The Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County

REGULAR MEETING

May 13, 2021

Zoom Meeting

1. CALL TO ORDER

   Chair Hamlin convened the meeting at 7:21 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 - April 8, 2021

   Chair Hamlin presented the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 8, 2021 for review and action by the Board members.

   Action: Hank Margeson moved and Mary Lynne Evans seconded the motion to adopt the minutes for the Regular Meeting of April 8, 2021.

   Board members voted 10 in favor of approving this record of the Regular Meeting. Claudia Hirschey abstained as she did not attend the Regular Meeting.

4. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ORIENTATION – King County Annexation Policy – Current Issues and Answers Update – Karen Meyering, Senior Analyst

   Karen Meyering presented current information from the Office of Planning, Strategy and Budget concerning several timely matters. The basic document defining and addressing these matters is provided herein as Attachment A.

   ***

   Annexation Data Book: Ms. Meyering began her presentation with a report on the update to the creation of our Annexation Data Book. She provided a link to that document (Please see Attachment A).

   Ms. Meyering reported that the County Office of Planning, Strategy and Budget was scheduled to approach the cities of Seattle Renton and Federal Way to try to talk with them about creating memorandums of understanding that outline individual and shared goals around annexation, and what kind of impediments might exist to annexation and potential solutions. The global pandemic postponed that plan. At this point, the County is working on a new timeline to start talking with cities again – likely in the fourth quarter of this year.

   The County is having conversations with the City of Renton regarding new development standards potentially focused on West. The City has requested these conversations in preparation for a future comprehensive annexation of West Hill at a time when sufficient financial resources are available to govern and serve the community. City officials wish to make certain that developments in the West Hill Area – whether the area is in the County or is moving to the City – is consistent because County standards are quite different from City standards. The County supports the City’s position but acknowledges legal and practical impediments. Some basic standards for developments and infrastructure (e.g., roadways) will be necessary for this document.

   North Highline “Y” Annexation: This annexation was brought to the Board – and approved for annexation to the City of Seattle – in 2017. However, this annexation was never implemented by the City of Seattle.

   There are numerous reasons for this outcome. Lack of continuity among Seattle officials and varying policies have has presented challenges in annexation conversations. The City of Burien has presented to the County varying levels of interest in annexing North Highline, which further complicates the matter. Questions arose because the area has been available for annexation to both Seattle and Burien.

   The County did caution Burien concerning new countywide planning policies that prevent overlapping designations now. Rather, the County is working to create Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) which disallow overlapping Potential Annexation Areas. The pending CPPs will provide a very specific process to work through the conversations regarding the one overlapping PAA designation, which has been North Highline, which at one point included various parts claimed by Seattle. Burien, SeaTac and Tukwila.

   Ms. Meyering discussed with the City of Burien the fact that the overlapping designations are not allowed, but offered mediation which did interest City officials. With the City of Seattle anticipating a new Mayor and new Council members it is unlikely that discussion will occur in 2021. Thus, it is likely that discussion will occur in 2022.

   Further, Seattle is just in the beginning of a major Comprehensive Plan update due in June 2024. Long range planning, goals and data and analysis will be more available for discussion in 2022. The provisions of this document will be relevant to the North Highline Area.

   King County – Countywide Planning Policies

   Ms. Meyering reported that the County is working with the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) to update Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). Working sessions began in January. Document preparations are underway with a plan to release materials to the public for comment on May 26, 2021. Final adoption of the CPPs is planned for June, 2021.

   Ms. Meyering provided examples of existing CPPs that are slated for revision based upon the relevance of these policies to the work of the Boundary Review Board:

   Policy DP 24-27:

   Ms. Meyering reported, in brief, that current CPP DP-24 DP will become DP-26. This policy will allow cities to annex territory only within their designated Potential Annexation Area as shown in the Potential Annexation Areas Map. Annexations will be phased to coincide with the ability of cities or existing special purpose districts to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed. (More detail concerning intended processes for determining an appropriate PAA is provided in Attachment A).

