act; State Environmental Protection Act; King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies, as well as other regional and local regulatory authorities are central to review and action by the Board with respect to the creation of/changes to boundaries of jurisdictions within King County.

   (Note: This information is available in the Regular Meeting Reports for May, 2021.)

   ***

   Mr. Kaufman stated that all provisions of RCW 36.93 are relevant to the Board’s consideration of Notices of Intention for the proposed creation of/changes to jurisdictional boundaries. However, RCW 36.93.170—the Factors of the Boundary Review Board -- is the topic slated for consideration at this time. There will first be a presentation/discussion of the Factors as attached hereto. There will be a brief informal quiz following the presentation.

   The Board needs to be thinking about “what does the legislature want the board to do when it is called upon to make a decision.” There are particularly two portions of the Boundary Review Board statute that answer that question:

   • RCW 36.93.170, which is a non-exclusive list of factors that the legislature has created, that expects Boundary Review Board to consider when making a decision.

   RCW 36.93.180, which is a specific listing of Objectives that the legislature has created for the Boundary Review Board to consider when making a decision

   With respect to RCW 36.93.170, there are three main factors: Population and Territory, Municipal Services and Adjacent Areas. Within these sections are subcategories and factors that the Board is to consider. Not every one of the stated factors that appear in RCW 36.93.170 will apply to every Notice that comes before the Board. Thus, the Board must decide which factors are relevant, what weight should be given, and how they should be resolved in making a decision.

   As the factors listed in RCW 36.93.170 have a role in the decision-making process, these criteria also are relevant if decisions are challenged in the courts. RCW 36.93.170, is unique in that there have been two Washington State Supreme Court decisions that touch upon this statute. The statute was not squarely before the court, but appellants of Boundary Review Board decisions have argued that the board did not examine these factors when it reached its resolution hearing decision, and that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the board's findings as to which factor (or factors) must be applied and how the factor/factors applied to the Notice.

   Unlike the objectives in 36.93.180, which are decisions to advance, the court has set a pretty low bar on its review of the board’s consideration of the statutory factors. On the two instances this has come before the State Supreme Court, the Court has basically deferred to what it characterizes as the expertise of the Boundary Review Board, and areas that it is charged with deciding. There are protocols that the court follows in reviewing decisions when they are challenged. One of those is to make certain that the statute is followed and that there is substantial evidence in the record to support our findings and conclusions. On two occasions, the court has pretty much summarized the function of these factors.

   When the court reviews a decision, it determines if the board has considered the factors in RCW 36.93.170. The court will look at the resolution and hearing decision that the board has adopted. There is a lot of consistency in the wording of a board resolution and hearing decisions. That is the case because a lot of the language has been tested, it has stood the test of both time and the courts. We use this language in anticipation that our decision might be challenged at one point in the future. The language that the court has focused on in our resolution and hearing decision in many of our decisions will recite the following:

   • whether the board considered and discussed all the factors identified in RCW 36.93.170.

   • whether the board found that the city's notice adequately addressed the relevant statutory

     factors and supports its proposal to annex this area.

   The court is satisfied when the board has considered these factors --that is when the board’s decisions states that the board has considered these factors, and that the resolution and hearing decision singles out those factors that are relevant (and have been achieved by) the Notice of Intention. The Board’s decision must make it clear to the court that the factors were considered by the Board when it adopted its decision. That language additionally supports any defense to the Boundary Review Board's decision. This consideration and supporting documentation have been supported by two Washington State Supreme Court decisions approximately 12 years apart.

   ***

   At the conclusion of Mr. Kaufman’s presentation concerning the definition and purpose of RCW 36.93.170, Chair Hamlin launched a quiz (refresher course) to informally measure the perspective of the Board members on these factors as follows:

   1. Question 1: How many factors is the Board required to consider under RCW 36.93.170?

      1. 32

      2. 64

      3. There is no limit. The factors the Board must consider “shall include but not be limited to” the factors listed in the statute.

