Robbie Myers  0:03  
pair, right, Bob. He is our legal counsel for the association. And he's a plethora of information. So I encourage you to pay attention and ask questions. When was his BIOS in the chat? Yes, it is. Yep. All right. It's good to see about.

Robert Kaufman  0:32  
It's good to see everyone. It's nice to see the screens with your names on it. If I can see. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Okay, I will, I'm going to apologize in advance, I have an external microphone that sometimes decides to just cut out spontaneously, and I have to replug it in. So if I if you stop hearing me, I'm sure you'll let me know right away. Again, thank you very much for inviting me back. It's been I've been attending these for as long as they've been been occurring. And it's a it's a pleasure to do so. In fact, there were many years era for a while. And I always wondered if that the year that we were in session was going to be the last year, because there was a number of years in the successive years in the legislature, when someone would introduce a bill to bank to disband all boundary review boards in the state. This is a group that as as as good work as it does, and as well, meaning as all of the members are, has been very much disliked over at certain times over the over the past. I haven't sensed that in a few years, maybe because our level of activity has dropped. Maybe because people are starting to appreciate the function that we have, which is frankly to be one of the last forums where citizens can come to tell an agency what they like or don't like about a particular proposal. So we are frankly one of the last citizen forums that are available on put on the subject matters that we are authorized to hear. Boundary review boards have been in existence since 1967. In a way, the boundary Review Board statute is the very first planning statute that was adopted by the state of Washington. It predated SEPA, it predated the growth Management Act. And it predated many, many of the other laws that we now live with and work with on a daily basis. One of the difficulties in that in recent years, but in the past, and over the years representing boundary view boards and counseling boundary view boards is that we have often been the target of a reaction to individual proposals that have occurred around the county. Actually proposals isn't the right word. It should be more actions that various boundary Review Boards around the state have taken the boundary if your word statute has been tinkered with, in 1983 1989 1989 1999 1992 1994 1995 2009 2012, I don't think there are too many statutory schemes that that can say that that have gotten that much attention from the legislature over the course of its existence. And again, the reason for that is many of the things that we do have such an impact on on senators or legislatures, that they develop very strong feelings about boundary review boards. And fortunately, the I think, I haven't heard of any desire to do away with boundaries, you've worked at this point. But it also could be because of COVID. The legislature has had a lot of other things that have been higher on the list to deal with that then boundary review boards. You know, despite the fact that we've gotten all this legislative attention, I think the legislative committee might be in a position to a test that a lot of people still don't know what boundary review boards are and what boundary Review Boards do. I have not, I am not a member, I'm a board member. I'm not eligible. I'm not a member of the Legislative Committee, but I hear regular reports from the legislative committee. And it sounds like even to this day, a big part of their function before they can discuss any substantive issues with any with any politician is to educate that individual as to what who we are and what we do. Most are quite receptive upon learning what we do. I think that has a lot to do. With the charm and personality of the members of the of the committee, because those are many times, it is the legislative committee who are the only face and voice that that our legislature sees and hears from from from boundary review boards in general.

It is boundary Review Board members, to me are a very distinct group of people. You each come from a broad range of backgrounds, there, there's their former career politicians, there are planners, there are business people there, there have been physicians, architects, university professors. And I do not mean this in a dismissive manner whatsoever. But wait, but frankly, ranging from physician to baggage handler at SeaTac airport, which I frankly think is a great thing, because it really does give the board a very wide perspective on matters that come before it. As you all know, you are essentially volunteers. Back in 1990. And 60 1967, the legislature determined that $50 per day for board work was sufficient compensation. Apparently, it still considers $50 a day two piece of deficient compensation because that's the one one of the aspects of the boundary board statute that has not been tinkered with over the years. So as you all know, you are eligible for 50 or $50 a day for your board work. But frankly, we all know I at least I know that you basically are volunteers and doing this because you want to contribute to your community and have some input. Being a boundary Review Board member is is challenging. I obviously as the attorney for the King County boundary Review Board. I have always been associated with a board that has always had legal counsel available to it. I before me there, the King County Board had a dedicated Special Assistant Attorney General, I succeeded that person. So King County has always had ready access to legal counsel. In the past, I've represented the Spokane board. And that board before it was disbanded, also had ready access. But what I learn as I go is there are so many counties and so many staff members that are left without a council or the counsel that they have, who by statute is generally the the county prosecuting attorney's office, they don't, don't get a whole lot of attention from that county prosecuting attorney's office. And they cannot always get the answers to the questions they need, at least on a timely basis. And that's where I come in a little bit. I'm not the only the only board I represented King County. The only board I can I can give legal advice to is King County. But I do like to make myself available to other counties to answer general questions. I don't consider answering a general question that isn't applicable to a specific proposal for the board to be legal advice on a matter that's pending before that board. If If I'm asked a question by another board, and the answer is in the RC W's on that, I don't consider myself giving legal advice to that board when I point to the RC W and tell them how that applies. In any event on the on the occasions when I am consulted by non King County, staff members or board members. I always qualify and I'm qualifying it now. You should get I'm happy to give you my opinion. But my opinion isn't your legal advice. Your legal advice really has to come from your board's attorney. And I realized that can be frustrating because that may not always be accessible. But I don't I'm not here to step on any other prosecuting attorneys toes and do their jobs when when they should be available to you. So in addition to the challenge of not having legal advice readily available to you. board members have to be familiar with a wide variety of statutes. Now, we are the boundary Review Board. I trust all of you are familiar with our enabling statute which is RC W and for and for those of you who haven't read it that stands for the revised code of Washington, and I'm being a little bit of a smart act there. out there. 3693 3693 is a is a good roadmap and answers many of the questions on formation of boards, membership on boards qualification to be members on board there and it's up there on yourself. screen right now. So many times. If you have a question, that would be the first place to look that