   Similarly, CPP DP-25 will become DP-27. This policy is intended to “strive to establish alternative non-overlapping Potential Annexation Area boundaries within the North Highline unincorporated area, where Potential Annexation Areas overlapped prior to January 1, 2009, through a process of negotiation. Absent a negotiated resolution, a city may file a Notice of Intent to Annex with the Boundary Review Board for King County for territory within its designated portion of a Potential Annexation Area overlap as shown in the Potential Annexation Areas Map. This data will be provided in the Annexation Area foundational document and detailed in the city’s comprehensive plan upon completion of established procedural steps relating to content and timing of a proposed annexation. (More detail concerning intended processes for determining an appropriate PAA is provided in Attachment A).

   By this system, mediation will can occur to determine whether (i.e. by purpose, methods, procedures, and schedule) a Notice for an annexation may be presented to the Board.

   In the matter of North Highline Area, Ms. Meyering noted that the Boundary Review Board has approved this annexation, but the action has never been approved by the City of Seattle for implementation. RCW 36.93, et seq. set no deadlines for accomplishment of an action.

   However, the City has a responsibility to report its intention to move forward or choose to terminate the annexation plan – and to provide a timeline for providing a decision document.

   However, the City has had — and will have in 2022 — changing officials. This matter has not been on the Council agenda for some time. Many priorities and policies are under review or have been revised. It is likely that further consideration of the designation of North Highline will need to follow the seating of new officials. At that time, it is likely a new education program will be required for consideration of North Highline.

   Further, this North Highline Annexation has been delayed owing to ongoing issues (conflicting service policies) among fire districts that are currently and potentially in the future required to provide fire prevention and emergency services to North Highline. Progress has been achieved toward conflict resolution but there is no final contract/agreement in place.

   ***

   Ms. Meyering briefly reported concerning the future of West Hill (between Renton and Seattle). Renton and Seattle are both potentially interested in annexing this Area. Renton has historically submitted a Notice to the Board. The Board did approve that annexation, but it failed at election. At that time, citizens preferred to join the City of Seattle.

   Based upon the current PUD designation, both communities will likely need to work with King County to determine the boundaries of this Potential Annexation Area.

   ***

   Ms. Meyering stated that she will provide future presentations and documentation reporting the status of revisions to the King County Comprehensive Plan – and to the specific actions to create or change jurisdictional boundaries germane to the Comprehensive Plan.

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 begin at this Regular Meeting.”

   Under a chapter of the Revised Code of Washington, like the Boundary Review Board Act, the starting point is often a definitional section. Our definition and purpose are at the beginning of the Act – RCW 36.93.010 and RCW 36.93.020:

   Under RCW 36.93, the Board must receive and review a Notice of Intention that is basically required for any change/creation to an existing jurisdictional boundary of any city, town or special purpose district including:

   • land annexations;

   • special purpose district annexations;

   • consolidation of special purpose districts;

   • incorporations of new cities;

   • assumptions by cities or towns of any parts of assets, facilities, or indebtedness of a special purpose district that lies either totally or partially within that city or town;

   • establishment or change in the boundary of a mutual water and sewer system by water-sewer district, or the extension of permanent or water and/or sewer service outside of the existing service area by city, town, or special purpose district.

   (Note: Water service is permitted within Rural Areas; sewer service is prohibited in Rural Areas).

   The Executive Secretary undertakes to ensure that a Notice is complete and comprehensive under 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. A proposing entity which does not/cannot provide a sufficient document is encouraged to delay or withdraw a Notice. The determination of legal sufficiency is a critical decision to be made because once the file is deemed legally sufficient, then a statutory 45-day period of review is begun.

   During the 45-day period the Boundary Review Board acts as a “clearinghouse.” The Board distributes that Notice of Intention to interested governmental agencies/communities that may be impacted by the proposal. The statute requires this notification because these entities must be aware of the proposal as the Board proceeds with its evaluation processes.

   The process employed by the King County Board staff and members to support the submittal of complete official Notices and to incorporate provisions for requests for clarifications and additional information increases the likelihood that a Notice review process can be completed within the 45-day review period.