   2. Question 2: Which population and territory item is not a factor?

      1. Per capita assessed valuation

      2. Proposed development in the near-term

      3. Location and most desirable future location of community facilities

   3. Question 3: Which is not a factor for Municipal Services?

      1. The effect on the finances, debt structure, and contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units

      2. Prospects of governmental services from other sources

      3. Adjustment of impractical boundaries.

   ***

   Mr. Kaufman and Chair Hamlin expressed appreciation to the Board members for their participation in the program.

6. ADMINISTRATION:

   1. Chair’s Report

      General Business: Chair Hamlin and Lenora Blauman reported that the Board staff is currently continuing to work on several projects including: (1) coordination with King County Executive/Council Work Program; (2) coordinating activities with the State Association; (3) pre-development review for future Notices of Intention; (4) planning of orientation programs for 2021; (5) upgrading of technology systems; and (6) implementation of the 2021 - 2022 Biennial Budget.

   2. Committee Reports

      • Budget Committee

        Lenora Blauman reported that the Board is implementing our 2021- 2022 Biennial Budget.

        Dwight Dively (King County Budget Director) has reported ”from a Countywide perspective/context”, that this government continues to be focused on the following matters for the foreseeable future:

        • Covid19 appropriations ordinance: $600 million via federal funding -- continue support for rental, homeless, medical care -- but this funding has been generally allocated

        • Funding for the County has also been buoyed by better-than-expected sales tax. o For the present, there appears to be sufficient funding to address basic needs and support some special programs.

        • The County will need to be mindful about allocating these funds – in the likely event of future scarcity.

        • For the present, there will likely need to be funding for the court systems – which have experienced a serious backlog of cases to be adjudicated.

        Mr. Dively will continue to inform funding units of the state of the budget.

        Ms. Blauman reported that there is no information from the Budget Office presaging changes in the Board’s Biennial Budget (2021-2022).

      • Legislative Committee — American Planning Association — Washington Chapter (APA- WA)

        Confirming the continuing validity of previously reported information, Lenora Blauman stated that the APA-WA Chapter has begun preparing for work with Washington State Legislature 2022 and for work with the National Chapter of the American Planning Association.

        The Committee has begun working with the APA National Chapter to consider priority matters for both the entire country and for the State of Washington. Overarching issues to be considered this year are:

        • COVID 19 rescue and recovery programs

        • Infrastructure/Transportation Systems – regional and local facilities (e.g., bike, pedestrian, bus facilities; broadband communications

        • Housing Supply/Zoning Regulations – to create sustainable, equitable opportunities for affordable and market level accommodations

        • Essential public systems/facilities (e.g. water, sewer, utilities, schools)

        Overlying each of these topics are matters relating to:

        • Legislation evolving to address near-term and long-term considerations defined herein.

        • Reconciliation of bi-partisan political considerations

        • Funding of programs and systems

        • Equity — and incentives — in planning and implementation of programs

        A bill of key interest was HB 1099 addressing climate change. Commerce Department Task Force funding was approved to support programs in order to identify issues and investigate solutions for the protection of our communities. However, there was concern from some localities about the burden of incorporating climate change components into their plans.

        The bill did fail but there are continuing discussions of this issue both as a stand-alone issue and as an issue related to housing and equity. The working team is addressing the need to find balance between prescription and preemption with a view to developing incentives that are sufficient for localities to implement required programs. The team is also looking at how regional approaches can be considered as compared with a top down in in in the state.

        Included in the work program will be the analysis of infrastructure bills, regarding questions about who will decide who gets what funding and the bill and how much control will be local and how much will be regional. There will also need to be consideration as to the means for connecting projects with plans – and the ways in which the responsible parties can accomplish their goals.

        The APA-WA legislative committee is looking for a role in that project. Some options would be advocacy, communications to relevant agencies, and distributing funding. The project remains in the beginning phases at this time -- but the ultimate goal is to assemble a plan for working nationally and in the state in our local communities for 2022.

