Background
Boundary Review Boards were provided for by the Legislature in 1967 (RCW 36.93) to monitor the boundaries of municipalities and special-purpose districts. Currently, fifteen Washington counties have Boards: Chelan, Clallam, Cowlitz, Douglas, Grays Harbor, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Pierce, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Thurston, Whatcom, and Yakima.
The Board is a quasi-judicial body empowered to hear and review incorporations, annexations, mergers, and disincorporations by cities, towns, and special-purpose districts, except school districts. Boards are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30), Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (RCW 42.36), and their own rules of practice and procedure in accordance with RCW 36.93. Five county residents (11 in King County) are appointed to four-year terms by the Governor, the county legislative body, mayors of cities and towns in the county, and are nominated by special-purpose districts.
Proposals are routinely submitted to the Board to be evaluated for statutory compliance. Interested parties may invoke the Board’s jurisdiction and only then does the Board hold a public hearing to hear evidence and approve, modify, or deny the proposal. Decisions are final unless appealed to Superior Court. In deciding on a proposal, the Board must consider those factors and objectives set down in the Boundary Review Board Act (RCW 36.93.170 and 36.93.180), and the goals of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). These legislative statements of planning principles provide the framework and rationale for Board decisions.
Emergent Issues
Over the years Boundary Review Boards have been serving the people of this state, and changes have come about. Court decisions brought resolution of contested legal points. Several amendments refined and clarified legislative intent. The Growth Management Act of 1990 and 1991 required counties and cities in growing areas to adopt comprehensive land use plans to accommodate growth, prevent urban sprawl, protect the environment, and provide for efficient delivery of services. Boundary review boards are required to further these goals in their decisions.
Throughout the state, and particularly in those counties required to plan under the Growth Management Act, there has been an unprecedented increase in the incorporation of new cities and annexations into existing cities. Our state has progressed toward that situation, contemplated by the Growth Management Act when comprehensive plans are ratified, urban growth boundaries are negotiated, potential annexation areas are set, and all those jurisdictional questions in the purview of boundary review boards have been decided. Then, in accordance with legislation passed in 1991, the county legislative authority may disband the boundary review boards. We know that we are not at this point yet.
In March 2002, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled that the petition method of annexation violates the privileges-and-immunities clause of the State constitution. Since this method was the predominant one used in annexations to cities, the decision had a profound effect on local government. The decision left open questions which are being addressed by officials and legislators preparing for the current session of the Legislature.
The Washington State Association of Boundary Review Boards and its 14 constituent Boards and approximately 80 volunteer members note with favor these efforts to solve the problems that arose out of the Supreme Court's decision. We pledge to continue working with the Legislature at any level, and with any official, any organization, or any other entity in this effort.
We do not advocate any specific proposal. However, we feel it is our duty, as citizens and participants in this governmental process, to iterate some basic principles. We urge that any legislative proposal be evaluated against these simple precepts.
Principles
Boundary Review Boards were provided for by the Legislature in 1967 (RCW 36.93) to monitor the boundaries of municipalities and special-purpose districts. Currently, fifteen Washington counties have Boards: Chelan, Clallam, Cowlitz, Douglas, Grays Harbor, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Pierce, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Thurston, Whatcom, and Yakima.
The Board is a quasi-judicial body empowered to hear and review incorporations, annexations, mergers, and disincorporations by cities, towns, and special-purpose districts, except school districts. Boards are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30), Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (RCW 42.36), and their own rules of practice and procedure in accordance with RCW 36.93. Five county residents (11 in King County) are appointed to four-year terms by the Governor, the county legislative body, mayors of cities and towns in the county, and are nominated by special-purpose districts.
Proposals are routinely submitted to the Board to be evaluated for statutory compliance. Interested parties may invoke the Board’s jurisdiction and only then does the Board hold a public hearing to hear evidence and approve, modify, or deny the proposal. Decisions are final unless appealed to Superior Court. In deciding on a proposal, the Board must consider those factors and objectives set down in the Boundary Review Board Act (RCW 36.93.170 and 36.93.180), and the goals of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). These legislative statements of planning principles provide the framework and rationale for Board decisions.