   Mr. Kaufman reported that the Board then – at the end of 45 days if jurisdiction is not invoked – closes the file by “operation of law.” Mr. Kaufman reported that once the file is approved by operation of law, it is closed to further review by the Board. There is no statutory exception to the 45-day review period.

   Mr. Kaufman reported on the matter of the “invoking of jurisdiction.” Under RCW 36.93, if an affected jurisdiction or members of the public (with standing) determine that there is an element of the proposal that raises a concern or an issue, then that party may submit a request for review (invoking of jurisdiction) which must be filed with the board within the 45 day review period.

   If the Board concurs with that request for invoking of jurisdiction, then the agency has certain responsibilities and authorities for the conduct of a public hearing. Conducting a public hearing requires notification to the community, by publication, and by posting within the area to be affected. Information is provided on the Board's website.

   Opportunity is provided for testimony by the proponent, supporting jurisdictions, opposing jurisdictions, community groups, and individual residents and business owners. Once all the necessary testimony and documentation is in the record, the Board closes the public hearing and undertakes deliberations to a decision in the Notice. The process of deliberation focuses on RCW 36.93.170 and RCW 36.93.180 -- an action must meet or advance the preponderance of relevant criteria to permit approval or modification. Also, the Board must consider the Growth Management Act (GMA); State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Planning Policies, and a variety of regional and local regulations.

   Once the Board’s Final Resolution and Decision is adopted by the board, it is filed with the County which triggers a 30-day appeal period to the Superior Court. That 30-day period is jurisdictional, meaning that it can't be extended by any court or by any statute.

   Mr. Kaufman also spoke about the Growth Management Act (GMA) impacts on the role and responsibility of the Boundary Review Boards. When the Legislature adopted the GMA it also added some language to the Boundary Review Board Act (RCW 36.93). So, growth management is to a degree an overlay to the Boundary Review Board Act because the Legislature has told us that our decisions may authorize annexations only inside a County’s urban growth areas. In addition, our decisions have to be consistent with the County’s countywide planning policies.

   Mr. Kaufman stated that all provisions of RCW 36.93 are relevant to the Board’s consideration of Notices of Intention for all proposed creation of/changes to jurisdictional boundaries. However, RCW 36.93.180—the Objectives of the Boundary Review Board -- is the topic slated for consideration at this time. There will first be a presentation/discussion of the nine Objectives. There will be a brief informal quiz following the presentation.

   Attending to the specific language of RCW 36.93 is essential – specifically that decisions of the Boundary Review Board shall attempt to achieve the objectives established in RCW 36.93.180. The phrase “attempt to achieve” is key to the Board’s decision – and specifically the official written Resolution and Hearing Decision. If the Board’s Hearing Decision is challenged in a Superior Court by a party with standing, then the Court reviews the record and with guidance by legal counsel. The legal counsel has the duty to find evidence in the record that supports that the relevant objectives (RCW 36.93.180) were, in fact, to some degree achieved by our decisions.

   Mr. Kaufman stated that, in the early days of boundary review boards, the Notices of Intention were evaluated based on the following premise – that is, if the record is determined to support a the advancement of a single one of these objectives, regardless of other impacts the action may have had on the other objectives then that level of compliance meets the requirements of the law – and was found sufficient by the court system.

   However, the Supreme Court did not support this view of achievement of the requirements of RCW 36.93.180. The Court wrote that, while on its face, RCW 36.93 180 requires only that the board attempt to achieve these objectives, as a whole, the objectives do provide a framework for evaluating the board's decisions. And then the Court wrote that the Board must construe these objectives as more than merely aspirational. While a boundary Review Board need not achieve all or even most of the objectives, a decision that advances none of these elements is reversible.

   The courts also talk about determining whether an objective has been advanced -- i.e., considering the record to determine that there is sufficient evidence before the Board to support conclusions that an objective was advanced by a Notice. In these matters, the court has talked about (thus, establishing a test for) the meaning of substantial evidence and requirements for achievement of objectives necessary to support a decision of the Board.