but in addition to that, and that I call that the boundary Review Board act or statute, but that statute refers to other other legislation that once our jurisdiction is invoked, and we have to, we exercise our discretion, we have to be familiar with other statutes. What other statutes Do we have to be familiar with, we have to be familiar with sometimes shoreline management, we, we have to be familiar with, with our county wide plans and policies, we have to be familiar with SEPA. We have to be familiar with the growth Management Act. In particular, because one section of the of our Enabling Act, our cw 3693, that we'll talk about, requires that our decisions be consistent with three provisions of the growth Management Act, and I'll talk about those shortly. So in a way, we, we need to be experts in more than just the boundary, the board statute. Another challenge, I think that being a boundary Review Board member is a lack of activity that occurs in certain counties, it's my understanding that some counties boards don't may not meet for months at a time. I'm only familiar with the level of activity that occurs with the King County Board. That's and, and I have no And I see that even here that the busiest county in the state, the level of activity before the board has dropped, we're receiving fewer notices of intention, there's certainly fewer proposed proposals that have to come before that, or that require the filing of a notice of intention before the board. And, and in all candor, I can't remember the last time the King County Board held a public hearing because our jurisdiction wasn't invoked to do so. So to me, that makes it harder to do our jobs when we're called upon to do our jobs. Because we don't always have a lot of experience in doing those. And that's why I think conferences such as this one can be valuable, because it refreshes us on what the lie is, what procedures we need to follow, and and how to do our jobs when we are called upon in a way it's kind of it's somewhat like the military constantly training. Hopefully never needing a lot of the training that that we're given, but always prepared. And it's and the exposure that I've had to boundary Review Board members, their level of conscientiousness is that you all want to be prepared and you and you generally are prepared. There have been changes in the composition throughout the state of of the counties that have boundary viewbox since formation chalan County, Franklin County, Clark County, Spokane County have disbanded their boundary Review Boards clallam County as I understand it was disbanded and then re established. So there so it's it can be a changing course, composition boundary Review Boards around the state. I think it's a I don't know if there's a movement afoot in any of your counties to disband the boundary boundary review boards. I can tell you that I'm familiar with to it with one example where where the county disbanded the boundary Review Board, clearly unabashedly and admittedly, in response to a decision that the boundary review board had made and that that case involves Spokane County. It involves the annexation of property, which that was in the county that Costco was sitting on Costco represents a significant amount of sales tax revenue. The city of Spokane was adamantly opposed excuse me in favor of the annexation. Spokane County was opposed to it, the board approved it, quite frankly, the board had, I think, under when we talked when we apply our factors to to, to the proposal that came before the board and the objectives that our decisions are to advance. I hate to say it but I think it was a no brainer that the Spokane board had to approve that that particular annexation, but who determines whether boards exists in this in the case of Spokane, it's the three county commissioners. Those county commissioners did not like spoke of the Spokane board's approval of the annexation into the city. And it wasn't too long thereafter that the board was disbanded. Another Reason why a boards have been disbanded have been changing times when the Benton County boundary Review Board was disbanded.

It issued a statement and bear with me I want to I want to I want to read the statement because I think it's, it gives you some insight as to what drove them to that decision. The Benton County Commissioners review that in 1967, Washington had adopted the boundary Review Board act to provide a method of controlling the creation and growth of cities within metropolitan areas. The intent was to ensure orderly and cost effective provision of urban services to provide for future growth. With the creation of the growth Management Act in 1990. Multiple redundancies were created within the state law regarding boundary review boards, and the Benton County boundary Review Board last met in 2002. And then this action that I'm discussing describing occurred in 2019. With 2001 being their last official meeting date, at the time, the county was had only one active member out of five on the band Review Board, which was the chairman Pro Tem, like legislation recognizes that a county can disband their board if that county and its cities and towns have adopted a comprehensive plan and consistent growth development regulations in accordance with GMA, as such, the Benton County planning manager recommended the disbanding of the boundary review board, and it was ultimately approved by the commissioners. Now, I don't necessarily agree that that the adoption of the growth Management Act resulted in any redundancies with with boundary review boards. Another frankly example, I think of how varied this the state is and and and why the boundary Review Board ACC has to be applied flexibly is the fact that it does the boundary Review Board statute does apply to both GMA counties and non GMA counties. And and that can have a big distinction as to how those boards operate the issues that those boards have to consider. But it also describes the the variety that all of you are aware of that exists throughout the state between some very urban counties in some very agricultural or non Urban Counties. So there are a lot of different interests on the boards throughout the state because of the different realities in each of the boards are facing. Now the legislature determined who is subjects to our jurisdiction. Now, we often say no, we know that cities and towns who which want to change their boundaries have to file a notice of intent in general with the boundary Review Board. We also have a special purpose districts if they want to change their boundaries, expand their service areas, or merge or disband, need to file a notice of intention with the boundary Review Board. But the question that begs the question are all special purpose districts subject to our jurisdiction? And the answer is no. And the reason is, while we have a variety of special purpose districts in the state of Washington, and I believe the total number of governmental units from local government, to county government to special purpose districts is about 2000 right now in the state of Washington, including agricultural irrigation, pest control, weed control, diking, economic development, environmental protection, fire districts, library districts, parks and recreation districts, public health and hospital districts and the list goes on. Only a few of those are subject to the requirement to file a notice of intention with the board, which which of all the special purpose districts that that that exist in the state of Washington have to file a notice of intent. Again, we look to the definitional section of our cw 3036 93 which which defines for the purposes of the boundary Review Board act, what is a special purpose subject to our jurisdiction, and those are water and sewer districts, fire districts, drainage improvement districts, drainage and diking improvement districts, flood control districts, irrigation districts, Metropolitan Park districts, and public utility districts engage in water distribution. So, so if for example, a hospital district right Library District wants to change its boundaries, they are not obligated to file a notice of intention with the boundary Review Board. There are a variety of methods of annexation through on any RC w The methods of annexation that are available to a prep to a city or a town, frankly depend upon how that city or town was formed.

As as, as many of you know, the state of Washington has different classifications. There are first class cities, which are cities that have a population of 10,000 or more that have adopted a charter. There are 10 first class citizen in the state of Washington, there are second class cities, which are defined as cities which have in a population of over 1500, that do not have a charter and do not operate as a code city. At last count, there were seven second class cities in the state of Washington. There are towns in the state of Washington, which are defined as those that have a population of less than 1500 and have no optional optional municipal code that had been adopted. There are 69 towns in the state of Washington and all of them have been mayor and council form of government. There are code cities in the state of Washington, which is an optional method of forming the optional municipal code meth method of city was adopted in 1967. There are currently 194 code cities in the state of Washington. So depending on on which of those entities is seeking to change its boundaries merge or disband or, or form and in the case of incorporations, the process they follow will will will depend on on on their statutory formation and their enabling statutes. Now,