Emergent Issues
Over the years Boundary Review Boards have been serving the people of this state, and changes have come about. Court decisions brought resolution of contested legal points. Several amendments refined and clarified legislative intent. The Growth Management Act of 1990 and 1991 required counties and cities in growing areas to adopt comprehensive land use plans to accommodate growth, prevent urban sprawl, protect the environment, and provide for efficient delivery of services. Boundary review boards are required to further these goals in their decisions.
Throughout the state, and particularly in those counties required to plan under the Growth Management Act, there has been an unprecedented increase in the incorporation of new cities and annexations into existing cities. Our state has progressed toward that situation, contemplated by the Growth Management Act when comprehensive plans are ratified, urban growth boundaries are negotiated, potential annexation areas are set, and all those jurisdictional questions in the purview of boundary review boards have been decided. Then, in accordance with legislation passed in 1991, the county legislative authority may disband the boundary review boards. We know that we are not at this point yet.
In March 2002, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled that the petition method of annexation violates the privileges-and-immunities clause of the State constitution. Since this method was the predominant one used in annexations to cities, the decision had a profound effect on local government. The decision left open questions which are being addressed by officials and legislators preparing for the current session of the Legislature.
The Washington State Association of Boundary Review Boards and its 14 constituent Boards and approximately 80 volunteer members note with favor these efforts to solve the problems that arose out of the Supreme Court's decision. We pledge to continue working with the Legislature at any level, and with any official, any organization, or any other entity in this effort.
We do not advocate any specific proposal. However, we feel it is our duty, as citizens and participants in this governmental process, to iterate some basic principles. We urge that any legislative proposal be evaluated against these simple precepts.
Principles
- Decision-makers should be guided by accepted principles of land use planning.
In enacting the Boundary Review Board Act in 1967, the Legislature sought to establish a more orderly means of dealing with accelerating growth and the seemingly haphazard competition among local governments and special-purpose districts. In establishing the Growth Management Act in 1990 and 1991, the Legislature endorsed basic principles of land-use planning for growing areas and required boundary review boards to promote those principles. The WSABRB believes that any legislative proposal to establish a constitutionally acceptable means of annexation, or to alter the boundary-review system in any way, must continue that commitment to established planning practice. - Decisions on boundary issues should be reliable, consistent, and universal.
State law provides some latitude for local comprehensive plans, to allow for regional and local conditions. However, the standards by which disputes are decided should be the same in all places and in all instances. The 80 members of the 14 Boundary Review Boards in Washington are not planning professionals, they are appointed by elected officials for their knowledge and experience. Boundary Review Board members take very seriously their obligation to know and follow the state laws which govern their work. WSABRB strives to conduct ongoing statewide training of board members and staff, utilizing the expertise of attorneys and other professionals. - The boundary review process must remain open, accessible and responsive.
Government regulations and bureaucracies can be difficult, especially in such complicated matters as jurisdictional disputes. Any system must provide for qualified staff to advise all interested parties of their rights and responsibilities, to provide an objective evaluation of proposals according to statutory requirements, and to provide expert guidance. This function may be little noticed by observers of the present system, but it is essential to its success. - Decisions on jurisdictional matters must be fair, equitable, and appear to be so.
For citizens to retain confidence in their democratic institutions and the decisions that affect them, it must be clear that disputes are decided in an even-handed manner by disinterested arbiters. Parties involved in these matters include cities, counties, special-purpose districts, property owners and ratepayers and community organizations. Those deciding the dispute must not be tied to any of these interests. - Action on jurisdictional questions should be efficient and economical.
Citizens seek efficiency in government, and administrative systems must be designed to deliver services expeditiously and economically. A test for any legislative proposal should be whether it fosters the most efficient delivery of services. The WSABRB would urge that any such proposals be subjected to careful fiscal analysis and comparison to the present system.