   It is important to recognize, that there are nine objectives and it is unlikely that all of these objectives are going to apply to every case. In instances when objectives are relevant – these elements may very well not have equal weight in the matter at hand. It is the task of the decision makers to determine the most important objectives – and to decide how an action will further, be neutral to, or hinder – a particular Notice.

   Mr. Kaufman spoke of the definition of “substantial evidence.” Substantial evidence is based upon a record that contains evidence of sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded rational person of the truth of the declared premise in the context of the case.

   Referencing specific objectives, Mr. Kaufman began with discussion of Objective 1 (preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities). The Board -- when evaluating Objective 1 – is responsible to address court decisions stating that “natural neighborhoods” mean either distinct geographical areas, or socially and locationally distinct groups of residents.

   For Objective 2 (use of physical boundaries), the court has reviewed the statute and defined physical boundaries as land contours and natural features. For example, bodies of water (e.g., river, lake, ocean) are construed as boundaries. - but the law does not define bodies of water; bodies of water can include Puget Sound, a lake, a river, or an ocean.

   The courts first action is to find a definition in existing law; if there is no definition in the statutes, the court will look to the ordinary meaning of a term. And many times, our courts have adopted a dictionary definition of a term when there is no definition provided by the legislature. With respect to Objective 2, the court adopted the dictionary definition of physical boundary as meaning relating to natural or material things, as opposed to things mental, oral, spiritual, or imaginary in nature. But the courts have elaborated – stating, for example, a lot line is excluded from the definition of a physical boundary. The court has also specifically said that legal boundaries are not physical boundaries for purposes of this objective. Thus, the court guidance states that physical boundaries are generally not something that that's man created, but rather created by nature.

   Mr. Kaufman reported that the courts have looked at RCW 36.93.180 (3) “the creation and preservation of logical service areas.” In this instance, the courts usually recite testimony from the record by the experts in the particular, relevant field. In municipal and special purpose district actions. The court may also consider representatives from the city and/or district supporting or opposing the action. Frequently, the Boundary Review Board must balance favorable and unfavorable factors in the context of a particular case to determine the logical service area that is being either created or being impacted by the action before the Board.

   Objective 4 calls for the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. This is a complicated matter. Thus, the courts have looked at this objective, focusing on the word “abnormally” because the court recognizes that boundaries are not going to be regular. For example, a Notice before the courts challenged the Board’s approval of an action based upon the interpretation of compliance with RCW 36.93.180 (4) –calling for the achievement of regular boundaries.

   In this instance, the case described a clearly irregular boundary. The court said that the proposed annexation here was only one-half mile wide and two and a half mile in length; these boundaries had an irregular shape. The question before the court was whether the shape is abnormally irregular. The court noted that favoring the use of straight lines could also subvert application of the Objective 2 (use of physical boundaries). So, the court looked at those two objectives together to determine whether a boundary would be abnormally irregular.

   The court determined that, although the boundary was irregular, there was sufficient evidence to convince a fair-minded person that overall, the objectives would be advanced rather than hindered by approval of the annexation. In this case, the court introduced a balancing test. among these objectives. The court, thus, leaves to the Boundary Review Board, the determination of which of these objectives are more important in the context of a particular case.

   Objective 5 (discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities; Objective 6 (dissolution of inactive special purpose districts); and Objective 7 (adjustment of impractical boundaries) have been relevant to many Notices before the Board.

   As an action pursuant to those objectives would result in a change in a boundary, filing of a Notice of intention would be required by RCW 36.93, et seq. Thus, a dissolution of a special purpose district might come before us for an adjustment of impractical boundaries. It might be the case that the Board would find it necessary to particularly address whether a boundary is impractical as it exists, or whether it would be impractical following adoption of the action proposed to the Board.

   However, there have been no court cases related to these Objectives. It is possible that there may be more cases in the future.