under review boards, we obviously we have a process. Most of the process that I have observed and other boards may be active in King County in receiving notice of intention or having their jurisdiction and vote for public hearing, in my observation, that the primary function currently of boundary Review Boards is to disseminate information among interested parties and interest in governmental units of the proposals that for the notices of intention that come before us. The boundary of your board staff under statute, must district when it receives a notice of intention must distribute that notice of intention to specified governmental agencies and a specified parties who have filed a request for notice that in and of itself, achieves a lot. And it may not be a lot that occurs in our presence. But the very fact that we have distributed this notice of intention and made other governmental units aware of a proposed action, in and of itself, is an accomplishment because many times while that notice of intent is pending, an issue will arise or a be identified by one of the parties who was given notice. And the issue will be resolved before notice before jurisdiction is invoked, where it might otherwise have been invoked. So frankly, the dissemination of information by boundary review boards in and of itself, I think, achieves that a very important function for, frankly, for the for the citizens of the state of Washington. If there weren't boundary review boards, many of these actions that that are required to be notified that are required to file notice with the board would never come to the attention of certain other governmental agencies and and which would potentially create all kinds of problems down the line. Our enabling statute does define how many board members aboard has depending on the size of the county, it defines the qualifications of boundary Review Board members, it defines who they are appointed by, and the length of their terms. I don't I don't know if we need to go into that. Right now. The The, the big picture is, is the process of when a notice of intention is filed, because when a notice of intention is filed, certain certain legal processes begin. But the first legal process when the board receives a notice of intention is to determine whether that notice of attention is quote, unquote, legally sufficient, and the term legally sufficient has terms than the mere filing of a notice of intention with The boundary Review Board, in and of itself does until it's been determined by board staff to be legally sufficient, doesn't commence the beginning of any time periods and doesn't actually begin the process. Board staff reviews the notice of intention hours, our enabling statute RC w 3693 contains an absolute bare minimum of what that notice of intention should contain. And before boundary Review Boards realized that they have the authority to adopt their own rules and regulations. Many times the notice of intentions that came before boundary boards might be a general statement of what was intended, might have and might have a couple of maps attached and nothing else. What what the what the boards have done over time is through its ability to adopt rules and regulations is to is to expand upon what must be in a notice of intention. And the board certainly has authority to adopt rules and regulations that are necessary for us to implement our our statutory mandate. And many of the boards around the state have adopted rules and regulations. So when that notice of intention comes in board staff not only uses the statute to determine if it's legally sufficient, it consults the rules and regulations that have been adopted by the board to determine if it is legally sufficient. If it's not legally sufficient, then staff notifies the proponent of the deficiencies and and the proponent has the opportunity to correct those deficiencies.

Now, what, once a a complete notice of intention is filed, this board declares it or the board staff because rarely does it come before the board see it before this occurs, finds that it is legally sufficient and assigns it a filing date. What Why does it assign it a filing date because that date starts the running of a 45 day period during which interested parties and certain governmental units can file a request for review. That there are the the boundary of the board statute does define who may invoke our jurisdiction. And the invoking of jurisdiction is done by usually by filing a request for review and filing a small filing fee with that request for review. Once that request for review comes in if it is filed within 45 days, then that same boundary Review Board statute requires that the board assign a date for a public hearing. And the date for the public hearing is is controlled by another time period in the boundary Review Board statute. So our statute says once a week, once a notice of attention is legally sufficient. folks have 45 days to invoke our jurisdiction. But once that jurisdiction is invoked, then we have 120 days to reach a decision. So and we also end to end if we're going to be scheduling a public hearing and giving the requisite notice to the public into interested government agencies that public hearing is going to be coming up pretty soon. In light of our mandate to complete this process within 120 days of the filing of the request to review that period Can I can as staff will probably attest when we're dealing with ever other governmental agencies trying to assemble information 120 days might not be as long as it sounds. So what the parties and staff have to act diligently. I will say that that the statute contains this requirement that a decision be reached within 120 days. But there are some matters that are either so complex, or require additional information, that that just isn't practical. The board alone cannot extend the 120 day period to reach a decision. But the proponent does have the authority to do so. So there so the board can in the appropriate case, the board can ask the proponent to extend the 120 day period to allow the board to reach a decision. And me I have not seen it first that hasn't occurred very often. But when it has occurred, I can't recall an instance where a proponent has has refused a request by the board to extend 120 days. I think it just makes sense. I think a proponent and especially if it's in a contested hearing where jurisdiction has been invoked in their competing interests there. Perhaps proponent might be concerned that they might be viewed as hiding the ball, if they don't agree to 100 and the extra time so the board can obtain the information that it needs to make an informed decision. So what so the board schedules a public hearing, that our statute does specify what kind of notice must be given the age of COVID has certainly changed how we conduct public hearings. It also changes the notice that we give because hearings that are conducted by zoom, in all candor, with some of the notices that I've seen published in the legal ads in the newspaper, for example, that zoom address might go on for three lines of a classified ad. So that so the body of the notices has evolved to to comply a with with notice provisions and to make sure everyone has access who's interested, has access to the hearing through through zoom. Now, once our once a public hearing is, is scheduled, the board does take the board does take the purpose is to take public testimony. Now, our job once our jurisdiction is invoked, and in the course of a public hearing, our job is to gather evidence.

Maybe a basic question, but what is evidence? evidence is the sworn testimony that's presented at the public hearing. Evidence is are the any exhibits that are offered during the course of the public hearing. And evidence are also includes materials that have been submitted to the board, through staff in advance of the public hearing, the board's entire file is is before the board in making a decision. That's that is different from the way I court might operate, perhaps because a court, for example, can only decide cases on the basis of testimony and items that have been admitted in evidence. And given an exhibit number, we have the authority to consult our record, which includes other correspondence that's in the record that may have predated the hearing or may have come in, in the in the course of the hearing. So our record is is a little more fluid than then then that would that might then of course might be. But it's important to know what is our record? Because we can only decide the case on the basis of the of the record before us. In fact, I'll talk about this in a little while, if a boundary Review Board adopts a resolution hearing decision and a party chooses to challenge that decision. Then the usual tests at the superior court level at the challenges, was there sufficient evidence before the board to support the board's findings? So back back back a couple steps. Evidence, evidence. So evidence, the evidence is the testimony and the evidence or the exhibits and what's in the record. So it is always useful. When drafting Well, I'm actually going to go back a step. It is useful when deliberating on a proposal that in the course of deliberation that board members if possible, cite what evidence they are relying on when they when they are speaking to the to the board in advance of a public hearing is to me if a board member is trying to convince other board members to see not as their way, it's going to be of a far more compelling statement if that board member in the course of their discussion to the board points to a specific exhibit points to a specific article of correspondence or quotes, or quotes, something that a witness said that may have had particular credibility. So being detailed in the course of deliberations and making specific references to the record does two things. Number one, if the deliberations are recorded, it makes you look good, too, though, it gives staff the notice of what the board is thinking. So the board staff knows how to draft the resolution and the hearing decision that is supposed to reflect the board's the Board's decision. Now, what staff often does and the board and there's absolutely nothing wrong with this, and it's done routinely at all levels of government staff will prepare a resolution hearing decision. And staff may very well on its own come through the record to have specific references. When when the resolution hearing discuss decision discusses the factors that were to consider and and analyze As each of the objectives or decisions are intended to advance, this is not it. Now, if a staff, it's not an uncommon scenario, for a resolution hearing decision to be presented to a board after deliberations, it could be 1520 pages long. And perhaps the board's deliberations, maybe lasted 15 or 20 minutes. Now, we all know that 15 or 20 minutes of discussion is not going to fill 15 or 20 pages. But but the board's action is its adoption of the resolution hearing decision. So and the board isn't going to adopt that resolution hearing decision, if it isn't satisfied, what the staff put in that resolution hearing decision isn't amply supported by the evidence. So I can never impress upon board members, the importance of being prepared at deliberations and being prepared to discuss specifics. It helps staff, it helps the and to me, it also helps the appearance of the work of the board for those who may be observing the deliberations.