        In addition, APA WA believes that HB 1241 was near passage last state legislative session and will monitor it closely if provisions are re-introduced to Legislature 2022.

        ***

        • LAMIRDs (Local Areas of More Intense Rural Development)

          • American Planning Association Washington Chapter (APA WA) urges careful review of State law and policy related to Local Areas of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRDS)

          • LAMIRDs were originally created to recognize small areas outside cities.

          • APA WA sees some opportunity for flexibility.

          • However, limitations must be established, especially related to infrastructure.

          • LAMIRDs are not to be used as a way around planning requirements, including regional planning

            policies.

          • APA WA sees LAMIRDs as a rural/urban issue and not one of East vs. West sides of the state.

          • Subarea planning requirements and County-wide Planning Policies may provide the necessary framework for some limited expansion of LAMIRDs.

          Several rural counties, particularly the ones that were mentioned today, Mason and Jefferson, have established unincorporated UGAs where they should direct growth. Both counties have had trouble providing sewers for new growth in these UGAs. Mason received Department of Ecology funds for sewage treatment and extending sewers to connect failing septic tanks, but not for sewer extensions within the rest of the unincorporated UGA. There are also city linked unincorporated UGAs where growth should be directed first when services become available. There utilities can be delivered more economically and efficiently. Although the unincorporated UGAs attached to cities do not produce revenue for counties when they become part of cities a better effort would be spent on establishing interlocal agreements for revenue sharing and costs for current county facilities as the unincorporated UGAs are annexed then on the extension of LAMIRDs.

        • CLIMATE CHANGE

          • Climate Change has been a top priority for APA WA for over a decade, and it is also a priority for National APA.

          • APA WA believes we are at an inflection point. It is critically necessary in this next state legislative session to see Climate Legislation implemented or we will miss the opportunity to integrate it into the Comprehensive Planning occurring across the state on a 10-year cycle.

          • APA WA believes that HB 1099 took a positive direction on Climate Change, especially the requirements for Washington State Department of Commerce guidance to local government.

          • Questions arise around how to determine impacts of actions on GHG emissions. Some clear measures are needed (example: similar to Growth Targets set by each county under GMA now).

          • APA WA believes Climate Policy is better coordinated when it is implemented at all levels of government rather than only at the local level.

          • APA WA believes it is equally effective to integrate Climate Change Planning within the existing elements OR create a new stand-alone element of Local Comprehensive Plans.

          • Climate Change planning may look different in the Puget Sound than in other parts of the state.

          • APA WA believes Climate Change must be addressed statewide.

          • APA WA calls for a re-evaluation of priority areas of the state considering that 37 cities and 11 counties have Climate Action Plans in place and the most significant climate threats are wildfire smoke, heat and extreme hydrologic events (drought/floods).

        • TRIBAL PLANNING

          • APA WA supports inclusion of Tribal Nations in planning processes in Washington and believes this to be long overdue.

          • PA WA sees the inclusion of Tribal Nations in comprehensive planning across the state as a significant value.

        There will be a variety of activities designed and implemented to address these matters. ***

        Mike Shaw will continue to assist the APA-WA Legislative Committee. The Committee will provide periodic reports to – and request input from – members as the National Team moves forward with its work with Congress and regional and local Legislatures.

        ***

        Joe Tovar (Road Map to Washington) will be supporting the APA through continuing study and reporting relating to this project and to future connections to the pending Growth Management Act update in Washington. He will support efforts to plan for a Request for Proposals (RFP) for conducting and funding for future Road Map activities. He will not be seeking a direct role in this project going forward.

      • WSABRB Legislative Committee/King County Boundary Review Board Legislative Committee:

        Mary Lynne Evans, speaking on behalf of the King County Board’s Legislative Committee and the Association Legislative Committee, reported that the WSABRB Legislative Committee will be meeting in the near future as plans begin to be developed for Legislature 2022.