   Mr. Kaufman reported that, in one historical instance, the King County Board’s review of a Notice with characteristics requiring particular focus on Objective 8 (incorporation of cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas, which are urban and character) generated a public hearing. The Board approved the Notice. An appeal was made to the courts. The court reversed the decision of the Board.

   In this instance the Notice involved an area that was not urban in character at the time the annexation was proposed. The site, located in the Auburn Potential Annexation Area, housed a warehouse development. While there was development proposed in the area, that development was not imminent or even proposed in an official document. So, when the court rejected the approval of the annexation of that particular area, the court defined urban character as “present urban character.” – existing as contrasted with planned future designation The court continued that future urbanization is of little relevance for incorporation – that annexation is inappropriate until urbanization has taken place or is at least an immediate prospect. So, the Board does have that construction with respect to Objective 8.

   Mr. Kaufman reported that establishment of a Potential Annexation Area within the Urban Growth Area boundaries is certainly a basic step indicating that the area is viewed for future urbanization. But, based upon the court decision, legislative language must be in place to confirm that urban uses are planned for the particular area included in an annexation Notice.

   Mr. Kaufman stated that the situation occurring in Auburn took place prior to the establishment of the Growth Management Act as it exists today. Today, there are numerous comprehensive plans developed and addressing the long-term aspect of the urban character and development plans for those lands. In the Auburn Notice, the court really didn't factor the existence of/plans for permitting urban uses. Now, it would be interesting to test that matter again for various annexation areas – rural and urban -- within the GMA.

   In a more recent example, the Board received a Notice presenting a proposal for an annexation of urban land with no near-term plan for development of the site, but with a long- term plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The land was zoned for the PUD and services were already being provided on portions of the land. The Board approved this Notice; there were no court challenges to this decision.

   On the face of the matter, it appears the historic City of Auburn Notice and the recent City of Covington Notice present similar features. While the issues that led the Auburn Notice to the justice system resulted in a denial, however, there are key differences in the proposed Covington Notice which address requirements established by the courts in the Auburn Notice. To wit:

   • A real proposal (PUD) has been permitted and is under consideration for application in the City of Covington;

   • The Growth Management Act (which did not exist at the time of the review of the City of Auburn) supports the proposed City of Covington Annexation.

   Mr. Kaufman noted, however, that while the GMA supports many current Notices with specific near-term or long-term development proposals, the Washington State Supreme Court case remains in force and effect. Thus, the courts may have relevant cases brought through the justice system and in those matters, the court will attend to its prior decisions. Therefore, the Board is advised to consider a Notice with respect to specific fact patterns, as relevant to RCW 36.93, et seq.; the Growth Management Act; and the prior court decisions.

   ***

   Speaking of the role and the authorities of the court, Mr. Kaufman stated that, if a case is before the court, then the court decision (e.g., a court application of a statute to a particular case) requires consideration by the Board. In this situation, if the court finds that there is an ambiguity in the statute, or a statute requires analysis, then the court absolutely has the authority to decide the court’s construction of the statute.

   If there is a trial court decision to approve or deny a Boundary Review Board decision, and if the case does not go beyond the trial court level, the court decision has no precedential value and is binding on few other courts.

   If a case goes to the Court of Appeals, and then perhaps to the Supreme Court, depending on the Supreme Court decision, the next step could be moving to the legislature to establish statutes that guide future action (e.g., if a party disagrees with the court’s interpretation of a statute).

   In this situation, the court’s decision is considered as case law and becomes part of the common law in the State of Washington. Then this decision is written in the statute and the cases interpreting them are read together looking at current and prior court decisions.

   Those objecting to statutory language arising from court decisions may work to write legislation to bring to the legislature to clarify the court's findings.

   ***
   Claudia Hirschey, speaking to Mr. Kaufman’s presentation, shared information about the

   public hearing process that this Board undertakes under RCW 36.93 with a focus on the systems by which the Board reviews RCW 36.93.180.

   Using as an example a Board’s public hearing for a Notice that presents issues related to Objective 4 (irregular boundaries), Ms. Hirschey spoke of a common matter- and challenge - before the Board with respect to Objective 4. To wit: may the Board consider approving a Notice with seemingly irregular boundaries based upon particular characteristics for a particular reason -- often because it's a small remaining annexation area within a PAA.

   The Board can consider accepting a proposed action to make a really irregular boundary proposal slightly more regular, and thereby advancing that objective. Thus, if there is a piece of property that will be achieving completion of the whole PAA, and it's not going to do harm in the interim, in terms of essential services (e.g., fire or police service), it is a reasonable decision to approve such a Notice. Also, if the Notice does not support the proposed irregular boundary, then the Board can add (up to 100% of area), modify, or deny an annexation.

   ***
   The key to consideration and decision-making for a Notice is in addressing the guidance from Mr. Kaufman concerning the requirement that the Board must establish and evaluate the evidence that's in the Notice of Intention and ancillary documents. The Board must clearly delineate the ways in which a Notice addresses each of the provisions of RCW 36.93 (including RCW 36.93.180) and the ways in which compliance – or lack thereof – supports a

   the Board’s decision to approve, modify, or deny a proposed Notice.

   In order to achieve these requirements, the Board members must – in an open public meeting – talk through each objective, speak of thought processes, come to recommendations in a manner that informs the stakeholders. A motion must be clearly and deliberately crafted to meet the requirements of RCW 36.93 -- and it must be well-discussed prior to voting on the recommendation at hand to ensure appropriate reporting to the community.

   In general, for each public hearing for a Notice of Intention, the Board must provide a record with a clear and comprehensive evaluation of a proposed action, as prescribed by RCW 36.93, et seq.. This file must be documented in a narrative, discussion, a transcript, and minutes, and in a written Hearing and Decision Report for the record (i.e., Notice file and public record).

   The proposing jurisdiction then is empowered to make the decision as to the timing for completing the approved action (e.g., annexation, merger). The jurisdiction may also decide to decline to go forward with the approved action. There is no statutory requirement dictating implementation plans for a Notice.

   ***

   At the conclusion of Mr. Kaufman’s presentation concerning the definition and purpose of RCW 36.93.180, Chair Hamlin launched a quiz (refresher course) to informally measure the perspective of the Board members on these objectives as follows:

   • Question 1: Inactive special purpose districts should remain in place. A: False (Objective 6)

   • Question 2: A river may be permitted as a physical boundary for a proposed annexation/incorporation. A: True (Objective 2).

   • Question 3: Existing boundaries should not impact Boundary Review Board consideration/action on a Notice. A: False. (Objectives 1, 4, and 7).

   Chair Hamlin and Mr. Kaufman expressed appreciation to Board members for their active participation in this educational workshop. Additional sessions will be provided at future Regular Meetings.

6. ADMINISTRATION:

   1. Chair’s Report

      General Business: 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. Funds are being expended in an amount and for a purpose in accord with the Biennial Budget.

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

        • Covid197 appropriations ordinance: $600 million via federal funding -- continue support for rental, homeless, medical care

        • Sales Tax – Methods to ensure that these taxes are sufficient to provide support and variable according to resources

        • Waste Water – new fees 4-6% per year estimated over next several years

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

        Lenora Blauman stated that the APA-WA Chapter has concluded weekly meetings for Legislature 2021. Planning meetings have begun 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.

        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 of the pending Growth Management Act update in Washington.

      • 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 interest has been directed to SB 5368 -- which was entitled “rural economic development” -- but also allows annexation via interlocal agreements. Annexations by interlocal agreements are subject to boundary review board evaluation under RCW 36.93. However, there are limited opportunities to conduct public hearings and limited rights to appeal such actions.

        Ms. Evans reported that the Association Legislative Team submitted recommendations for enhancing RCW 35.14 (via SB 5368) by establishing requirements for the proponents of the ILA -- and the Notice of Intention for the action – to comprehensively address the provisions of RCW 36.93 (e.g., RCW 36.93.100-.150 and RCW 36.93.170-.180). These recommendations are in keeping with the following inquiries to/responses from Robert Kaufman, Legal Counsel to the Board.

        ***

        SB 5368 as proposed did not have a substantial impact on Rural Economic Development, other than providing the cities and the county a mechanism to negotiate together to make sure that there is an equitable transfer of financial responsibilities based upon financial generation from new rural uses. The bill proposed a tool for funding tax revenue sharing between two entities when developments occur so that the counties don't lose all their commercial land and the cities do not “cherry pick” to the detriment of the counties. The Association expressed support for efforts toward resource sharing – e.g., tax revenue sharing when the city annexation can generate streamlining sales tax.

        With this plan, the annexing city receives some money for annexing these areas. This funding is often essential, because as we have heard from various cities that would annex land with sufficient funding for immediate governance and service -- but that, over the long run, there would be insufficient funding in the city coffers to improve such basic features as parks, roadways, etc.

        The Association was concerned, however, that while Interlocal Agreement Annexations referenced in SB 5368 would be required to meet the requirements established in RCW 36.93, this bill did not directly reference RCW 36.93. The Association reported that including guidelines required for addressing RCW 36.93 would be a valuable addition to the proposed legislation. Authors and supporters of the bill agreed that the suggested augmentation would enhance the effectiveness of SB 5368.

        SB 5368 was approved by the Senate and then moved to the House. However, over, the course of review, the bill remained with only one central rural economic development element — comprehensive plans that had been challenged and found out of compliance, could go to the Department of Commerce for adjudication — in addition to having been through the growth management hearings board. Department of Commerce staff could then help the cities and counties to get their plans back into compliance so those jurisdictions could go forward with plans and programs and with funding protected from general funds and special sources (e.g., liquor tax, gasoline tax).

        The fact that the Association’s recommended inclusion of references to RCW 36.93 remained in SB 5368 is due to the organization’s successful teamwork with the Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA-WA). The Association was also assisted and supported by Carl Schroeder of the Association of Washington Cities and Paul Jewell of the Washington State Association of Counties.

        At this writing, the bill is on Governor Inslee’s desk awaiting his signature. If he signs this bill, it will become law which will benefit the process of administering annexations in the State of Washington Urban Growth Areas.

        Compliments were extended to the very talented and dedicated Association Legislative Team – and, in particular, Chandler Felt for his substantial efforts in providing conversations and documents in support of his work on behalf of the Association.

   3. Executive Secretary’s Report

      OFFICE OPERATIONS: Dow Constantine has dictated that County offices will reopen on July 6th. Jay Hamlin, Angelica, and I will be talking about how we can manage service to the office in the most efficient, safe manner.

      Board staff have been reasonably successful working remotely. We anticipate returning to office for the most part – and telecommuting for part of the time. We will keep the Board members informed of the final organizational plan.

      We will also be considering the best plan for resuming in-person meetings of the Board. We will consider returning to these meetings in late Summer or early Fall.

      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.

      FILE NO.2405 NORTHSHORE-WOODINVILLE FIRE DISTRICT MERGER

      Ms. Blauman reported that this NOTICE went to election on April 27, 2021. The action failed by a vote of approximately 77% in opposition and 23% in favor of the merger.

      In the past in the case where there has been a controversial fire district merger, concerns have been identified relating to preservation of positions for firefighters, staff members and other administrative officers. And it appears from reading available information that the same issue exists in this situation.

      This would be consistent with the situation occurring in historic proposals for legislation supporting fire district mergers. It is typical that there has been substantial controversy relating to opinions that legislation will result in loss of jobs for firefighters. Communities and their residents share this objection to such regulations. In fact, firefighters’ jobs are not imperiled as there is a reliable requirement for sufficient firefighting personnel.

      In this situation, the surrounding communities were notified on multiple occasions of the pending merger. No objections were raised to the Board during the required 45-day review period vis a vis RCW 36.93.

      Ms. Blauman reported that she sought out a conversation with the attorney who had promulgated this whole Notice of intention to find out if he was willing to discuss this matter so that the Board might be a more effective communicating body in the future. The counsel was not interested in additional discussion in this matter.

   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 8:51 P.M.