But there's nothing untoward about staff, including in that resolution and hearing decision matters that weren't discussed by the board in the course of deliberations. Because again, what's what's frankly, important is was that decision based on the evidence, and frankly, when I'm called upon to defend a boundary Review Board decision in the Superior Court, my task, in addition to to combing through the resolution and hearing decision for evidence that supports the Board's decision, I make my own independent review of the board's record. And when I briefed the court, my brief will contain references to the record, as to testimony or documents or exhibits that support what the board did. So, frankly, and this is not a reason not to be as thorough as we can in our resolution hearing decisions. But when we're at the superior court level, the entire record is before the the the court and the judge the judges task is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support what the board did. This may go without saying but I did mention judge, a boundary Review Board appeal would never be heard by a jury. These are strictly legal questions that are decided by by a judge.

So our statutes does give us a roadmap of how we're of how we conduct our public hearings, basically 3693 170 does content does list with the 30 plus factors that we're to consider when when we're deciding a proposal that comes before us? It is up to the board, frankly, to determine which of those 30 plus factors are significant and relevant to the proposal before the for the board, there may be factors that have absolutely no bearing and no relevance to a proposal for the board. And that and that's understandable, especially when we consider that this that the legislature adopted these factors to be applied by boards throughout the state. As we as you all know, the state is very, very so in all candor, the factor of existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses, may not be as relevant in King County as it is in other counties. But so it's up to the board to determine which of those apply and which are to be given greater weight, because it's conceivable that when we apply these factors, they they may compete with each other, a proposal may may advance one of those will be more applicable, and we may have to weigh those factors in reaching an ultimate decision. So when we so when we discuss and deliberate the factors to be considered by the board are an excellent basis to begin our thought process as to how we're going to analyze the proposal before us because these this is the lens through which we're supposed to view the proposal that's before us. Now once we viewed that proposal, and once we've satisfied ourselves that we're familiar with the record and the issues that are before us, the legislature has given us very specific objectives that our decisions are intended to advance. Those are found in our cw 3693 180 And those, and those are preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities.

Use of physical boundaries, including, but not limited to bodies of water, okay, there they are. So you don't have to listen to me read them, you can take a look at them for yourself. And, but so these factors are, excuse me, objectives are critical in deciding a proposal. And I will also tell you that they are critical when in defending a court's decision when it comes to before the court. Over time, there have been a handful of cases that have that have interpreted each of those objectives, and have the N have added, and it's finally fleshed out some of these objectives. Some of those cases have, have told us that the use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours, maybe this is obvious by that language, but by but lot lines, and, and, and, and, and, for example, and legal boundaries are not physical boundaries. And there have been cases where bit words in the past have sought to use the lot line to define a physical boundary, excuse me to as as an as a factor. And that and then concluded that using that boundary does advance the objective of a physical boundary. Well, that that has been tried by the tested by the courts, and the courts have rejected that. So while there's nothing to prohibit using a lot, a lot line for a boundary, because that may be how it's drawn. That is, it's really just not advanced The objective of the use of a physical boundary. If that's if that if that's the reason why we're using that as a boundary, and you know, itself. B courts have

over the years, when boundary Review Board decisions are challenged to the court, my job used to be used to be easier than it is today. Over time, the test has changed this initially and many years the test as to whether a court will uphold a boundary Review Board decision is does that decision advance any one of these nine fat at nine objectives contained in RCW w 3693. Over time, that changed, and there was a Washington State Supreme Court case we did away with that test and adopted a balancing test and where it's where the board is charged with conducting with make with balancing the factor of these objectives. And while it can certainly it might be said in certain in certain proposals, that one of these objectives might be set back, the board has the authority as if it's evidentiary based to determine that one of these objectives may be more important than the other, and that if an object that if an objective is advanced, that is more significant than an objective that is set back by the Board's decision, then that balancing test might result in the court affirming with the board did the court is does not reverse boundary of your word decisions, simply because it might find that a decision does not that that is a decision that recites and objective is advanced. If the court disagrees and finds that it wasn't advanced, that alone may not result in a reversal of the Board's decision. If other objectives have been found to be advanced by the Board's decision. We were we were talking about earlier about about the growth Management Act and the overlay that it has. After the growth Management Act was adopted, the boundary board statute was tinkered with again, and that which resulted in the adoption of our cw 3690 315 730-690-3157. specifies that our decisions, and I G when we are sitting in a GMA county must be consistent with three sections of the A of the GMA, and those sections are our CW 3670 a planning goals 3678 110 comprehensive plans and urban growth areas and as 78 point 2 million our countywide planning policies now. I was listening to the questions in the comments when the Senate and during the q&a for the senator. And it would and it was impressed upon her how how varied the state is and how GMA is not a one size fits all statute and legislature needs to be very circumspect in in what it's going to require certain, perhaps rural counties comply with that there may make little sense. But I'm leading up to maybe not a particularly artful way is I want to talk about one of the sections of the GMA that our decisions are to be consistent with and that section is our cw 3670 8040. These, that section of the growth Management Act identifies goals to be adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans. These, the the There are a total of 13 goals in in the section and I'll just go through them quickly. And, and this is us it's j section oh four oh, if we can if you have access to that. Oh, maybe I referenced the wrong statue. Forgive me.

Okay. I will go through what those planning goals are.

Jay Hamlin  46:50  
Number three number I guess. Yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah, sir. Do I have it wrong? I don't know. Anyway, okay. I'll stop hearing that.