   3. Executive Secretary’s Report

      • KING COUNTY OFFICE OF PLANNING, STRATEGIES AND BUDGET (OPSB) GUIDANCE TO NOI REVIEW TEAM:

        Lenora Blauman reported that the OPSB is working with its internal team as well as with other County offices, and the Boundary Review Board to craft a more streamlined, communicative systems for their representatives to receive, review, and make recommendations for NOIs, to support timely forward movement toward decision--making by the Board.

        The team is aiming to develop and implement a system later this year.

      • WSABRB ANNUAL CONFERENCE: Lenora Blauman reported that the WSABRB Annual Conference is planned to take place from October 5-7 in Grays Harbor County as an in- person event. The Conference will also be available by zoom connections.

        Roberta Myers is the President of the WSABRB this year and she is coordinating the Conference Planning Committee. To date, the Committee is proposing to include Bob Kaufman to present basic and enhanced information concerning the function and structure of Boundary Review Boards (pursuant to RCW 36.93).

        The Committee is also seeking speakers to present information on Legislature 2021/2022.

        There is also a plan to bring speakers to discuss topical matters. One such topic is fire district actions – e.g. mergers, annexations – as those actions have become more frequent. Additional topics are under consideration.

        A ”Save the Date” Notice should be distributed in July.

      • OFFICE OPERATIONS: Ms. Blauman reported that the office is now open. Angelica Velasquez will be on-site on Monday and Wednesday. She will telecommute on Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. Lenora Blauman will be in the office Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. She will telecommute on Monday and Wednesday.

        Ms. Blauman expressed her appreciation to Board members and staff for working so diligently to make electronic communications -- materials and meetings – successful in these difficult times.

      • ORIENTATION PROGRAMS: Ms. Blauman is continuing planning for a new cycle of orientation programs in 2021. Suggestions include the following topics/agencies:

        Ms. Blauman is actively working with King County Office of Planning, Strategy and Budget to schedule a presentation on the new County Comprehensive Plan/Planning Policies our next Regular Meeting Other future opportunities include:

        • King County Local Services Unit

        • Puget Sound Regional Council – Vision 2050

        • Municipal Research Services Center

        • APA-WA Legislative Team

        Specifically, Karen Meyering and Rebecca Masnik of the Office of Planning, Strategy and Budget will be coming back over the summer to provide an orientation to the upcoming Countywide Planning Policies.

        Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050 will also be the topic of a near-term program.

        We are also working to coordinate with the Association planning for the Fall Conference.

   4. General Correspondence: Chair Hamlin reported that there was no general correspondence for consideration at this Regular Meeting.

7. NEW BUSINESS:

   1. New Files:

      Ms. Blauman reported that the Board has no new Notices of Intentions on file at this time.

   2. Future Files

      The Board has also received two preliminary files for informal consideration in advance of the proponents’ submitting completed Notices of Intention.

      The Board has been advised of several potential proposed future Notices of Intention:

      • Auburn (2 files)
      • Black Diamond (2 files)
      • Carnation (1 file)
      • Enumclaw (8 files)
      • Issaquah (2 files)
      • Maple Valley (3 files)
      • North Bend (4 files)
      • Renton (5 files)
      • Seattle (4 files)
      • Tukwila (2 files)
      • Water District No. 90 (1 file)
      • Bellevue (4 files)
      • Bothell (1 file)
      • Duvall (5 files)
      • Federal Way (3 files)
      • Kent (5 files)
      • Milton (1 file)
      • Redmond (4 files)
      • Sammamish (2 files)
      • Snoqualmie (4 files)
      • Vashon Sewer District (1 file)

      Note: There are 13 unincorporated urban areas in King County that are not assigned to a Potential Annexation Area.

8. ADJOURNMENT

   Chair Hamlin adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:52 P.M.