Background
In 1967, the Washington State Legislature became concerned with heavy population growth in metropolitan areas, the proliferation of small cities and the haphazard and competitive extension of municipal services and boundaries throughout the State. It passed the Boundary Review Board Law (RCW 36.93) to allow cities, towns, and special purpose districts to adequately plan and finance urban services and boundary extensions in a manner consistent with comprehensive land use plans.
The Legislature designed Boundary Review Boards to guide and control the growth of municipalities, and urban services such as fire protection, water, and schools. At present, there are fifteen counties in the State of Washington with Boundary Review Boards that are charged to "...provide a method of guiding and controlling the growth of municipalities..." (RCW 36.93.010).
Responsibilities
The Boundary Review Board is a quasi-judicial, administrative body empowered to make decisions on such issues as incorporation, annexation, and extension of utilities by cities, towns, and special purpose districts. The Board must base its decision on specific factors and objectives stated in the Boundary Review Board Law (RCW 36.93). It can approve, deny, or modify a proposal. The Board's written decision is final unless appealed to a County's Superior Court. When that occurs, the appeal is said to be "on the record". That is, the Superior Court reviews the exhibits, transcript, and the Board's written decision rather than conducting a new hearing.
Board members are residents of the County they serve. While serving a normal four-year term, they are not allowed to hold other local government, elected or appointed positions or jobs. While working as a Board member, each person is compensated only $50.00 per day.
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
In general, decision-makers such as Board members must not only be fair in their actions (i.e. have no conflicts of interest), but also, to the ordinary citizen, appear to be free of any position, or influence which would impair their ability to decide a case fairly. The State Supreme Court has held that if a person is of the opinion that a decision-maker is so impaired, that opinion must be stated at the first available opportunity. Members may not properly discuss proposals under consideration outside of the public hearing (ex parte communications).
In 1967, the Washington State Legislature became concerned with heavy population growth in metropolitan areas, the proliferation of small cities and the haphazard and competitive extension of municipal services and boundaries throughout the State. It passed the Boundary Review Board Law (RCW 36.93) to allow cities, towns, and special purpose districts to adequately plan and finance urban services and boundary extensions in a manner consistent with comprehensive land use plans.
The Legislature designed Boundary Review Boards to guide and control the growth of municipalities, and urban services such as fire protection, water, and schools. At present, there are fifteen counties in the State of Washington with Boundary Review Boards that are charged to "...provide a method of guiding and controlling the growth of municipalities..." (RCW 36.93.010).
Responsibilities
The Boundary Review Board is a quasi-judicial, administrative body empowered to make decisions on such issues as incorporation, annexation, and extension of utilities by cities, towns, and special purpose districts. The Board must base its decision on specific factors and objectives stated in the Boundary Review Board Law (RCW 36.93). It can approve, deny, or modify a proposal. The Board's written decision is final unless appealed to a County's Superior Court. When that occurs, the appeal is said to be "on the record". That is, the Superior Court reviews the exhibits, transcript, and the Board's written decision rather than conducting a new hearing.
Board members are residents of the County they serve. While serving a normal four-year term, they are not allowed to hold other local government, elected or appointed positions or jobs. While working as a Board member, each person is compensated only $50.00 per day.
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
In general, decision-makers such as Board members must not only be fair in their actions (i.e. have no conflicts of interest), but also, to the ordinary citizen, appear to be free of any position, or influence which would impair their ability to decide a case fairly. The State Supreme Court has held that if a person is of the opinion that a decision-maker is so impaired, that opinion must be stated at the first available opportunity. Members may not properly discuss proposals under consideration outside of the public hearing (ex parte communications).