Robert Kaufman  47:02  
So so what what is the legislature what what planning goals have they established that our decisions need to be consistent with one is urban growth, which is encouragement and development in urban or areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Another goal is to reduce sprawl, which which is identified as reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low density development. Another of the GMA planning goals is transportation to encourage efficient, multimodal transportation systems based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. The fourth goal planning goals housing to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types and encouraged preservation of existing housing stock. And I think just about all of us who are acutely aware of what what's what has happened in this state, and frankly, around the country, as to the housing crisis that we are now facing. Thank you, Jay. You did the research that I should have done. So, so I was looking at number four, right? Yes. And right now, to me, I think that is probably one of the biggest challenges faced now what kind of boundary Review Board do to accomplish this planning goal? I'm not familiar with it with proposals that have come before us, where where we can specifically address housing. And one of the reasons is because for example, many times when annexations come before us, it may be very clear that annexation is being sought to develop the area. I mean, there may be an annexation proposed to a city or a town, because the property developer needs access to water and sewer, and the only way they're going to get that is to annex. So it may be clear at at one point and that might probably might be much later than then the activity before us what's going to actually happen on that property, what development is planned for that. So at the very early stage where we see these, there, other than looking at perhaps being cognizant of the zoning that exists in the area now and what their zoning might be if, if the annexation is approved. I don't frankly know and that would invite any comments as to what we as bound Review Board members can do to advance that that goal or or help achieve that goal. The next planning goal that our decisions shot are should try to advance is to encourage economic development throughout the state. Consistent with adopted comprehensive plans promote economic opportunity for all citizens, especially for unemployed and disadvantaged persons. Promote retention and expansion for existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses recognize regional differences impact economic development opportunities and encourage encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services and public facilities. A lot of lofty goal, which is for Frankly, I would look forward to to hearing others view of how that particular can be a goal can be implemented, when we are talking about a band review board that is looking at an annexation to a city or town or expand extension of service to a water or sewer service district. Other GMA goals that were to be cognizant of our preservation of property rights to avoid prop private property being taken for public use without compensation, and to be oh and to pretend to protect property rights of land owners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. Another goal is addresses the permitting process. And the goal is to that applications for state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure quick predictability. And other goal addresses natural resource industries, and the goal is to maintain and enhance natural resource based industries, including productive limited timber, agricultural and fisheries industries, encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands and discouraging compatible uses. And the remainder are there on your screen.

Retain open space and enhanced recreational opportunities, conserve wildlife and fish habitat, increase access to natural resource land and water and develop Parks and Recreation. protect the environment and enhance the state's quality of life, to encourage involvement of citizens in the planning process to ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate to serve the development at the time of the development without adversely impacting current services that are being provided. And finally, to identify and encourage the preservation of land sites and structures that have historical or archaeological significance significance. Now, as I read those, some of those, I believe, conflict with others. So so it is there. I got again, just like when our task is to focus on the on the 180 objectives that our decisions are to advance, but the legislature has told us that our decisions are being to be consistent with these planning goals. So arguably, if if a opponent to a board decision can articulate an argument that a boundary Review Board decision advances, none of these GMA planning goals, and the argument could be made that our decision is inconsistent with the GMA, and therefore that might be a basis for the court to reverse the board's Board's decision.

Now there are other statutory schemes or and and principles of law that apply that we have to be cognizant of that the the those are, and you've number one is the open public meetings act. Number two is a judicially created doctrine and that the legislature later adopted called notice the appearance of fairness doctrine. And hand in hand with that is a prohibition on ex parte communications. So what is all that? Well, in 1971, the legislature adopted the open public meetings act. And I think to get a sense of the what the, of how we should read and apply the open public meetings act, we should consider what the legislature found this it's the stated purpose of the open public meetings act to be and this and what this is what the legislature finds, legislature declares that all public Commission's boards, councils, committees, subcommittees departments, it's Um, excuse me, and all other public agencies of the state and subdivisions exist. To aid in the conduct of the people's business, it is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly, and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people in delegating authority do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know that people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments that they have created.

here's here's the scenario. Planning Commission conducts the hearing. And at the end, after the at the conclusion of the of the public testimony, the chairman of the Planning Commission announces having excuse me, the chair says, having heard from all the persons desiring to speak, this hearing is terminated. The public meeting is recessed until 10am. On November 14, at which time we will either announce our decision or continue to a date certain we will be an executive session in the interim to consider all the evidence that has been presented. Now, that is a backdrop as to how business perhaps used to be conducted. First of all, I will say that applying with today's definitions of an executive session is that was not a basis for the Planning Commission to go into Executive Session. Morrow, but moreover, is it excluded the public and when the Court reversed the decision and adopted the appearance of fairness, this doctrine, the courts, reasoning and thinking was that the announcement that was made by the chair of the of the Planning Commission, unmistakably convey the idea that the Commission was going to deliberate upon its decision relying only on its staff to aid in formulating its judgment, and to express it in words, graphs, charts and pictures. The announcement convey the idea that public meetings were ended and imply that all of the evidence, debate argument and controller were for the time being at least at an end. And then there is no further record of what transpired before because they went into an executive session. So what the court said the Supreme Court in analyzing this, it basically found that whenever when the law requires a public hearing of any sort as a condition to the power to proceed, it means a fair hearing a fair right hearing f hearing fair, not only in substance, but in appearance as well. A public hearing if the public is entitled by law to participate means a fair and impartial hearing. So after reviewing that, the court then enunciated a test. And this is the end it was adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court. And if therefore became, at that time, part of what we call the common law of the state of Washington, the Supreme Court said, the test of fairness we think in public hearings conducted by law on matters of public interest, vague though it may be is whether a fair minded person in attendance at all of the meetings on a given issue could at the conclusion, in good conscience say that everyone had been heard, who in fairness should have been heard, and that the legislative body required by law to hold the hearings gave reasonable full faith and credit to all matters presented according to the weight and force that were in reason entitled to receive. And then the court concluded that the Commission, the Planning Commission, that I just referenced, had not done those things that the court elaborated. I think this is this, this is useful language from the court. The courts have the right to be heard implies a reasonable hope of being heated. The right to be heard in a public hearing contemplates that, although the legislative body man finally deciding the matter, draw upon all kinds of sources of information, including the opinions of experts, we're hearing must be conducted has to be free from bias and prejudice. It must not only be open minded and fair, but must have the appearance of being so. So now, so at that point, that was that that was the Washington State Supreme Court case. But in kind of an unusual move a couple of years later, the legislature did adopt and incorporate the the appearance of fairness by statute. So

that gives us guidance as to how we are conduct ourselves. For perhaps from the commencement of a public hearing until the adoption of a resolution hearing decision, and it gives us insight as to what the law expects, as to how we treat those who come before us. As to as to as to making those who come before us, I understand that it is a public process, that, that and that we frankly, if they are ever going to be excluded from the process, it would only be for specified reasons in an executive session. And I'll talk about executive session. So a few minutes. So. So the so that is that principle guides us when we, as we conduct our public hearing, and as we conduct our deliberations

hand in hand with the appearance of fairness doctrine, is the principle that all board decisions be based upon the evidence. That's before the before the board and I spoke a little while ago about what is the evidence in the form of testimony and documents. There are there is a concept I shouldn't say kinds of, there's a phrase that's frequently used that that we that we refer to as ex parte communications. Ex parte is is a 50 sound Latin phrase that we apply for communications that occur pertaining to a matter that occur outside of a public hearing. What might an ex parte communication be when you're AMPM, pumping gas into your car, and your neighbor comes up to you and starts talking to you about a proposal that it knows to be before the boundary review board, and starts telling you all the reasons why you should vote for or against that proposal? In a sense, and even though you may not have that may not have been an invited conversation, and maybe it was an unwelcome conversation, it was nevertheless a communication that you received outside of the course of the public hearing that could impact your decision. So what is the law tell us? But the law doesn't disqualify us? Because we may have been involved in either subjects to comments like that, or we may have actually been actively involved in a conversation. But what the law does tell us is if we do engage in that, or if we have been exposed to material ads, that's not in the record, that that pertains to matters before the board that at the beginning of every session, have a public hearing on that matter, that the board member disclose on the record to the public, what the substance of that communication was, why does that why do they have to do it? And why does that cure the ex parte communication, because it gives those in attendance, knowledge of the communication and the opportunity to to address the conversation as the topic and substance of that conversation in their in the course of their testimony before the board. So, there are so there are instances where where we may have either deliberately or inadvertently been involved in in an ex parte communication. But that doesn't, in and of itself disqualify us. We need but what we do is it must do is we need to disclose whether that communication occurred. Now, board members should disqualify themselves if they have a an an overt conflict of interest. What would an overt conflict of interest be in my view, and that's a proposed annexation comes before the board annexing the piece of property Tu Tu, Tu, Tu Tu a town and one of the board members owns property within the proposed annexed area? Well, clearly, the the Board's decision on that could certainly affect the value of that property. And that that is a to me, if a board acts on a proposal like that, that presents a direct conflict of interest because that board members vote is could certainly be influenced by by how the outcome is going to affect the value of their property. There are the situations that are less clear. There. There may be situations where there isn't a direct economic conflict of interest like the one I just described, but there may be a relationship that a board member has with with someone who's appearing before the board or may have with A with a party that that comes before the board, or that board member may have actually before becoming on the board may have actually taken a public position for or against the proposal that comes before the board. That would fall under what under what's known as the appearance of fairness doctrine. I again, court, our legislature and our courts want our public processes to not only be fair, but appear fair. So if there is a situation where

we don't believe that we have a conflict of interest, but we're concerned that we may have a relationship, or may either present either past relationship or present relationship, that might look peculiar for us to continue to act on the matter, we can make that we can deal with that by allowing the public to challenge a board member on the appearance of fairness. Now, their case law has evolved, how we apply the appearance of fairness doctrine. If, for example, a member with the board is in the course of a public hearing, and I'm and a member of the public is aware that there may be an appearance of fairness issue with a board member, but that board member, but that member of the public wants to wait and see what she What does the board do, if it goes my way, great. If it doesn't go my way, maybe I can keep this in my back pocket and use it later as a means to challenge the board. Well, what our courts have said is that if if we are aware, I mean we as board members, I mean we would pay if a member of the public or interested party is aware that of an appearance of fairness issue, then they must raise it at the earliest possible time in the course of the public hearing. In fact, many boards, invite those comments at the beginning of the public hearing process, and then invite the public to put on the record any any issue they may have as to whether there's an appearance of fairness issue on on the on a board member. Now, if a member of the public comes forward, and does either challenge a board member on the basis of the appearance of fairness, or or simply places that on the record. Again, that doesn't automatically disqualify a board member. Why? Because the public can disqualify a board member, the board as a whole cannot disqualify a board member, the only one who can disqualify a board member is that member. So if you have are in a position where you are being challenged, or where you believe that if if if What if information that came to you regarding a matter, or a relationship that you have might look peculiar for you to proceed to decide that issue, then you may want to disqualify yourself from that issue. From that matter. Obviously, a member of the public cannot raise an appearance of fairness issue if they're not aware of it. So there may be some situations where even though we take that step, to try to protect our process, by inviting those comments at the beginning of the hearing, there may be situations where people don't have the knowledge at that time of the existence of the issue. So, so inviting the public to place any challenges on the record isn't going to solve that particular problem. So so as board members, it's incumbent upon us if we have knowledge, that maybe there's something that we have done or said in the past or relationship that we have, that it might look peculiar to a member of the public for us to decide this matter, we might want to consider disqualifying ourselves. There is a rule of necessity that overlays that that the doctrine, and that is that if a board member disqualifying themselves would result in the loss of a quorum, then that board member does not need to disqualify themselves because the business of the board needs needs to be conducted. Again, it should be disclosed it and that's the best way of protecting the integrity of the process. But but so that's so there may be instances where that that occurs.

Jay Hamlin  1:09:33  
This is Jay just just giving you a heads up. We have about 19 minutes, I think left or so. And there's five questions that I have. And I have one hand up just so you know that i mean if you want to keep going and then we'll just know that you have that coming up. All right.

Robert Kaufman  1:09:50  
The other lesson I'll touch on real briefly is the concept of executive sessions. Having an example session is an exception to the open public meetings act. There are certain topics that boards not just boundary review boards, but any board or commission within the state may deal with where the legislature has determined that it's of a nature that that the public can be excluded from that those particular Converse conversations. If we choose to conduct an executive session, we bit before going into that executive session, we should define the purpose for holding the executive session and the amount of time that that we expect to be in the executive session. And if we expect the executive session to run over the time that was announced before the executive session, knowing that, then the board should come back briefly into an open session to announce that the executive session will, will continue by necessity. So one of the one of the purposes and what can we have an executive session for, we can have one, if the issue affects national security, I can't remember that occurring before a boundary Review Board. If it affects the selection of a site, or the acquisition of real estate for lease or purchase, I'm not particularly germane to us to consider the minimum price in which real estate will be offered for sale or at least again, I don't believe applicable the US to review negotiations in the performance of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge regarding those might cause a likelihood of increased cost doesn't impact us to evaluate, receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee. We don't discipline ourselves, we don't hear complaints or charges against our board members. So that doesn't apply. The next ones do apply. One is to evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the performance of a public employee. So for example, when the King County Board wants to, or is called upon to to do a performance review for its executive secretary, then it It should and does go into Executive Session session to have that discussion. Another a basis for going into executive session is to discuss with legal counsel that represents the agency any potent any actual litigation or any potential litigation in which the body is likely to become a party. Potential litigation means litigation that's been specifically threatened litigation that the agency reasonably believes may be commenced against the agency or risks that are proposed action or practice of the agency has been identified, and maybe result in adverse legal action to the agency. Now, I will tell you that that has changed over time as far as the potential litigation is concerned. When I first started representing boundary review boards, the potential litigation exception to the open public meetings act as a basis to go into Executive Session wasn't part of the of the law. But I think it was a huge omission. I think the legislature recognized it was a huge omission, because clients, boards need to be able to discuss potential litigation. And if a board is concerned that a certain action it's going to take may result in legal action against it, that is that is a basis to go into an executive session. Now, executive sessions are for discussions, they are not for action, no action of the board can be taken during the course of an executive session. If there is action to be taken on any topic that has to be done by the board in the course of a public cure public meeting. One example that I'm familiar with, is, again, going back to the evaluation of the executive secretary position of the boundary of the King County Board. In the past, the board has appointed a committee to conduct the evaluation, the committee will prepare a report, that report will be presented to the body in the course of an executive session, because it's a it's a formative review. It's an appraisal of an existing employee.

Ultimately, the book that the board may may adopt that committee's recommendation, but it can't do so in the course of the executive session. It can only do so, once the the board goes back into the public session into the public meeting portion of it. So what so what so what after the executive session is concluded in that instance, the board would would reconvene and it would vote either to accept or reject the recommendation of the Personnel Committee regarding that position. So the action if any is taken in the course of the public meeting after the executive session. Given the time constraint I will, I will stop now and entertain any questions. Thank you.

Jay Hamlin  1:15:05  
Thanks. So I'm going to go down the order that they've come in. And so I've got like five questions, and I have a hand up. So the first question is from Jenna, is there a timeframe in which a code city must submit an noi proposal to the IRB after the city council has approved it?

Robert Kaufman  1:15:27  
Well, the there isn't a defined legally defined one, I think it would be one subject to judicial interpretation, because there is a an obligation to file that notice of intention when the first action is taken on that proposal. So if this so I think there's a duty to act diligently, I believe once that once that resolution is adopted by the city, but I'm not aware of a specific time period in which it has to be filed. I thought it was 180 or 120 days,

Lenora Blauman  1:16:03  
we had one in Skagit. County have to go back. This is lindora if there is a 180 day requirement after that the petition isn't valid anymore. Okay.

Jay Hamlin  1:16:20  
Great. Thanks. Next questions from Chris and white Comm. Bob, can you speak to who the interested party includes interested party and quotes, specifically neighbors to a proposed annexation who are outside its proposed boundaries, and the entity entity that it is being proposed to, to be annexed into?

Robert Kaufman  1:16:45  
I can, and frankly, the statute gives us that guidance as well. And I need to, frankly, refresh my memory, the statute that applies as to who has standing is our cw 3693 100. That that determines who may who may invoke our jurisdiction and and those who are empowered to invoke our jurisdiction or those who have standing to not only to invoke our jurisdiction, but to to challenge at any of our decisions on appeal. So quickly, going through that. With that it would include any governmental unit affected by the proposal. Okay, there we go. Rather than me read it. I had started to read from number two that where the arrow just was, because that because that's defined for us who has standing to, and and those same provisions apply as to who has standing to, to challenge her decision as well. So the answer, the answer

Jay Hamlin  1:18:10  
is great. Perfect. Okay, next is Chandler from King County, Bob, is there a relationship or hierarchy between factors and objectives? Can you think of a case where there was a conflict of different interpretation between factor based evidence and an objective based evidence?

Robert Kaufman  1:18:37  
What? To answer the last question? No, I can't think of a case. I think the factors are so are so varied and wide ranging and intentionally so that I don't know if there's an instance where there would be a direct conflict. But I think it's to answer the question, it's important to keep in mind what the purpose of the factors are and what the purpose of the objectives are. I like to view the to look at the factors as the lens that we examine the proposal through. But at the end of the day, any decision that we adopt, that we make has to be based on the objectives. That that is the a number one, the legislature says as much in the in the language of the statute, and also I can tell you on any judicial review of a resolution hearing decision, the court isn't necessarily going to look at to see what factors were considered but it certainly is going to it's going to take a close hard look at the objectives that our decisions are intended to advance. And whether our decision advanced some of those objectives are set. set some of them back. I there was language in an earlier case. Very early case. That said the court that the board has considered the factors and then there may be a brief general discussion. Interestingly enough, one case it is still a good case on the books. So that statement, I've concluded that that statement alone was enough, the board recited the fact that it consider the factors and that satisfied the court. So, Chandler, I

Jay Hamlin  1:20:22  
see you came off mute. Did you want to say something else? I just want to say thank you. That's a very Oh, okay. Okay, next was Mark Smith. He was talking about the Economic Development Goal planning goal. Does this mean we can lobby or encourage cities or towns to extend service through annexation?

Robert Kaufman  1:20:43  
I don't believe as a as a as an active member of a boundary Review Board, we should be lobbying or encouraging anything, because if I'm understanding the question, right, because because that could certainly be a proposal that comes before us. I if we're successful, and in that in that endeavor, and I don't believe it was I think it could be an appearance of fairness issue. If, if that if the proposal if the board member is successful in convincing the city or town to proceed with the annexation, and that annexation comes back before the boundary Review Board member? I dare I say, and this is an unwritten rule of statutory construction. It doesn't pass the smell test.

Jay Hamlin  1:21:33  
Yep. Great. And Allison had his hand up.

Alison Sing  1:21:36  
Yeah. Thank you. Jay. Can you pull up the RC David? w 70. A planning goals? Oh, two? Oh, J.

Jay Hamlin  1:21:45  
Yeah. Let me go back to it. 72. Just take me a second. Yeah.

Planning goals was right there. And they all share my zoom window again. Cut it. There you go. Oh,

Alison Sing  1:22:08  
yeah. Yeah, I heard you correctly, Bob. The planning goals are part of our decision making process on on part of compliance by the beat boundary board. And so when we make our decisions, we look at these planning goals to see how much of that complies. But you made a comment that, you know, currently, cities can annex enter the mooga. And of course now there's that new inner local agreement between counties and cities. Now we have to comply with the planning goals into a certain grade counties have to comply with the planning goals. But once the decision to annex is made, is there a way to tie the conditions at the planning go to the receiving jurisdiction? Like if a city annexes the property and we approve the annexation? Are they free of of these restrictions? Or should we put a condition with our decision that they must comply with these 13 planning goals? Because you talk about certain things not being considered once the decision is made?

Robert Kaufman  1:23:21  
The it the subject of whether we have the ability to to condition our approval, for example. We've talked about that a lot in the past. It's often said that the the power to approve includes the power to condition. I'm not satisfied that applies to boundary review boards. Boundary board. I don't believe we need the Express authority to condition our decision. But as a practical matter, I don't I'm not aware of any means by which any condition that we impose could be enforced. Okay. That's my main concern.

Alison Sing  1:24:06  
Okay. So decision me, Bob, technically, then, after we make the decision for compliance with these planning goes, does it the receiving jurisdiction to gets the annexation? Can you ignore all of the conditions that we have to comply with? Is that correct? I'm just it's a question. I need to find out the answer to that. If you can't answer that's okay. I'm

Robert Kaufman  1:24:32  
not sure I have an answer because I'm having trouble conceiving up an example of you know, what, what what a city might ignore after we, for example, we approve an annexation.

Alison Sing  1:24:45  
You know, I know cities are required to comply with the county's planning comp plan in general, but, you know, once we hand it off, then are they free to do whatever they want. That's where the citizens get kind of shaped. Especially like with density issues or whatnot, like, like the example you gave about a developer wanting to annex into the city because they can't hook up the sewer. And so they promised a lot of things during the hearing, we assume that they're going to follow through with it, then something else changes. And of course, we get blamed for the decision.

Robert Kaufman  1:25:24  
We do, which is, of course, unfair, given all the other levels of review that have to occur for the development aspect of it after the property is annexed. So I think I'm not answering your question, Allison. But I think there are a lot of safeguards after we act, that a city is just not going to be able to arbitrarily ignore GMA goals or, and the likelihood is, especially in boards acting in a GM a county, that that city will have, that that annexing city will have a comprehensive plan. So we so the board will be in a position to know what, at least what the city should be doing after the annexation is approved. So

Alison Sing  1:26:13  
Bob, when we're in considering a proposal from, you know, city for annexation, we could ask them if their comp plan includes the planning goals, right? That would be a validation that they're using the planning goals as part of their decision making process, or at least while they implement the decision?

Robert Kaufman  1:26:34  
Yes. I believe their comp plan would have been vetted by then, but and to determine whether that was true or not, but

Alison Sing  1:26:48  
Is that a fair question to ask them during a hearing?

Robert Kaufman  1:26:53  
You know, I, I think our primary, our primary duty and our any and our primary job is to make certain that our decisions advance the objectives in our statute. If I don't know if we want to include in a resolution hearing decision, for example, that we expect the city, the annexing city to comply with any enumerated goal in the in the the GMA, I don't think that's going to get us across the finish line to to having a an accurate, correct and defensible decision. I think our focus really should be on our on the fat on our objectives, primarily.

Lenora Blauman  1:27:43  
So this is Leonora, if I, if nobody minds, I would like to expand on that a little bit. When a notice of intention comes in. And you bet that in your office and your staff, that's it. You look at how the notice of intention indicates that they plan to comply with various GMA goals and, and city comp plan requirements for streets and utilities, for example, and so forth. And those are things in which you can accept testimony at a public hearing. And so even though you can't nail conditions to the wall, you've got folks that have come reported on paper that they intend to do these things, and that, that doesn't mean it always works. But at least for Kane County, I think it's worked in at least 90 to 95% of the notices that we have done overmind time which is way long.

Alison Sing  1:28:54  
So Lenore, you're basically saying it's left up to the staff when they get the noi to ensure that those provisions are at least generically get covered in the noi itself, if not, since we can't apply it directly or putting a condition on the decision.

Robert Kaufman  1:29:16  
And that's correct. And it comes up for discussion if it's in a public hearing. So people testified that they are planning to put in four inch lines or in case one that recently came before our board. The person who requested the review was talking about bad stormwater management at the end of a culvert. And that was a topic of discussion. The city thereby said that they would make sure it was cared for. So I can't follow them around because we don't have that conditioning authority. We can certainly make it pretty clear and then a subsequent subsequent session So quick one comes in apparently not enough caffeine in me. If a subsequent one comes in and you can see they haven't complied with the, their promises, if you will their commitments on the first one, then that that gives some more flexibility to say, you know, we want to contract or four with your utility department or something like that.

Robbie Myers  1:30:25  
I would say also To put it simply as far as putting conditions on something where we are quasi judicial, not judicial.

Jay Hamlin  1:30:35  
Okay, one more question we got from Mary Lynn, and then we're up to lunch. All right, when you need to unmute.

Mary Lynne Evans  1:30:44  
Thanks, Jay. I have been asking this question of Bob for years for Bob. Every time he sees me, he knows what about conditions. So I would like to agree with Allison. And I found Eleanor's answer very helpful, that it seems that our tools that we have to deal with these things are very blunt, we accept, we reject or we postpone. And it doesn't seem like that's serving the public very well. And so I'm happy to hear that there's some movement on this idea about what conditions might possibly be put on or how we might possibly do it. Because it's uncomfortable as a board member, not to know that these things are going to be taken care of when you're pretty suspicious. So that's all things.

Jay Hamlin  1:31:39  
hobby. Anything else you want to say.

Robbie Myers  1:31:41  
Well, but I would say that it's on public record for one in the hearing, and it's on public record in the paperwork. So it's on them anyway. It can be pointed right back at them. So sorry, then.

Jay Hamlin  1:32:05  
Anything else?

Robert Kaufman  1:32:07  
Yeah, yeah. So I just want to say that the fit the finger is actually on the side of the scale of approving proposals that have come before us because of the way our statute is worded. Our statute actually says that we shall approve an annexation unless there is evidence in the record, that one or more of our objectives will be set back. So to me that, um, you know, there may we may have an instance where there's a lot of neutrals and maybe one positive, but if there's no, but if frankly, if it's if it's devoid of evidence that an objective would be set back by our approval, then the legislature at least put put its finger on the side of the scale of our approving it.

Jay Hamlin  1:32:55  
Right, okay. Robbie, we're at lunchtime, lunch break. And you your business meeting at 12 3030.

Robbie Myers  1:33:08  
Yes, so everybody is excused until 1230. And you can stay on and chit chat, or I'm gonna go eat.

Unknown Speaker  1:33:21  
Thank you very much, everyone on very dear colleagues, and Bob and Mary. It was great. And I really appreciate it. This is our children from Thurston County. Boundary Review Board commission. Thank

Robbie Myers  1:33:33  
you. Thank you for coming back. We've got giveaways in the afternoon.

Unknown Speaker  1:33:39  
The company's worth it, forget about the goo is.

Robbie Myers  1:33:45  
Thank you, Bob.

Robert Kaufman  1:33:48  
It's always a pleasure. Thank you for inviting me,

Robbie Myers  1:33:50  
you know, your information is I always learned something I've I've sat through these I don't know how many years now, what, 11 years or so. And I always always learn stuff.

Robert Kaufman  1:34:03  
And I'd be happy. My email address. You probably already write it down. But it's a bob at RC k legal.com. And I would welcome any questions.

Robbie Myers  1:34:16  
Excellent. Thank you. Thank you.

Jay Hamlin  1:34:21  
Okay, off to lunch. All right. Okay.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai