Research - General
o
o
\.~/
F
DeCISions FIled with Countv LegIslative Authorltv RCW 35A 14050
Upon approval of the proposal by the reVIew board (with or WI thou t
modificatIOns), the county legIslatIve authorIty IS to set a date for
submIssIOn of the proposal (wIth any modIficatIOns made by the review
board) to the voters of the terrItory proposed to be annexed The county
legIslatIve authorIty must take actIOn to set that date at ItS next regular
meeting If one IS to be held wlthlll 30 days after receipt of the rev Jew
board's decIsIOn, otherWise at a special meetJllg held wlthlll that perIOd
G ElectIOn, Canvass of Vote, Effective Date, Notice, Etc.
For InfOrmatIOn on the election process, canvaSSIng of the vote, effective
date of annexatIOn and notice that should be given, see discussIOn In
SectIOns I G to I L. of thIs chapter, begJllnlng at page 72
III THE SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT PETITION ANNEXATION METHOD
The most frcquently used method of anneXIng unIncorporated territory IS by
petition of the owners of at least 75% of the property value In the area,
computed accord 109 to the assessed valuatIOn of the property In the proposed
annexatIOn area for general taxatIon purposes.
A InItIatIon of the 75% PetitIon AnnexatIOn RCW 35A 14 120
~........-
Poor to clfculatmg a petition for annexatIOn, the InItiatIng party or
parties (the owners of not less than 10% 10 value, according to the
assessed valuatIOn for general taxatIOn of the property for which
annexatIOn IS sought) must give notIce of theIr IntentIOn to commcncc
annexatIOn proceedIngs 10 wrItmg to the legIslatIve body of the code city
to which they seek annexatIOn
B
HearIng on the AnnexatIOn Proposal RCW 35A 14 120
The legIslative body of the CIty IS to set a date (not later than 60 days
after the filIng of the request) for a meetlOg WIth the lOitlatIng partlcs to
determine
Whether the code cIty wIll accept the proposed annexatIOn,
2 Whether It WIll reqUIre the SImultaneous adoptIOn of a proposed
zoning regulatIOn, If such a proposal has been prepared and filed (as
prOVided for In RCW 35A 14330, and RCW 35A 14340), and
3 Whether It wIll requlfe the assumptIon of all or any portIOn or
eXisting cIty Indebtedness by the area to be annexed
If the legIslatIve body reqUIres the adoptIOn of a proposed zonIng
regulatIon and/or the assumptIOn of all or any portion of indebtedness as
COnditIOns to annexatIOn, It IS to record thIS actIOn In ItS mInutes.
79
o
o
Approval by the legIslatIve body IS a condItIOn precedent to clfculatlon of ~
the petitIOn There IS no appeal from the deCISIOn of the legislative body
C Contents of PetItIOn RCW 35A 14 120
If the legIslatIve body approves the IOltlal annexatIOn proposal, the
petItIOn may be drafted and circulated The petItIOn must"
Set forth a deSCrIptIOn of the property accordIng to government
legal subdivIsIOns or legal plats.
2 Be accompanIed by a map WhICh outlInes the boundanes of the
property sought to be annexed
3 If the legIslatIve body has requIred the assumptIOn of all or any
portIOn of CIty 1I1debtedness and/or the adoptIOn of a proposed
zon1l1g regulatIOn for the area to be annexed, set forth thesc facts,
together wIth a quotatIOn of the mInute entry of such rcqulrcmcnt,
clearly 111 the petItIOn
4 Be signed by the owners of not less than 75% In value, according to
the assessed valuatIOn for general taxatIOn, of the property for
which annexatIOn is petItIOned "Owners" elIgIble to sIgn arc
defIned 111 RCW 35A 01 040(9)(a) through (e) 4 (Sce AppendiX)
5 Be otherWise suffICIent accord 109 to the rulcs set forth In RCW
35A 01 040 (See AppendIX), RCW 35A 14 120, and RCW 35A 14 130
o Heanng on Petition RCW 35A 14 120, RCW 35A 14 130
The petitIOn for annexatIOn of contIguous area IS to be ftled wIth thc
legIslatIve body of the muniCIpalIty to whIch annexatIOn IS deSIred It
should bc certified as suffIcient Within thrce working days after the
fIlIng of the petitIOn, the offIcer certlfYll1g thc pctltlOn IS to bcgln
dctcrmIl1Il1g ItS suffIcIency and also fIle with the cIty counctl a certIficate
statll1g the date the determll1atlOn of sufficiency was begun RCW
35A 01040(4)
When a Icgally suffIcIent petitIOn IS fIled wIth the cIty legislatIve body,
that body may entertain It and
FIX a date for a publIc heanng, and
2 PrOVide notice specIfY1l1g the tIme and place of the hcarlng, and
Il1vltlng 1l1tercsted persons to appcar and vOice approval or
disapproval of the annexatIOn The notIce IS to bc
4Although the statute refers to subsectIOns "(a)-(d)", It IS assumed that
reference was Intended to be made to subscctlOns "(a)-(e)"
80
o
o
\..................
a
PublIshed m one or more Issues of a newspaper of gcneral
CIrCUlatIOn m the CIty, and
b Posted In three publIc places wlthm the terfItory proposed for
annexatIon
E LImitatIon on ConsIderatIon of ConflIctmg Pctltlons and RcsolutlOns RCW
35A 14230
After the fIlmg of an annexatIOn petItIOn (WIth the city councIl, the
county legIslatIve authofIty, and/or a reVIew board) and pendIng ItS final
dIspOSItIOn, no other annexatIOn petItIOn, annexation resolution, or
IncorporatIOn petItIOn whIch embraces any of the terfItory mcluded 111 the
fIrst petItIOn may be acted upon by any publIc offIcIal or body
F Hear1l1g and DecIsIon RCW 35A 14 140
FollowIng the hearmg, If a legIslatIve body determInes to effect the
annexatIOn, It shall do so by ord1l1ance. It may annex all or any portIOn
of the area proposed for annexatIOn, but may not 1I1clude any property not
descflbcd 111 the annexatIOn petItIOn (Centcrllnes of public streets, roads,
or hIghways are not to be used to def1l1e any part of the new muniCipal
boundary RCW 35A 03 180)
'--'
CltICS In countIes hav1I1g a boundary revIew board, when they havc not
preVIOusly receIved reVIew board clearance, often fIrst pass a motion or ~
resolutIOn of Intent to annex After approval IS rccclved from the rev lew
board, the formal ord1l1ance IS passed
G
Rcvlew
Boundarv ReVIew Board
If a boundary revIew board has been establIshed wltIun the county,
a notice of Intent to annex must be fIled WIth It Most boundary
revlcw boards wIll accept and proccss the notIce of Intent on thc
10% pctltlOn or aftcr favorable actIOn has been taken on the
completcd 75% petItIon SInce statutes are sllcnt on when review IS
to take place under thIS annexatIOn method, procedures can vary
bctwcen countIes It IS adVisable to contact the appropflatc review
board for spcclfic procedures. (See Chaptcr VIII, Section I)
2 County AnnexatIOn ReVIew Board for Code CltlCS RCW 35A ]4 no
The county annexatIOn revIew board for code CltlCS docs not rcvlew
anncxatlOns under the 75% pctltlon method
H
Effcctlvc Date of Annexation RCW 35A 14 ]50
'-
Upon the date fixed In the ordInance of annexatIOn, the area annexcd
bccomcs a part of the cIty If thc petItIOn so prOVided, on the cffcctlvc
81
o
o
date of annexatIOn, the property annexed shall be subject to the proposed ~
zonll1g regulatIOn and be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the
same basIs as property wlthll1 the annexIng city to pay for the portion or
any then outstandll1g ll1debtedness of the CIty that the CIty has reqUired to
be assumed
NotIce of AnnexatIon
For ll1fOrmatIOn on the notIce that should be gIven folloWll1g completIon of
the annexatIOn process, see dIscuSSIOn 111 SectIOn I.L of this chapter at
page 76
I V ANNEXA TION FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES RCW 35A 14300
Code CIties may, by majorIty vote of the legIslatIve body, annex terrItory outSide
of the limIts of the CIty for any munICIpal purpose If the tern tory IS owned by
the cIty ThIS may be done regardless of whether the terrItory IS contIguous or
noncontiguous.
When a boundary reVIew board has becn establIshed 111 the county, notIce of
ll1tent to annex must be fIled WIth It. See procedures outlIned 111 Chapter VIII,
Sec I ReVIew by the county annexatIOn review board for code CIties IS nor
neccssary 111 countIes Without a boundary review board RCW 35A 14220
Upon passage of an annexatIOn ordInance under thIS method, notice of
annexatIOn must be gIven, as follows:
A Notice to Sta te RCW 35A 14700
For ll1fOrmatlOn on the notIce that should be gIven oncc the terrItory IS
annexed, see dISCUSSIOn 111 Sec I L of thiS chapter at page 76
V ANNEXATION OF FEDERALLY OWNED AREAS
A code city may annex any contIguous, unll1corporated area wlthll1 four mIles of
Its corporate limIts by an ordinance acceptIng a gIft, grant or lease from the
U.S government of the nght to occupy, control, Improve, or sublet It ror
commercIal, manufacturIng, or ll1dustrIal purposes. RCW 35A 14310
A The Annexa t Ion Ord I na nce RCW 35A 14 320
When annexIng pursuant to gIft, grant, or lease from the U 5
government, a cIty may In ItS ordInance
Include such tIde and shorelands as may be necessary or convenlcllt
for the use thereof, and
"
Include an acceptancc of the terms and condItIOns attached to the
gIft, grant, or lease
82
o
o
\...:..-
ANSWER. Statutcs governIng the electIon method do not requlfe a publlL
heanng The state Suprcme Court hcld 111 Meck v. Thurston County, 60 Wn 2d
461, 465, 374 P 2d 558 (1962)'
[T]he statutory procedure for the
annexatIOn] does not requlfe the cIty
a publIc hearIng upon the fIlIng
annexatIOn electIOn
.[electlOn methods of
legIslatIve body to hold
of a petitIOn for an
75% PETITION METHOD
9 QUESTION' May owners of tax-exempt property, such as cItIes and spcct::l1
dIstflCtS, sIgn annexatIOn petItIOns?
ANSWER Yes, owners of tax-exempt property may sIgn anncxatlon petItIons Just
as owners of taxable propcrty The State Court of Appeals has concluded
RCW 35.21010 gIves the CIty of Spokane the power to own
land, thcreforc, the CIty of Spokane, as an owncr of land
sltuatcd outSIde an IOcorporated City, has the nght to petitIOn
for the anncxatlOn of that property under RCW 3513 130
the phrase 'value, accordIng to the assessed valuatIOn for general
taxatIOn of the property' docs not reqUIre that the property actually
be taxed
Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn App 722, 577 P.2d 164 (1978), review dellled 90
Wn.2d 1026 (1978) See also Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409, 357 P 2d 873
(1960), concludll1g that the Port of Tacoma had authorIty to petItIOn thc City or
Tacoma for annexatIOn of ItS property, sInce one of thc attrlbutcs of land
ownership IS the nght to petItIOn for anncxatlOn by a cIty
10 QUESTION Is property owned by a school dlstnct whIch IS consldcrcd for
annexatIOn by a fIrst, second, third, or fourth class muniCipality undcr the 75%
pctltlOn metliod treated any differently?
ANS\\ER There IS a statute whIch relates speCifIcally to thiS typc of
anncxatlon RCW 28A 58044 authOrIzes a school dIstrIct board of dlrcctors to
sIgn an annexatIOn petItIon under the 75% pctltlOn method to flfst, second, thlfd,
and fourth class muniCipalitIes whcn the school dlstnct property IS all of the
propcrty Includcd 111 thc annexatIon petItIOn ThIS statutc was most Id,elv
enaeted to clanry an ambIgUity whIch arose from tIme to time bcforc the
dcclslOns of the WashIngton courts whIch are deSCrIbed In the preccdll1g
questIOn However, thIS statute may now scrve as a IlnlltatlOn on school
dlstncts, rcqUIrlng that school distrIct property be the only property Included In
the 75% petItIOn to a fIrst, second, thIrd, or fourth class muniCIpalIty By ItS
tcrms, the statute does not apply to other mcthods of annexatIOn, or to
annexatIOns to code CIties.
114
o
o
\~/
11 QUESTION' May state-owned land be annexed?
ANSWER. Yes. However, two opll1lOnS of the attorney general (AGO 1947-48, P
22 and AGO 57-58, No 107), cast doubt on the abIlIty of state offIcIals to Sign
annexatIOn petItIOns unless there IS a speclfJc statute authonzll1g thc SIgning of
petitIOns applIcable to the state agency ll1volved Thcy statc that the leglslaturc
Itself could authorIze the annexation AlternatIvely, the annexatIOn of state land
could be accomplIshed through a method whIch does not require a pctltlon to be
sIgned on behalf of the state property, such as the electIOn method, ll1Itwted by
resolutIOn, or the 75% petItion method where enough signatures arc obtall1ed
from prIvate property owners to meet the 75% requIrement.
The State Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have concludcd that whcn a port
dIstrIct and a cIty own land, as authOrIzed by law, they may SIgn a petItion for
the annexatIOn of that land One of the attrIbutes of land ownershIp IS the
fight to petition for annexatIOn by a CIty Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn 2d 409, 357
P 2d 873 (1960), Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn App 722, 577 P 2d 164 (1978),
rel'few denied, 90 Wn 2d 1026 (1978) It IS arguable under these cases that a
state agency whIch has authofity to own land would have Slmtlar authority to
petItIOn for annexatIOn Jf It deSIred to do so
12
QUESTION: Must both the husband and wIfe SIgn an annexatIOn petitIOn?
'--"
ANSWER In fIrst, second, thIrd, and fourth class cItIes, both the husband and
Wife should sign an annexation petItIOn when property IS community property or
owned JOintly by them In McAlmond v. Cltv of Bremerton, 60 Wn 2d 383, 374
P 2d 181 (1962), thc signatures "John and Mary Doc" were held to bc valid,
where the husband and Wife had both Signed theIr names.
In code cIties, RCW 35A 01 040(9)(a) prOVides that thc slgnaturc of a rccord
owner IS to be suffiCIent WIthout the sIgnature of hIS or her spouse Howevcr,
It sttll may be advIsable for both spouses to sIgn the petItIOn
13 QU ESTION' Who should sign an anncxatlOn petitIOn when property IS being sold
under contract?
ANSWER The "safest" practice is to have both the contract vendor and vcndee
sign an annexatIOn petItIOn when property IS being sold In first, second, tlllrd,
and fourth class munlclpalttles. However, under CommIttee of Protcstlng Cltlzcns
v. Val Vue Sewer Dlstnct, 14 Wn App 838, 545 P 2d 42 (1976), the signature of
the vendce (I c purchaser) IS suffiCIent when a real estate contract IS of rccord
111 the office of the county auditor
In code CitIes, RCW 35A 01 040(9)(c) prOVides that the Slgnaturc of thc contract
purchaser, as shown by the records of the county audItor, IS suffICIent (Without
thc sIgnature of hIS or her spouse)
l..t QUESTION Once property owners have SIgned an annexatIOn petItIOn, may they
Withdraw theIr names from It If they change theIr minds?
115
o
o
'-_/
ANSWER Yes. The rule m WashIngton State for most annexatIon pctltIons IS
that names may be wIthdrawn from petItIOns at any time prIOr to the assumptIOn
of JurIsdIctIOn over the petItIOn by the approprIate authorIty It has been hcld
that JUflsdlctIOn IS assumed In the 75% petitIOn mcthod of annexatIOn when the
councIl formally entertalOs the pctltIOn and fIXes a day for the public hearlllg
McAlmond v. Bremerton, 60 Wn.2d 383, 374 P.2d 18} (1962)
A statute governs thIS matter m code cItIes. RCW 35A 01040(4) requires a
certIfIcate be fIled by the offIcer who WIll determme the suffIciency of the
petItIOn ThiS certIfIcate IS to contam the date on which the determinatIon of
the suffIcIency of the petItIOn IS begun ThiS IS known as the "term1l1al date"
SIgnatures may be wIthdrawn by a WrItten request when It IS fIled pnor to the
termmal date The wfltten request must descnbe the petitIOn sufflclcntly so
IdentificatIOn of the person and petItIOn IS certam The name of the person
seekIng to wIthdraw IS to be SIgned exactly the same as conta1l1ed on the
petItIOn
15 QUESTION After property owners wIthdraw theif names from a pctItlOn, may
they change their m1l1ds once more and revoke the wIthdrawal?
ANSWER Yes, as long as they take thIS actIOn before the city has assumcd
JUflsdlctlon over thc petItIOn (McAlmond v. Bremerton, 60 Wn 2d 383, 374 P 2d
181 (1962))
In codc CIties, the actIOn would be requifed to be taken bcfore thc terminal
date, as explamed m the precedIng questIOn
16 QUESTION' May neIghbOrIng landowners, who are located outSIde of both the
anncx1l1g cIty and the area proposed for anncxatlOn partIcIpate III publIc hcaflngs
on annexa tlOn?
ANSWER Yes. The State Supreme Court concluded m Tukwila v. King County,
78 Wn 2d 34, 39, 469 P.2d 878 (1970) that neIghborIng landowners should be
notlflcd of annexations In the general vlcmlty of theIr property and be glvcn a
chancc to appear and be heard
MUNICIPAL PURPOSES METHOD
17 QUESTION Must a cIty own the fee to land that It secks to annex for
muniCIpal purposes under RCW 3513 l80?
ANS\\ER No It IS concluded In an Informal opmlOn of the Attorney Gcneral
da ted Dccember 19, 1968, to Erncst H Campbell, then Associate Dlrcctor of the
Burea u of Governmental Rcsearch and ServIces.
(At P 2) All that IS requifcd, m our opmIOn, IS that the
City, In good faith, mtend to use the land, wlthm a reasonable
tIme after the annexatIOn takes place, for the park, cemetery,
or othcr munICIpal purpose speCIfied In the annexatIOn
ordmancc In order to make such use of the land, It will
116
o 0
ANNEXA TION CHECKLIST '-../'
Code CItIes
75% PetItIOn Method
See Chapter VII, SectIon III, for detaIled explanatIOn and statutory reference for each
step
ActIOn
Date Comoleted
NotIce of m ten t fIled (sIgned by persons
representmg owners of not less than 10%
of assessed value)
0-' (~ ~c;1)
~/ 13~ 1 0
2
SIgnatures certIfIed as suffICient
3 SEPA complIance (see local ordinance & SEPA
Rules)
EnvIronmental checklIst fIled
Threshold determmatIOn made
NegatIve declaration procedures
or
EnvIronmental impact statement
procedures
4 Date set by city councIl for meeting with mltJating
partIes (wlthm 60 days of fIling of petition)
5 Meetmg held and councIl actIon on
Whether to accept proposed annexatIOn? _
Whether sImultaneou-s adoptIOn of zonmg
regulation requIred? --=--
Whether assumptIOn of mdebtedness requIred? _
CouncIl actIOn recorded In councIl mmutes
6 NotIce of intention filed WIth boundary review board
(whcre applicable) utdlzmg Its procedures
7 Legally suffICIent petItion of 75% of valuatIOn
filcd
8 Commencement of determmatlon of suffICIency of
petItIOn (WIthIn 3 workmg days after fIlIng) and
fIlIng WIth CIty councIl a certIfIcate coptammg
thiS date
188
o
"-----
9
SIgnatures certIfIed as suffICIent
]0 Date set by CIty councIl for publIc hearIng
II NotIce of hearIng
SubmItted to newspaper
PublIshed - one or more Issues of newspaper
AffIdavIt of publIcatIOn receIved
Posted In 3 publIc places withlO area proposed
for annexatIOn
Actual notIce (optIOnal) to
PetItIOners
Other property owners
NClghbors
12 HearIng held and council action
Approved as proposed? _
Apnroved portion of proposal? _
Disapproved? _
13 AnnexatIOn Ordll1ance No
Presented to councIl
Adopted
Either'
SubmItted for publIcatIOn
PublIshed
AffIdavIt of publIcatIOn receIved
14 EffectIve date of annexatIOn (as fIXed In ordll1ance)
15 Three copIes of ordll1ance and map fIled WIth county
legIslative authOrIty (NotIce to county audItor,
assessor and other offIcers requestll1g notIce where
county legIslatIve authorIty may not readIly
forward ll1fOrmatIOn )
16 CertIfIcate of annexatIOn fIled WIth state OffIce
of Fll1anclal Management (as soon as possIble, not
later than 30 days of effectIve date of annexatIOn)
17 Notice to
Washll1gton State Departmcnt of Revcnue
U.S. Burea u of Census (optiona I)
CIty dcpartments
PubliC works
Fire
Police
Park and recreatIOn
Other
189
o
TOmCAL RULES FOR PETITIOND
APPLICABLE TO CODE CITIES
"
35A.0 1 040 Sufficiency of petition. Wherever In thIs
tItle petitions are required to be signed and tiled, the
~ follOWing rules shall govern the suffiCiency thereof
(I) A petition may Include any page or group of pages
contalOlng an Identical text or prayer Intended by the
circulators, signers or sponsors to be presented and con-
Sidered as one petlllon and containIng the follOWing es-
sential elements when applIcable, except that the
elements referred to 10 subdiVIsions (d) and (e) hereof
are essentl:d for petitIons refernng or initiating legisla-
tive matters to the voters but are directory as to other
petl tlOns
(;1) The te;~t or prJyer of the petition whIch shall be a
concise stJtement uf the actIon or rchef sought by
petitioners
(b) If the petition Initiates or refers an ordinance, a
true copy thereof.
(c) If the petition seeks the anneXJtlOn, IncorporatIon,
wlthdrJwaJ, or reduction of an area for any purpose, an
Jccur:lte legal descn ptlon of the area proposed for such
actIOn
(d) Numbered hnes for signatures With space provided
beSide each signature for the date of signIng and the ad-
dress of the sIgner;
(e) The warning statement prescnbed 10 subsectIon
(2) of thiS sectIon.
(2) Petitions shall be pnnted or typed on Single sheets
of while paper of good qualllY and each sheet of petition
paper haVIng a space thereon for sIgnatures shall contain
the text or prayer of the petlllOn and the follOWIng
warning
WARNING
Everv person who signs thiS petlllon WIth any other
than hiS true name, or who knOWIngly slgn~ more
than one of these petitions, or sIgns a petItIOn seek-
Ing an election when he IS not a legal voter, or signs
J petItlon when he 1S otherWIse not quaJtlied to sIgn,
or who makes herem any false statement, shall be
gudty of a misdemeanor .
E:!ch slgnJture shJIl be executed In mk or Indelible
pencd Jnd shJIl be followed by the date of signing and
the address of the signer
lJ) The term 'slgner' means any person who signs hiS
0" n name to the petitIOn
190
(4) To be suffiCient a petItion must contaIn valtd sig-
natures of qualtfied electors or property owners, as the
case may be, 10 the number reqUired by the applIcable
statute or ordlOance. Withll1 three workIng days after
the filing of a petitIOn, the officer or officers whose duty
it IS to determIne the suffiCiency of the petition shall
proceed to make such a determination with reasonable
promptness and shall file With the officer receiving the
petltlon for filIng a certIficate statIng the date upon
which such determll1atlon was begun, whIch date shall
be referred to as the terminal date. AddJtlOnaJ pages of
one or more signatures ma) be added to the pellllon by
filIng the same with the appropnate filIng officer pnor
to such terminal date. Any sIgner of a filed petitIOn may
withdraw hiS or her signature by a wntten request for
Withdrawal filed with the receivIng officer pnor to such
termInal date. Such written request shall so suffiCiently
descnbe the petition as to make IdentlficallOn of the
person and the petltlon certain The name of any person
seeking to withdraw shall be Signed exactly the same JS
contained on the petltlon and, after the filing of such re-
quest for WIthdrawal, prior to the termInal date, the sig-
nature of any person seeking such WIthdrawal shall be
deemed withdrawn
(5) Petitions containing the reqUired number of signa-
tures shall be Jcccpted as prim:! faCie valid until their
invalidity has been proved
(6) A varl:llIon on petitIOns between the signatures on
the petitIon and that on the voter's permanent reglstra-
tlOn caused by the substitutIon of Initials Instead of the
first or middle names, or both, shall not Invalld:J.te the
signature on the petitIon If the surname and handWrIting
are the same.
(7) Signatures, Including the onglnal. of any person
who has SIgned a petitIOn two or more times shall be
stncken.
(8) Slgnatur.es followed by a date of signing which IS
more than SIX months pnor to the date of fillllg of the
petltlOn shall be stricken
(9) When petitions are reqUired to be Signed by the
owners of property. the follOWing shall apply'
(a) The signature of a record owner, as determll1l:d by
the records of the county auditor, sh::LiI be suffj';l<:nt
Without the slgn:lture of hiS or her spouse'
(b) In the case of mortgaged property, the signature
of the mortgagor shall be suffiCient Without the signa-
ture of hiS or her spouse,
(c) In the case of property purchased on contract, the
signature of the contract purchaser, as shown by the re-
cords of the county auditor, shJll be deemed suffiCient,
without the signature of hiS or her spouse;
(d) Any of{jcer of a corporation owning land wllhln
the area Involved who IS duly authonzed to execute
deeds or encumbrances on behalf of the corporatIOn
may sign on behalf of such corporation, and shalt att:1ch
to the petitIon a certified excerpt from the by/a ws of
such corporation shOWing such authOrity;
(e) When property stands In the name of a deceased
person or any person for whom a guardian has been ap-
pOinted, the signature of the executor, administrator, or
guardian, as the case may be, shall be eqUivalent to the
signature of the owner of the property (1985 c 23 I S 26.
1967 ex.s. c 119 S 35A.Ol 040 ]
\.J
35A.14.100
OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL PLAN
property in the annexed area shall be subjoct to the proposed
zoning regulation, as prepared and filed as provided for in RCW
3SA.14.330 and 3SA.14.34O All property within the territor)' hereaf.
ter annexed shall, if the proposition approved by the people 50
provides, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same
basis as the property of such annexing city is assessed and taxed to
pay for the portion of indebtedness of the city that was approved by
the voters.
Amended by LawS 1979. Ex.Sess., ch. 124. 9 7
Historical and Statutory Notes
SeverablUty-Laws 1979, Ex.Sells..
ch. 124: See Historical Note following
9 3SA.14.01S
35A.14.110. Election method is alternative
Tbe method of annexation provided for in RCW 3SA.14.0IS
through 3SA.14 100 is an alternative method and is additional to the
other methods provided for in this chapter
35 A.14.120. Direct petition method-Notice to legislative
body_Meeting-Assumption of indebtedness-
Proposed zoning regulatlon-Contents of peti-
tion
Proceedings for initiating annexation of unincorporated territory
to a charter code city or noncharter code city may be commenced
by the filiog of a petition of property owners of the territory
proposed to be annexed, in the following manner This methOd of
annexation shall be alternative to other methods provided in this
chapter prior to the circulation of a petition for annexation, the
initiating party or parties, who shall be the owners of not less than
ten percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general
taxation of the property for which annexation is sought, shall notify
the legislative body of the code city in writing of their intention to
commence annexation proceedings. The legislative bndy shall set a
date, nnt later than sixty days after the filing of the request, for a
meeting with the initiating parties to determine whether the code
city will accept, rej eel , or geographicallY modify the proposed
annexation, whether it shall require the simultaneous adoption nf a
proposed zoning regulation, if such a proposal has been prepared
and filed for the area to be annexed as provided for in RCW
3SA.14.330 and 3SA.14.340, and whether it shall require the assump'
tion of all or of any portion of existing city indehtedness by the area
to he annexed. If the legislative body requires the assumption of all
" __., ",nrtion of indebtedness and/or the adoption of a pro-
~ .
,:);Jrs.. & .. --
ANNEXATION BY CODE CITIES
posed zoning regulation, it shall record this aelion in its mmutes
and the petition for annexation shall be 50 drawn as to clearly
indicate these faels. APproval by the legislative body shall be a
condition precedent to circulation of the petitioo. There shall be
no appeal from the decision of the \egislaUve body A. petition for
annexation of an area contiguous to a code city may be filed with
the legislative body of the municipality to which annexation is
desired. It must be signed by the owners, as defined by RCW
3SA.01 04O(9)(a) through (d), of not less than sixty percent in value.
according to the assessed valuation for general taxatwn of tbe
property for which annexation ,s petitioned. Provided, That a
petition for annexation of an area having at least eighty percent of
the boundaries of such area contiguOUS with a portion of the
boundaries of the code city, not including that poruon of the
boundary of the area proposed to be annexed that is coterminouS
with a portion of the boundary between twO counties in this state,
need be signed by only the owners of not \ess than fifty percent m
value according to the assessed valuation for general taxatIOn of the
property for which the annexatIOn is pentiOned. Such pention shaH
set forth a description of the property according to government
legal subdivisions or legal plats and shall be accompanied b, a mao
which outlines the boundaries of the property sought to be anne,cd.
If the leg"lative body has required the assumption of aU or any
portion of city indebtedness by the area annexed or the adOPtlon of
a proposed zoning regulation, these facts, together wrth a quotatlon
of the minute entry of such rcqurrement, or requrrcments, shall also
be set forth in the petition.
Amended by Laws t979, 1'.x.Se55., ch. [24. S 8, LaWS 1989, ch. 3St S 6
Historical and StatutOry Notes
severability-LawS 1979. Ex.Sess.,
ch. 124: See Historical Note following
9 35A.14.015.
35A.14.130. Direct petition metho~Notice of hearing
Wbenever such a petition for annexatiOn is filed with the legisla.
tive body of a code city, wbich petition meets the requirements
herein specified and is sufficient accordi"g to the rules set forth in
RCW 3SA.Ol 040, the legislative body may entertain tbc same, fix a
date for a public hearing thereon and cause notice of the hearing to
be published in one or more issues of a newspaper of general
circulation in the city The notice shall also be posted in thre,
public places within the territory proposed for annexation, an'
shaU specify the time and place of hearing and invite intereste'
8S
35A.14.130
OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL PLAN
persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval of the annexa-
tion.
35A.14.140. Direct petition method-Ordinance providing for
annexation
Following the hearing, if the legislative body determines to effect
the annexation, they shall do so by ordinance. Subject to RCW
35 02.170, the ordinance may annex all or any portion of the
proposed area but may not include in the annexation any property
not described in the petition. Upon passage of the annexatio.n
ordinance a certified copy shall be filed with the board of county
commissioners of the county in which the annexed property is
located.
Amended by Laws 1975, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 220, 9 16; Laws 1986, ch. 234,
9 31, eff. April 3, 1986.
Historical and Statutory Notes
Legislative finding, intent-Laws
1975, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 220: See Histori.
cal Note following S 35.02.170.
35A.14.150. Direct petition method-Effective date of annexa-
tion
Upon the date fixed in the ordinance of annexation the area
annexed shall become part of the city All property within the
terntory hereafter annexed shall, If the annexation petition so
provided, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same
baSIS as the property of such annexing code city is assessed and
taxed to pay for the portion of any then-outstanding mdebtedness of
the City to which said area is annexed, which indebtedness has been
approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to, or
existing at, the date of annexation and that the city has required to
be assumed. If the annexation petition so provided, all property in
the annexed area shall be subject to and a part of the proposed
zoning regulation as prepared and filed as provided for in RCW
35A.14 330 and 35A.14.340
Amended by Laws 1979, Ex.Sess., ch. 124, 9 9
Historical and Statutory Notes
Severabllity-Laws 1979, Ex.Sess.,
ch. 124 See Historical Note following
S 35A.14.015.
35A.14.160. Annexation review board-Composition
There is hereby established in each county of the state, other than
counties having a boundary review board as provided for in chapter
86
~: ANNEXATION BY CODE CITIES
~
1
35A.14.1bO
189, Laws of 1967 [chapter 36 93 RCW], a boarrl. to be known as the
"annexation review board for the county of (naming the
county)", which shall be charged WIth the duty of reviewing propos-
als for annexation of unincorporated territory to charter code cities
and noncharter code cities within its respective county; except that
proposals within the provisions of RCW 35A.14.220 shall not be
subject to the jurisdiction of such board.
In all counties in which a boundary review board is established
pursuant to chapter 189, Laws of 1967 [chapter 3693 RCW] r.eview
of proposals for annexation of unincorporated territory to charter
code cities and noncharter code cities WIthin such counties shall be
subject to chapter 189, Laws of 1967 [chapter 3693 RCW] When-
ever any county establishes a boundary review board pursuant to
chapter 189, Laws of 1967 [chapter 3693 RCW] the proviSIOns of
this act relating to annexation review boards shall not be applIca-
ble.
Except as provided above in this section. whenever one or more
cities of a county shall have elected to be governed by this title by
becoming a charter code city or noncharter code city, the governor
shall, within forty-five days thereafter, appoint an annexation re-
view board for such county consisting of five members appomted in
the following manner'
Two members shall be selected mdependently by the governor
Three members shall be selected by the governor from the follo\\-
ing sources: (1) One member shall be appointed from nominees of
the individual members of the board of county commissioners; (2)
one member shall be appointed from nominees of the individual
mayors of charter code cities within such county; (3) one member
shall be appointed from nominees of the individual mayors of
noncharter code cities within such county
Each source shall nominate at least two persons for an available
position. In the event there are less than two nominees for any
position, the governor may appoint the member for that position
independently If, at the time of appointment, there are within the
county no cities of one of the classes named above as a nominating
source, a position which would otherwise have been filled by
nomination from such source shall be filled by independent ap-
pointment of the governor
In making appointments independently and in making appoint-
ments from among nominees, the governor shall strive to appoint
persons familiar with municipal government and administration by
experience and/or training.
Amended by Laws 1971, Ex.Sess., ch. 251, 9 8, eff May 20, 1971
87
OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL PLAN
35A.14.160
Historical and Statutory Notes
Severability-Laws 1971. Ex.Sess..
ch.251 S 3SA.90.050.
35A.14.170. Time for flUng nominations-Vacancies
Upon the initial formation of a county annexation review board
the governor shail give written notice of such formation to all the
nominating sources designated therein and nominations must be
filed with the office of the governor w,thin fifteen days after receipt
of such nohce. Nommations to fill vacancies caused by expiration
of terms must be filed at least thirty days precedmg the expiration
of the terms. When vacancies occur in the memhership of the
board. the governor shall sohcit nominations from the appropriate
source and if none are filed withm fifteen days thereafter. the
governor shall fill the vacancy by an independent appointment.
35A.14.180. Terms of members
The members of the annexation review board shall be appointed
for five year terms. Upon the initial formation of a board. one
member appointed by the governor mdependently shall be appoint.
ed for a four year term. the member appomted from among
nominees of the board of county commissioners shall be appointed
for a three year term, the member appointed from among nominees
of the mayors of noncharter code cities shall be appointed for a
three year term. and the remaining members shall be appointed for
five year terms. Thereafter board members shall be appointed for
five year terms as the terms of their predecessors expire. Members
shall be elipblc for reappointment to the board for successive
terms.
35A.14.190. Organization of annexation review board-
Rules_Journal-Authority
The members of each annexation review board shall elect from
among the members a chairman and a vice chairman. and may
employ a nonmember as chief clerk. who shall be the secretary of
the board. The board shall determine its own rules and order of
business. shall provide by resolution for the time and manner of
holding regular or special meetings. and shall keep a journal of its
proceedings which shall be a public record. A majority of all the
members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
The chief clerk of the board. the chairman. or the vice chairman
shall have the power to administer oaths and affirmations. certify
to all official acts. issue subpoenas to any public officer or employ'
.. nrdering him to testify before the board and produce public
88
ANNEXATION BY CODE C1TI.b~
records. papers. books or documents. The chief clerk. the chair.
man or the vice chairman may invoke the aid of any court of
competent jurisdiction to carry out such powers.
The planning departments of the county. othcr counties. and anl
city. and any state or regional planning agency shall furnish such
information to the board at its request as may be reasonably
necessary for the performance of its duties.
At the request of the board. the state attorney general shall
provide counsel for the board.
35A.14.200. Determination by county annexation revlew
board-Factors considered-Filing of findings
and decision
The jurisdiction of the county annexation review board shall be
invoked upon the filing with the board of a resoiution for an
annexation election as provided in RCW 35A.14 015. or of a pentiOn
for an annexation election as prnvided ,n RCW 35A.14030. and the
board shall proceed to hold a hearing. upon nOlice. all as prov>ded
in RCW 35A.14040 A verbatim record shall be made of all
testimony presented at the hearing and upon request and paymen,
of the reasonable costs thereof. a copy of the transcript of suce
testimony shall be provided to any persun or governmental un>'.
The board shall make and file its deci"on. all as provided 10 RC\\
35A.l4.050. insofar as said section is applicable to the matter beW'
the board. Dissenting members of the board shall have the right to
have their written dissents included as part of the decision. In
reaching a decision on att annexation proposal. the county attnexa
tion review board shall consider the factors affecting such proposal.
which shallmclude but not be limited to the following:
(I) The immediate attd prospective population of the area pro'
posed to be annexed. the configuratiott of the area. land use and
land uses. comprehettsive use plans and zoning. per capita assessed
valuatIOn, topograpby. natttral boundaries and drainage basins. the
likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorpo
rated and unincorporated areas durittg the next ten years. locatior
and coordittation of community facilities and services; and
(2) The need for municipal services and the available municiP'
services. effect of ordinances attd gnverttmental codes. regulatiol
and resolutions on existing uses. present cost and adequac) ,
goverttmental services and controls. the probable future needs f
such services and controls. the probable effect of the attnexati'
proposal or alternatives on cost and adeqnacy of services a
cotttrols in area and adjacettt area. the effect on the finances. d,
89
\1UNICIPAL CODE
! in any way to limit
I this title, and any
onstrued as in addi-
cd in general terms
r to municipalities
It this title, whether
!IS, shall be liberally
.:pealed; hence, as code
'ay contract for garbage
it restrictions unless pre-
"onstitution, general law
Shaw Disposal, Inc. v
, 15 Wash,App. 65, 546
city, operating under Op-
d Code, to provide as part
cating local improvement
ollection of assessments
may be deferred for eco-
lvantaged property own-
,11 ~ 35.43.250. 1974 Op.
'ode city to sell real prop-
;king for bids. 1974 Op.
.:5.
\opulation, which has
city, subject to the
lOicipality which has
title, to be classified
led according to the
lIal forms of govern-
thousand inhabitants
on which has either
and has adopted a
:itle; or which, as an
assified as a charter
rovisions of this title
INTERPRETATION OF TERMS
UUli ~ ~Or)
?et hOY) -:--
~+v
Jftt\ rV s Su
c~~ue s
Lul~~
351
35A.01.035. Code city
The term "code city" means any non charter code city 0
code city
35A.01.040. Sufficiency of petition
Wherever in this title petitions are required to be signed c
the following rules shall govern the sufficiency thereof-
(1) A petition may include any page or group of pages containing
an identical text or prayer intended, by the circulators, signers or
sponsors to be presented and considered as one petition and con-
taining the following essential elements when applicable, except
that the elements referred to in subdivisions (d) and (e) hereof are
essential for petitions referring or initiating legislative matters to
the voters, but are directory as to other petitions:
0"" (a) The text or - prayer of the petition which shall be a concise
statement of the action or relief sought by petitioners;
(\~ (b) If the petition initiates or refers an ordinance, a true copy
thereof;
01<- (c) If the petition seeks the annexation, incorporation, withdraw-
al, or reduction of an area for any purpose, an accurate legal
description of the area proposed for such action,
o~ ~(d) Numbered lines for signatures with space provided beside
~ each signature for the date of signing and the address of the signer;
L (e) The warning statement prescribed in subsection (2) of this
section.
r!) I, (2) Petitions shall be printed or typed on single sheets of white
f\paper of good quality and each sheet of petition paper having a
space thereon for signatures shall contain the text or prayer of the
petition and the following warning: ·
WARNING
Every person who signs this petition with any other than
his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of
these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when
he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is
otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any
false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
Each SIgnature shall be executed in ink or indelible pencil and
shall be followed by the date of signing and the address of the
signer
(3) The term "signer" means any person who signs his own name
to the petition.
5
o
o
35A.Ol.040
OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL CODE
I'
(4) To be sufficient a petition must contain valid signatures of
qualified electors or property owners, as the case may be, in the
number required by the applicable statute or ordinance. Within
three working days after the filing of a petition, the officer or
officers whose duty it is to determine the sufficiency of the petition
shall proceed to make such a determination with reasonable
promptness and shall file with the officer receiving the petition for
filing a certificate stating the date upon which such determination
was begun, which date shall be referred to as the term mal date.
Additional pages of one or more signatures may be added to the
petition by filing the same with the appropriate filing officer prior
to such terminal date. Any signer of a filed petition may WIthdraw
his or her signature by a written request for withdrawal filed with
the receiving officer prior to such terminal date. Such written
request shall so sufficiently describe the petition as to make identifi-
cation of the person and the petition certain. The name of any
person seeking to withdraw shall be signed exactly the same as
contained on the petition and, after the filing of such request for
withdrawal, prior to the terminal date, the signature of any person
seeking such withdrawal shall be deemed withdrawn.
(5) Petitions containing the required number of signatures shall
be accepted as prima facie valid until their invalidity has been
proved.
(6) A variation on petitions between the signatures on the petition
and that on the voter's permanent registration caused by the substi-
tution of initials instead of the first or middle names, or both, shall
not invalidate the signature on the petItion if the surname and
handwriting are the same.
(7) Signatures, including the original, of any person who has
signed a petition two or more times shall be stricken.
(8) Signatures followed by a date of signing which is more than
six months prior to the date of filing of the petition shall be
stricken.
(9) When petitions are required to be signed by the owners of
property, the following shall apply'
(a) The signature of a record owner, as determined by the
records of the county auditor, shall be sufficient without the signa-
ture of his or her spouse;
(b) In the case of mortgaged property, the signature of the mort-
gagor shall be sufficient, without the signature of his or her spouse;
(c) In the case of property purchased on contract, the signature
of the contract purchaser, as shown by the records of the county
6
INTERPRETATION OF TE
auditor, shall be deemed sufi
her spouse;
(d) Any officer of a corp'
involved who is duly authOr!
on behalf of the corporation
tion, and shall attach to the
bylaws of such corporation ~
(e) When property stands
any person for whom a guar
of the executor, administrat
shall be equivalent to the si
Amended by Laws 1985, ch. 28
Historical
Severability-Laws 1985, ch. 281
~ 35.10.905.
35A.01.050. The general
For the purposes of this
law" means any provision (
title, enacted before or after
its terms applicable or avail~
expressly provided to the c(
nicipal code reference is m:
provisions of the Revised C
general law, or such sped'
Washington as now enact<
amended"
35A.01.060. Optional m
References contained in I
"this title", "this code" or to
sion thereof shall refer to th
RCW, as now or hereafter;
35A.01.070. Definitions-
municipa
Where used in this title \'
by this title in regard to
government, unless a diffe]
context:
(1) "Classify" means a cl1
third class, or a town, to a
lNAL MUNICIPAL CODE
ontain valid signatures of
, the case may be, in the
.Ite or ordinance. Within
a petition, the officer or
sufficiency of the petition
Ilination with reasonable
receiving the petition for
which such determination
I to as the terminal date.
! res may be added to the
Ipriate filing officer prior
:~d petition may withdraw
for withdrawal filed with
mal date. Such written
tltion as to make identifi-
rtain. The name of any
ned exactly the same as
,ding of such request for
, signature of any person
withdrawn.
mber of signatures shall
heir invalidity has been
ignatures on the petition
Jon caused by the substi-
jle names, or both, shall
Ion if the surname and
i
.f any person who has
le stricken.
mg which is more than
I. the petition shall be
!~ned by the owners of
IS determined by the
ient without the signa-
signature of the mort-
e of his or her Spouse;
~ontract, the signature
records of the county
INTERPRETATION OF TERMS
35A.01.070
"-ft'
~() i YJ.X,U~on
~
lt1, ~ak.
t~&;~
~
i
1
auditor, shall be deemed sufficient, without the signature of his or
her spouse;
(d) Any officer of a corporation owning land within the area
involved who is duly authorized to execute deeds or encumbrances
on behalf of the corporation, may sign on behalf of such corpora-
tion, and shall attach to the petition a certified excerpt from the
bylaws of such corporation showing such authority;
(e) When property stands in the name of a deceased person or
any person for whom a guardian has been appointed, the signature
of the executor, administrator, or guardian, as the case may be,
shall be equivalent to the signature of the owner of the property
Amended by Laws 1985, eh. 281, 9 26, eff May 13, 1985.
Historical and Statutory Notes
Severability-Laws 1985, ch. 281 See
~ 35.10.905.
35A.01.050. The general law
For the purposes of this optional municipal code, "the general
law" means any provision of state law, not inconsistent with this
title, enacted before or after the enactment of this title, which is by
its terms applicable or available to all cities or towns. Except when
expressly provided to the contrary, whenever in this optional mu-
nicipal code reference is made to "the general law", or to specific
provisions of the Revised Code of Washington, it shall mean "the
general law, or such specific provisions of the Revised Code of
Washington as now enacted or as the same may hereafter be
amen,ded"
35A.01.060. Optional municipal code-This title
References contained in this title to "Optional Municipal Code",
"this title", "this code" or to any specific chapter, section, or provi-
sion thereof shall refer to the whole or appropriate part of Title 3SA
RCW, as now or hereafter amended.
35A.01.070. Definitions-Change of plan or classification of
municipal government
Where used in this title with reference to procedures established
by this title in regard to a change of plan or classification of
government, unless a different meaning is plainly required by the
context:
(1) "Classify" means a change from a city of the first, second, or
third class, or a town, to a code city
7
a.pPEAL.
Aug. 1962]
McALMOND v BREMERTON
383
[60 Wn. (2d)'
leen "specially benefited"
on of fact. In re Jones, 52
259 (1958), Hargreaves v
2d) 326, 333, 261 P (2d)
property owned by the state should be ratified and con-
firmed.
The judgment is affimed.1
FINLEY, C. J., DONWORTH, ROSELLINI, and HAMILTON, JJ.,
concur
Wash. 472, 475, 161 Pac.
pon questions of this ehar-
1ce is not sufficient to jus-
, and that the order of the
m of the eminent domain
2d except in cases of fraud
. ,
luntmg to an abuse of dis-
mdamentally wrong basis,
the evidence. . "
'ourt resolved the question
finding of fact No. VI
. the State of Washington
ntial amount through the
ter mains and use has been
e construction of the high-
Oth Streets in the City of
, are available for future
lr cleaning streets and for
i by the State of Washing-
er be used by the State of
lction or facilities that may
ween South 64th and 70th
(No. 36324. Department One. August 16, 1962.]
HUGH Me ALMoND et al., Appellants, v THE CITY OF
BREMERTON, Respondent. *
[1] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-ANNEXATION OF TERRITORy-PROCEEDINGS
-PETITION-DESCRIPTION OF LAND. The description of land in an
annexation petition by which a competent surveyor could survey
the property with the aid of a map contained in the petition, was
held to be sufficiently definite.
[2] APPEAL AND ERROR-REVIEW-FINDINGS. The Supreme Court will
not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.
[3] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-ANNEXATION OF TERRITORy-PROCEEDINGS
-PETITION-WITHDRAWAL OF SIGNATURES-REVOCATION The rule
that signatures to annexation petitions may be withdrawn at any
time prior to the assumption of jurisdiction over the petitions by the
appropriate authority, also applies to the revocation of withdrawals.
[4] SAME-JURISDICTION OVER PETITION-WHEN ATTACHES. Under RCW
35.13.140, the jurisdiction of a city over an annexation petition does
not attach until the petition is formally entertained and the day
fixed for public hearing thereon.
[5] SAME-VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGs--STATUTORY COMPLIANCE. Where
an annexation proceeding had been commenced prior to the effective
date of an amendment to the applicable statute, held that the failure
to comply strictly with the new requirement did not invalidate the
proceedings, where the requirements of the new statute had been
met in substance and no prejudice appeared, since to require the
whole matter to be done again, under the circumstances of the
particular case, would be requiring a useless act.
Des not claim "fraud, mis-
ting to an abuse of discre-
e finding of fact is "based
lis." No assignment of error
lding of fact that the state's
by the local improvement
he case. Rule on Appeal 43,
~remlm, 59 Wn. (2d) 140,
"'Reported in 374 P (2d) 181
[4J See Am. Jur., Municipal Corporations ~ 31.
'RCW 79.44.160 provides that the state highway commission may
order payment of local improvement assessments from the motor vehicle
fund. The relationship, if any, between the statute and Art. 2, ~ 40
(amendment 18) of the state constitution was not presented in the
instant case, hence, the court expresses no opinion thereon. "Con-
stitutional issues not presented to or considered by the trial court will
not be considered on appeal." Long v Odell, ante p. 151, 372 P (2d) 548
(1962)
supports Its conclusion of
1t assessment against the
, ,
,I
il
/1
/ I
I
!
i
!
I
I
i
I
,
i
i
.,
i-
,
I. '
L
I:
j ~
i
I
,
I.
I I
1
I)
Ii,
Ii
1
Ii
"
\1
.1
Ii
)1
\\
I.
I'
I
~
382
IN RE STATE'S APPEAL.
[60 Wn. (2d)
I
,
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
j
j
I
J
't
I
j
!
I
I
i
II
'I'
r
[2] Whether property has been "specially benefited"
by local improvement is a question of fact. In re Jones, 52
Wn. (2d) 143, 146, 324 P (2d) 259 (1958), Hargreaves v
Mukilteo Water Dist., 43 Wn. (2d) 326, 333, 261 P (2d)
122 (1953)
In In re Western Avenue, 93 Wash. 472, 475, 161 Pac.
381 (1916), we said
" This court has held upon questions of this char-
acter that a conflict in the evidence is not sufficient to jus-
tify a reversal of the lower court, and that the order of the
lower court confirming the action of the eminent domain
commissioners will not be reversed except in cases of fraud,
mistake, or arbitrary action amounting to an abuse of dis-
cretion, or when based upon a fundamentally wrong basis,
which must clearly appear from the evidence. "
After trial on the merits, the court resolved the question
of special benefits and entered finding of fact No. VI
"That the property owned by the State of Washington
has been benefitted in a substantial amount through the
installation of these cast iron water mains and use has been
made of this water facility in the construction of the high-
way between South 64th and 70th Streets in the City of
Tacoma, that said water mains are available for future
constructlOn of this highway, for cleaning streets and for
landscaping said property owned by the State of Washing-
ton, and these mains may further be used by the State of
Washington for any new construction or facilities that may
be placed along the freeway between South 64th and 70th
Streets in the City of Tacoma."
[3] The state (appellant) does not claim "fraud, mis-
take, or arbitrary action amounting to an abuse of discre-
tion," nor does it claim that the finding of fact is "based
upon a fundamentally wrong basis." No assignment of error
having been directed to it, the finding of fact that the state's
property is specially benefited by the local improvement
becomes the established fact of the case. Rule on Appeal 43,
RCW Vol. 0 See TremIin v Tremhn, 59 Wn. (2d) 140,
367 P. (2d) 150 (1961)
The finding of the trial court supports its conclusion of
law that the local improvement assessment against the
Aug. 1962]
McALMOND v BR
property owned by the state 511
firmed.
The judgment is affimed.1
FINLEY, C. J., DONWORTH, Ros!
concur
[No. 36324. Department On
HUGH McALMOND et al., App
BREMERTON, Res
[1] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-ANNEXA~
-PETITION-DESCRIPTION OF LAND.
annexation petition by which a co
the property with the aid of a mal
held to be sufficiently definite.
[2) APPEAL AND ERROR-REVIEw-FIND
not substitute its judgment for tha
[3] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-ANNEXA
-PETITION-WITHDRAWAL OF SIG:!i
that signatures to annexation peti'
time prior to the assumption of juri
appropriate authority, also applies
[4] SAME-JURISDICTION OVER PETITIm
35.13.140, the jurisdiction of a city
not attach until the petition is fc
fixed for public hearing thereon.
[5] SAME- V ALInITY OF PROCEEDINGS-
an annexation proceeding had beer
date of an amendment to the applir
to comply strictly with the new rl
proceedings, where the requiremE
met in substance and no prejudic
whole matter to be done again,
partiCUlar case, would be requirit
"'Reported in 374 P (2d) 181
[4] See Am. JUL, Municipal Corpo:
'RCW 7944.160 provides that th
order payment of local improvement ~
fund. The relationship, if any, betv
(amendment 18) of the state canst
instant case, hence, the court expr
stitutional issues not presented to .~r
not be considered on appeal." Long v
(1962)
384
McALMOND v BREMERTON
[60 Wn. (2d)
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap
County, No. 41115, Oluf Johnsen, J, entered November 6
,
1961. Affirmed.
Action for injunctive relief. Plaintiff appeals from a judg-
men t of dismissal.
Perrine & Thompson, by Donald H Thompson, for appel-
lants.
Roy A. Holland, for respondent.
FOSTER, J -Plaintiffs appeal from a Judgment dismissing
an action to enjoin the respondent (defendant) from pro-
ceeding with the annexation of appellants' lands.
Appellants' five assigned errors relate to findings of fact.
We find no error The annexation proceedings are valid.
We affirm.
[1] Appellants rely on Fosburgh v Sando, 24 Wn. (2d)
586, 166 P (2d) 850, in support of their position that "north-
erly" and "easterly" indicate only general directions. That
case dealt with the validity of a real-estate contract under
the statute of frauds, while here we consider only what
governmental agency will have control over the specified
area. However, a description by which a competent sur-
veyor, either with or without the aid of extrinsic evidence,
can ascertain the property in question is sufficiently definite.
Booten v Peterson, 34 Wn. (2d) 563,209 P (2d) 349, Dixon
v Bremerton, 25 Wn. (2d) 508, 171 P (2d) 243
[2] Appellants' expert testified that the terms were, in
fact, indefinite and ambiguous, but respondent's city en-
gineer, whose qualifications as a surveyor are unquestioned,
testified that he could survey the property from the de-
scription and the accompanying map contained in the peti-
tion. The court's decision was based on evidence contained
in the record, and we will not substitute our judgment.
Thorndike v Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn. (2d) 570,
343 P (2d) 183.
Appellants next contend that the petition eontains an
insufficient number of signatures for two reasons. (1) In
two instances, the signatures of a husband and wife were
affixed as "John and Mary Doe." The appellant urges that
Aug. 1962]
McALMOND v BRE:!'
RCW 35 13 130 requires signatures
auditor's records, that is, two se
Doe, Mary Doe The statute, howe
Further, the record shows conch
signed the petitlon.
(2) Appellants urge that the ]
the petition is insufficient becausE
drawn their signatures from the
revocation was attempted, respol
jurisdiction which invalidated the
were made July 12, 1961 It is aF
the certification of the petition V\
engineer on June 20, 1961, in con
tion of a separate and unrelated
would make the property here in
city), the city assumed junsdicti
time. The record establishes th
statutory public hearing was set
[3] State ex reL Mohr v Sea
309, and subsequent eases decid
tions such as recall and annex
, ,
at any time prior to the assumpt:
petition by the appropriate authc
to revocations of withdrawals.
[4] By the terms of RCW
of the respondent city on the a
attach until it was formally entl
fixed as the day on which it wou
"'Whenever a petition for annexat
council or commission in those citie
govern~ent, which meets the require
fact satisfactory proof may be requirE
the council or commission may entertai
hearing thereon and cause notice of tl
issue of a newspaper of general circl
notice shall also be posted in three I
proposed for annexation, and shall spe
and invite interested persons to appear
of the annexation. The expense of pu
shall be borne by the signers of thE
13-60 Wn. (2d)
v BREMER TON
[60 Wn. (2d)
f the Superior Court for Kitsap
lUsen, J, entered November 6
,
f. Plaintiff appeals from a judg-
)onald H Thompson, for appel-
ndent.
~al from a j udgmen t dismissing
londent (defendant) from pro-
of appellants' lands.
errors relate to findings of fact.
lexation proceedings are valid.
~osburgh v Sando, 24 Wn. (2d)
ort of their position that "north-
,e only general directions. That
of a real-estate contract under
e here we consider only what
have eontrol over the specified
m by which a competent sur-
lt the aid of extrinsic evidence
,
1 question is sufficiently definite.
(2d) 563,209 P (2d) 349, Dixon
508, 171 P (2d) 243
,estified that the terms were in
,
lOuS, but respondent's city en-
as a surveyor are unquestioned,
vey the property from the de-
ying map contained in the peti-
'as based on evidence contained
1 not substitute our judgment,
.chards, Inc., 54 Wn. (2d) 570,
that the petition contains an
atures for two reasons. (1) In
es of a husband and wIfe were
Doe." The appellant urges that
Aug. 1962]
McALMOND v BREMERTON
385
':1
~j ill
,I, III
! ill
Iii
'I
!i,
iil
I,
;;1
,I ii!
'i'
I!,!
iii,
Ilil
ill
Iii
Iii
! Iii
I 1:1
I !f
I j
'I
I :[
II
1 i
I "
I Ii
i
I
j
II
~ . ~
RCW 3513.130 requires signatures to conform to the county
auditor's records, that is, two separate signatures, John
Doe, Mary Doe. The statute, however, does not so require.
Further, the record shows eonclusively that each person
signed the petition.
(2) Appellants urge that the number of signatures on
the petition is insufficient because three persons had with-
drawn their signatures from the petition, and, although
revocation was attempted, respondent had then assumed
jurisdiction which invalidated the attempt. The revocations
were made July 12, 1961 It is appellants' position that, as
the certification of the petition was completed by the city
engineer on June 20, 1961, in connection with the annexa-
tion of a separate and unrelated area (which annexation
would make the property here in question contiguous to the
city), the city assumed jurisdiction of the petition at that
time. The record establishes that on July 13, 1961, the
statutory public hearing was set by the city council.
[3] State ex rel. Mohr v Seattle, 59 Wash. 68, 109 Pac.
309, and subsequent cases decide that signatures to peti-
tions, such as recall and annexation, may be withdrawn
at any time prior to the assumption of jurisdiction over the
petition by the appropriate authority The saI9-e rule applies
to revocations of withdrawals.
[4] By the terms of RCW 3513140,1 the jurisdiction
of the respondent city on the annexation petition did not
attach until it was formally entertained and July 13 1961,
fixed as the day on which it would be heard. The revocation
"'Whenever a petition for annexation is filed with the city or town
council, or commission in those cities having a commission form of
government, which meets the requirements herein specified. of which
fact satisfactory proof may be required by the council or commission,
the council or commission may entertain the same, fix a date for a public
hearing thereon and cause notice of the hearing to be published in one
issue of a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town. The
notice shall also be posted in three public places within the territory
proposed for annexation, and shall specify the time and place of hearing
and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval
of the annexation. The expense of publication and posting of the notice
shall be borne by the signers of the petition." RCW 35.13.140
'.
ili
, II
! :1
, :1'
, ,
i !.
; 11
111
li
13-60 Wn. (2d)
\,
,
i
f
,
i
,
i
1 1
i
ill
J I
I
I,
:I
:1
1
386
McALMOND v BREMERTON
[60 Wn. (2d)
of the withdrawal was valid and the petition had sufficient
signatures.
Appellants next contend that the petition did not con-
form to RCW 35 13.125 (Laws of 1961, chapter 282, ~ 18,
p. 2288), which became effective June 8, 1961 The new
act amended the old law to require that notice of the pro-
posed annexation petition must be given to the legislative
body concerned, and that body must then set a date for a
meeting with the initiating parties to determine if the
municipality will accept the proposed annexation and
whether the new territory will be required to assume any
of the existing municipal indebtedness.
At the city council meeting of July 12, 1961, the required
ten per eent of the property holders made proper applica-
tion to circulate an annexation petition. It was decided
then and there that the proposed annexation would be
accepted by the city with no assumption of debt by the
new territory The next evening, July 13, 1961, although
a new petition was not circulated (the old one was refiled
and recirculated), the petition was formally entertained
and a hearing date set pursuant to RCW 3513140
[5] Had this annexation proceeding been started after
the effective date of RCW 35 13 125, nothing short of strict
compliance would be effective. This case, however, appears
to be s'Ut generis. To require the recireulation of the petition
would cause great expense, hardship and delay The city
couneil had notice of the proceedings, decided that the new
territory would be exempt from the existing debt of re-
spondent, and decided to accept the petition. The petItion
had, in fact, been circulated and was recertified and refiled.
No prejudice appears, and we agree with the trial court
that it would be inequitable and unjust to require the whole
matter to be done again. To so do would be to require the
doing of a useless act which the law abhors.
Appellants' final contention is that the petition is mis-
leading. It complies strictly with the address provisions
of the statutes, and has been directed to the appropriate
officials. There is no error
Affirmed.
FINLEY, C. J., WEAVER, ROSELLINI, and OTT, JJ, concur
Aug. 1962]
SMITHROCK QUA
[No. 36166. Department (
SMITHROCK QUARRY, INC., Re
WASHINGTON
,
(1] EMINENT DOMAIN-DAMAGES_M
LEASEHOLD-VALUE OF RIGHT TO ]
In an action for damages for the 1
property, the only value of the Ie
~arket rock materials lying on
Instructed that the lessee's dame
the rock materials which had bE
could be sold at the date of takinl
tion of the lease, where there
materials in their condition at thE
for the lessee to do but to convey t
(2] ~AME-COMPENSATION-MEASURE
IS allowable in an action for com
power of eminent domain and st
taking.
f Appeal from a judgment of tn
ton County, No 29934, Charles
12, 1961. Affirmed.
Action for damages to a lee
from a judgment in favor of th
The Attorney General, John
o Torve, Assistants, for appella
John Spzller and D Elwood C
ROSELLINI, J -This action w
, pensation for an alleged takinl
, a rock quarry in the area of
was alleged that the plaintiff, u
. had the right to remove rock
on the land, and that the defE
struction activities, had made
materials. The jury found in
.,entions and returned a verdic
*Reported in 374 P (2d) 168.
(1] See Ann. 64 A. L. R. 1529 3 i'
Eminent Domain ~ 296. '
ND v BREMERTON
[60 Wn. (2d)
alid and the petition had sufficient
nd that the petition did not con-
(Laws of 1961, ehapter 282, S 18,
effective June 8, 1961 The new
to require that notice of the pro-
n must be given to the legislative
t body must then set a date for a
ting parties to determine if the
It the proposed annexation and
'y will be required. to assume any
l indebtedness.
>ting of July 12, 1961, the required
:rty holders made proper applica-
lexation petition. It was decided
; proposed annexation would be
th no assumption of debt by the
evening, July 13, 1961, although
irculated (the old one was refiled
letition was formally entertained
lrsuant to RCW 35 13.140
ion proeeeding been started after
v 3513.125, nothing short of strict
ctive. This case, however, appears
lre the recirculation of the petition
Lse, hardship and delay The city
proceedings, decided that the new
lpt from the existing debt of re-
accept the petition. The petition
ed and was recertIfied and refiled.
ld we agree with the trial court
Ie and unjust to require the whole
To so do would be to require the
ich the law abhors.
ntion is that the petition is mis-
::tly with the address provisions
been directed to the appropriate
'r
ROSELLINI, and OTT, JJ, concur
Aug. 1962]
SMITHROCK QUARRY v STATE.
r
r
I
j
't
I
I,
j
387
[No. 36166. Department One. August 16, 1962.]
SMITHROCK QUARRY, INC , Respondent, v THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, Appellant *
[1] EMINENT DOMAIN-DAMAGES--MEASURE OF DAMAGES--TAKING OF
LEASEHOLD-VALUE OF RIGHT TO REMOVE MATERIALS FROM REALTY
In an action for damages for the taking of a lessee's interest in real
property, the only value of the lease being the right to remove and
market rock materials lying on the land, the jury was properly
instructed that the lessee's damages were equal to the value of
the rock materials which had been severed from the realty and
could be sold at the date of taking and removed before the expira-
tion of the lease, where there was a market for the severed
materials in their condition at the time of taking, and nothing left
for the lessee to do but to convey title and accept the purchase price.
[2] SAME-COMPENSATION-MEASURE AND AMOUNT-INTEREST. Interest
is allowable in an action for compensation for a taking under the
power of eminent domain and starts to run from the date of the
taking.
.
I
i
I
I
I
,
!
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurs-
ton County, No. 29934, Charles T Wright, J" entered June
12, 1961 Affirmed.
Action for damages to a leasehold. Defendant appeals
from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
The Attorney General, John C O'Rourke and Theodore
o Torve, Assistants, for appellant.
John Spiller and D Elwood Caples, for respondent.
ROSELLINI, J -This action was brought to recover com-
pensation for an alleged taking of the plaintiff's rights in
a rock quarry in the area of Vancouver, Washington. It
was alleged that the plaintiff, under an assignment of lease,
had the right to remove rock materials which were lying
on the land, and that the defendant, by its highway con-
struction activities, had made it imposs~ble to remove the
materials. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff's con-
tentions and returned a verdiet in the amount of $80,000
"'Reported in 374 P (2d) 168.
[1] See Ann. 64 A. L. R. 1529 3 A. L. R. (2d) 288 et seq., Am. Jur.,
Eminent Domain ~ 296.
G~ ~tf)D
v-o ~..-. 0
'~ w ft. q~::?)~.. ~1. ;;'b;I ,:::: U' if .. "'"
- _=- .1 K..! u: liD ~ ' 'VI ~e j I.".tt. t.,
I, ~"!. I:J 'i.:. !r Ii U I
, t . /," i
.1 " ~ . , I },
J, \I. ;. (~
r (' / {' '"' 1''':;.) ......"':
! U I -A ,,'
~ . >oJ..... ORDINANCE
o
, l 02""OOO()
~ ..):;, l.,tV . .. I
-~!)f'(-
,)
TftVRSTOii COUNTY
ilL '1M .}It A~~.t)H
q~
___..+___.._.._...~..__.~..;-.___.-;....__.......-.=-.....__=-.___7-"'O"__-"'--_~_~___..0._-"".....-'.=0- -::-_;...~.~~~~__.._.__. _+ ~-~~............_
. ,
-:- Tr :-
fa '9
3 II ~M '8S
.~~
it purr
ll5
HOUFS
~l'M. S RE
1-1
O\NENS DPIVIES MACf{fE CITY OF LACEY
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF LACEY AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY (SOUTH ANNEXATION)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY,
WASHINGTON, as follows:
Sectl.on 1. A legally sufficient petition for annexation
-
havl.ng been filed containing the sl.gnatures of the owners of more
than 75 percent by assessed value of' the property described on
Exhibit "Af' attached hereto. and the said proposed annexatl.on having
received the approval of the. Thurston County Boundary Review Board,
1)
.~
Q
~~
....
~
~
1o~
a)
and the City Council, after public hearing held p~rsuant to legal
notice, being of the opinion that it is in the best interests ot the
citizens of the City of Lacey that this annexation petition be
granted, the territory described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
made a part hereof as though fully set forth at length and all
located within Thurston County, Washington, is hereby annexed to tne
City of Lacey.
Sectl.on 2. Pursuant to the terms of the petition for
annexation of said property, all property within the terrl.tory
annexed by Section 1 hereof shall be assessed and taxed on the same
basis as property previously within the City for the payment of any
bonds issued or debts
this annexation.
contracted prior to or existing at the date of
3>>11 L
- 1 -
"'311 '2-'J
'IllL J. PA~l I ,
'\
o
')
()
r -~
'-')
j
"
--"J
650~
Section 3. The property within the territory annexed
shall continue to be subject to the primary zoning use designations,
density, and design standards specified in Sections 20.18.020
through 20.18.040 of the Thurston County Code until such time as
action is taken by the City Council pursuant to public hearing to
change the zoning designation of said properties. Lawful uses
existing at the date of this annexat~on shall be allowed to continue
\-
and those properties covered. by development permits, including
building permits, preliminary or final plats of any sort, and site
plans for mobile home parks, which have been issued or approved by
Thurston County on or before the date of this annexation, shall be
permitted to develop in accordance with the terms of said permits.
All proposed uses of properties other than those listed as primary
uses under Section 20.18.020 of the Thurston County Code, lawful
uses existing on the date of this annexation or uses covered by
development permits as described herein, shall be processed and
approved or disapproved in accordance with Chapter 16.66 of the
Lacey Municipal Code relating to special uses. All development
standards within the area annexed other than those standards
specified in Section 20.18.040 of the Thurston County Code shall. be
those Lacey development standards prevailing throughout the City.
Section 4. This ordinance is a public emergency ordinance
I":~
~-
....:-.
....-.
;-
:.
necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public
- 2 -
vo~ 1311 paZ? 4
')
j
o
'\
)
o
.....~'..
);
i"j
8502l~
property or the public peace and shall be effective on its passage
by the Council.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY,
WASHINGTON, this ~ay of Ft,b ( \AUY , 1985.
CITY CO~Ji1
M~~
Attest:
~~
Approv~/d A /~ form:
.-/'~~.
.,' '/' ..
./ '." ___ 0""
,/ // /
/ ~
/'
City Aptorney
//
Passed: do- -I ~ - q S
Published: J....;}.O - i 5
,>
<t'
-i,;~F,
,",;
:t~i>
"
,/'"
";:ql
- 3 -
VOl 1311 PAGt 275
Ch.351
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
be annexed shall, upon annexation be assessed and taxed at the same rate
and on the same basis as the property of such annexing city or town is as-
sessed and taxed to pay for all or any portion of the then outstanding in-
debtedness of the city or town to which said area is annexed, apprOt'ed by the
J'oters, contracted, or incurred prior to, or existing at, the date of annex-
ation. Only after the legislative body has completed preparation and filing of
a comprehensiJ'e plan for the area to be annexed as provided for in ReW
35.13.177 and 35.13.178, the legislative body in approving the proposed ac-
tion, may require that the comprehensiJ'e plan be simultaneously adopted
upon approJ'al of annexation by the electorate of the area to be annexed. The
approval of the legislative body shall be a condition precedent to ((the fiJ;ng of
sbcb pt6ti01l "Jib the bo4.d of c(J.mf! C(),mdj,~$;MJer3 4S btleinaftt1 pJot;d-
ed)) further proceedi1l/!s upon the petition. The costs of conducting such elec-
tion shall be a charge against the city or town concerned. The proposition or
questions provided for in this section may be submitted to the voters either
separately or as a single proposition,
.Sec. 1 was ~etoed, see message at end of chapter.
Sec. 2. Section 3513.060, chapter 7, Laws of 1965 as amended by
sectIOn 6, chapter 164, Laws of 1973 1st ex. sess. and RCW 35 13060 are
each amended to read as follows:
Upon granting the petition under the twenty percent annexation petl'
tlOn under the electIon method, and after the auditor has certified the peti.
tlon as being sufficient, the ((bOaJd of cOunty c.Otlllllis."oll(.JS shall fIx a date.
fOl tile. .1nuvAalIOll c.1C.:;tIOll, w h,c.h lUusl be. not kss tl1a" tlm ly 11e" i"u, e.
thail "lXl) da)~ tln..,(,aftc..)) legislative body of the city or town shall mdl-
cate to the county auditor its preference for the date of the election on the
annexatIon to be held, whIch shall be one of the dates for specIal elections
provIded under RCW 29 13 020 that is sixty or more days after the date the
preferenee IS indIcated. The county audItor shall call the specIal electIOn at
the special election date mdicated by the elty or town.
Sec. 3 Section 35 13 125, chapter 7, Laws of 1965 as amended by
section 11, chapter 164, Laws of 1973 1st ex. sess. and RCW 35 13 125 are
each amended to read as follows:
Proceedings for the annexation of terrItory pursuant to R CW 35 13-
130,35 13 140,35 13 150, 35 13 160 and 35 13 170 shall be commenced as
provIded in this section. Pnor to the CIrculation of a petitIon for annexation,
the initlatmg party or partles who, except as provided in RCW 28A.58.044,
shall be either not less than ten percent of the residents of the area to be
annexed or the owners of not less than ten percent m value, accordmg to the
assessed valuatIOn for general taxation of the property for which annexatIOn
IS petitIOned, shall notify the legislative body of the city or town in writIllg
of their intentIOn to commence annexation proceedmgs. The legIslative body
shall set a date, not later than sixty days after the fihng of the request, for a
meeting WIth the initiating parties to determme whether the city or town
WASHINGTON 1
will accept, reject, or geographically r
whether it shaH requIre the simultaneOl:
plan if such plan has been prepared and j
provided for in RCW 3513177 and 35 1:
the assumption of all or of any portIOn of
by the area to be annexed. If the legisla:
((foft)) of all or of any portIOn of mdeb
. comprehensive plan, It shall record thIS a
tion for annexation shall be so drawn as t
. shall be no appeal from the deCISIOn of th.
Sec. 4 SectIOn 35A.14 020, chapter
amended by sectIOn 6, chapter 332, Law
are each amended to read as follows:
When a petitIOn ((whreh)) IS suffic
"RCW 35A.01.040 (05 6:kd w,tll tlxc. IJlO~
electIOn to vote upon the annexatIOn of UI
"0 a code CIty, describmg the boundanel
nexed, statmg the number of voters therei
by qualIfied electors resident In such tern
cent of the votes cast at the last state ger
c.utmg attulll"y "llall, w,tlml tw"lIty-ollv
· ",fuSe. to (,eJ t,f) lh" pvt; llVil a~ ~et Eo, III
C.dlm~ allullH..y ,,'-11,6:,-s ll,,, pd;t;uJl,)) it
with the auditor of the county in whieh ~
territory is located, and a copy of the petil
-live body of the code city If the territofl
count , the auditor of the count with wh<
he lead auditor and transmIt a eo of t
other county withm which a portion of th,
or auditors shall examine the petitIon, ane
. certify the suffiCIency of the petitIOn to th
cit
"}, If the sIgnatures on the petition are
be)) certified as containing suffiCient valle
fik w; tI. ti." I...~<"I<1l; v '- bod) tI.". "of a ,"vI
,tror1.)) legislative authority shall, by rese
t~ereafter, ((tIle. kg<~lat;v'- Lod) sl..111, by J
either by mail or by publicatIOn In the san
quired by RCW 35A.14 040 to be publish
the proposed action. In approving the pro
ay require that there also be submitted t
annexed, a proposition that all proper
all, upon annexatIOn, be assessed and t:
me basis as the property of such anneJ(
HINGTON LAWS, 1989
exation be assessed and taxed at the same rat
Ie property of such annexing city or town is
r all or any portion of the then outstanding i
rn to which said area is annexed, appro fed by th
'red prior to, or existing at, the date of annex
tife body has completed preparation and filing 0
he area to be annexed as prol'ided for in R .
lIe legislatil'e body in approl'ing tbe proposed ae
, comprebensil'e plan be simultaneously adopt
1 by tbe electorate of the area to be annexed.
ody sball be a condition precedent t? (( .
In the petition. The costs of conducting such elec,
1st tbe city or town concerned. The proposition
flis section may be submitted to tbe t'Oters eitb
oposition.
t end of chapter.
i 060, chapter 7, Laws of 1965 as amended.
ws of 1973 1st ex. sess. and RCW 35 13.060
allows:
:tition under the twenty percent annexation peti
thod, and after the auditor has certIfied the .
: (( .
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
Cb. 351
will accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation,
whether it shall require the simultaneous adoption of the comprehensive
plan if such plan has been prepared and filed for the area to be annexed as
provided for in RCW 3513177 and 3513178, and whether It shall requIre
the assumption of all or of any portion of existing city or town indebtedness
by the area to be annexed. If the legislative body requires the assumptIOn
((toft)) of all or of any portIOn of mdebtedness and/or the adoptIOn of a
comprehensive plan, it shall record thIS action 10 its minutes and the petI-
tIOn for annexatIon shall be so drawn as to clearly indicate thIS fact. There
shall be no appeal from the deciSIOn of the legislative body
Sec. 4 Section 35A.14.020, chapter 119, Laws of 1967 ex. sess. as last
amended by seetion 6, chapter 332, Laws of 1981 and RCW 35A.14 020
are each amended to read as follows:
When a petition ((whteh)) is sufficient under the rules set forth 10
RCW 35A.Ol 040 ((is 6kd w,tl, tl1.. p,o~"e:.t.lt,,~ altol1,ey)), calling for an
electIOn to vote upon the annexation of unincorporated territory contiguous
to a code city, describing the boundaries of the area proposed to be an-
nexed, stating the number of voters therein as nearly as may be, and signed
by qualified electors resident in such territory equal in number to ten per-
cent of the votes cast at the last state general election therein, (( the:. p, o~e:.-
c:nL11'~ attod,Cy ~hcill, w;th;" twc:.Jlt}-CI"e:. da)~ aft", "Ubllh"",011, c"d,fy 01
rdu"" Lo ced;fJ the:. Pd;t,Oll a~ "d fodh "' RCW 35 1) 025 If tl,e:. pIOSe:.-
ClItl1lg a.LLOlllG} e:.c:.1tifi"s the:. pd,tio11,)) It shall be (( t, a.11S11tlU"d to)) filed
with the auditor of the county in which all, or the greatest portion, of the
territory is located, and a copy of the petition shall be filed With the legisla-
tive body of the code city If the terntory is located 10 more than a single
county, the auditor of the county With whom the petition IS filed shall act as
the lead auditor and transmit a copy of the petition to the auditor of each
other county withm which a portion of the territory is located. The auditor
or auditors shall examine the petition, and the auditor or lead audItor shall
certify the sufficiency of the petition to the legislative authority of the code
~
If the signatures on the petitIOn are ((de:.t..ll";",,d by LI,e:. e:.,ty e:.Lk. to
be)) certified as containing sufficient valid signatures, the city ((ckIl, "hall
fife with till;. Iegi"la.t;." bod, the:.l wf a. ,,(., t;li(.a.t" of "Utfi",,", y uf the:. pd;-
tron:-)) legislative authority shall, by resolution entered within sixty days
thereafter, ((tl1.. l"gls1aLJYc body "hall, by 1I:.,,01....t,0,1,)) notify the petitioners,
eIther by mail or by publication in the same manner notice of hearing IS re-
qUired by RCW 35A.14 040 to be published, of its approval or rejectIOn of
the proposed action. In approving the proposed action, the legIslatIve body
may reqUire that there also be submitted to the electorate of the territory to
be annexed, a proposition that all property within the area to be annexed
shall, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the
same basis as the property of such annexmg city IS assessed and taxed to
",
.i
,i
!:i
J
it
II
i ~:
Cb. 351
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
, '
i
pay for all or any portion of the then-outstanding Indebtedness of the city
to which said area is annexed, whIch Indebtedness has been approved by the
voters, contracted for, or incurred pnor to, or existIng at, the date of an-
nexation. Only after the legislative body has completed preparation and fil-
Ing of a proposed zoning regulation for the area to be annexed as provided
for in RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340, the legIslative body In approving
the proposed action, may require that the proposed zoning regulation be SI-
multaneously adopted upon the approval of annexatIon by the electorate of
the area to be annexed. The approval of the legislatIve body shall be a con-
dition precedent to further proceedIngs upon the petitIOn. The costs of con-
ducting the election called for In the petitIOn shall be a charge agaInst the
city concerned. The proposition or Questions provided for in thiS sectIOn may
be submitted to the voter either separately or as a single proposition.
Sec. 5 Section 35A.14.050, chapter 119, Laws of 1967 ex. sess. as last
amended by section 30, chapter 234, Laws of 1986 and RCW 35A.14.050
are each amended to read as follows:
After consideration of the proposed annexation as provided In RCW
35A.14.200, the county annexation review board, within thirty days after
the final day of hearing, shall take one of the following actions:
(1) Approval of the proposal as submitted.
(2) Subject to RCW 35.02.170, modification of the proposal by ad-
JustIng boundanes to include or exclude territory; except that any such m-
cluslon of terntory shall not increase the total area of territory proposed for
annexation by an amount exceeding the origInal proposal by more than five
percent: PROVIDED, That the county annexation review board shall not
adjust boundaries to include tern tory not included In the origInal proposal
without first affordmg to residents and property owners of the area affeeted
by such adjustment of boundanes an opportumty to be heard as to the
proposal.
(3) Disapproval of the proposal.
The wntten deCISIon of the county annexation revIew board shall be
filed with the board of county commissioners and WIth the legislatIve body
of the city concerned. If the annexatIOn proposal is modified by the county
annexation review board, such modification shall be fully set forth in the
written decision. If the deCIsion of the boundary review board or the county
annexation review board is favorable to the annexation proposal, or the
proposal as modified by the revIew board, the ((bu,:u d of Cuuu t y ,-011111115-
5,Ou,-,,,,)) legislatIVe body of the city at its next regular meeting if to be held
withIn thIrty days after receipt of the decision of the boundary review board
or the county annexation review board, or at a special meeting to be held
withIn that period, shall ((set-a)) Indicate to the county auditor its pref~
ence for a special election date for submiSSion of such annexation proposal,
with any modIficatIons made by the review board, to the voters of the tern.
tory proposed to be annexed. ((Th,- 'l.u,-5t.ou "l,all b" 5ub"uttcd at a ~,-,"~ra1
~,
i
WASHINGTON LA'
~kct;OJl ,f Ou,- ;" to b,- l,dd w; tl,;u u;uct y da
Cu, tl,at pu'po",- ,lot I.."" tl'du fody Gy" day
te, tl,,, Glu,g of tl,,, d"c,,,,oJ, of tl,,, I c~ ,,-w
",ou111u55,O,,", ".)) The speCial electIOn date 1
of the dates for special elections provIded
sixty or more days after the date the prefc
legIslatIve authority shall call the speCial elel
so indicated by the city If the boundary rev
ation review board disapproves the annexal
> shall be taken thereon, and no proposal for a
.or substantially the same as determIned by
considered for twelve months thereafter
Sec. 6 Section 35A.14 120, chapter 1
amended by seetlon 8, chapter 124, Laws of
.14120 are each amended to read as follows
ProceedIngs for imtlatlng annexation 0
charter code city or noncharter code city ma
a petItIOn of property owners of the territory
. follOWIng manner ThIS method of annexatll
methods provIded In thiS chapter Prior to 1
annexatIOn, the initiating party or partIes, 1
less than ten percent in value, according to
eral taxation of the property for which anne,
'legislative body of the code city In writIng I
annexation proceedings. The legislative body
sixty days after the filIng of the request, fo
partIes to determine whether the code cIty v
ically modify the proposed annexatIOn, whet]
neous adoptIon of a proposed zoning regulatl
repared and filed for the area to be anl1f
35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340, and whether it
>all or of any portion of existIng city Indebted.
If the legislatIve body requires the assul11pt
"ndebtedness and/or the adoptIOn of a prop<
.ecord this action in its minutes and the pet]
, rawn as to clearly IndIcate these facts. A~
hall be a condition preeedent to circulation
,,0 appeal from the deciSIOn of the legislath
. tion of an area contiguous to a code city IT.
c y of the municipality to which annexatio
y the owners, as defined by RCW 35A.Ol.l
ess than ((50,-"ty Gve)) sixty percent In V2
~luation for general taxation of the propert
oned. PROVIDED, That a petitI~n for an
[ 1755 I
"lGTON LAWS, 1989
he then-outstandIng Indebtedness of the city
which Indebtedness has been approved by the
rred prior to, or existing at, the date of an
Ltive body has completed preparatIon and fil-
ation for the area to be annexed as provided:
\5A.14.340, the legislatIve body in approving
ire that the proposed zoning regulation be si:'
e approval of annexatIOn by the electorate of
pproval of the legislative body shall be a con-
Iceedings upon the petition. The costs of con-:
In the petitIOn shall be a charge agaInst the~
n or questions provided for in thIs section may
:r separately or as a SIngle propOSItIOn. '
,0, chapter 119, Laws of 1967 ex. sess. as last,.
er 234, Laws of 1986 and RCW 35A.14 050
ollows.
Ie proposed annexation as prOVided In RCW
x:ation review board, within thirty days after
take one of the following actions.
osal as submitted.
,02.170, modification of the proposal by ad-
or exclude territory; except that any such in
ncrease the total area of tern tory proposed fo
eeding the origInal proposal by more than five
the county annexation review board shall not
territory not Included in the origInal proposai'
dents and property owners of the area affected
ldaries an opportunity to be heard as to the
roposal.
the county annexation review board shall b .
y eommissioners and with the legislatIve body
annexation proposal IS modified by the county.
ch modification shall be fully set forth In th
,on of the boundary review board or the county'
favorable to the annexation proposal, or the
review board, the ((bu,ud of CO\1l1ty "vlUul.S',
the city at its next regular meetIng If to be held
pt of the decision of the boundary revIew board
view board, or at a speCIal meetIng to be held
:t<t)) Indicate to the count auditor its refer-
lte for submission of such annexatIOn proposal,
: by the review board, to the voters of the terri..
((The. 'l.u,,511ou sl.all be snbuhtted "t a gC.u'-l al
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
Cb.351
,,\.;.e.1.0u if 011'- .5 to be h"ld ~ jU.;,1 .Iiuay doly5, or at ol 5p"e.lal eJec.t,ou '-ollIcd
fo. that pu. pOSG Hot k.ss th",1 forty h." d"y5 .\0. luO.(, tl,an 'Ijudy day" df-
k, thG hl~ug of the d\..c,,,.ou of tI." .'-Vi"" boa,d ~.tI. th" bOil,d of COuuly
(,u.uuuS5.0.IG,5.)) The special election date that is so indicated shall be one
of the dates for special elections prOVIded under RCW 29 13020 that IS
sixty or more days after the date the preference is indicated. The county
legIslatIVe authonty shall call the special electIOn at the speeial election date
so Indicated by the cIty If the boundary review board or the county annex-
ation review board disapproves the annexation proposal, no further actIOn
shall be taken thereon, and no proposal for annexation of the same territory,
or substantIally the same as determined by the board, shall be Initiated or
conSidered for twelve months thereafter
Sec. 6 Section 35A.14 120, chapter 119, Laws of 1967 ex. sess. as
amended by seetIon 8, chapter 124, Laws of 1979 ex. sess. and RCW 35A-
14 120 are each amended to read as follows:
Proceedmgs for inItiating annexation of unIncorporated territory to a
charter code city or noncharter code city may be commeneed by the filing of
a petition of property owners of the territory proposed to be annexed, in the
following manner This method of annexation shall be alternative to other
methods provided in thIS chapter Prior to the circulation of a petition for
annexation, the imtiating party or parties, who shall be the owners of not
less than ten percent in value, according to the assessed valuatIon for gen-
era.1 taxation of the property for whieh annexatIOn is sought, shall notify the
legislatIve body of the code city In writing of their intention to commence
annexation proceedings. The legIslative body shall set a date, not later than
sIxty days after the filing of the request, for a meeting With the initIatIng
parties to determine whether the code city will accept, reject, or geograph-
1eally modify the proposed annexatIOn, whether It shall reqUire the simulta-
neous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, if such a proposal has been
prepared and filed for the area to be annexed as provided for In RCW
35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340, and whether it shall require the assumption of
all or of any portion of eXisting city indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
If the legIslative body reqUIres the assumption of all or of any portion of \
mdebtedness and/or the adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, it shall
record thIS actIOn in its mInutes and the petition for annexatIOn shall be so
drawn as to clearly mdicate these facts. Approval by the legislative body
shall be a condition precedent to circulation of the petition. There shall be
no appeal from the deCision of the legislative body A petition for annex-
atIOn of an area contiguous to a code city may be filed with the legislative
body of the municipality to which annexatIOn IS desired. It must be Signed
by the owners, as defined by RCW 35A.01.040 (9)(a) through (d), of not
less than ((S'-~Gllty h~C)) sIxty percent m value, according to the assessed
v.aluation for general taxation of the property for which annexation IS peti-
tioned. PROVIDED, That a petition for annexation of an area having at
i
I
I
I
I
~'I
~':
~!
*
I.
!
~,
I
a
>
Ch. 351
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
least eIghty percent of the boundaries of such area contIguous wIth a por-
tIon of the boundanes of the code CIty, not IncludIng that portion of the
boundary of the area proposed to be annexed that is cotermmous with a
portion of the boundary between two countIes In this state, need be sIgned
by only the owners of not less than fifty percent In value accordIng to the
assessed valuation for general taxatIon of the property for whIch the annex-
atIon is petitIOned. Such petItion shall set forth a descnptlOn of the property
accordmg to government legal subdivisIOns or legal plats and shall be ac-
compamed by a map which outlines the boundanes of the property sought
to be annexed. If the legislatIve body has reqUired the assumptIOn of all or
any portion of city indebtedness by the area annexed or the adoptIon of a
proposed zonmg regulatIon, these facts, together with a quotation of the
mmute entry of such requirement, or reqUirements, shall also be set forth In
the petition.
Sec. 7 Section 2, chapter 332, Laws of 1981 and RCW 35 13 165 are
each amended to read as follows:
At any time before the date IS set for an annexatIOn electIOn under
RCW 35 13060 or 35 13 174, all further proceedIngs to annex shall be ter-
minated upon the filIng of verified declarations of terminatIOn signed by'
(1) Owners of real property consisting of at least ((s"~"uty fi.e)) sixty
percent of the assessed valuation in the area proposed to be annexed; or
(2) ((S"H"lty f..,,)) Sixty percent of the owners of real property in the
area proposed to be annexed.
As used in this subsection, the term "owner" shall include mdivlduals
and corporate owners. In determIning who is a real property owner for pur-
poses of thIS section, all owners of a smgle parcel shall be considered as one
owner No owner may be entitled to sign more than one declaratIOn of
terminatIon.
Following the termInation of such proceedmgs, no other petition for
annexatIOn affecting any portion of the same property may be considered by
any government body for a period of five years from the date of filing.
The provisIOns of thLi. sectIOn shall apply only to citIes With a popula-
tIOn greater than four hundred thousand.
NEW SECTION Sec. 8 A new section IS added to chapter 35 13
RCW to read as follows:
A city or town can provide factual public information on the effects of
a pending annexation proposed for the CIty or town.
NEW SECTION Sec. 9 A new sectIOn is added to chapter 35A.I4
RCW to read as follows:
A code city can provide factual publie information on the effects of
pending annexation proposed for the code city
( 1756 J
WASHINGTON LA
NEW SECTION Sec. 10 SectIOn 1,
RCW 35 13 025 are each repealed.
Passed the House April 23, 1989
Passed the Senate April 14, 1989
Approved by the Governor May 12, 1~
items which were vetoed.
Filed In Office of Secretary of State tv
Note: Governor's explanation of partial veto
. I am returning herewith, without my appro'
Bill No. 1251 enlilled:
. AN ACT Relating to annexation for munic
Substitute House Bill No. 1251 resulted fr
Governance Study Commission. The CommissioJ
paratively restrictive annexation procedures, and
vices to cilizens in high-density unincorporate(
restrictive procedures. The purpose of Substitute
municipal annexation procedures and facilitate an
a laudable goal and one that I fully endorse.
A portion of seclion I of the bill, which n
original bill, would have the effect of increasing
at certain times to initiate an annexation under
non-code city or town. That is contrary to the 0\
the recommendations of the Local Governance St
With the exceplion of section I, Substitute I-
CHAPTER 3
[House Bill No. I
BOARD OF PHARMACY-POV
AN ACT Relating to the board of pharmacy; ar
.64.080, 18.64 165, and 6941.020; reenacting and am
sections to chapter 69 41 RCW
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Sta
Sec. 1 SectIOn 17, chapter 90, Laws
tion 5, chapter 153, Laws of 1984 and RC
to read as follows.
(1) A shopkeeper registered ((01 "X<;u
ed in this section may sell nonprescription
the original package of the manufacture
few", d, ug" sllall b" "x"'U1vt rlOlu t11" IC1:ii
nOlI dud ~llalI /lot b... IG'lui....d to flay aU]
~hall be cOu~idG....d sllopkGepc.. oS ro. <1.1y ot:
'R€W-) )
(2) Every shopkeeper not a licensed I
benefits and privileges of this section, is
shopkeeper through the master license SY5
[ ]757 )
-lGTON LAWS, 1989
ndaries of such area contIguous with a por~
:ode city, not including that portion of the
I to be annexed that is cotermInOUS with a
~n two counties in this state, need be signed
than fifty percent In value according to the
.axatIon of the property for whIch the annex-
III shall set forth a descriptIOn of the property
subdlVislOns or legal plats and shall be ac~
ltlines the boundanes of the property sought
'e body has requIred the assumption of all or':
:ss by the area annexed or the adoptIon of a'
hese facts, together wIth a quotation of th~
lent, or reqUIrements, shall also be set forth iI~
r 332 Laws of 1981 and RCW 35 13 165 ar
, --:
IWS.
date IS set for an annexatIOn election und
, all further proceedmgs to annex shall be te
'Hied declarations of termmatlOn signed by'
~rty consistmg of at least ((sevvllty Ii.c)) six
:ion m the area proposed to be annexed; or .
y.. percent of the owners of real property m t "
on, the term "owner" shall include indlvidua
ermimng who is a real property owner for pu
ers of a smgle parcel shall be consIdered as 0 ,
~ntltled to sign more than one declaration .
Ion of such proceedings, no other petition Ci'
tion of the same property may be considered
Jenod of five years from the date of filing.
.ection shall apply only to cities WIth a pop
ed thousand.
8 A new sectIon IS added to chapter 35.
(ide factual public mformation on the effects
led for the city or town.
9 A new sectIOn is added to chapter 35A.
Ie factual public mformatlOn on
i for the code city
[ 1756)
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
Cb.352
NEW SECTION Sec. 10. Section 1, chapter 332, Laws of 1981 and
RCW 35 13 025 are each repealed.
Passed the House April 23, 1989
Passed the Senate April 14, 1989
Approved by the Governor May 12, 1989, WIth the exception of certam
items which were vetoed.
Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 12, 1989
Note: Governor's explanation of partial velo is as follows:
'I am returning herewith, without my approval as to section 1, Substitute House
Bill No. 1251 entitled:
'AN ACT Relating to annexation for municipal purposes.'
Substitute House Bill No. 1251 resulted from recommendations of the Local
Governance Study Commission. The Commission found that Washington has com-
paratively restrictive annexation procedures, and that the problems of providing ser-
vices to citizens in high-(!ensity unincorporated areas result in part from those
restrictive procedures. The purpose of Substitute House Bill No. t 251 is to improve
municipal annexation procedures and facilitate annexation of urbanized land. That is
a laudable goal and one that I fully endorse.
A portion of section I of the bill, which resulted from an amendment to the
original bill, would have the effect of increasing the number of signatures necessary
at certain times 10 initiale an annexation under the petition/election method for a
non~ode city or town. That is contrary to the overall purpose of the legislation and
the recommendalions of the Local Governance Study Commission.
With the exception of section 1, Substitute House Bill No. 1251 is approved.'
CHAPTER 352
(House Bill No. 1478)
BOARD OF PHARMACY-POWERS AND DUTIES
AN ACT Relating to the board of pharmacy; amending RCW 18.64.044, 18.64.245, 18-
.64.080,18.64.165, and 6941.020; reenacting and amending RCW 42.17.310; and adding new
sections to chapter 69 41 RCW
Be It enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washmgton.
Sec. 1 Section 17, chapter 90, Laws of 1979 as last amended by sec-
tion 5, chapter 153, Laws of 1984 and RCW 1864044 are each amended
to read as follows:
(l) A shopkeeper regIstered (( Of CA(.,l1pt [,0,11 ,cg,,,t, "tion)) as provid-
ed in thIS section may sell nonprescription drugs, if such drugs are sold in
the onginal package of the manufacturer ((Sl.ol'kcvpc,s w,th 6.[t"vn 01
b". d, U~" shall be ",{"ull'l [, V," th" '''o;"tl<~t.Oll . CqUll (.mC/lts of tin" "ec-
ho!, a.lcish"ll Hot bc l..quuvd to pay a/I} [...:.... ...qb;,,,ci b} tInS SCCtlVH, bul
mall b.. conslcicJ "d ~hopk"Gpc.s [01 .:hly ot!.", PlllI'OS.:.... unci". ...hal'tel 18.64
R€W-) )
(2) Every shopkeeper not a licensed pharmacist, deSIring to secure the
benefits and privileges of thiS sectIOn, is hereby required to register as a
Shopkeeper through the master license system, and he or she shall pay the
1~
"
ti
!:l
,
( 17571
.to
COUNTIES
36.92.020
possible interpretation in order that new and m9dern equipment and
methods as they become available shall be includ!ld therein.
Enacted by Laws 1967, Ex.Sess., ch. 108, G 8.
Library References
Statutes <p>179.
C.J .S. Statutes G 816.
Ii
f
n
36.92.030. County central services departanent-Created-Supervlsor
By resolution, the board of county commissioners may create a county
central services department which shall be organized and function as any
other department of the county When a board creates a central services
department, it shall also provide for the appointment of a supervisor to be
the administrative head of such department, subject to the supervision and
control of the board, and to serve at the pleasure of ~he board. The
supervisor shall receive such salary as may be prescribed by the board. In
addition, the supervisor shall be reimbursed for'traveling and other actual
and necessary expenses incurred by him in the performance of his official
duties.
Enacted by ~w" 1967, Ex.~es~., !l11. 108, ~ 4.
Library References
Counties <p>61 et seq.
C.J.S. Counties G 100 et seq.
fl
"
iT'
'~:
II
:i
.,
,I!
t'!
ill
ill,
"~'l.
I'
I;
I:
p1
i!
:i
;{
36.92.040. Central services fund
When a central services department is created, the board shall establish
a central services fund for the payment of all costB of conducting those
services for which such department was organized and annually budget
therefor. It may make transfers into the central services fund from the
current expense fund 'and receive funds for such purposes from other
departmenta and recipientB of such services.
Enacted by La~s 1967, Ex.Sess., ch. 108, t 6.
Library References
Counties <P>161.
c.;r .f?, Counties ~ 231.
36.92.050, Comprehensive data processing use plan-Utilization of
equipment
Services departmeptB created pursuant to this chapter shall initially draw
a comprehensive data processing use plan. It shall establish levels of
service to be performed by the department and shall establish levels of
service required by using agencies. Before proceeding with purchase,
lease or acquisition of the data processing equipment, the comprehensive
data processing use plan shall be adopted by the board.
When established by the board, the services department may perform the
service functions relating to accounting, record keeping, and micro-copy by
the utilization of automatic data processing and micro-copy equipment.
In relation to said equipment the services department shall perform any
ministerial services authorized by the board and requested by the various
officers and departmentB of the county In this coimection, it is the intent
of this chapter that the services department be authorized to utilize such
equipment to the highest degree consistent with the purposes of this
146
~
i-
j
i
!
:
:li
"
;1
~'
i!
'j
~i.
;i
j
~:
:.
:,::
COUNTIES
36.93
chapter and not inconsistent with constitutional powers and duties of such
officers.
The services department is also authorized to utilize such equipment for
the purpose of problem solving when such problem solving is of a ministe-
rial rather than a discretionary nature.
Enacted by Laws 1967, Ex.Sess., ch. 103, G 6.
Library References
Evidence <p175.
Records <PI et seq.
C.J.S. Evidence G 814 et seq.
C.J.S. Records fi 1 et seq.
36.92.060. Appointment of assistants
The supervisor shall have the authority to appoint, subject to the approv-
al of the board, such clerical and other assistantB as may be required and
authorized for the proper discharge of the functions of the services
department.
Enacted by Laws 1967, Ex.Sess., ch. 103, G 7
36.92.070. Charges for services-Duties of county treasurer
The board of county commissioners shall fix the terql~ and charges for
services rendered by the central services department pursuant to this
chapter, which amountB shall be credited as income to the appropriate
account within the central services fund and charged on a monthly basis
against the account of the recipient for whom such services were per-
formed. Moneys derived from the activities of the central services depart-
ment shaH be disbursed from the central services fund by the county
treasurer by warrantB on vouchers duly authorized by the board.
Enacted by Laws 1967, Ex.Sess., ch. 103, G 8.
36.~2.080. Services limited to department
When a board of county commissioners creates a central services depart-
ment pursuant to RCW 36.92.030, the ministerial services to be performed
by such department in connection with automatic data processing shall not
thereafter be performed by any other officer or employee of said county
Enacted by Laws 1967, Ex.Sess., ch. 103, G 9.
36.92.900. Severability-1967 ex.s. c 103
If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circum-
stan~e. is held invalid, the rem~oUhe-flc.t. or th!. application of the
prOVISIon to other person~w~clrcumstances IS nOtaIfected:-..
Enacted by Laws 1967,
Library References
Statutes <P64(2).
C.J.S. Statutes G
CHArTER 36,93-LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZ
TION-BOUNDARIES-REVIEW BOARDS
Section
36.93.010. Pu~se.
36.98.020. Defmitions.
36.93.030. Creation of boundary review boards in class AA, class A counties-Pro-
cedure for creation in other counties.
147
36.93
Section
86.98.040.
86.98.050.
86.98.051.
86.98.060.
86.98.061.
86.98.068.
86.98.065.
86.98.067
86.98.070.
86.98.080.
86.98.090.
86.98.098.
86.98.100.
86.93.105.
36.93.110.
36.98.115.
86.93.120.
86.98.130.
86.93.140.
86.98.160.
36.93.155.
36.93.160.
36.93.170.
36.93.180.
86.93.186.
86.93.190.
86.93.200.
86.93.210.
86.93.220.
86.93.900.
86.93.910.
36.93.920.
COUNTIES
Dates upon which boards In counties other than class AA and class A
deemed established.
Repealed.
Appointment of board-Members-Tenns-Qualificatlons. [New]
Repeated.
Boards in other than class AA countles-Members-Tenns-Quallfica.
tlons. [New]
Selection of board members-Procedure-Commencement of term-Va.
cancies. [New]
Boards in existence as of July 28, 1989-Staggering of tenns-Lill!ita.
t10n of term of office. [New]
Effect of failure to make appointment. [New]
Chairman, vice chairman, chief clerk-Powers' and duties of board and
chief clerk-Meetings-Hearlngs-COunsel:""COmpensation.
Expenditures-Remittance of costa to counties.
Filing notice of proPosed actions with board.
Copy of notice of Intention by sewer or water district to be sent officials.
Review of proposed actions by board-Procedure.
Actions not subject to review by board.
When review not necessary
Petition for annexation-Action without regard to priority of filing.
Fees.
Notice of intentlon-Contents.
Pending actions not affected.
Review of proposed actions-Actions and detenninatlons of board-Dis.
approval, effect.
Annexation approval-Other actlol1 not authorized. [New]
Hearings-Notlce-Record-8ubpoenas-Decision of board-Appellate
review
Factors to be considered by board-Incorporation proceedings exempt
from state environmental policy act. . ,
Objectives of boundary review board
Objectives of boundary review board-Water, sewer district annexations,
mergers-Territory not adjacent to district. [New]
Decision of board not to affect existine; franchises, pennits, codes,
ordinances, etc., for ten years. ' . .
Rules and regulations-Adoption procedure.
Rutes and regulations-Filing-Pennanent register.
Provisions of prior laws superseded by chapter.
Effective date--1967 c 189.
Severability-1967 c 189.
Reductipn of membership on eleven member boards.
Cross References
Merger of sewer districts into water
districts, board review, see 0 57 ~0.120.
Merger of water districts into sewer
districts, board review of proposed
merger, see 0 56.86.030.
Law Review Commentaries
Boundary law' Monument control. 7
Puget Sound L.Rev 856 (1984).
Hbrary References
Municipal Corporations *"28 et seq.
C.J.S. ~unicipal Corporations 0 88 et
se~.
WESTLA W li:lectronlc Research
See WESTLA W Electronic Research
Guide following the Preface.
36.93.010. Purpose
The legislature finds that in metropolitan areas of this state, experienc-
ing heavy population growth, increased problems arise from rapid prolif.
eration of municipalities and haphazard extension of and competition to
extend municipal boundaries. These problems affect adversely the quality
and quantity and cost of municipal services furnished, the financial integri-
ty of certain municipalities, the consistency of local regulations, and many
148
COUNTIES
36.93.010
other incidents of local government. Further, the competition among
municipalities for unincorporated territory and the disorganizing effect
thereof on land use, the preservation of property values and the desired
objective of a consistent comprehensive land use plan for populated areas,
makes it appropriate that the legislature provide a method of guiding and
controlling the creation and growth of ~unicipalities in metropolitan areas
80 that such problems may be avoided and that residents and businesses in
those areas may rely on the logical growth of local government affecting
them.
Enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 189, ~ I, eff. July I, 1967
tween competing municipalities, pursu-
ant to which, legislature enacted ch.
86.93 according special rights of notice
and appeal to cities neighboring pro-
posed annexation. In re Northwest Pas.
co Annexation (1984) 100 Wash.2d 864,
676 P.2d 426.
Function of county boundary review
boards is not to make land use decisions
but is to resolve competition among mu-
nicipalities for unincorporated territory
Spokane County Fire Protection Dist.
No. 8 v Spokane County Boundary Re-
view Bd. (1980) 27 Wash,App. 491, 618
P.2d 1826.
Statute establishing county boundary
review boards (ch. 86.98) adequately Iim.
its discretion of review boards and does
not exclude natural members of any
class, and the fact that one review board
may grant annexation and another deny
it on similar facts does not convert the
statute into a special law; thus, the stat.
Notes of Decisions ute is neither a special law nor an uncon-
Intent behind gerrymandering of stitutional delegation of legislative pow-
boundaries is irrelevant when consider. er City of Wenatchee v Boundary Re-
ing annexation proposal; sole concern of view Bd. of Chelan County (1984) 89
county boundary review board should be Wash.App. 249, 698 P.2d 136.
objective result of annexation, to be Ch. 86.98 establishing boundary re-
measured against goals set out by this view boards is intended to cover all state
section. In re Northwest Pasco Annexa- counties and to promote logical growth
tion (1984) 100 Wash.2d 864, 676 P.2d of local government. City of Wenatchee
426. v Boundary Review Bd. of Chelan Coun.
Although county boundary review ty (1984) 89 Wash.App. 249, 693 P.2d
board was not precluded from granting 186.
second city's request for joint hearing Provision of this section specifying
with first city regarding first city's pro- purpose of statute establishing bound-
posed annexation of unincorporated ter- ary review boards merely provides guid-
ritory, second city was not prejudiced by ance in creation of review board and,
denial of its request, since it had ade- while serving as guide in comprehending
quate opportunity to present merits of intended effect of operative sections,
its own proposal and to demonstrate in- neverthetess, is without operative force.
adequacies of first city's proposal at City of Moses Lake v Grant County
hearing on first city's prOPOSed annexa- (1984) 39 Wash.App. 266, 693 P.2d 140.
tion. In re Northwest Pasco Annexation Issues on appeat from trial court's or
(1984) 100 Wash.2d 864, 676 P.2d 425. der removing temporary order restrain-
One of the purposes of statutory ing county from creating, appointing, or
scheme governing annexation of territo. funding boundary review board and dis-
ry by municipalities is the resolution of missing action for declaratory and in-
claims to unincorporated territory be- junctive relief pertained to statutory
149
Library References
Municipal Corporations *,,23.
C.J.S. Municipal Corporations ~~ 38 to
40.
Attorney General's Opinions
The provisions of ch. 43.21C, the State
'Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), are
applicable to any review undertaken of
such a consolidation proposal by the
boundary review board. Op.Atty.Gen.
1984, No.8.
A county boundary review board has
jurisdiction over a proposal to consol-
idate a city located within the county
with other cities in an adjacent county;
however, the only issue which should be
deemed to be before the board is wheth.
er that city shoutd be included in the
proposed new municipality Op.Atty
Gen.1984, No.8.
.....
'!, r
~ j
\1"
il
.1
il',
d
!l
~11'1
'I' ,
: I " ~
I:
1:'
"
~~,~ ;
I:
. i
rn~.
:1
~I;
M
":.'
1;;1
ti'
I,
n i
,I.,
~I
t!
~I
",
q
II;
n'
~
I
36.93.090
COUNTIES
(8) The establishment of or change in the boundaries of a mutual water
and sewer system or separate sewer system by a water district pursuant to
RCW 67.08.066 or chapter 6740 RCW, as now Of hereafter amended; or
(4) The establishment of or change in the boundaries of a mutual sewer
and water system or separate water system by a sewer district pursuant to
RCW 66.20.016 or chapter 66.36 RCW, as now Or hereafter amended; or
(6) The extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of its
existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district.
Enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 189, ~ 9, eff. July I, 1967 Amended by Laws 1969,
Ex.Sess., ch. 111, ~ 5; Laws 1971, Ex.Sess., ch. 127, t I, Laws 1979, Ex.Sess., ch. 5,
~ 12; Laws 19tH, ch. 45, ~ 2; Laws 1981, ch. 332, t 9; Laws 1982, ch. 10, ~ 7, eff.
March 4, 1982; Laws 1985, ch. 281, ~ 28, eff. May 13, 1985; Laws 1987, ch. 477, ~ 2.
Historical and Statutory N.ote!! where nothing in the reC(!rd indicated
Severability-Laws 1985, ~h. 281: See that the city pr<>\>9sed any 'exte~sion of
~ 35.10.905. s~wer service to property oUU!lde the
City, and where the proposed trunk sew-
.Sev~rablllty-Laws .1982, ch. 10: See er itself was to be located entirely within
HlStoncal Note followmg t 6.12.100. the city, the city had jurisdiction to build
Severability-Laws 1981, ch. 332: See the sewer without intervention of the
Historical Note following t 35.13.025. county, and without filing notice to the
Legislative declaration-"Dlstrlct" boundary review board. Forsgreen v
deflned-Severabillty-Laws 1981, ch. City of Spokane (1981) 28 Wash.App.
45: See Historical Notes following 919, 627 P.2d 118.
t 66.36.060. In proceedings by property owners of
Severablllty~Laws 1979, Ex.Sess., land situated outside city boundaries to
ch.5: See t 36.96.920. contest inclusion of their land within lo-
cal improvement district, which. wOl,lld be
assessed a portion of the construction
Notes of Decisions costs of propolled trunk s.ewer, prope~y
.' , . . , . owners presented no eVidence, despite
The extension of temporary water ser- fact' that boundaries of the local im-
vice ~y a city t.? a. customer outside of provement qistrict did not confonn to
t~e ~Ity but wlth!n a separate water the natural' drainage basin that city's
dlSl;rict doe~ .not mvok~ the .bound~ry detennination was arbitrary, or that
review prOVISions of thiS section which their situation would differ if the bound-
apply only where pennanent service is aries confonned'to the natural drainage
involved, nor may such temporary ser- basin. Forsgreen v City of Spokane
vice b~ enjoined on equitable ~ounds (1981) 28 Wailh.App. 919, 627 P.2d 118.
when It was extended after arbitrary, Where inclusion of land situated out-
capricious, and. un~easo?8~le d~mands side city boundaries within the local im-
by the w~ter dlStri.ct w!thm which the provement district, which would be as-
c~stomer IS located. Wlthworth Water sessed construction cosu! of proposed
Dlst. v Spokane (1976) 15 Wash.App. trunk sewer, was statutorily authorized
634, 550 P.2d 1181. under statute requiring . the city to in-
Provision of this section, requiring fil- ctude within the local improvement dis-
ing of a notice of intention with bound- trict as nearly' as possible all the territo-
ary review board by the initiator of an ry which could be drained through to
action to extend sewer service outside of trunk sewer, the validity or extent of the
its existing corporate poundaries by a assessmenU! could be raised only by sub-
city, town, or special purpose distri~t, sequent hearing on the assessment roll,
applies only to the extension of penna- and therefore contention by property
nent service outside the boundaries of owners that their property should not
the city, and does not apply to contem- have been aS8es'sed or included within
plated extensions. Forsgreen v City of the local improvement district because it
Spokane (1981) 28 Wash.App. 919, ~27 would receive .no special benefit until a
P.2d 118. . future land improvement district was
Although city included land ouU!ide of fonned to connect to the trunk line was
city's boundaries within local improve- premature. Forsgreen v City of Spo-
ment district, which would be assessed kane (1981) 28 Wash.App. 919, 627 P.2d
costs of construction of a trunk sewer, 118.
156
,
,
i!
It
COUNTIES
36.93.100
36,93,093. Copy of notice of Intention by sewer or water district to be
sent officials
Whenever a sewer or water district files with the board a notice of
intention as required by RCW 86.98.090, the board shall send a copy of
such notice of intention to the legislative authority' of the county wherein
such action is proposed to be taken and one copy to the state department of
ecology
Enacted by Laws 1971, Ex.Sess., ch. 127, ~ 2.
Library References C.J.S. Municipal Corporations ~t 6, 41
Municipal Corporations $>3, 26 et seq. et seq.
36.93.100. Review of proposed actions by board-Procedure
The board shall review and approve, disapprove, or modify any of the
actions set forth in RCW 36.93.090 when any of the following shall occur
within forty-five days of the filing of a notice of intention:
(1) Three members of a five-member boundary review board or five
members of a boundary review board in a class AA county files a request
for review' Provided, That the members of the boundary review board
shall not be authorized to file a request for review of the following actions:
(a) The incorporation or change in the bouI)dary of any city, town, or
special purpose district;
, (b) The extension of permanent water service outside of its existing
corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district where such
extension is through the installation of water mains of six inches or less in
diameter; or
(c) The extension of permanent sewer service outside of its existing
corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district where such
extension is through the installation of sewer mains of eight inches or less
in diameter;
(2) Any governmental unit affected, including the governmental unit for
which the boundary change or extension of permanent water or sewer
service is proposed, or the county within which the area of the proposed
action is located, files a request for review of the specific action;
(8) A petition requesting review is filed and is signed by'
(a) Five percent of the registered voters residing within the area which is
being considered for the proposed action (as determined by the boundary
review board in its discretion subject. to immediate review by writ of
certiorari to the superior court); or
(b) An owner or owners of property consisting of five percent of the
assessed valuation within such area,
(4) The majority of the members of boundary feview poards concur with
a request for review when a petition requesting the review is filed by five
percent of the registered voters who deem themselves affected by the
action and reside within one-quarter mile of the proposed action but not
within the jurisdiction proposing the action.
If a period of forty-five days shall elapse without the board's jurisdiction
having' been invoked as set forth in this section, the proposed action shall
be deemed approved.
If a review of a proposal is requested, the board shall make a finding as
prescribed in RCW 36.93.160 within one hundred twenty days after the
filing of such a request for review If this period of one hundred twenty
days shall elapse without the board making a finding as prescribed in RCW
157
36.93.100
., .. 190 the p,opooal'''''' be """"'" ,pp""~ ...- ~ """" and thO
p''''~' ~ho on,,,,,twl ",e p<np"of .",,, .. .. ..,,-' ,I the ...
hUndred twenty day period.
,..-... bY "'... 19G'1. ,h. I". i '0. "'.. ,....... ..,. i I; "'.. ,.... ... ,.
i " "'w. ,.... ... ",. i '; "'W. 10". ... .., i ·
." VIh<" """ bY ""ntY ""..- '"
.."tori"" ... ._""," - """" ;n .W.."'e .."""" ~
.........II'''_'''~. ,"'. ,b..... :... ""'" bY ..'" ..."", ?' ,-
",y """... ,f .... "".'" ,..~. 'w..... ....~. thO ..."", "'" not ..if'"
uon .. "Y ,."" ~ _-. "."", .,b" " th.... ~.~ thO W..
""~ .....1... the "'_""'.~ thO "" oe to< ..."", " ;00" .... """,.", ",y,
thO """,uon ,f thO ".",.;on .. ""'" thO ."'" " "" ..un" b<>U~ey '"
_" oe _..._ . not ...."" _ """" did .",,\01'" _e ne\'''
ed" [\"W. ,,,. ,b. "" i ..1 ".,,,,,. ,'.......'ou. ,. '" .'UI
County Wll.ter Dist. 108 Proposed We,.ter
U""" ..f..'- . """..". ("" .....) (''''.) " "'.....
lAuniciPll.\ Corporatlol\ll 4P26. "pp lle ~t\I\ n 2d 616
.' 1 f'^ U l< SS ". u. QVV X . .
CJ.S. "....,. ~...... ,..... "'...' ..."",... _to" on""""
'^""""" '" _""." ......... to _, ...to< ...~'" to ~,;y ,wa-
S<< """""' '" .._...-.. .... .."... ",,- " ..."", bY ~.
G.... 'nlIoW'" thO ...f_ ..... ..nd th.. """y """""", ......
bOll.rd neither exceeded \tll powers nor
._ G'''''''' 0......... ..... ....' of low ;n .,.-me ""'.
"". ".""'" of.... .."G. thO ."" .", of ""'" " ~.to< ...\'\" '" ....
~"-""'" ._ "'-' ,S" .)..... ou"'" it< ",,_n'" W""" thO ~...,
.,,_ to .bY """. .....,... ,f .."", W.. thO ._, w'''~ .."", ..
...b . ......"""". ,..,...1 bY'" ...... ""b"'" to'" ""e "".."
""..- .."'W """". "".",.G"'- "'.... 0-' \0' ......... ",.to< ""....
,.... .,. .. .", ,,,.. .....) ('''''' " ",,,b.""
. _ty ""..- _. b.... "" n'. '"'.... .\&. . . .
i"""""'" "oe . ,~~ to ...... ......" -~ bOoo\ - w;\h"
"... . city ._' ",th" ... _" ..... ,f it< .._ .... ., ..... .nd
""" ,...' _ ;n .. ,,;.0<'" ....'" ....... """w..,,' ".,..., to ......
..."", ... on'Y .... w.... .bO.1d bO .. .... .....,... ,f .. ,,,,,,,,.nd ,"'
_ed to.. "",,, the """" . ~"'.. "'...."'. ".. "".eb .."" w.. ..~
'" thO' city ....Id '" ""..... "th. . ...""pell'" .... ... ,w' ".-'
"...... ... ".""",11" "",,,, ... w... not ,,,,,,.tine foe thO' ....
G.n''''' \l', s. Ci" " ",...""'" ....- S.",,'
Bd. of Che\ll.n County (1984) 39 WlUlh.
___ MP, 249; 693 p.2d lSo.
.,.. of "",,10" . M""'e- . " no' · tun"'" .f "".nd:
. '" ..,.. "",,,, to ...... ..... ... '0:"
. ...ntY bOU~O: "',.. """" .... ."'... - ''''' "", ........ ....'"
.... """,,' .. th~ ~..' "!:' on ... .........1 ...out on 10" ." -
th"itY to ..,pt ",,,, ..'~.e ~ .ll" no"''''- ....'" I" ..~;y
",." ,dine ....', ',r- .p."", ~ CI,,',f ",..."b'" ....- ..""
..." " th' ""... ,..~.y .of-'" Rd ,f <,,,Ion "".." """ " ",,,b.
..... "flle<l. .... "'w ",II ... ...... .... ".. ." ..2d ,M
.... thO ~"'..._.'" h' ".i' "","y. ",. """ ,f "" ""y. foe "".......
,.riod du!,"!' .it"" tho "" "'Y." ".:'. ..... ,...... ."'... on ...""
i:' "r'''~'~ ~:~:~ ,~~ ~oe ,,,w' ,.,...,on foe _;:"OU
... W;'b ~~ '" .... ",. .f citY ." ",,,""""s\.O \~roce,,^U\~~
, .' . on........ n.....' "....~..,
...... ".... .ll- bY. "" ~ ",,,...,,.t"') 53 ",,,b..,,.'23, "'
....;' '" i ".",00, e,,,.."e ..'~. . 2d 21' ,,,,. ...... n. '" "b.2d
.' _.... .f "",,, ""~..." -. ,OM ,,.;..2d \0"
"""",. "f'" ~ .... ",me ...-" .;riod ,f ,,,, ",y. foe bon'- '"
foe ,.."",' _. bY -r ~. .nd ..... """" to ",ok' .",dine on ......,
",' .. . ". . ..,.?" 'Cl: ::i D~' foe ",,,. of ,.- foe ""'......;\0.
~~:\"lif. D":;'::b',:i e;.:s. .J. ..2d"" " ." "......... ."'" "..... ....",
158
,
\,
,
\~,
'\
COuNTIES
. f endUlent. to "h~ ""'~-~
ed thO'",...... "" "'..,... "". ....... Rd. ,
" tl1f re'1ieW -:'~d fl\no\i: of intenti~n; R~ngCo f~n~'J !~~np n.~S6) '126 "p.M 461.
I......" ..' . f .......on CM' .""ID" , ' ., ]:
, ....... .\lhln _'!'e.:....... ".. " C" '. "",.. '" ,...."''' .. ,.b"
~ ;~~::.. pnbJ':~; "".1ne ..e~':: ~: i~:';' ~
n.....' s,...... """'1... .2d .\0. bO'....". ,,,,,no~..,,oe"''''' w.to<
\\}'?~) 63dW~db.~r,' ~';.".2d \I''', ,'\'1 "".: ~~ .."...,,, no' """., """, ~
_' .... .. ,bin _,on. ."e "".." JJ
??d 1062. . w "^ard wlUl froUl rea n g. .u Bn v CitY ot A.uburn ~1 \
......." - ~ . ......" ..,,,. . " .
~'l to ".... Snd"'e "'''''t,ne. ,.".t"') ," ..2d "',.
e;:r.. ,,,",w with'" ,'" ",yo'" ". ~ $..'
. " "".." _d ~ ,-
......10.. ~""no not .ub''''' .,' "" '" W".\ln' ,~,\O.. pY ~ ,i'. .
'Th' I,n''''''' "",no ''''\~n~bJ;",~ ~ n< ,0~"W ---~ '
_"'" ",,"w """" -. QP- , wo'" or .."or d"W" p.",,,., '"
\\) [>..nnexations of terr\torY to
nedT ~6 M 4\0 through ~6.MA40', . u"nt to RON ~5.21.'l900r
... ," .' . 'oollndatles -purs ..
\2) Re't\sions of ctt"Y or town
...."..10; . ",,,. """.d'"'' p.""", '" p,CVV ...1....0:
'S\ Adiustnten\:.t\ to ctty or
'" . . . '" p,CVV ...1""'"a... . d ",,,, bOu..."", pu"'''' . .
\4) [>..dillstt1\ents to cM an
""".e' ......."". , ....... bY ",.. ,,,,, ... ... · ..
Enactea bj Laws 19M, en. 14'1, ~. {I\
.....11.. ,,"" ,,,,... no' ..,0-'. . \ than ten acres and \~S\l
. d f" .......on ~... . "the ,,,,,.
~'::~~~~~'::i~tSthe~~niS;i ;:~!'i'~~:~'~:~
" f the -protect\On 0 e t .
~-:~""~ ..",,, no' ..,;nw ..;~ :~;,:,~,:' .....,.. bY ",.. ,"'.. ,.t
....'" bY Lo.. '"'.''' ,~... ~'i.... t,.; ,..., ,b. ",. i ..
""....... ,.. "'. . ". .". ..... . . . "'; ... ...""
\913 1st ",.,...,ess.. C'h
....,."" .nd .,......" .,,,, ,,' ~"" fnl,,"""e i ........
severab\\\~Yt"~ff~~~:~r~\~~::t~~~
.....,.on .. ..- · I
1\ _MtI" .tlhUU' ,OP'" '" p"" ty ,
"....,16. p.,t\tl.' '" ...... " .
Utl.e .' """"",...""n"',,"
,,,\ow "".,d. ....W ,ud""" ..nn~ .lilion lot ..."",un'
.:. '::'U::'~::J.~Ir:,"~~~i":;,::Yv~:;flu;,~-z::r.: ::~~,;~i
before conS\ 1\ of the sante terr\tor"Y. W\
brll.ces t;onte or a
fi\\ng. 6
Enacted bj La'llS 1982. cn. 220, ~ .
l\\stor\ea\ ana StatutorY Notes
severab\\\W-\'jlo'llS \'6&~. cb. 'L~O\ see
Bis\.OrlCll.\ Note to\\o'lling ~ \\6.93.100.
COuNTIES
Cross References . petition withOut
A.ction on ll.nn~.,.~t\on t tiling, see
d \.0 pt\orM 0
r;~i&.02.100. 30A..03.l40.
" \\
"
\14",
.\
'\
,\
"\
,.
I
...93."" ~... . n ;n''''''''' ..d " ",41"" ~ ""
~." ,. ,~.,. do"'" ","'g ~:.':t:d p."U'" '" ltCVV ......1'" ""
iurisdiction of tM re<JteW 'pOll.r \S 169
. another ellisung s-pec\a\ v....-
""",..~"" '" .."",," <<>"",,,,,,,.., ..
..""~ .. ... """,d .\>al' ...' b'Y'
. ", .1 ... ",.1""'" ......' tW. . .",,,,. .1 · ."..,.'
~~:.:; d~"."'Y' ... d~~''::'.;;;~~':''''" "'Y' i~...."'t
...""'"' dloUi,t wb\<b ~ ." .'r :~. .1 "'. ....... ,nd fuW"'dt\e~; t a
tho .."""ino'" .1' ,,~ .. oliouk' p"""d" ..,
';.".. .. dio"'<<>'i"",,,d. ...,,,, t~io""" ....... ..d \\Obil"'''; ~
...... .,,,ll ...' ",,,.,~"':,: :'~:..".. ., olio"''''''''..... .."".
a s-peda\ pu~se district
"".'" ..... llcW ..' i' .",ll be ,.....tod .nd"
U.",.",. """,d .",ll dio""'''''' ~ .r:"...'" ","1 ,nd, if ,...i,ed, ~
"" 'PI''''P~''' ."",,, '" ..~~, ~ "... ....if'.. ""ll bde.tese~d
""" .1 tho "....le. ..."'.... ",,,,., · ..bl" """1" '..... '
....' ... 'PI''''''''"'' ....,." lot .p. """.......' I.' · ci"', "'w.. ~,
. "" .1 'M "....le.. " . .""...." :"', ",odif"''''' .... .., ~."".
. , ..""'"' olio"'" _"'''''~' ... fi,d ..... " ." ,..",,ed by
.~'" ."\i.~~i~"'~r;:~ ;~~:. ~ ;'''',.'''':i'''' :~-:. ~~f:'&
~ ",od''''''''' ....."'. "' -;;;::.e..;.... .... ",. pto!"'"
le'" ..."",,,,,.,. "... ......:;:;..pl. .. ,....... by loW
...1 be .."",""d", . "" · b ' th. ",'" .",ll ...' ",,,,,,,,,, ~
"'" ,dd\lI" .. ..le.... .1 ""'P'f'd J,. ..",,,,.oy .f .,...",.. ."';
. ." wbicl> ",d .""''''1 ..",,, V! .... ""'" .1'" d".- .
~tlU ~ oc'" a5 1a.1aO or 351\.14.12.0. . he ch n"ono~ed action shan be
.~.." ~ ," . '" ",,,.,, ," . .,. .. ",.
'" . MId, d~'..""" ~ ."'''' II ;,. w,thO" ..W" "' "',"'-
~,,:~~~~~~,~. '::'1.fag'~~"~~:~\~
. '" ",'" "'....... "' .. ,,~ '" "od .1 ,w.,,, ....0.
~;rb,~',,'b ."''''' ",'1 'd ~'j't";: ~~:~ "' ",. .- "..i"'"
hO"'......f .....P'''''''' ., · .
""it. . '" .... ...... .ol<.". th"'. '"
Tbe _d .boll "", ",odi'1 .. "'Z.d~X ..., ... .."" '" ,.,'"."~
~;h ~~:~: ;:.:.l' :..:~~';' ~'J;<: .~~~:;~:.
:' . .",."' ",odiN" "'1' p"'''' .' ~.d b' .""",.""" wn""
..",,,,'" ,..d .",ll be ..Pl""- ' ' .
pit,,-' "' . ",. \<?" b d' ... ,e<<>""
t\od"''' ... "."......, ..... , "... ........ bY "'W. ,...'
d.. Laws 196'1 ch. \B9. , 10. eff;, ~\l y h' 22() '" 1()' .LaWlO \9'19. EJ1..SeslO.,
......1 " s' \.... ,"!G, ,.. ""_.,,. ' · '
EJ1..SeslO., ch. n .... is'I h 4'1'1 ~ '1
eb. O. ~ \3; LaWlO \9 . c. .
N ~OlllO 1\efere1\CelO .' 1
\II"'''''"' ",A ....."'" .... ",_I """,,,, ........ ...."""
......."",-"'.. ,,,,. ""'...... ",__.f thO ,,,,,,,,, _. ,..-
... ~ ...1 ......,.. , ,....."'.. """. .. .. _. ...1 ".21.0\0.
Leg\ll\Il\h.e f\1\al1\g, .1\ S e 1\istofi-
\91& \st EJ1..selOS., ch. z:~o. e
ta\ Note following ~ 35.02.1'1().
\--Other action . not authoti7.ed
" Jr. e"llat\on t\lllltOva \ f
"....I... .. d.""'.... ... opp",.,. ·
1\0...... ",.... """", 'P?"''''' .. ",. ,;"'''' p,,,,,,", dioW" .",11
nto",",sed anneJ1.at\on b)' a C\t)'d' toWd~h' ~~ not authOti'l.e an)' othet anneJ1.a'
r r~ . .' n"- annrove an ,,".
\\uthorrz,e annella~\on"" "r
tion action.
Enacted \l1 Laws 19B9. cb. M. ~ 10. 161
COuNTIES\ \. CO\llilTIEB
36.93.120
. "..,,"'....... "'\ow, ..",pt I" "'.bO.""dot'I "".w ",ani,
Y::\l~ .boll .'1 '" ... "..'" ""...... ..4 ~"'" .. 'M "..'" _<0\ .
.. . .., I..d ",. '''' .f ,," bU...", d.ll'''' '
;:... bY "'.. ,..., ,b. ,,,, 1 ,~ ,ft. '.11 ,,'S61 ........ bY ",.' '''',
""....... do. \\', ! " ",.' ,,",. do. <11, ! ·
......1>.. N."".f I""''''..-co.'''''' .
"'" .otI<' .f ""..... .\tOi1 ...",. ... ..1\0..... "''''....."
(') "'" ...." of"" ...... ....b~ .
(') . bt\<l ..."",,,, .1 ... "..... '" thO p"..... .."""
.' I ",. "'........ p"..... "' M "'.....,
(2) "". "'" d""""""'" . . P ""d'" """... ,,'" d"""P""
""",bod .. """~.. by ..", ""'j"b: "'i"'",~ .f ... ."'....d ......' "
",'1 be ......' wtth _.tt..... '~""" ..\lU>,it1 .. .u< wltO \ta'
~~ :~~'d";t:';Sz. ~ \,,,"",u<,,......' th. ,.." d""".
.... "."'._' ... d b
. . ......."....P" wlt\<lt thO "",.d""" .".... "' .'
;:~'?~:.'.'t~~'(..'.~ ~:~~~~
_"......."........1'" _ptod. .
-'" by "'.. ,.... do. I". 1 \S. .fl. "" I, ,S61 ........ bY "'., ,"'"
""""., do. \\1. ! 1, "'.. 'S61' do- ,11.1 ·
......,... p",dlUI ",I... ..' "'''''''
. d' "'" '" \leV! ......... wlt\<lt "'. pe""'" J.11 " ,SS'l, "
~'!" _.' .. " ,_ . wb"b ... pe."" .. ",.
_ ."'.~""....:'.:I":."~:'dot'I ,,,\ow""'" .....,., .todl .at b'
do" ., ... ".. . . I thio ,ltaP'" Ad".' .",ll be d"'....
"'r by "a' .w::-::rtl~' of ,"f"""pe""'" "',"'".. th.. 'r'.
':;'U, "'J. .:p;:....." p.b'" .If"'" .. ... ""'....."" .1 .. .l!~" .ct
\ilitiating the same.
-'" bY "'.' "."" do. ,,,. ! \4. .fl. ''''' " ,S61
......,... ",.1'" of ........ ""...-M'I'''' ..4 .-.."""'" of
boatd_Dillt\llPtOva\, effect
. d "..\>1tIl"''''''''' of ...
" The boatd.. upon r~vldew of an)' pt"O!o: b:;t ~;t"i out the intent of thi8
to\\owing act\ons as \t eems nec.ess.., J
chapter
I') API'"",.I ",. "",I""'" .. ..b"".....; '. .
. ,,,,f .....f ,be p"....' by ..,,,,b"
1m ..b,..' "' fl,CW ......1 o.~. .... ,.",w"''''''' '.1 ......" I"
""........ "' odd .. ..let< _",,yo P llcW"" ,,0 .nd ,b.ll "t
.......... by"" b"'''' ."'" '" ..bl"" "'",,, ..";,, "". "", b~"'"
add addit\ona\ tett\tot"i ~ thpe am.odundt ~~w thhe~ f1'''a\ such modifications sha\\
. th .....' ...p..... ",.., ,.r .. ,,, . . d' ..
':., ;.:ri". w'''' ",. ~.tbori\1 .f · ci",. "'wo. " ..,cia' put":' ~;:'"
"' ..q.i<' " ...' ..."'" .........."'. .~........, ""'..... "
...;; n.""""..... .1 , di"""'. .1 ....... ..d ~""~,;.. be'w". twO "
",... .""""'....., ..\to wb'" tole"." . .
<.4) Determi~ation whe~er, ot t)\e ed~' ~ w~:;.~:~'ci;f :,'~':.
~;"tnct ate to "e allllume "J" 'r~
160
'\
.,
.\
.,'
;1,
.~
.,\ '
36.93.160
COUNTIES
36.93.160. Hearings.... Notice - Record - ~\lbpo~n811 _ Decision of
board-Appellate review
(1) When the jurisdiction of the boundary review board has been invoked.
the board shall set the date, time and place for a public hearing on the
proposal. The board shall give at least thirty days' advance written notice
of the date, time and place of the hearing to the governing body of each
governmental unit having jurisdiction within the boundaries of the territory
proposed to be annexed, formed, incorporated, disincorporated, dissolved or
consolidated, or within the boundaries of a special district whose assets and
facilities are proposed to be assumed by a city or town, and to the
governing body of each city within three miles of the exterior boundaries of
such area and to the proponent of such change. Notice shall also be given
by publication in any n~wspaper of general circulatio~ in .the area of the
proposed boundary change at least three times, the last publica~ion of
which shall be not less than five days prior to the date set for the public
hearing. Notice shall also be posted in ~n public places in the area
affected for five days when the area is ten acres or more. When the area
affected is less than ten acres, five notices shall be posted in five public
place~ for five days. Notice as proyide<i in this subsection shall include ~ny
territory which the board has determined to consider adding in accordance
with RCW 36.93,150(2).
(2) A verbatim record shall be made of an testimony presented at the
hearing and upon request and payment of the reasonable costs thereof, a
copy of the transcript of such testimony shall be provided to any person or
governmental unit.
(3) The chairman upon majority vote of the board or a panel may direct
the chief clerk of the boundary 'review board to issue subpoenas to any
public officer to testify, and to compel the production by him of any
records, books, documents, public records or public papers.
(4) Within forty days after the conclusion of the final hearing on the
proposal, tl!e board shall file its written decision, setting forth ~he reasons
therefor, with the board of county commissioners and the clerk of each
governmental unit directly' affected. The written decision shall indicate
whether the proposed change is approved, rejected or modified and, if
modified, the terms of such modification. The written decision need not
include specific data on every factor required to be considered by the
board, but shall indicate that all standards were given consideration.
Dissenting members of the board shall have the right to have their written
dissents included as part of the decision.
(6) Unanimous decisions of the hearing panel or a decision of a majority
of the members of the board shall constitute the decision of the board and
shall not be appealable to the whole board. Any otJIer decision s4all be
appealable to the entire board within ten days. Appeals shall be on the
record. which shall be furnished by the appellant, but th!'l board may, in its
sole discretion, permit the introduction of additional evidence and argu-
ment. Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within ten days from
the date of said action a governmental unit affected by the decision or any
person owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision
files in the superior court a notice of appeal.
The filing of such notice of appeal within such time limit shall stay the
effective date of the decision of the board until such time as the appeal
shall have been adjudicated or withdrawn. On appeal the superior court
shall not take any evidence other than that contained in the record of the
hearing before the board.
162
36.93.160
CQUNTIES
,,(6) The superior court may affirm the decision of the board. or remand
the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if any
substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the administrative
findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(a) In violation of constitutional provisions, or
(b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, or
(c) Made upon unlawful procedure. or
(d) Affected by other error of law, or
(e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the
entire record as submitted, or
, (f). Arbitrary or capricious.
An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the
superior court in the manner provided by law as if! other civil cases.
Enacted byLaws 1967, ch. 189, ~ 16, eff. July 1, 1967 Amended by Laws 1969,
Ex.Sess., ch. 11, ~ 9; Laws 1971, ch. 81, ~ 97, eff. March 23, 1971, Laws 1987, ch.
477, ~ 8; LawsJ988, c~. 202, ~ 40.
Historical and Statutory Notes
SeverabiUly-,-Law8 19!18. c:h. 202: See
Ilistorical Note following ~ 2.24.050.
by means of appeal under this section,
governing review of decisions of county
boundary review boarda in order to ob-
tain an automatic stay of review board's
decision, could not then be heard to say
that statutory appeal should be con-
sidered a writ. Nisqually Delta A.ss'n v
City of DuPont (1981) 96 Wash.2d 663,
627 P.2d 956.
IJ:nvironmental organizations and pri-
vate citizens, who did not own property
or reside in area to be annexed, were not
in "area affected by the decision" under
Notes of Decisions ~ 36.93.160, governing review procedure
Provisions of this section which ~ro- of decisions of ~cijmty boundary review
vides that in reviewing de~isions of a boards, and thus lacked ~tanding ~ ap-
boundary review board a superior court p.e~1 county ~oun~arr review b.<>ard !1 de-
shall ,not take evidence beyond that be- cI~lon approvmg city ~. annexatIOn ,of cer-
fore the board, relates to evidence on the tam p.roperty to faclllta~ .owner.s con-
substantive issue before the board and structlon of log export facility Nlsquat-
not to challenges to the board's jurlsdic- Iy Delta A.ss'n v City of DuPont (1981)
tion or fairness. Bellevue v King Coun- 96 Wash.2d 668, 627 P.2d 966,
ty Boundary Review Board (1978) 90 Environmental impact statement pre-
Wash.2d 866, 686 P.2d 470. parfild for city in. 1976 was valid and
Phrase "area affected by the deci- adequate at ~me of approval of city's
sion," in this section, governing review ann.exatiQn in 1981 by county boundary
of decisions of county boundary review review board w~ere record demonstrat
boards, refers to area being considered ed no. substantial changes had been
for proposed action by review board, and made In proposal for annexation of the
not to a new or separate undefined area. property, and evidence was sufficient to
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v City of DuPont sustain finding that there was no signifi-
(1981) 95 Wash.2d 563, 627 P.2d 956. cant new information, and thus approval
Environmentat organizations and pri- of t~e. annexation .was not ,arbitrary and
vate citizens who deliberately chose to capricIous. B.ame v Kltsap County
avoid judicial review by means of a writ Boundary ReView Bd.(1982) 97 Wash.2d
of certiorari of decision of county bound- 232, 643 P.2d 433.
ary review board to approve city's pro' Substantial evidence supported deci-
posed annexation of certain property to sion of county board to approve annexa-
faciJjta~ .owner's ~ons~uction of log ex- tion proposed by city Spokane County
port facility, choosmg Instead to proceed Fire Protection Dist. No.9 v Spokane
163
Cross References
General corporate powers, municipal
corporations of the fourj;h class, restric.
tions as to area, see ~ 86.21.010.
WESTLA W Electronic Research
'See WESTLA W Electronic Research
Gllide following the Preface.
36.93.160
COUNTIES I COUNTIES
County Boundary Review Bd. (1982) 97 8.8 in <!rder to enjoin enforcement of the
Wash.2d 922, 662 P.2d 1866. board's decision. In re Northwest Pasco
The "substantial evidence" standard Annexation (1984) 100 Wash.2d 864, 616
provided for review of county boundary P.2d 426.
review board decision is significantly A gOV!lrnmental unit subjected to po~
narrower in scope than "clearly errane- lution would not have standing to appeal
ous" standard provided by Adm~nis~- from deCision of county boundary review
tive Procedure Act, .and subs~ntial eVI- board concerning annexation unless it
dence standard apphed on review of de- had jurisdiction within boundaries of tel'
c!Bion approving annexatio!l proposed .by ritory proposed to be annexed or was
cl~Y Spokane County Fire Protection governing body of city within three
DIilt. No.9 v Spokane County Boundary miles of. such area. Nisqually Delta
Review Bd. (1982) 97 Wash.2d 922, 652 Ass'n v City of DuPont (1980) 2'7 Wash.
P.2d 1366. App. 163, 617 P.2d 446, affinned 95
City's contention that automatic stay Wash.2d 663, 62'7 P.2d 966.
provision of thia section ?~rated Plaintiffs, who did not own property
throughout all appea~ of deCISion by or reside in area to be annexed but who
county boundary ,review.. board was argued t1Jat anyone subject ~ adverse
moot, ~here. l>?ard s ~ecl~lon to grant environmental impact !Ihould be con.
competing city s apphcatlOn to annex sidered within "area affected" by annex.
was legally sO!lnd. In re Northwest ation, were not in "area affected by the
Pasco Annexation (1984) 100 Wash.2d decision" and thua lacked standing to
864, 676 P.2d 426. . appeal county boundary review board's
Altho~gh coun~. bounda~ .revlew decision approving city's annexation of
board did !Io~ SpeCifically out1!ne Its l7a. certain property to facilitate owner's
son.a ~or fm~m~ that an.nexation by City construction of export facility Nisqual.
satisfied cntena of thIS chapter, sub- Iy Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont (1980)
stantial evidence in record supported 2'7 Wash.App. 163 617 P.2d 446 af.
board's conclusion, including evidence firmed 95 Wash.2d 563, 62'7 P.2d' 956.
that annexation created and preserved . .
logical service areas and used physical A court ~at IS revlew?ng challe!lged
boundari!ls, that it prevented abnonnally agency action to dete~me compliance
irregular boundaries, that city's ptans with legal prec.ed~nt IS not precluded
were more ambitious and long tenn than fro~ entering findings of fact and. ~on'
plans of second city, which also sought elusions of law, as long a~ court utilized
to annex part of area, and that first city proper atandards of revIew to resol,ve
had demonstrated capability to carry out legal c~allen~e. Spokane County Fire
plan. In re Northwest Pasco Annexa- Protection DlSt;No.8 v Spokane County
tion (1984) 100 Wash.2d864, 676 P.2d Boundary ReVlew Bd.(1980) 2'7 Wash.
425. App. ~91, 618 P.2d 1326.
One of the purposes of stlltutory City has broad discretion in establish.
scheme governing annexation of terrlto- ing local improvement district bound-
ry by municipalities is the resolution of aries, and petitioners contesting the
elaims to unincorporated territory be- city's actio!l must show its actio~ was
tween competing municipalities, pursu- clearly arbitrary Forsgreen v City of
ant to which, legislature enacted this Spokane (1981) 28 Wash.App. 919, 627
chapter according special rights of no- P .2d 118.
tice and appeal to cities neighboring pro- In proceedings by property owners of
posed annexation. In re Northwest Pas- land situated outside city boundaries to
co Annexation (1984) 100 Wash.2d. 864, contest inclusion of their land within 10-
676 P.2d 425.' cal improvement district, which would be
Statutory stay of annexation pending assessed a portion of the construction
appeal from decision of county boundary costs of proposed trunk sewer, property
review board provided by provision of owners presented no evidence, despite
this aection applied only to appeals to fact that' boundaries of the local im.
superior court. In re Northwest Paaco provement diatrict did not confonn to
Annexation (1984) 100 Wash.2d 864, 676 the natural drainage baain, that city's
P.2d 425. determination was arbitrary, or that
A party seeking appellate review of a their situation would differ if the bound-
auperior court's affinnance or reversal aries confonned to the natursl drainage
of a boundary review board'a decision baain. Forsgreen v City of Spokane
must aeek injunctive retief .under RAP (1981) 28 Wash.App. 919, 62'7 P.2d 118.
164
h"!
m
t~
~I'l!!i
'I~.
ii'
d
H~;
:~1;;
'1'!li.:
'I'
'l!'
m
~
~
fj
;
, i
!
I.
~.~.l"
I'.
,
!~~.'..
.~
j-~
It
0'
\ County boundary review board did not
"att arbitrarily or capriciously in denying
proposed annexation of orchard and two
residencea. City of Wenatchee v
Boundary Review Bd. of Chelan County
(1984)" 39 Wash.App. 249, 693 P.2d 135.
For purposea of detennining whether
decision of county boundary review
board shoutd be upheld, arbitrary and
capricious action is willfut and unreason-
ing action in disregard of facts and cir-
cumstances; but if there is room for two
opiniona, discretion exercised upon due
consideration will not be oV}lrturned..
36.93.170
City of Wenatchee v Boundary Review
Bd. of Chelan County (1984) 39 Wash.
App. 249, 693 P.2d 135.
Defendant's failure to fite timely no-
tice of appeal from boundary review
board's first finding on petition for in-
corporation of city precluded Court of
Appeals from considering claim that
board did not give adequate notice of
hearinga. Hanson v Spokane County
(Wash.App.1989) 53 Wash.App. 723, 170
P.2d 210, review denied 113 Wash.2d
1,004, 717 P .2d 1052.
(&6.93.170. Factors lO be considered by board-Incorporation proceed-
" Ings exempt from state environmental policy act
In reaching a decision on a proposal or an alternative, the board shall
consider the factors affecting such proposal, which shall include, but not be
limited to the following:
(1) Population and territory; population density; land area and land
uses; comprehensive plans and zoning, as adopted under chapter 35.63,
S6A.63, or 36.70 RCW, per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural
boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other populated areas; the
existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agri-
cultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in
adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years;
location and most desirable future location of community facilities;
(2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect of ordinances,
governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present
cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area, prospects
of governmental services from other sources; probable future needs for
Buch services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on
cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area, the
effect on the finances, debt structure, and contractual obligations and
rights of all affected governmental units; and
(3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual
economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure of
the county
The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environmental Policy, shall
not apply to incorporation proceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW
Enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 189, ~ 17, eff. July I, 1967 Amended by Laws 1979,
Ex.Sess., ch. 142, ~ 1, Lawa 1986, ch. 234, ~ 33, eff. Aprit 3, 1986; Laws 1989, ch.
~~~ ".
Historical and Statutory Notea
Severablllty-Lawa 1982. eh. 220: See
Historical Note following ~ 36.93.100.
Crosa Refereneea
Incorporation proceedinga exempt
from State Environmental Policy Act.
see ~ 43.21C.220.
WESTLA W Electronic Research
See WESTLA W Electronic Research
Guide following the Preface.
Notes of Decialons
The actions of a county boundary re-
view board are subject to the provisiona
of the state enviromnental policy act,
including the requirement of a threahold
determination as to the necessity of an
environmental impact atatement, in addi.
tion to those considerationa which must
be made under this chapter Bellevue v
King County Boundary Review Board
(1978) 90 Wash.2d 856, 586 P.2d 470.
165
I' '
Vt,
"
.!....~
I. !I
I ~
,
f; ;~
~~H
n"
1I
lfl~
II;!
1~!
iii'l
~,
;~;;
'I'.'
~ii
,11<
;1(
II:':
il-
1:1
36.93.170
Not every proposal to annex land to a
municipality will require a full environ-
mental impact statement, but in deter-
mining such necessity an agency should
consider any likely effect which the an-
nexation would have on proposed major
development and construction projects.
Bellevue v King County Boundary Re-
view Board (1978) 90 Wash.2d 856, 586
P.2d 470.
On review of county boundary review
board's decillion approving annexation
proposed by city, board's finding that
area to be annexed would soon become
urban in character was entitled to little
weight, since incorporation ill unneces-
sary until urbanization has taken place
or is at least an immediate prospect.
Spokane County Fire Protection Diat.
No. 9 v Spokane County Boundary Re-
view Bd. (1982) 97 Wash.2d 922, 652
P.2d 1356.
In addition to factors contained in thia
section and in ~ 36.93.180, county bound-
ary review board has duty to consider
environmentsl assessment and all other
environmental factors involved in an an-
nexation before approving it. Spokane
County Fire Protection Diat. No. 8 v
Spokane County Boundary Review Bd.
(1980) 2:l Wash,App. 491, 618 P.2d 1326.
Function of county boundary review
boards is not to make land use decisions
but is to resolve competition among mu-
nicipalities for unincorporated territory
, I,
, ~I
COUNTIESl' .(X)UNTIES
IT-
, \~.t
Spokane County Fire Protection Dial; \ y, Historical and Statutory Notes
~o. 8 v Spokane County Boundary R.l "8everablllty-Laws1981, ch. 332: See
vIew Bd. (l980) 2:l Wash.App. 491, 618 Ria . I N te following' 35.13.025.
P.2d 1826. tonca 0 ~
County boundary review board, in re- Law Review Commentaries ,
viewing petition for annexation of land 'Agricultural land preservatIOn. John
to city, sufficiently considered and evalu- C. Keene, 15 Gonzaga L.Rev 621 (1980).
ated enviro~mental ~sessment b~ le!ld , Agricultural land preservation: Wash-
agen.cy,. ~hlch contamed d~~laration 01 'gton approach 15 Gonzaga L.Rev 765
nonslgmflcance, and suffiCiently coo- it980)
sidered and evaluated other environmeo- .
tal factors prior to its decision approving Ubrsry References
ann~xatio~. Spokane County Fire Pro- 'Municipal Corporations ~25.
tection Dlst. No. 8 v Spokane County C.J S Municipal Corporations ~ 38.
Boundary Review Bd. (1980) 27 Wash. . .
App. 491, 618P.2d 1326. WESTLA W Electronic Reaearch
In making determination of approving See WES~LA W Electronic Research
annexation proposal, county boundary Guide followmg the Preface.
review board was sufficiently cognizant
of objectives outlined in ~ 36.93.1SO
which board was to attempt to achieve,
including preservation of natural neigh.
borhood and communities, and determi-
nation reached ,by board was supported
by the record. Spokane County Fire
Protection Dist. No.8 v Spokane CoUI!'
ty Boundary Review Bd. (1980) 27 Wash.
App. 491, 618 P.2d 1326.
For every annexation decision, bound.
ary review board must consider statu.
tory factors and attempt to achieve stat-
utory objectives. City of Wenatchee v
Boundary Review Bd. of Chelan County
(1984) 89 Wash.App. 249, 693 P.2d 135.
36.93.18.U. Objectiv!ll! of boundary review boara
The decisions of the boundary revj~w board !Ihall attempt to achieve the
following objectives: -.
(I) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and lloqimunities;
(2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of
water, highways, and land contours;
(8) Creation and preservation of logical service areBB;
(4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries;
(5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encour-
agement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in
heavily populated urQan areas;
(6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts;
(7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries;
(8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of
unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and
(9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for
long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive
plan adopted by the county legislative authority
Enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 189, 0 18, eff. July I, 1967 Amended by Laws 1979,
Ex.Sesa., ch. 142, 0 2; Lawa 1981, ch. 332, 0 10; Laws 1989, ch. 84, 0 6.
166
;
III
~~
36.93.180
view Bd. (1982) 97 Wash.2d 922, 652
P.2d 1856.
Appropriateness of boundary delinea-
tion in proposal for annexation is merely
one of several factors for county bound-
ary review board to consider in deter-
mining whether to approve proposal. In
re Northwest Pasco Annexation (1984)
100 Wash.2d 864, 676 P.2d 425.
County boundary review board must
achieve at least one of its objectives
under this section in deciding whether to
approve annexation of certain property
by city, if board's decision on annexation
proposal is to be affirmed. In re North-
west Pasco Annexation (1984) 100
Wash.2d 864, 676 P.2d 425.
Provision of subsection requiring a
reasonable retationship between taxes to
be paid and services to be received in
Notes of Decisions are~ to .be annexed wa~ invali~ a~ special
legIslatIon because of Its apphcatlon onty
It is not function of county boundary to cities of over 400,000. City of Seattle
review board to make land use decisions, v State (1985) 103 Wash.2d 663, 694
but board's decisions approving exten- P.2d 641.
.ion of city boundaries are at center of Where it was clear that legislature
board's authority, a~~ such a decision would never have passed unconstitution-
w~ not land use dec~slOn though an~e~- al provision of this section without limit
ation would necessarily change ~rmlssl- ing its application to cities of over
ble land use. Spokane County Fire Pro- 400 000 unconstitutional limitation of
tection Dist. ~o. 9 v Spokane County pro~isi~n requiring reasonable relation.
Boundary ReView Bd. (1982) 97 Wash.2d ship taxes to be paid and services to be
922, 652 P.2d 1356. received in the area to be annexed was
Term "natural neighborhoods" not be- not severable from the rest of the sub-
ing defined in this section, court in ab- section and therefore the whole subsec-
aence of legislative direction woutd con- tion was invalid. City of Seattle v State
.true term to mean both distinct geo- (1985) 103 Wash.2d 663, 694 P.2d 641.
graphical areas or socially and location- Function of county boundary review
ally distinct groups of residents, under board is to resolve competition among
generat rule that remedial statutes are municipalities for unincorporated territo-
to be liberally construed. Spokane ry and not to make land use decisions.
County Fire Protection Dist. ~o. 9 v In re King County Water Pillt. 108 Pro-
Spokane County Boundary ReVIew Bd. posed Water Extension (1407 Acres)
(1982) 97 Wash.2d 922, 652 P.2d 1356. (1979) 24 Was!u\,pp. 116, 600 P.2d 616.
County boundary review board was Function of county boundSry review
Dot responsible for intent underlying de- boards is not to make land use decisions
lineation of areas to be annexed by city, but is to resolve competition among mu-
80le concern of board being objective nicipalities for unincorporated territory
result, to be measured against goals set Spokane County Fire Protection Dist.
out in statute, and thus gerrymandering, No.8 v Spokane County Boundary Re-
in case at bar, was not of any indepen- view Bd. (1980) 27 Wash.App. 491, 618
dent significance. Spokane County Fire P.2d 1326.
Protection Dist. No: 9 v Spokane Coun- County boundary review board, in re-
ty Boundary ReView Bd. (1982) 97 viewing petition for annexation of tand
Wash.2d 922, 652 P.2d 1356. to city, sufficiently considered and evalu-
County boundary review board is not ated environmental assessmen~ by lead
required to achieve all statutory objec- agency, which contained declaration of
lives, or even most of them, but decision nonsignificance, and sufficiently con-
which advances none at all is reversible. sidered and evaluated other environmen-
Spokane County Fire Protection Dist. tal factors prior to its decision approving
No. 9 v Spokane County Boundary Re- annexation. Spokane County Fire Pro-
167
36.93.180
t.eeuon DilIt. No. 8 v Spokane County
Boundary Review Bd. (1980) Zl Wash.
ApP. 491, 618 ~.2d 18Z6.
In addition to factors contllined in thill
lIecuon and in ~ 86.98.1'10. county bound-
ary review board ball duty to consider
env\rOnmentlll assessment and aU other
environmentlll factors involved in an an-
neltation before approving it. Spokane
County Fire Protection DilIt. No. 8 v
SpokAne County Boundary Review Bd.
(1980) Zl Wash.APP' 491. 618 p.Zd 1326.
In ma\s.ing determination of approving
anneltation proposal, county boundary
review board was sufficiently cognizant
of obiectives outlined in thill section
which bOard was to attefl\pt to acbieve,
including prellervation of natural neigh-
bOrbood and communities, and determi-
~.3.l'" ObI""'" '" ""...'" "vlo" .........W...'. .."" ......,.
ann.......... ............T....- ..' odl..... to ....",.
Th' ......aI b1 . "...' dlo"'" .. ...... ~. to ..- ""'..'" that
lo .., odl.".' .. ... dlo""" .bOn ... .. d.."'" .. .. viola"" .1 ..
obi-" .1 . "".....'" ,.- b..n! ..t<I1 d" .. II.. I..' .... ..
.."'...,. lo ... ........ .. thO "..., dlo"'" .. ...." dlo"'" .,..
.",pooed .....\idoIl<>. .. m..... .f- .. ..... .....' dlo""" .. .... ..
..... ...." dlo""" .... ." ... .d;"'.' .. .... ....' .bOn .ot ..
do""'" .. .. v;.IoIlV' .1 ... .bj<eUV," .1 . b...do'" "v"" ....,d ..I."
due to the fact that the districts are not adiacent.
Enacted by Lawll 1989, cb. 308, ~ 18.
......1... D"""."..,..d ." to ...... ..IoU.' !<'.~' .."mllo'
codes. ordinances. etc" fo~ ten years
F.. . period .f IoU 1- ..... .b. d... .1 ... _, doe""" ..
~".. oPP",vol. ......, .. """,ion on . ...pooaI" on aI......v.
oholl be d..mod .. """,I .., f...ob"" .. ...nnit ..."tol'" ....ted b1
... ..,,,,,,,... ......... ... """"'" to .. .....od. ..' .b.n it ..
d....od .. .......... ... ap.noa"" .. .. ..y .._'" .. b. ......d. ol
.." ",..\rO''''' ...... and .""...... (\nO""" bu' no' Ii..ited .. ....
.,""""" ond .,...bin' "'.... ond ..d...."') .. .bOn bOv. .... .do.ted
by ... ........... ..v...... ... ""'..'" .. b' .."",od ond .. f."" .. ...
time of the decision.
Enacted by LaWll 196'1, cn. 189, , 19. tiff. July 1. 1961
.......... R.I.. .., ,...,.,.....-A""". .........
E..b ,,<Ie" ....d ....n ..... ",,,, ......... ... ,....., on' inf.nnaI
.",,_ ...."'...... .....""'" by "'" .....'" S.ob ""....., .....
... q..m","''' .f ........ f.. ........ bel." ......... S.ob ",I"
....n .10. in"'" ..... .f ....ti.. ..,... ... ...n!. _th" with f.-
and instructions.
T. ...lo' in.....ted ....- d",Iin' "i" it, .... "".n! .b.n" f.. ..
do....d .",tioa'Io ....I...... i" ",io< "ith ....rip.... .....m.... .f ita
procedures.
.do<..... ...pti...f on1 ",I. .....""'" b11o"...... ............'
......, ......1. ... boon! .bol' 6" ...... ......f "i" ... ""k .1 th. ..."
168
u-..-
36.93.900. Effective date-\961 e \89
",. .<<,eliV' do" .f t';o .bO.",;o J.\11. 10m
tnacted bY LaVlll 196'1, ch. 18\}, ~ 'lA.
.......10. 8..",,,\1,,_19&1' to. . .
. . lie tion to any pefson or cU'cum
\f .n'! .",v;oi'. .f .." .... '! ... 'f":..t .. ... ..pl"""" of ...
...... lo bold i.volid. th. ,,~. ::.:;..... lo .;.. .ff......
'Provision to other -persons Of eU'CU
.."", ., .... ,,,,. oh. '89.1 ... .ff. JuI, t, \9"
Library "(teferencell
Stlltutes I/;:"64t4).
C.J .S. StIltuteS ~ 98.
.. .' ...m"''''''' o. "",,, .....b" ......
.......... .....011 ..,Ii.b" '0 CIOO' A ....Ii.. b1
","". ...mbe' .....do ".."d ... 'i.V' m.m"" bo...... ...v\dO' in
"" \.., ,....m"'" ,bO\I .. "':~{'.:- m:" .., ..poinun"'" ...... ,..
"". ","'" Th' .oV~",,,, ., .........do io _. .",. A"".."
,........ .. fill ~..V.... ....... ... . .b.1I b' "",. by"" ..V'.....
..til 19'12. .t ",'" .... on' ~tf'm :'1~.m ...... ... .."""'" .1 ...
inde-pendentlY, and one ll:p-pOln IUen
169
36.90\
36.93.920
""" ..,""....., ..._ ... utili" _, ,.."",_' _N.
... of fi\1>, ..II-II.."" on .....~".. . . -
""" ..,.."...., ...""" ..' .n'" ,"" ._,-' .."""
Hearing on protellts-Order-APpeat . .
""~ ...,.."...., ..._... .n"" '''''" ...,........, ...",...-En-
\arged local dilltrict may be formed.. .'
""" ..,.."...., ....,.." ." .""" loW...'''''....''' .........-CO..
""'"..... of .." w.... .,...,,,,_..;..n."" .. __to ,f
other fundll become available. . .
"""...""'.....,..._.... ."\1\, _, ...,..,-' ..........-.~
,.\In" ..."w .' . -S
"",' ......"....' ...""" .... .n"" ,,,,,,, ,.....'-,..- ...
regation of llpecia\ alllleililment_Fee-Collts.
........ ..",.. f'" f" ...." .., ...._... -,,,,I> .... ,.." ."" "n"
."..,01--"'''''' ...'''' f'- -'''''''' ......... -.... .
"...f".f .,..... ,.... ...."',., ..""""'. .. ....,,_..~.
"""" 0' .,._ "".. ......,,' ......"Un. .. .....,_.............
of indebtedneilil. .
"...f" of .,.".. f.... ......,... .."........ " ....,,_""'1"
agreement. P .' f
""..f" .f .,..... "".. ......,,' ......"Un. .. ....,,- .""'" ..
court approval of tr1\nilfer-Hearing-Decree. .'
""..,,, of .,- "".. ......... .",,,- .. _tr""",In"" .f
.......... ,,,,,,.Un" .W
""nol" of .,..... f.... ......... _""" .. ....,,_RC
......to ",,,,..h ........ ....... ._u" ~
W.,," " ..", .f ..,,,,..' .1 "", "'....., ......un." ......., f..'
for loW income perllonil.
........ """I ...,.."...., _.~"""I ,..""'~.., ......" ....-"".
. ments_Alllleilllments-Certificatell of de\lnquency
." .oo "",,' ,.."."...., .......-""'" ,.."."...., ......" ...,HlUh.....
.' . ..~I...",.....PU,~.....f "."",.", ., ...-"" ..",. .
." "" """, ...,..,....., .......-""" ..,.."...., ..."." ~
.' . " bO_,","_"""," .f ..... b.- .. ....' ..",.. ..."
maintenance fund. . .
." ,,0. "",i" of .,..... """ ..,.., .. ..", " ..." "-.
......,.. ."...'" of .,..... """ ....', '" ....' " ..." ..----
..~II"",,-"b1" ..__'''''' of ..", ~ ..- ..-
.....,.. ."...,,, 0' .,..... "".. ...." .. ..... " ..." ..""..... ^"""""'.
. method. d' . D b
........ "",'" of .,..... "".. ...." .. .,.., "..-" ..""..... -' ,
llUperior cOurt.
"...... "",,,.....f,.,-.. ..' . .
".i.910. ......rl,,_Ub"" ....""_ of ......~"......- of ....-...,
acts.
t6.9.\.920. 5everabi\ity_196'1 c'l2.
$6.9.\.921. 5everabi\ity_19'15 11lt ell.iI. c 188.
....... V"-' ...""Is .. .",M" ,. RCW ...9O.06ll, whOSO ..- '''lI'" ...-:" un
...,u. on J..- 1, 101'. In 101' tho ..._' ....n 'VpoIsI ~ ~."'.
..e"- to Ihe boa'" .. .on,;de<! .. RCW .......... The "......;, ,
.....W> hy thl> .",lion ....n not ..,,,,, the 1m"'" j.riutl',lion ..e<..... ~.'"
,.odIn, ., the .... 0' ,.....on '\ .....0.
E...... " Lo-' ,909, E.....' ,h. 11\, 110. ' ,
.~\ ~.2B0.
,
Library Referencell
Countieil 41="38.
C.J.5. Countieil ~ '14.
'~:"l
"~~,' t".29\).
'j ~.1300.
CIlAP'l'ER 36.M_SEWERAGE. W~TER AND
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
D f. . . .i ....910.
, ........ '. .......
Pu.--Pu"'" · .
^,<>P'i<!n of ....n.. ....,~ _"" ....n! ,\00 .. ......n' .f.._ ... ~o
h"'"' ..... ' ~~~ .
I."",."tI.. 01 ,"',...... of "",,,b""" .... I> ....... .........' ,
,..,~ 01 .._'''' ......... ,...,."...n, ..... "qui,,,, .......
..",. "'....".,.;-eo_......-s.......... .f .... .. ,,,,"'-' ...
..",. ......"..~.., "",,,,,_....,:.-Q.."'..-eo- ....\l6O.
tion of memberll.
....... .....,,_R"". .f ,'" .. .~...",n" "',......-...... ........
Hearing by board_NotiCe-Fi\ing general plan.
."",.on, .~._, .. ";00.... ., ,.... ' .,.,.,0.
S.b_~' of ,\0' '" ............ """.... ...... ..... "'-'" .
_APProvat
Adherence to plan_Procedure for llmendmei\t.
....bMh",n' .f ..""~., ,,, ........"'.... of .,.....-,-
merit llYiltem.
Adoption of ru\ell and regu\atiOnll.
........" .f ....., .. """" .,.....-..... .... ......., r~'" 01-
Factorll to be cOnllidered.
pub" ..._ ..bi'" .. n"" .... ....... ,~ ...no ...., ......
faciUties.
Lien for delinquent chargell.
Tall on groilll revenues authorized.
Authority of municipal corporations-ReUnquillhment of.
'l'ransfer of llylltem upon annexation or incOrporation of area.
Contracts with other entitiell.
Indebtednesll-Bondll.
PI"'" "" pa,~" 0' prind"! .... 1>-' .. ....... " .......
obligation bondll.
""" ......,...'''' ..- .... .""" ..... ...........' ....,....-..
tabUllhment-Specia\ &.llSellllments.
.....,... .f f.no ." """'.'""" .... ,.... -' .....fi' .......
ments.
""" ......'_' ....,.... .... .n1it>' ....' .."",.-' ...--,....
ation of dilltrict by reilo\ution or petition_Publication-Notice to prop-
"" ......-eon...... .
""" ..,.."m..' ...,.... .., oUl" ..... ,.."",-' ..__NO
U" ....' ...... ....._, Ilm' _'" "'" "" ""m ..~
matell. (New 1
""" ,..."'''~., ....,.." .... .u,,, ..... ,....."~., ... """'-"'"
."'" ..w" " ........ w.'" f.,'W..-N.... .. ..- ,..,.",
ownerll.
""" ...,,,,,_'" ...""" .... .tlli" -' ..,,,,,,...., ....,....-
II..,;..-,..."',....., .........-Di'.._.f ...." in ....', ....
umitation-Allllellllment rou.
170
Section
36.94.010.
36.94.020.
36.94.030.
36.94.040.
36.94.050.
36.94.060.
86.94.010.
86.94.080.
86.94.090.
86.94.100.
86.94.110.
136.94.120.
36.94.130.
86.94.140.
36.9.>\.145.
86.94.160.
136.94.160.
86.94.170.
86.94.180.
36.94.190.
36.94.200.
36.94.210.
36.94.220.
36.94.226.
36.94.230.
LibrarY Reference.
Counties 41="108 et seq.
Municipa\ CorporatiOnll 41="'109.
C.J .5. Countiell ~ 165 et ileq.
C.J.S. Municipa\ Corporationil ~ 1049.
VlESTLA VI Electronic fl,e&earc\'l
See VlES'l'LA. VI E\ectronic Rellearch
Guide foUowing the Preface.
crollS Reference.
Deferra\ of llpecia\ asllellllments. Ilee
ell. gU8.
Sewer dilltrict activitiell to be ap-
~toved. criteria f~r approval by county
\e~\ative authonty> ilee ~ 56.02.060.
~aste dillpolla\ facilities bond pro-
ceedll ulle for faci\itiell approved in ac'
tOrd~nce with thill ch.> Ilee ~ 43.99F.020.
Water dilltrict activitieil to be ap-
~toved. criteria for approval by county
legislative authority. ilee ~ 5'1.02.040.
1'T1
36.94.232.
36.94.235.
36.94.240.
.Ch. 84
->.:oo-,~ .',.-<>
~
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
CHAPTER 84
(Substitute Senate Bill No. 51271
BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARDS-ORGANIZATION, POWERS, AND PROCEDURES
AN ACT Relating 10 boundary review boards; amending RCW 35.02.078, 36.93.150, 36-
.93.100, 36.93.105, 36.93.170, 36.93.180, 35.02.170, 35.21790, and 35A.21.21O; adding new
seclions to chapler 36.93 RCW, adding new sections to chapler 35.13 RCW, adding new sec-
tions to chapter 35A.14 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 35.02 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 35.07 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 35.10 RCW, adding a new
seclion to chapter 35.16 RCW, adding a new section to chapler 35.21 RCW. adding a new
seclion to chapter 35.43 RCW, adding a new seclion to chapter 35.61 RCW. adding a new
section to chapter 35.67 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 35.91 RCW, adding a new
section 10 chapter 35.92 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 35A.02 RCW, adding a new
section 10 chapter 35A.03 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 35A.05 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 3 SA. t 5 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 35A.16 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 52.02 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 52.04 RCW, adding a new
seclion to chapter 52.06 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 52.08 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 52.10 RCW. adding a new section to chapler 53.48 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 54.08 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 5416 RCW, adding a new
section to chapler 54.32 RCW. adding a new section to chapter 56.04 RCW, adding a new
section to chapler 56.08 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 56.24 RCW, adding a new
section to chapler 56.28 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 56.32 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 56.36 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 57.04 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 57.08 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 57.24 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 57.28 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 57.32 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 57.36 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 57 40 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 57.90 RCW, adding a new seclion to chapler 85.38 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 86.15 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 87.03 RCW, adding a new
section 10 chapter 87.52 RCW, adding a new section to chapter 87.53 RCW, adding a new
section to chapter 87.56 RCW. and repealing RCW 36.93.050 and 36.93.060.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington.
.See. 1. Section 10, cbapter 234, Laws of 1986 ant! -RCW 35.02078
are eacb amended to read as follows:
An election sball be beld in tbe area proposed to be i~corporated to de-
termine wbetber tbe proposed city or town sball be inc~rporated ((if-tbe
bound.ry r~.ie" boa, d Apprt,.~ 0, modiJi~ And Appro'~ tIJ~ P'OPO$JlI, or)) if
tbe county legislatire autbority does not disapprore the proposal as prorided
in RCW 35.02070. Voters at tbis e~ection shall determine if tbe area is to be
incorpora ted.
Tbe initial election on tbe question of incorporation sball be beld at tbe
next special election date specified in ~CW 29.13.020 tbat occurs sixty or
more days after tbe final public bearing by tbe county legislatire autbority or
autborities, or ((the appro.al OJ modmution And Appro..l)) by tbe boundary
reriew board or boards. The county legislatire authority or authorities shall
call for this election and, if tbe incorporation is appro red, sball call for otber
elections to elect the elected officials as prorided in this section. If the rote in
faror of the incorporation receives forty percent or less of tbe total vote on
the question of incorporation, no new election on tbe question of incorpora-
tion for tbe area or any portion of tbe are~ proposed to be incorporated may
(390 I
~...,.
~
~
't
it
1
J{.
,t
\
t
\
I
j
\
!
I
(
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
Ch.84
1
\
I
I
I
.
be held for a period of three years from tbe date of tbe election in whicb the
incorporation failed.
If the incorporation is authorized as provided by RCW 35.02120, sepa-
rate elections shall be held to nominate and elect persons to fill the various
dectire offices prescribed by law for the population and type of city or town,
and to which it will belong. The primary election to nominate candidates for
these e/ectire positions shall be held at the next special election date, as
specified in RCW 29.13.020, that occurs sixty or more days after the elec-
tion on the question of incorporation. The election to fill these electire posi-
tions shall be held at tbe next special election date, as specified in RCW
29,13,020, that occurs thirty or more days after certification of the results of
the primary election.
-Sec. 1 was fetoed, see message at end of chapter n
.See. 2 Section 15, chapter 189, Laws of 1967 as last smende,l"Il1Y
section 7, chapter 477, Laws of 1987 and RCW 36.93,150 are each amended
to read as follows:
The board, upon reriew of any proposed action, shall take such of the
following actions as it deems necessary to best carry out tbe intent of this
chapter:
(1) Approral of the proposal as submitted;
(2) Subject to RCW 35.02170, modification of the proposal by adjust-
ing boundaries to add or delete territory: PROVIDED, That any proposal for
annexation by the board shall be subject to RCW 35.21.010 and shall not
add additional territory, the amount of whicb is greater than that included in
the original proposal: PROVIDED FURTHER, That such modifications
shall not interfere with the authority of a city, town, or special purpose dis-
trict to require or not require preannexation agreements, -COfenants, or peti-
tions: AND PROVIDED FURTHER. Tbat a board shall not modify a
. roo osed incor oration of a ci b remorin territo from the ro OS61'---..."
addinl! territory to the proposal, that constitutes ten percent or more,k J
total area included within the proposal before the board;
(3) Determination of a dirision of assets and liabilities between two or
more gorernmental units where relevant;
(4) Determination whether. or the extent to which, functions of a special
purpose district are to be assumed by an incorporated city or town, metro-
politan municipal corporation, or anotber existing special purpose district; or
(5) Disapproval of the proposal except that the board shall not hare ju-
risdiction~o disapprore the dissolution or disincorporation of a special
purpose district wbich is not pro riding serrices but shall hare jurisdiction
orer the determination of a dirision of the assets and liabilities of a disso/fed
or disincorporated special purpose district((: PROWDED, TI.at a Ma,d shaH
lI~t bate j",iJm,tiOll)>i...1M over the dirisioll of assets and liabilities of a spe-
cial purpose district that is dissolred or disincorporated pursuant to chapter
13911
G Cb. 84~
W ASllING'fON LAWS, 1989
I
I
\
36.96 RCWL.!lor(c) disapprol'e the incorporation of a d
!!on of a dty or tow!!-
Unless ,h. ....rd shaH dlsapprO,., proposa~ i' shall he p......'od .nder
,he .ppropria" ,....,. for .pproral of' p.hlic body and, If ....,uired. · ro"
of the people. A proposal 'ha' h.' "... modffl'" ,haH he pr..eo.'" .nder .h.
.ppropri'" "..... for .ppro,nl of a paJillc body and if ....,uired, a ,01' of
,he people. ff a proposa~ o'her ..... that far a dty, .."" ... sped. I p.rpos.
dis'rict ......ti.... .fter ..odifica'ion d... no' c....in ...ugh slg...ur.. of
p""'os ,,;thin .h. ..odifi'" area, as .re ....,.ir'" hy I.", .hen .h. initi.tiug
party, parties ar gO,.ro..en,.' uni' has 'hlrty day' .fte, .h. modific.tion de-
d'ion '0 sec.re .nough ,ign...res '0 ..tisfy the legal ....,air_nt If 'h.
,ig........ c..... h. ,ecnr'" .hen.he proposal may he ,.I"uitted.o. 'D" of
the people, as required by law,
The adcfition or deletion of property by t~e board shall not inl'alidate a
pe'i'l.. "hich hod pre'io""" ,.tisfied ,he ,nlficlen<y of ,ig..,.re prorisloos
of RCW 35.1J.I30 Dr 35A.J4.Uo. When the ....n/, .fter doe p~iug'
h.Jd, dlsappro,es . propos'" action ,!!her ,.... an mcoWoration Dr ""incO.!:
l!!!ra'l" of . d.. Dr 'ow!!, ,nch proposed acti.. shaH he nnarallah'e, .he
proposing .genCY shaH h. ,,;tho.' po"er '0 iui.ia" the ..... Dr ,.hs,.nti.Hy
,he ..... .. d........n'" hy .h. ....rd, .nd .ny .-eeding .ct, intend'" '0 ar
tendiBIl'o .If.d"'" ,ha' .ction shaH he ,Did, hu' such acti.. may he rei.....
.Ia.'" .f.er . period of .".1,. ....'hs fro" da" of dlsapproral .nd ,hall
again be subject to the same consideration.
Th. ....rd shaH not ..odify Dr d.ny . proposed ..tion nnJess ,h.re is
.rld..... on .h. record '0 suppu" . cnncl...i.. .ha' the ac'i" is inc......'en'
"ith on' Dr ..ore of .h. objerdres nnder RCW jli.93.IBo. E,.ry ,UClJ de'er-
......ioo 10 ..odify Dr deny' pruposed .ction shaH ". made in "ritlug pur-
...... '0 . _io" and shaH he ,upporl'" by .ppropria.. "ritten fiudings .nd
cnnclusl- has'" .. the reroni A doC- d"",r1bin an .ctio /india
Dr cnnc/nslon mad. b a /nnnni. "rI."....rd ma' he slen'" bv ,b. chair-
man or rice-chairman at or out of a ublic meetin .
.Sec. 1 was vetoed. see message at end of cbapter
Sec. 3 Section 10, chapter 189, LawS of 1967 as last amended by sec-
.ion 3. chapter 411. LawS of 1987 and RCW 36.93100 are each amended
to read as followS:
The board ,hall review aod approve. disappro,.. or modify any of .hc
actioos set for.h in RCW 36.93.090 when any of .he following shall occ.r
within forty-five days of the filing of a notice of intention.
(I) Three members of a five-member bo.odary <<view hoa,d 0' five
members of a bo.ndary <<view hoard in a class AA co.n'y files a <<q.est
for review' PROVIDED. ThaI the members of the bo.ndary <<view board
shall not be authorized to file a req.es. for review of .he folluwing actions:
(a) The incorporation or change in the bonndary of any city. lown. or
~n..ril\l Durpose district;
WASHINGTON LAWS. l~a'
(b) The extension nf permanent water service oulside o[ its existing
corporate bounda<ies by a city. ,own. or special purpose districl where such
ex.ension is lhrough ,he installadon of water mains of six inches or less in
diameter; or
(c) The extension of permaneuI sewer serviCe ontside of its exisling
corporate boundaries by a cI'Y. lown. or special purpose district wh"e such
edension is lhroogh the installalion o[ sewer mains of eight inches or less in
dIameter;
(2) Any governmental .oi' affec.ed. \!leludrng .he ,overnmental un~
for whiCh Ihe hounda' chan e or extension of ermanent waler or sew"
""rvice is proposed, or the counly within which the a<ea of the proposed ac-
.ion rs located. 61es a request for review of lhe specific aclion,
(3) A petition ,equesling review is filed and is signed hy' ('
(a) Five percent of.be registered voters residing within the area ,~jh
is being cooside,ed for the proposed action (as determined hy the boundary
review board in its discretion subjec' to immediate review by writ of certio-
rari to the superior court). or
(h) An owner or owners of prope,ty consisting of five pereenl of lhe
assessed valuation within such area,
(4) The majority of the memhers of hounda<y review hoards concnr
with a request for review when a pelition reqoes.ing the review is filed hy
five pereent of Ihe registered voters who deem themselves affected by the
action and reside within one-q.arter mile of the proposed aclion bul not
within the jurisdiction proposing the actio~.
If a period of forty-five days shall elapse withont lhe hoard's jorisdic.
tion haviug heen invoked as set forth in this seelion. lhe proposed aclion
shall be deemed approved.
If a review of a proposal is requested. lhe board shall make a finding as
prescribed io RCW 36.93 150 wilhin one hnndred twenty days aft" .he_fit.
iog of such a request [or review If this period of one huodred ,wenl{ 'is
, /
shall elapse without the hoard making a finding as prescribed in RCW-36-
93 150, the proposal shall be deemed approved unless the hoard and .hc
person who submitted Ihe proposal agree to an exlension of lhe one hundred
twenty day period.
Sec. 4 SectiOn 5. chaple' 147, LawS of t984 and RCW 36.93 105 are
each amended to read as folloWS.
The follow in actions shall not be snb' eel to o,ential review bv a
~undary review boar~
ill. Annexations of lerritory to a water or seW" dislrict pursuaul lO
RCW 36.94 4\0 thro.gh 36.94440 ((.ban ..nl b.. ...;e...<I b, · hou..d.><Y
~;.,... board))l
D Revisions of city or town boundaries oursuanl to RCW 35.21 790
~ 35A.21.2lQi
, 393 \
W ASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
Cb.84
.Cb. 84 '
W ASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
(5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and en-
couragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population
in heavily populated urban areas;
(6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts;
(7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries,
(8) Incorporation as cities or towns' or annexation to cities or towns of
unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and
(9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for
Ion", term ..roductive a ricultural and resource use b a com rehensive Dlan
=O:~~i~ t~:Et[;~~e~g ~ :; ,=;i:; ~~ :;~
~~.~:::.:d ~: ~~~"::~ ~:'~";' . - :::~:- ~; :~~';.":.::~ ::;:~
:: :~ t:fb~ :.:::;;: ;.~ '; ;;;" ~f :::.:;: ;;;;';:: ::::::~ :,;f;
::;-::.'::: '~ ~~."'::::;;:~:~ ~~t:; ~ : :;::::':::;-: ~~.
~:; ;:'~ ~g :~; ;:;:~ ..:f ~ Z~ ::.:;. :::
~:;:; ~::.: =~~ _ " : _...,~.:to.. ~:::;; of 468,006 ... .,,0<0
I It sulntl,)Jl fo. alll""...atloll {). ov(,vd.hgs))
Sec. 7 Section 2, chapter 220, Laws of 197 S 1 st ex. sess. as amended
by section 25, chapter 234, Laws of 1986 and RCW 35.02.170 are each
amended to read as follows.
((:;:';::';'~ ~::: ::.:", .~d. u: :~h:..~: :::;:::: 0;:
deh"". , _ f -~ - . "it, U' to;.. i" a" i"".;: .'i~,,- U' .::
neJlatiul\ {)lvG('Gd~lIg.)) The right of way line of any public street, road or
highway, or any segment thereof, may be used to define a part of a corpo-
rate boundary in an incorporation ((01 4JlI\(,.....lion)) proceeding. ~
boundaries of a newl incor orated cit or town shall not include a rtion
of the ri ht of wa of an ublic street road or hi hwa exce t where the
boundar runs from one ed e of the ri ht of wa to the other ed e of the
right of way- . (J
NEW SECTION Sec. 8 A new section is added to chapter 3:,:-..-J
RCW to read as follows:
The boundaries of a city or town arising from an annexation of terri-
tory shall not include a portion of the right of way of any public street,
road, or highway except where the boundary runs from one edge of the
right of way to the other edge of the right of way However, the right of
way line of any public street, road, or highway, or any segment thereof, may
be used to define a part of a corporate boundary in an annexation
proceeding.
NEW SECTION Sec. 9 A new section is added to chapter 3SA.14
RCW to read as follows.
The boundaries of a code city arising from an annexation of territory
shall not include a portion of the right of way of any public street, road, or
highway except where the boundary runs from one edge of the right of way
(3) Adjustments to city or town boundaries pursuant to section 24 of
this act; and
!4) Adjustments to city and town boundaries pursuant to sections 12
through IS of this act.
Sec. S Section 17, chapter 189, Laws of 1967 as last amended by sec-
tion 33, chapter 234, Laws of 1986 and RCW 36.93 no are each amended
to read as follows: <
In reaching a decision on a proposal or an alternative, the board shall
consider the factors affecting such proposal, which shall include, but not be
limited to the following:
(1) population and territory; population density; land area and land
uses, comprehensive ((use)) plans and zoningl. as adopted under chapter 3S-
.63, 35A.63, or 36.70 RCW, per capita assessed valuation, topography, nat-
ural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other populated areas; the
existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agri-
cultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent
incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years; location
and most desirable future location of community facilities;
(2) Municipal services; need for municipal services, effect of ordi-
nances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses,
present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area,
prospects of governmental services from other sources, probable future
needs for such services and controls, probable effect of pr9posal or alterna-
tive on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area,
the effect on the finances, debt structure, and contractual obligations and
rights of all affected governmental units; and
(3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mu-
tual economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure
of the county
The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environmental Policy,
shall not apply to incorporation proceedings covered by chapter 35.02
RCW
Sec. 6. Section 18, chapter 189, Laws of 1967 as la~l amended by sec-
tion 10, chapter 332, Laws of 1981 and RCW 36.93180 are each amended
to read as follows.
The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve
the following objectives.
(1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities;
(2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of
water, highways, and land contours,
(3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas;
(4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries;
1395 I
. Ch. 84
W ASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
to the other edge of the right of way However, the right of way line of any
public street, road, or highway, or any segment thereof, may be used to de-
fine a part of a corporate boundary in an annexation proceeding.
Sec. 10. Section 11, chapter 220, Laws of 1915 lst ex. sess. and RCW
35.21 190 are each amended to read as follows.
(1) The governing bodies of a county and any city or town located
therein may by agreement revise any part of the corporate boundary of the
city or town which coincides with the centerline1- edge, or any portion of a
public street, road or highway !!ght of way by substituting therefor a right
of way line of the same public street, road or highway so as fully to include
or fully to exclude that segment of the public street, road or highway from
the corporate limits of the city or town.
(2) The revision of a corporate boundary as authorized by this section
shall become effective when approved by ordinance of the city or town
councilor commission and by ordinance or resolution of the ({buc\ld 00)
county {{wu'l..is.\ivu",~ (h GOdutj .,outten)) le~islative authority Such a
boundary revision is not subiect to potential review bv a boundary review
board.
--
Sec. 11 Section 18, chapter 220, LawS of 1915 1st ex. sess. and RCW
3SA.21.210 are each amended to read as follows:
(l) The governing bodies of a county and any ~ city ({or tv4Vn)) lo-
cated therein may by agreement revise any part of the corporate boundary
of the city ((01 town)) which coincides with the centerlineL ed~e, or any
J!Ortion of . public str..t. ro.d '" bigbw.y right of W'.Y by substituting
therefor a right of way line of the same public street, road or highway so as
fully to include or fully to exclude that segment of the public street, road or
highway from the corporate limits of the city {(or tvwn))
(2) The revision of a corporate boundary as authorized by this section
shall become effective when approved by ordinance of the city {(m tvwn))
council ((w- ~(hu'h;~"lon)) and by ordinance or resolution of the ((boa..! of
rolwt, wluu,ibiv......~ or)) county ((council)) legislative authority Such a
boundary revision is not subiect to ootential review bv a boundary review
---
board.
-
NEW SECTION Sec. 12. A new section is added to chapter 3513
RCW to read as follows:
The purpose of sections 12 through 15 of this act is to establish a pro-
cess for the adjustment of existing or proposed city boundary lines to avoid
a situation where a common boundary line is or would be located within a
right of way of a public street, road, or highway, or a situation where two
cities are separated or would be separated by only the right of way of a
public street, road, or highway, other than situations wheJ:"e a boundary line
runs from one edge of the right of way to the other edge of the right of way
W ASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
,-"u. - ..
As used in sections 12 tbrough 15 of tbis .ct, 'city' includes every city
or town in tbe state. including. code city ope<ating under Title l5A RCW
~EW SECTION_Sec. \l A neW section is .dded to ch.pter l5 \l
RCW to read as followS.
(I) This sectioo provides . ..ethod to .djust the boond.ry lines be-
tween tWO cities where tbe tWO cities sh.,e . co....on bonnd.,y witbin ·
right of way of a pnblic street. ro.d. nr highway, or the tWO cities have a
pmtion of their bound.des sepa<ated only by .ll or p.,t of the right of w,y
of. public str..t, ,.ad. or highw,y However. this section docs not apply to
situ.tions wbere a boond.,y line rUns fro" one edge of the dght of way to
the other edge of the right of way
(2) The councils of any tWO cities in a situation described in suhsection
(I) of this section may enter ioto an agr..ment to alter th",e portin"!
thei, bound.,ies that .,e necessary to eliminate this situ.tion and cr';',)a
pa<tial common bound.,y on either edge of the right of way of the puhlic
str..t. road. or highway An ag,..ment made under this section sh.ll in-
clnde only bonnd.,y line adjust..ents betw..n the tWO cities th.t .re neces-
sary to eli..inate the situatinn described in subsection (1) of this section.
A boundary line adjustment under this section is not subject to poten-
tial review by a boundary review board.
~EW SECTIO>!- Sec. 14 A new section is added to chapter l5 n
RCW to read as folloWS:
The councils of any twn cities that will be in . sitnation deseribed i.
sectinn Il( t) of this .ct as the result of a proposed annes.tio. by one of the
cities may enter into .n .gr....e.t to .djust thnse portions of the annex-
alion proposnl .nd the boundaries of the city th.t is not proposing the ao-
nexation. Such an agr....ent sh.1l ont be effective unless the .nnexatinn ~
made.
The .nnexation proposal sh.ll proceed if sueh an .gree..ent wef~'t
made. hnt .ny resulting boundaries betw..n the two cities that mek~,le
descriptinns of section t l(\) of this .ct sh.1l be .djusted by .gr....ent be-
tween the tWO cities within one huodred eighty d.ys of the effective date of
the annexation. or the county legislative authority nf the county within
which the right of way is located shall .djust the boundaries within a sixty-
day period immediately fonowing the one hundred eightieth day
An agreement or adjust..ent ...de by a county noder this sectinn sh.ll
include only boundary line adjustments betw..n the twn cities that are nec-
essary to eliminate the situation described in section 13(1) of this act.
A boundary line adjustment under this section is not subject to poten-
tial review by a boundary review board.
NEW SECTION_ Sec. 15 A neW section is .dded to chapter l5 n
RCW to read as followS:
[397 \
--~--------------------
. Ch. t\4
WASHINGTON LAWS. 1989
(1) The purpose of this section is to avoid situations arising where the
boundaries of an existing city and a newly incorporated city would create a
situation described in section 13(1) of this act.
(2) A boundary review board that reviews the boundaries of a proposed
incorporation may enter into an agreement with the coullcil of a city. that
would be in a situation described in subsection (1) of this section as the re-
sult of a proposed incorporation of a city, to adjust the boundary line of the
city and those of the city proposed to be incorporated to avoid this situation
described in subsection (l) of this section if the incorporation were to be
approved by the voters. Such an agreement shall not be effective unless the
incorporation occurs.
The incorporation proposal shall proceed if such a,n agreement were
not made. but any resulting boulldaries between the two cities that meet
create a situation described in section 13( 1) of this act shall be adjusted by
agreement between the two cities within one hundred eighty days of the of-
ficial date of the incorporation. or the county legislative authority of the
county within which the right of way is located shall adjust the boundaries
within a sixty-day period immediately following the one hundred eightieth
day
An agreement or adjustment made by a county under this section shall
include only boundary line adjustments between the two cities that are nec-
essary to eliminate the situation described in section 13(1) of this act.
A boundary line adjustment under this section is not subject to poten-
tial review by a boundary review board.
NEW SECTION Sec. 16. A new section is added to chapter 36.93
RCW to read as follows:
Boundary review board approval, or modification and approval. of a
proposed annexation by a city, town, or special purpose district shall au-
thorize annexation as approved and shall not authorize any other annex-
ation action.
NEW SECTION Sec. 11 A new section is added to chapter 36.93
RCW to read as follows.
The boundary review board in class AA counties shall consist of eleven
members chosen as follows:
(1) Three persons shall be appointed by the governor;
(2) Three persons shall be appointed by the county appointing
authority;
(3) Three persons shall be appointed by the mayors of the cities and
towns located within the county; and
(4) Two persons shall be appointed by the board from nominees of
special districts in the county
The governor shall designate one initial appointee to serve a term of
two years, and two initial appointees to serve terms of four years, if the ap-
pointments are made in an odd-numbered year, or one initial appointee to
W ASHINGTON LAWS. 1989
Cb.84
se",e a term of one year, and twO initial appoioteos tn se",e terms of tbree
years, if tbe appoiotments are made in an even-numbered year, witb tbe
lengtb of tbe term beiog calcolated from tbe first day of February in tbe
year the appointment was made.
The county appointing authority shall designate one of its initial ap-
pointees to se",e a term of twO years, and twO of its initial appointees to
se",e termS of four years, if tbe appointments are made in an odd-num.
bered year, or one of its initial appointeOS to serve a term of one year, and
two of its initial appointees to serve terms of tbree years, if tbe appoint.
ments are made in an even-numbered year, witb tbe lengtb of tbe term bo-
ing calculated from tbe first day of February in tbe year tbe appointment
was made.
Tbe mayors making tbe initial city and town appointments sball(-\g.
nate twO of tbeir initial appointeos to se",e terms of twO years, and ....Iof
tbeir initial appointeos to sme a term of four years, if tbe appointments are
made in an odd-numbered year, or twO of tbeir initial appointees to se",e
terms of one year, and one Of tbeir initial appointees to se",e a term of tbree
years, if tbe appointments are made in an even-numbered year, w,tb tbe
lengtb of tbe term being calculated frnm tbe first day of February in tbe
year the appointment was made.
Tbe board sball make twO initial appoiotments from tbe nOmineos of
special districts, witb one appointee se",ing a term of four years and one
initial appointee se",ing a term of twO years, if tbe appointments are mnde
in an odd-numbered year, or one initial appointee se",ing a term of tbree
years and one initial appointee se",ing a term of one year if tbe appoint.
ments are made in an even-numbered year, witb tbe lengtb nf tbe term be.
ing calculated frnm tbe first day of Marcb in tbe year in wbicb tbe
appointment is made.
After the initial appointments, all appointees shall serve four--'!ear
terms. U
No appointee may be an official or employee of the county or a gov-
ernmental unit in tbe county, or a consultant or advisor on a contractual nr
regular retained basis of tbe county, any governmental unit in tbe county, or
any agency or association thereof
NEW SECTION~ Sec. 18. A new sectioo is added to cbapter 36.93
RCW to read as followS:
The boundary review board in all counties other than class AA coun-
ties shall consist of five members chosen as followS.
(1) Two persons shall be appointed by the governor;
(2) One pcrson sball be appointed by tbe coonty appointing autbority;
(3) One pcrson sball be appointed by tbe mayors of tbe cities and
towns located within the county; and
(4) One person sball be appointed by tbe board from nomineos of spe.
cial districts in the county
, 3991
Cb.84
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
Tbe governor sball desigoale one ioilial appointee to serve a lerm of
lWO years, and one inilial appointee to serve a term of four years. if lbe ap'
pointments are made in an odd_numbered year, or one initial appoinlee 10
serve a term of one year, and one initial appointee 10 serve a term of tbree
years, if tbe appoinlmenlS are made in an even-oumbered year, wilb tbe
lenglb of a lerm being calculaled from tbe first day of February in lbe year
that the appointment was made.
The initial appointee of the county appointing authority shall serve a
lerm of twO years, if tbc appoinlment is made in an odd-numbered year, or
a lerm of one year, if tbe appointmenl is made in an eyen-numbered year
The initial appoinlee by Ibe maynrs sball ..rve a lerm ~f four years, if Ibe
appoinlmenl is made in an odd-numbered year, or a lerm of Ibree years, if
tbe appointmenl is made in an even-numbered year Tbe lenglb of Ihe lerm
sball be caiculated from Ibe first day In February In Ibe year Ibe appoinl-
ment was made.
Tbe board sball ma.e one inillal appoinlmenl from lbe nominees of
special districts 10 serve a lerm of twO years if tbe appoinlmenl is made in
an odd_numbered year, or a lerm of one year if Ibe appointment is made in
an even-numbered year. wilb Ibe lenglb of Ibe term being calculaled frnm
lbe firsl day of Marcb in tbe year in wbicb tbe appointmen' is made.
After the initial appointments, aU appointees shall serve four-year
terms.
No appointee may be an official Of employee of the county or a gov-
ernmental unit in tbe counly, or a consultant or advisor on a contrac'ual or
regular retained basis of tbe coun'y, any gnvernmental unit in the county, or
any agency or association thereof
NEW SECTION_ Sec. 19 A neW seclion Is added '0 cbapter 36.93
RCW to read as foHows:
The executive of the county shall make the appointments under sec-
lions 11 aod 18 of tbis act for tbe couoty, if ooe exislS, or otberwise tbe
counly legislallve aulborilY sball ma.e lbe appointments for lbe counly
The mayors of all cities and 10wns in Ibe county sball meet on or be.
fore Ibe last day of January in eacb odd-numbered year '0 ma.e socb ap-
pointments for terms 10 commence 00 Ibe firsl day of February io tbal year
The date of lhe meeting sball be called by tbe mayor of tbe largesl city or
lown in tbe county, and tbe mayor of Ibe largest cily or 10WO in tbe county
wbo auends Ibe meeling sball preside over Ibe meeting. Seleclion nf eacb
appointee sball be by simple majority vole of Ihose mayors who allcnd Ibe
meeting.
Any special districl In tbe county may nominate a person In be ap-
poinled to lbe board on or before Ibe last day of January in eacb odd-
numbered year Ihallhe lerm fnr Ihis posilion expires. Tbe board sball make
its appointmenl of a nominee or nominees from tbe special districts during
WASHINGTON LAWlS, 1'707
lbe monlb of February following tbe dale by wbicb sucb nominations are
required to be made.
Tbe counlY appoinling autborilY and lhe maynrs of cilies and lowns
wilbin Ibe counly sball make Ibeir inilial appoinlments for newly crealed
boards wilbin sixty days of tbe creation of Ibe board or sball make sufficient
additional appoinlments to increase a five-member board to an eleven-
member board witbin sixly days of tbe dale tbe county beCOmes a class AA
county Tbe board sball make its initial appoinlmenl nr appoin,ments nf
board members from tbe nominees of special districts located witbin Ibe
counly witbin ninely days of Ibe creation of Ibe board or sball make an ad.
d,lional appointment of a board member from Ibe nominees of special dis.
tricls localed witbin Ibe counly witbin ninety dayS of the da,e lbe county
beCOmes a class AA counly n
Tbe term of office for all appoinlees otber tban Ibe appoinlee frn"-",,e
special districlS sball commence on lhe first day of February in ,be year in
wbicb tbe lerm is to commence. The term of office for tbe appointee from
nominees of special districts sball commence on tbe firsl day of Marcb in
the year in which the term is to commence.
Vacancies on tbe bnard sball be f,lled by appointmenl of a person tn
serve tbe remainder of ,be term in Ibe same manner tbal tbe person wbose
position is vacant was filled.
!iEW SECTION_ Sec. 20 A neW seClIon is added to cbapter 36.93
RCW to read as foHows.
Eacb boundary review board tbat is in existence as of tbe effeCtive dale
of tbis seetion sball designate lbe lerms of office of its ",embers to conform
witb Ibe staggering nf terms as establisbed under seelions \1 and 18 of tbis
act by September I, 1989 Tbe members wbo were appoinled independently
by Ibe governor sball remain as gubernatorial appoinleeS. Tbe member or
members wbo were appointed by Ibe governor from nominees of lbe connty
legislalive aolbority sball be considered 10 be appointees of tbe counl( )e
member or members wbo were appointed by Ibe governor from nomin'eeS nf
lbe mayors sball be considered 10 be appointees of tbe mayors. Tbe ",ember
or members wbo were appoinled by Ibe governor frnm nominees of Ibe spe-
cial doslricts sball be considered 10 be appointees by tbe board from nomi-
nees of the special districts.
No board member may serve on a board more lban eigbl coosecutive
years. However, any board me",ber serving on Ibe effective date of tbis sec-
lion wbo bas served or will serve in exCess of Ibis Iimitallon as bis or her
,wn of office is adjosted under Ibis section may re",ain in office for lbe re-
mainder of his or her term.
!iEW SECTIO!:!, Sec. 21 A neW seClion is added 10 cbapler 3693
RCW to read as roHows:
Wbenever appointments under seclions \11brougb 20 nf Ibis act bave
not been made by tbe appointing autborilY, tbe size of lbe board sball be
i 401 I
~ Ch. 8d
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
\
\
considered to be reduced by one member for eacb positinn tbat remains va'
cant or unappointed.
NEW SECTION~ Sec, 22, A new section is added to cbapter 3S 13
RCW to read as followS.
A city or town may cause a proposition authorizing an area to be an-
nexed to tbe city or town to be submitted to tbe qualined voters of tbe area
proposed to be annexed in tbe same ballot proposition.. tbe question to
autborize an assumptioo of indebtedness. If tbe measures are combined, tbe
auuexation and tbe assumption of iudebtedness sball be autborized only if
tbe proposition is approved by atleasttbree-nftbs of tbe voters of tbe area
proposed to be annexed voHng on tbe proposition, and tbe number of per-
sons voting on tbe propositioo constitutes not less tban forty percent of tbe
total number of votes cast in tbe area at tbe last preceding gcneral election.
However. the city or town council may adopt a resolution accepting the
annexaHon, witbont tbe assumption of indebtedness, wbere tbe combined
hallot proposiHon is approved by a simple majority vote of tbe voters voting
on the proposition.
NEW SECTIOJi. Sec. 23 A new section is added to chapter 3SA.14
RCW to read as follows.
A code city may cause a proposition autborizing ao area to be annexed
to tbe city to be submitted to tbe qoalined voters of tbe area proposed to be
annexed in the same ballot proposition as the question to authorize an as-
sumption of indebtedness. If tbe measures are combined, tb.e annexation and
tbe assumption of iodebtedness sball be autborized only if tbe proposition is
approved by at least tbree-nftbs of tbe vnters of tbe ar,a prnposed tn be
annexed voting on tbe proposition, and tbe namber of persons vnting on tbe
proposition constitutes not less tban forty percent of tbe total number of
votes cast in the area at the last preceding general election.
However, tbe code city council may adopt a resolution accepting tbe
annexation, witbout tbe assumption of indebtedness, wbere tbe combined
ballot proposition is approved by a simple majority vote of tbe voters vnting
on the proposition.
NEW SECTION Sec. 24 A new section is added to cbapter 3S 13
RCW to read as follows.
The boundaries of a city shall be adjusted to include or exclude the re-
maining portion of a parcel of land located partially witbtn and partially
witbout of tbe boondaries of tbat city upon tbe governing body of tbe city
edopting a resoluHon approving sucb an adjustmenttbat was requested in a
petition signed by tbe uwner of tbe parcel. A boundary adjustment made
pursuant tu lbis section sball nol be subject to potential review by tbe
boundery review board of tbe coonty witbin wbicb tbe percel is located If
tbe remeioing porlioo of lbe parcel to be included or excluded from tbe city
is located in tbe unincorporated ares of tbe connty and tbe adjustment is
W ASHINGTON LAWS, Wts~
I
\
approved by resolution of tbe county legislative autbority or in writing by a
county official or employee of tbe county wbn is deSignaled by ordinance of
the county to make sueh approvals.
Wbere part of a single parcel nf land is located witbin the boundaries
of one city, aod tbe remainder of tbe parcel is located wilbin tbe boundaries
of a second city tbat is located immediately adjacent to tbe nrst city, tbe
boundaries of tbe twO cities may be adjusted so tbat all of tbe parcel is lo-
cated witbin eitber of tbe cities, if tbe adjustment was reqoested in a peti-
tion sigoed by tbe property owoer and is approved by botb cities. APproval
by a city may be tbrougb eitber resolution of its city council, or in writing
by an official or employee of tbe city wbo bas been designated by ordinance
of tbe city to make sucb approvals. Socb an adjustment is not sobject to
""tential review by tbe bOondary review board oftbe coonty in WbiC"'U"-' e
parcel is located.
Wbenever a portion of a public rigbt of way is loeated on sucb a par'
cel, tbe boundary adjustment sball be made in sucb a manner as to ioclode
all or none of tbat portion of tbe public rigbt of way witbin tbe boundaries
of the city
As used in tbis section, 'city' sball include any city or toWn, including
a code city
l"EW SECTION_ Sec. 2S A neW section is added to cbapter 3S.02
RCW to read as folloWS:
Actions taken under cbapter 3S.02 RCW may be subject to potenlial
review by a boundary review board under cbapter 36.93 RCW
l"EW SECTIOJi. Sec. 26 A new section is added tn cbapter 3S 01
RCW to read as followS:
AcHons taken under cbapter 3S.01 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under cbapter 36.93 RCW
1!EW SECTIOJi. Sec. 21 A neW section is added to cbapter CO
RCW to read as follows:
Ac,ions taken under cbapter 3S 10 RCW may be snbject to potenHa'
review by a boundary review board under chapter 3693 RCW
)':IEW SECT I ON_ Sec. 2& A neW section is added to cbapter 3S 13
RCW to read as folloWS:
Actions taken under cbapter 3S 13 RCW may be subject to potenlial
rcview by a bounda..,. review board under cbapter 36 93 RCW
)':I1lW SECTlON_ Sec. 29 A neW seclion is added tn cbapter 3S 16
RCW to read as folloWS:
Actions taken under cbapter 3S 16 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under cbapter 3693 RCW
!:!.EW SECTION_ Sec. 30 A neW section is added to cbapter 3S 43
RCW to read as folloWS.
l 403 \
Cb. ~4
WASHINGTON LAWS. 1989
WASHINGTON LAWS. 1989
Cb.84
J
The creation of a local improvement district outside of the boundaries
of a city or town to provide water or sewer facilities may be subject to po-
tential review by a boundary review board under chapter 3693 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 31 A new section is added to chapter 35.61
RCW to read as follows.
The creation of a metropolitan park district, and an annexation by, or
dissolution or disincorporation of, a metropolitan park district may be sub-
ject to potential review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93
RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 32. A new section is added to chapter 35.67
RCW to read as follows.
The extension of sewer facilities outside of the boundaries of a city or
town may be subject to potential review by a boundary review board under
chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 33 A new section is added to chapter 35.91
RCW to read as follows:
The extension of water or sewer facilities outside of the boundaries of a
city or town may be subject to potential review by a boundary review board
under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION. Sec. 34 A new section is added to chapter 3592
RCW to read as follows:
The extension of water or sewer facilities outside of the boundaries of a
city or town may be subject to potential review by a boundary review board
under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 35 A new section is added to chapter 35A.02
RCW to read as follows.
Actions taken under chapter 35A.02 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 36 A new section is added to chapter 35A.03
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 35A.03 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 37 A new section is added to chapter 35A.05
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 35A.05 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 38 A new section is added to chapter 35A.14
RCW to read as follows.
Actions taken under chapter 35A.14 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 39 A new section is added to chapter 35A.15
RCW to read as follows.
Actions taken under chapter 35A.15 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 40 A new section is added to chapter 35A.16
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 35A.16 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 41 A new section is added to chapter 52.02
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 52.02 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36 93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 42. A new section is added to chapter 52.04
RCW to read as follows: ~
Aetions taken under chapter 52.04 RCW may be subject to pO\__,i
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 43 A new section is added to chapter 52.06
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 52.06 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 44 A new section is added to chapter 52.08
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 52.08 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 45 A new section is added to chapter 52.10
RCW to read as follows:
Aetions taken under chapter 52.10 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION. Sec. 46. A new section is added to chapter 5348
RCW to read as follows: n
The dissolution of a metropolitan park district, fire protection o_____.._'ct,
sewer district, water district, or flood control zone district under chapter
53 48 RCW may be subject to potential review by a boundary review board
under chapter 36 93 RCW
NEW SECTION. Sec. 47 A new section is added to chapter 5408
RCW to read as follows:
Actions .taken under chapter 54.08 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36 93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 48 A new section is added to chapter 54 16
RCW to read as follows.
The provision of water service beyond the boundaries of a public utility
district may be subject to potential review by a boundary review board un-
der chapter 36.93 RCW
1404 )
(405 I
Cb.84
v
WASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
W ASHINGTON LAWS, 1989
Cb. 84
NEW SECTION Sec. 49 A new section is added to chapter 54.32
RCW to read as follows.
Actions taken under chapter 54.32 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 50 A new section is added to chapter 56.04
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 56.04 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 51 A new section is added to chapter 56.08
RCW to read as follows:
The provision of sewer service beyond the boundaries of a sewer dis-
trict may be subject to potential review by a boundary review board under
chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 52. A new section is added to chapter 56.24
RCW to read as follows.
Actions taken under chapter 56.24 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 3693 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 53 A new section is added to chapter 56.28
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 56.28 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 54 A new section is added to chapter 56.32
RCW to read as follows.
Actions taken under chapter 56.32 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 55 A new section is added to chapter 56.36
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 56.36 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 56 A new section is added to chapter 57.04
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 57.04 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36 93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 57 A new section is added to chapter 57.08
RCW to read as follows:
The provision of water service beyond t)te boundaries of a water dis-
trict may be subject to potential review by a boundary review board under
chapter 36 93 RCW
NEW SECTION. Sec. 58 A new section is added to chapter 5724
RCW to read as follows.
Actions taken under chapter 57.24 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 59 A new section is added to chapter 57.28
RCW to read as follows.
Actions taken under chapter 57.28 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 3693 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 60. A new section is added to chapter 57.32
RCW to read as follows.
Actions taken under chapter 51.32 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 61 A new section is added to chapter 57.36
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 57.36 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 62. A new section is added to chapter Cl
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 57 40 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 63 A new section is added to chapter 5190
RCW to read as follows:
Actions taken under chapter 5790 RCW may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 64 A new section is added to chapter 85.38
RCW to read as follows:
The establishment of a drainage district, drainage improvement dis-
trict, or drainage or diking improvement district may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW Annexa-
tions, consolidations, or transfers of territory by a drainage district, drain-
age improvement district, or drainage or diking improvement district may
be subject to potential review by a boundary review board under chu3nter
36.93 RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 65 A new section is added to chapter 86.15
RCW to read as follows.
The creation of a flood control zone district may be subject to potential
review by a boundary review board under chapter 36 93 RCW~ Extensions
of service outside of the boundaries of a flood control zone district may be
subject to potential review by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93
RCW
NEW SECTION Sec. 66. A new section is added to chapter 81.03
RCW to read as follows:
The formation of an irrigation district may be subject to potential re-
view by a boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW The alteration
of the boundaries of an irrigatjon district, including but not limited to a
( 4061
(407 J
. Ch<>84 W A51l\1'IG'f01'l LAWS. \919 \
consolidation, additinn nl lands, esclusion nl lands, or lOe~W'r ,:a~ b\S::; \
jeet to potential r""ieW by a boandary r""'cYI board on er c ap er' \
RCW
~ Sec. 61 ^ neW sectinn is added to cbapter &1.,2 \
RCW ^':.i:: t:.~:\I:::~r chapler &152 R cW lOaY be .abject to poleallal
review by a boandary revieW board onder cbapter 16.91 RCW \
~ See. 6& ^ new seetinn is added \0 cbapter &151 \
R cW ^~ti~'::': ,:'~:":::~r chapter &151 R cW "",y be sa~~t 10 potential \
r""ieW by a boandary revieW board aader cbapter 1691 R \
~ see. 69 ^ new seetion is added to chapter &1 ,6 '.
RC\'i :~i~'::'S\:~~:I~::~r cbapler &1,6 RCW lOaY be sabj~ 10 poteollal \
revieW by a boaodary review board aoder cbapter 16.93 RC I
1'lEW SECf\ON see. 10. ^ new seclion is added to chapter 3,.21 \
RC~S: \I I \
^ city or tOwn "",y provide laclaal inlorlOation on tbe e eets 0 ~
e 00 tbe cit or toWn nnd tbe area potenuallY a'
r~/~,:"::::;~haoge. ^ sl~telOeot tb;~ t:a~~ia~: ~~wi:I:~:~:'
information a....ai\ab\~, and cO{lies bO\{. an~ ~r~e euned with the bOut\dary re-
available to be prov,ded to tbe po .'c s a
view board lor tbe board's in{or"",uon. \
~ see. 1 t Tbe 101l0Y/log acts or ports 01 aCts are eacb \
repea~~' seelioa S, cba pter 1&9, Laws 01 1961, seclioa I, cbapter 9~ ~~ \
011961 eS. 50"" seelion 2, chapler ,II, \..aws 01 1969 eS. sess. aO \
16.9\~~~:.ton 6, cbapter 1&9, Laws o[ 1961, section 3, chapter I I I, \..aws '
011969 eS. seSS. aod RCW 36.91.060
passed the Senate Apri\ 1, \ 9S9
passed the \-louse OAPri\ S, \ 9~9 .\ '0 19&9 witb tbe esceptioO o[ cer' \
Mproved by tbe . overnor ~p" · , ' \
tain ite"" wb,cb were vetoed. . '
filed in Ol\ice 01 secretary o[ State ^pt,1 20, 19&9 \
""" G''''"'''' ",I...""" .1 ..',..' ..10 .. .. 101".' . '
" ." ,o! ."i.a ....."., .i''''' .., ...""' " 10 "",i'''' , ." 2, S..."..'.
Senate Bill No.5 I 11, entitled:
"" ,er o.I.".a 10 ......." ,or'''' ..."""
. . "S"'" ."t ".. "" _'. ."....." 'hO ...
,,,..;;::.~.::::: ;:~::;:: 10 ......... . "'...... 01', .. 10.' ,...'p"".
" >, _,.nroorat\on.
unities in the state that "'V -
""",,,,,,, ,hO" ....._ ,,- , ...'''' _d>. "...V.,. I'" ....-.,
,,,,,., ,."',"".".. .......' ol ......, I 10 dUn"'" ,hO ...,.', ..'ho"" 10
v,'''"' ",,'hO .."... 10 ,..' ",.\>I"":.r ~:,k ".93, ..... "",.. ......., 1<',
,..' "",..1 ..",. "'" .r th. '''.-: 10 ....... "",n.' ... "..""" ... .,..,. ·
v". ...,d>, .'" 10 ,,,..., , ...th . a..~".. th. ...,d>' seth."" ",.. ."""...
.' \., . .rtetro...,,\ltan areaS. V'J "
U\unlcl\la lues In ... Y-. Id be frustrated.
. . ,,_ ol "" ..I ... .
rations, t e p Y_ .' t"'at .rtunicinal bOUlldarles are
. . . terest III ellSUrlll%"'" t'. ....he
...... Sla" ...' , ~.'"..." .. · ,," 'hO ,""""""... ,,_. ,
"",..., ... ,.., ,",,,,,,, ..;o<"v: ". ;~:... ." .. i........'..~ " 'hO ~.... 1
,,'hori" .' .......', ,........' ". itbO" ,,",,, . .,,,..,,,, ,.... " "", ",' ..
",bod ....... ol ,obi"'" ~.., t"" VI. ......"'..., ,"'........,... ., I" -'
..Ii"""" .' ,..." ......... "..... .. hO ""..... .. ....." ,bO' .. ... .""
Yo..\. Mdit"""" "..".,,,," ol'" ~,.,..... ......' ..."'".. ,,,,.,,'is' "",
illc\ude the propert'J tall ~Ich area whl e
. . '.. ~.," ....-. .
whlc" re(\ul t' ed ,,' tl b" U\uniClpal IncorporaO.
. . . ect ulreC Y 1 .' .
".",,,,,,,.. i"""'"'''' ". ""'1'" . ...,d> .".'" lb'" ...lId.n
. . 'II of these actions b'J bOunuaf'J revieW
\lOllS. Revle . " d "'e'ore a vote is ta\r.ell.
".' \ . '" ". "',,"".. "' .'
ulc\lOlla ISSU . d 2 'the bill \ reco~lIl~e that \
. with sectiOns I an o. '. "d
".,.".,....... 'hO "....... . bO" ,..,. I" ~I "",.,... ,~ .. ,~
.....", ...". ..."" ..., "", hO " ' 'Y ,,,,.,,,.. ,..",.,,,,' ,." -".
,."" ,.."""., .".,' ,,,.ot. f:; ,...~ ..,:;....... ,,, ,hO .""".,... .1"''''
I""'" Bi" ".. ,",) ,ho' ...1 "... :,:"i" ........., .. ,. ,I,,,, "", .lIt ."
. 'II bOards if a \OCal goverllU\ell
ar'J revle b the Legislature.
1I0t 'Jet beell acted Upoll 'J . S t uI'\\ NO 5\11 is
. I d 2 subS\ltute ella e v .
With the ellception of sectiOns all '
ap{lro'ied.'
'1''' .---
c\-lAPTBR 'l>S
\Senate Bill 'No. 5156\ tv\E'N'fPROJEC'f
vER SOCt<E'E 5,\.,,0" E"",,,CE
CEDAO RI . .." ... "",.." " ,ho"" ".52
" Aer Rd"'" "C"" ",.. ..."'" ..,...., · a
Rct, """,.. ... ,.."""" ... ..."ri.... ."',,...,, . ton
Ue i' enac,ed by lhe \..e~islalare o[ '~: ~::::: ::::;n:esi~nateS ,he C'
NEW SE~ sec. I Tbe ~. 'Wasbin~lon s\O,e ..n,eo'
river~salrono enhanceroeot pro)ec'" ·
nial salronn ven,are.' . thaI }:.in~ coun'y
NEW SE~ sec. 2. The \e~'sla'ar~ reac\o~:~::" and that Lake
=c-::: nrbao . 0' a recrea"on " '
h"s a unil\ue urban sett\ng f . . h \d be de'le\oned {or greater
. . 0 win~ ..to ,t s Ou ·
wasb,ng,on and ,be "vers ~ b' ,on fisbe'Y is .eceSS'ble '0 fiftY percent
salroon prodac,ion. ^ \...I<.e .. ,~\g. \ than one hour There has beeil
." b" aa,oroOD' e ,n e" ' · h
of the state s cttt1.ens ) . 1 \, ''''ashing\on nrirnari\'i ,rorn uS
fi b' sacce" ,n ~a.e ~ ' · C d
e.,ensive ""I<.eye s ,n~ . Tbe le~is\a,are inlends 10 enbance ,be . e ."
origina\ln~ ,n tbe cedar "ver local roana~eroen' and in,ends 10 roa"ro,2<
river [rsbery by ac\lVe s\O,e and I ,0" [or recrea'ioOal fisbin~ [or all 0
,be t.al<.e W..bin~'on socl<.eye sa.;on bancelOent pro~ralO could proda'
lhe citi".ns 01 ,be s\O,e. ^ sOC eyebe~c of returning adults. A socke'ie e'
t. s the current nurn e,.. .' ~ t t
,wO '0 'brce ,roe . b bl' c's .pprec..t,on 0\ our s a
b.nceroen' projec' ..ould ,ncrease t e pu ,
\ 409 \
:::W: Optional Municipal Code
Nlth a
ch ter-
ex.s. c
35A.14.100 Election method-Effective dale ,.
annexation. Upon the date fixed in the ordi~a'nce of 2.lir
nexatlOn, the area annexed shall become ~ part, of tht;,
cIty Upon the date fixed in the ordinances of annexa~
and adoptIOn of the proposed z,oning regulation',.Jh.ca~'
annexed shall become a part of the city, and propert)' i:m
the annexed area shall be subJeet to the proposed.~
regulation, as prepared and filed as provided for i.il
RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340 All property wltJl"~;
the tern tory hereafter annexed shall, If th<:pn;lpostl~;
approved by Ihe people so provides, be assessed ,aDd
taxed at the same rate and on the same. baSIS astk'
property of sueh annexmg elty is assessed and tax~ .0
pay for the portIOn of mdebtedness of the city th~r~u
approved by the voters. [1979 ex.s. c 124 ~,7, 1967.ei.:s.
c 119 S 35A.14 100] '.' ~';.:~:;"'f.!\
/;~. ~,
Se~erability-1979 ex.s. c 124: See nole following RC"I,f".'
35A.14.0 15.
RCW
ed for
iithout
luse a
he elty
a pro-
as the
ess. If
he as-
If the
of the
)n the
10 the
of the
reced-
I
lutlOn
'of in-
lis ap-
ng on
lid;ng
(filIng
gisla-
'~Isla-
!.)r as
n re-
iof a
I
'oters
,body
'10 or
and
case
.nex-
and
'I' 111-
I ap-
lI1ce
I
land
~mg
,was
Isub_
:and
I ap-
II1ce
!vld-
)sed
'.llve
1
35A, 14.11 0 Election method is alternatire. "TbC'
method of annexatIOn provided for in RCW 35A.l4.01S
through 35A.14 100 IS an alternative method and lSad-
dltlOnal to the other methods provided for in thIS c~
ter [1967 ex.s. c 119 S 35A.14 110 ] . ';1--;;;J:r.
35A.14.120 Direct petition method~Notice fG
legislative body-Meeting-Assumption of indefd..'
edness-Proposed zoning regulation--CoDteuts of
petition. Proceedmgs for mitiating annexation of uma-
corporated territory to a charter code eityor noncbartcr
eode cIty may be commenced by the filing of a PCUlw.a
of property owners of the tern tory proposed to.,be.am-
nexed, m the followmg manner This methOd of anna-"
ation shall be alternative to other methods prov!ded lllI
thIS chapter Pnor to the cIrculatIOn of a petItion for'a&-
nexatlOn, the mltlatmg party or parties, who shall be the-
owners of not less than ten percent in value, accordIng ~
the assessed valuatIOn for general taxation of the pr0p-
erty.for whIch annexatIon IS sought, shall notify the &q_
Islatlve body of the code cIty m wntingof their intenllOQ
to commenee annexation proceedmgs. The leglslalfi'C
body shall seta date, not later than sixty days after the
film? of the request, for a meetmg with ~he inI!ta!io&
pa.rtles to determme whether the eode cIty will acccpl,.
reject, or geographically modify the proposed anna-
atlOn, whether It shall require the sImultaneous ado~
of a proposed zOnIng regulation, if such 'a proposal has
been prepared and filed for the area to be annexed .u
provIded for 111 RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340,md;
whether It shall requIre the assumption, of all ,or of aB)"\'
portion of eXisting eity indebtedness by the ar~ lobe
annexed. If the legIslative body requires theassuffiptwrlll
of all or of any portIon of II1debtednessand/or .the
adoption of a proposed ZOnIng regulatIon, It! shall recon!
thIS actIOn In ItS minutes and the petItion for.annexaliom
shall be so drawn as to clearly indicate these facls. Ap-.
proval by .the le~lslatlve body shall be a condition p~(
dent to circulatIOn of the petition. There shall be Ill)
appeal from the. decision of the legislative body: A pdt-
tlOn for annexation of an area contiguous to a code 01)'
may be filed WIth the legislatIve body of the ffiuniclpahl)'
(19.19 64.>>
,mp-
',ved
'9 ~
'CW
-------- --- -~---- ;,'
'------
9
Annexation I
~.'
to .whlch annexation is desired It must bc signed by the
O'lIl'ners as defincd by RCW 35A 01 040(9) (a) through
., (d), of ' not less than sixty pcrcent in val~c, aeeording to
lhe assessed valuation for general taxation of the prop-
c:ny for .which annexation is petitIOned PrOVIded, That a
petition for annexatIOn of an area havtng a.t least el~hty
percent of the boundaries of sueh area contiguous With a
portion of the boundanes of the code City, not tncludlng
that portion of the boundary of the area proposed to be
annexed that IS cotermmous with a portIOn of the
boundary between two counties In thiS statc, nccd bc
iigned by only the owners of not lcss th~n fifty pcreent
m value accordtng to thc assessed valuatIOn for general
" uxat!on of the property for which the annexat.lOn IS pe-
, liMned. Sueh petition shall set forth a descnptlon of the
prqpcrty according to govcrnment Icgal subdIvIsions or
kial plats and shall be aceompamed by a map which
C4lllines the boundanes of the property sought to be an-
0C.Xed. If the legislative body has rcquircd thc assump-
bOD of all or any portIOn of city indebtedness by the area
annexed or the adoption of a proposed zoning regulation,
lhese fact~, together with a quotatIOn of the minute en-
Il)' o(~uch reqUIrement, or requIrements, shall also be
1d forth in the petition [1989 c 351 ~ 6, 1979 ex.s. e
124 ~ 8,1967 ex.s. e 119 S 35A.14 120]
~'erability-1979 ex.s. c 124: See nole following RCW
1SA.14.015.
r" -"l.
'"3SA.14.130 Direct petition method-Notice of
bcuing. Whenever sueh a petition for annexation IS filed
, lnlh the legislative body of a eode elty, whieh petitIOn
, meets the reqUIrements hercin specified and IS suffielent
aCcording.to.the rules set forth tn RCW 35A.0 I 040, the
legiSlatIve body may entertatn the same, fix a date for a
pubhc heanng thereon and cause notice of the heanng to.
be. publIshed tn one or more issues of a newspaper 01
BCneral clreulatlOn tn the city Thc notice shall also be
posted In three publIc plaees wlthtn the territory pro-
posed Jor annexatIOn, and shall speCIfy the time and
place of hearing and inVite tntcrested persons to appear
aDd vOice approval or dIsapproval of the annexation.
(1967 ex.s. e 119 S 35A.14 \30]
35A.14.140 Direct petition method-Ordinance
protiding for annexation. Following the heanng, If thc
legiSlative body determtnes to effeet the annexation, they
'l' shall do so by ordtnance. SubJcet to RCW 35 02.170, the
ordinance may annex all or any portion of the proposed
I area"but may not tnclude tn the annexation any property
DOt described tn the petitIOn. Upon passage of the an-
oe.xatlon ordtnance a certIfied copy shall be filcd With
IhC board of eounty commiSSIOners of the county tn
!WhIch the annexed property IS located [1986 c 234 ~ 31,
:"1975..lst ex.s c 220 ~ 16, 1967 ex.s. c 119 ~
35/\.14140.]
Ltgislati~e finding, intent-1975 1st ex.s. c 220: See nole follow-
~ RCW 35,02.170.
35A.14.150 Direct petition method-Effective date
of annexation. Upon the datc fixed tn thc ordlfianec of
annexation the area annexed shall becomc part of thc
41939 Ed.)
.'"
POST OFFICE DRAWER "B"
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
(\-
v'
r
o
City of L-acey
CITY COUNCIL
Kay Boyd, Mayor
Dennis Ingham, Deputy Mayor
William A. Bush
Jerry Gray
Robert Jensen
Gene Liddell
Earlyse A. Swift
People workin~ for a
united coinmunity
CITY MANAGER
October 6, 1988 GregJ Cuoio
Ms. Cherie Davidson, Chair
Thurston County Boundary Review Board
Thurston County Courthouse
2000 Lakeridge Drive S.W.
Olympia, WA 98502
Chair Davidson and Board Members
Submitted for your review and consideration is an Application for Annexation
of 482.60 acres located at the City of Lacey1s northeasterly boundary
Names and addresses of special purpose districts to be notified are
Acting Chief Bill Pierpoint
Fire District 3
P.O. Box 3366
Lacey, WA 98503
Chief Robert Van Camp
Fire District 8
3349 South Bay Road N.E.
Olympia, WA 98506
Noti ces or other communi cati ons regarding thi s proposed action shoul d be
directed to the undersigned.
We look forward to discussing this annexation with the Board.
U $ t').AJd t/1k";f." (.;~/_
- ;) C) u I A '#-",</./;c;. /--.......
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~ ~~,.</ ~~ '-;//Z~
:; //../ / I [i,/~ -
Greg J. Cuoio
City Manager
Encls
Application for Annexation
Exhi bits
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
CommunIty Development
Finance
Parks and Recreation
Police
Public Work.
~n_ _"'!'>!'t_lQl_l:;o;{\l\
o
(J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Application for Annexation. . .
1
Factors Stated in RCW 36.93.170
Population and territory.
7
Population density. . . .
. 7
. . . 7
Land area and land use.
Comprehensive use plans and zoning. . 7
Per capita assessed valuation. 7
Topography, natural boundaries 8
Agricultural soils and uses. 8
Significant growth. 8
Community facilities 9
Municipal services 9
Need for municipal services. 9
Effect of ordinances, governmental codes.. . 11
Present cost and adequacy of governmental services.. . 12
Prospects of governmental services from other sources. 12
Probable future needs for services and controls. . . . . . 13
Probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost. . 13
Effect of finances, debt structure, and obligations. . . . 14
Social and economic interests. . . . . . . . . . .. . 15
Exhibits
A List of property owners. . .
B. (1) Map of proposed annexation area
16
17
(2) Vicinity map. current and proposed boundaries. 18
C. Legal description
19
L.'. ,IIUrSIQIl Lounty LOmng i..;eslgnct[iun
'-U
o
(0
E. City of Lacey Extraterritorial Zoning Designation. 21
F. Urban Growth Management Agreement Boundaries . 22
G. ULID 10 Water Service Area boundaries 23
H. Proposed ULID 11 Sewer Service Area boundaries . 24
I. Betti1s Hawks Prairie Water Supply Service boundaries. 25
J. Resolution 541 concerning City annexation policy 26
K. PTBA boundaries. . . . . . . . . 27
L. Fire District boundaries. 28
M. Checklist and Determination of Non-significance. . 29
o
o
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION
1. Jurisdiction Reauesting Annexation'
City of Lacey
Responsibl~ Official'
Greg J. Cuoio, City Manager
2. If number of parcels is less than three, please list the owners:
See Exhibit A for list of property owners
3. Location (address if assigned)'
The subject property is located northeasterly of the present city
limits of the City of Lacey in the vicinity of Marvin Road and Hogum
Bay Road and is located in Sections 2, 3 and 11, Township 18 North,
Range 1 West. Maps showing the boundaries of the proposed annexation
and the vicinity as it relates to current City boundaries are attached
as Exhibit B(I) and B(2).
4. Legal Description
See Exhi bit C.
5. Size in Acres,
482.60
6. Assessed Value'
$9,105,100
7. Pl ease state the nature of thi s acti on and the re 1 evant statutor
citation l.e., annexatlon for municipa ur oses pursuant to CW
35.13.180
Thi s acti on is a proposed annexati on cf 482.60 acres to the City of
Lacey under RCW 35A.14.120.
8. Current County Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation
The current County zoning and comprehensive plan designation (Northeast
Thurston Subarea Plan) are as follows'
Highway Commercial - 20 acres
Light Industrial - 367 acres
Planned Industrial District - 20 acres
Low Density Residential, 2-4/acre - 60 acres
(The remaining 15 acres is consumed by roads/public rights of way)
Inese Geslgnal:10IlS tire snown on tXnlOll: iJ
- 1 -
o
()
9. Proposed City Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation'
The proposed City zoning and comprehensive plan designation (Lacey
Comprehensive Plan, Extraterritorial Planning Element) are identical to
the existing County zoning and comprehensive plan designation.
These designations are shown on Exhibit E.
10. Is this site within the present Urban Growth Management Area as
adopted and approved by Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County?
Yes, the area proposed for annexation is well within the short-term
boundaries of the UGMA. A copy of the UGMA map is attached as Exhibit
F.
11. Is the site currently served by sewer or water?
Approximately 405 acres of the 482 60 acres in this proposed annexation
are within ULID 10 of the City of Lacey and are served by City water. A
sewer ULIo is presently in the planning stage. Copies of the ULIo 10
map for water transmission lines and a map showing the proposed
boundaries of the sewer ULIo 11 are attached as Exhibits G and H.
Also within this proposed annexation area i~ Betti IS Hawks Prairie
Water Supply, a private purveyor. This company provides water to
approximately 18 acres within the area proposed for annexation and
another 88 acres outside the boundaries of the proposed annexation. A
map showi ng the water servi ce area of Betti I s Hawks Pra i ri e Water
Supply is attached as Exhibit I.
In additi on to these two purveyors, there are severa 1 pri vate wells
within the area.
Is this site within an existin service areas or coordinated water or
sewer planning areas water, sewer, Lott Phase I Service Area?
The entire area proposed for annexation is within the area designated
as the Ci ty of Lacey I s sphere of i nfl uence in the Thurston County
Coordinated Water Service Area.
A porti on of the subject property, approx imate 1y the southeasterly two
thirds, is within the area designated in the LOTT Phase I Plan. The
entire subject property is within the revised UGM area designated for
urban services in which cities are to be the primary utilities
providers.
12. Does this proposal affect any other interjurisdictiona1 agreements?
Yes.
If yes, please list these agreements
Agreement for fi re protecti on serv ices between the Ci ty of Lacey and
Thurston County Fire District 3 The agreement provides for an
- 2 -
o
(0
increase to the contract fee paid by the City to the Fire District when
an annexation occurs.
13. How does this proposal conform to adopted city policies on annexation?
Reso 1 uti on 541, adopted by the City Counci 1
that addresses annexation goals and policies
Resolution 541 is attached as Exhibit J.
policies of this Resolution as it pertains
are summarized below'
in 1983, is the document
of the Ci ty. A copy of
The relevant goals and
to the subject annexati on
a. Annexation of land should be directly dependent upon the City's
ability to provide, acquire, operate and maintain general services
and utility services. Annexation will take place only after the
City is satisfied that general services, utility resources and
necessary utility plan capacity can be made available in a manner
cost-effective to the City.
b. The City should participate with other units of general government
and special districts in identifying logical urban service areas.
c. The City may, by Council approval, utilize the extension of
utilities and services to encourage and guide needed and desirable
urban growth....
d. The City of Lacey should consider annexations that preserve
established neighborhoods and community identity.
e. The Ci ty shoul d cooperate with Thurston County and other
jurisdictions to establish uniform road and utility standards
within adopted service areas of the City.
In addition to the above policy, in June 1988 the City of Lacey and
Thurston County, along with the cities of Olympia and Tumwater, signed
the Urban Growth Management Agreement. The agreement includes a strong
statement on annexation, as follows
POLICIES ON ANNEXATION
1. The county and citi es sha 11 acti ve 1 y support annexati on of urban
areas to cities.
2. Cities should require an annexation commitment as a condition of
utility service within the short-term UGM area.
3. Cities are encouraged to mutually adjust irregular or illogical
shared boundaries.
14. Other specific Reason(s) for Annexation'
The City is responding to petitions from owners of property
representing 89.7% of the assessed value to annex the subject area to
the City.
- 3 -
o
o
15. Explain how this proposal furthers the objectives of the Boundary
Review Board (RCW 36.93.180)
a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities.
The area is part of the rapidly developing light industrial Hawks
Prairie area of the Northeast Thurston Subarea. Urban-level
services are available through ULIO 10 (water) and are in the
planning stage for a sewer ULIO. An arterial corridor from Marvin
Road to Ca rpenter Road has been i denti fi ed and wi 11 be developed
concurrent with property development. The exi sti ng County zoning
and comprehensive plan designation and the City's extraterritorial
zoning and comprehensive plan all designate industrial development
as well as some highway commercial and limited residential
development for this area. The area is sparsely populated at this
time. Residents of a small residential neighborhood on the
eastern edge of the proposed annexation area requested they be
deleted from the proposed boundaries and their request was honored.
b. Use of h sical boundaries, includin but not limited to bodies
of water, ig ways, and and contours
The boundaries of this proposed annexation contain physical
boundaries along stretches of Marvin Road and Hogum Bay Road in
the southeast portion, and a portion of Marvin Road near the
northern porti on. The other proposed boundari es are generally
Section lines or portions of Sections, existing City limits line,
major lines between zoning districts as well as ULIO boundaries
and water service area boundaries.
The proposed boundaries to the north and east are generally those
boundaries of the Planned Communities, Hawks Prairie and Meridian
Campus.
c. Creation and preservation of logical service areas.
All of the land subject to this annexation proposal is within the
Urban Growth Management Agreement sphere of influence for the City
of Lacey. There is now an existing traffic network that is
sufficient for the current level of development. As development
occurs, existing streets and roads will be improved. New streets
wi 11 be constructed to meet 1 and use needs. Much of the area is
now served by City water or water would be available with
extension of lines on private property, and it is expected that
City sewer service will be available in the near future.
Police---Currently the Lacey police operate from 420 College
Street S.E. with emergency and other dispatch calls being
transmitted from Centra 1 Oi spatch to offi cers on the road. The
police station is about three minutes driving time from the
subject area.
Fire---The City contracts with Thurston County Fire District 3 for
fire protection services. The District presently serves the
SUbjeCt drea ana woula contlnue "CO 00 so unaer :Ile conuact.
- 4 -
o
!O
\
')
Approximately sixty acres of the area proposed for annexation is
located within Fire District 8. This is more fully discussed in
Sections lID and 13 of the "Factors" segment of this application.
Public Transit Benefit Area---The major portion of the area
proposed for annexation is within the PTBA boundary, so for all
practical purposes transit service would be available as
development occurs. As City boundaries are modified the PTBA
boundaries are adjusted to conform to the new boundaries.
d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries'
This proposed annexation is a logical extension of urbanization
into an area that has been planned and zoned for such acti vi ti es
by Thurston County through their comprehensive plan and by the
City under the extraterritori all and use element of its zoni ng
code. It is expected that future annexati ons to the south wi 11
eventually bring about a "squaring-up" of City boundaries. The
boundari es a 1 so refl ect water and sewer servi ce areas i denti fi ed
under ULID 10 (already in place) and a sewer ULID now being formed.
e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and
encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand
population in heavily populated urban areas.
This annexation would discourage possible future efforts to
incorporate a small city.
f. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts:
There is a county-wide Public Utility District, however, it
provides no services in this area. There are no other specia]
purpose districts which are inactive in the area proposed for
annexation.
g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries'
The proposed annexation would have the effect of bringing into the
City an area designated for urban growth and services. In
addition, it is assumed that future annexations will include
properties urban in nature that will eventually bring about a more
concise and easily defined City boundary in this area.
h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns
of unincorporated areas which are urban in character'
Although most of this area is presently undeveloped and sparsely
populated at this time, the existing and proposed zoning provides
for an urban level of industrial, commercial and residential
development. With the recent provision of water and anticipated
sewer service to match the land uses designated by Thurston
County, development is expected to accelerate.
- 5 -
o
10
i. Protection of agricultural lands:
Soils within the area proposed for annexation are generally rated
as not suited for croplands. Some of the properties contain
second growth timber; however, much of it is bare land with little
natural vegetation.
- 6 -
'0
(0
FACTORS STATED IN RCW 36.93.170
1. Population and territory
The total acreage proposed for annexation is 482.60 acres. There are 7
single-family residences and one duplex located in the subject
territory. It is estimated that approximately twenty people resi de
within the subject area.
2.. Population density
It is estimated that approximately twenty people reside within the area
proposed for annexation. This would be a density of one person for
every 24 acres, however, the residences are generally clustered along
Marvin Road.
3. Land area and land use
Present land uses within the subject area are as follows
Commercial
Residential
Public Roads
Industrial/Light Industrial
Undeveloped
Roads/Public Rights of Way
1. 25 acres
2 34 acres
15.70 acres
86.85 acres
361. 46 acres
15.00 acres
4. Comprehensive use plans and zoning
The current County land use plan designations under the Northeast
Thurston Subarea Plan and the current County zoning are identical and
are as follows
Highway Commercial - 20 acres
Light Industrial - 367 acres
Planned Industrial District - 20 acres
Low Density residential, 2-4/acre - 60 acres
These designations are shown on Exhibit D.
The proposed City zoning is designated by the Lacey Comprehensive Plan,
Extraterritorial Planning Element, and is basically identical to the
County I s wi th the excepti on that the 20 acres desi gnated and zoned as
Planned Industrial District by the County is designated simply as Light
Industrial by the Extraterritorial Plan. This 20 acre parcel is part
of the Meridian Campus Planned Community which has received final
approval by the County
5. Per capita assessed valuation
With an estimated population of twenty people and a total assessed
valuation within the area of $9,105,100, this gives a per capita
assessed valuation of $455,255.
- 7 -
'0
(0
6. Topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other
populated areas
The topography of the subject property is genera lly f1 at with some
gently rolling terrain.
The southern boundary of the proposed annexation is the existing City
limits of Lacey. The eastern boundary is generally the Section line
between Sections 1 and 2, with the exclusion of the small residential
development south of 31st Avenue N.E. This area was excluded at the
request of the residents. This proposed eastern boundary is also the
1 i ne between zon; ng di stri cts - both exi sti ng under the County and
proposed under the City - Industrial on the west side of the boundary
and the planned community of Meridian Campus to the east. The northern
boundary is generally the south boundary of the planned community of
Hawks Prairie, which includes Capital Downs Racetrack. The northerly
boundary of the westerly portion of the annexation is generally the
boundary between Betti's Hawks Prairie Water Supply Service Area and
the City of Lacey Water Supply Service Area. The western boundary was
originally proposed to extend to Carpenter Road but was moved easterly
to the 1116th line in Section 3 at the request of property owners ;n
the area.
Natural drainage is generally westerly toward Woodland Creek. It
should be noted that City of Lacey policy requires on-site retention or
storm water. Also, Lacey is an active participant and supporter of the
storm water management effort underway in Thurston County. Any
construction or development proposal that may occur will be subject to
the Site Plan Review process in which particular attention is given to
the handling of storm water.
The property being considered for annexation is contiguous to the
current City limits at the City's northern boundary. Surrounding
properties on the other three sides is primarily a mix of rural
residential and vacant lands.
7. The existence of prime agricultural soils and agricultural uses
Agricultural uses are virtually nonexistent on the subject property.
The Soil Survey for Thurston County i denti fi es the soi 1 s as Spanaway
gravelly sandy loam and states that they are very droughty and have
little or no agricultural value except for limited grazing in early
spring.
8.
rowth in the area and in adjacent
durlng t e next ten years
The current zoning under the County, and the proposed zoning under the
City, would allow a considerable level of development within the
subject area. An additional 120 to 240 residential units could be
constructed on the 60 acres zoned residential. While there is no
indication that such residential growth will occur here to this ~xtent,
it is expected that a certain level of residential growth will occur as
a result of nearby commercial, industrial and recreational developments
that are planned or underway.
- 8 -
'0
iO
The portion of the subject property that is zoned Light Industrial and
Planned Industrial, 387 acres, is expected to develop rapidly with the
provision of water and sewer. In addition, water is available to one
parcel through the Betti I s Hawks Prairie Water Supply Company which
serves part of this area.
That portion of the subject property that is zoned Highway Commercial,
20 acres, is expected to see some signiftcant level of development
fairly soon due to the increase in other commercial activities in the
general area.
There are a number of other developments, both underway and planned, in
the general area that will significantly impact this subject area. A
new s hoppi ng deve 1 opment recent 1 y opened a t the southwes t corner of
Marvin Road and Martin Way, while a larger shopping mall is currently
under construction at the intersection of Marvin Road and Quinault
Drive.
The subject property is located adjacent to and south of the recently
approved Hawks Prairie Planned Community. Included within this project
are plans for a horse racing facility that will be located on the
southern porti on of the pl anned community adjacent to the annexati on
area. Easterly and northeasterly of the annexation is the planned
community of Meridian Campus, and a small portion (20 acres) of the
area proposed for annexation is within this development.
There are a number of other, smaller development projects underway or
planned for the general area of this annexation. In addition, a number
of substantial residential developments have been approved by the
county and are under development in the vicinity.
9. Location and most desirable future location of'community facilities
There are presently no community facilities in the subject area.
10. Municipal services
Municipal services existing within the subject area at the present time
are water supply from the City of Lacey with sewer service in the
planning stage. Law enforcement,road maintenance, land use controls
and health regulations are provided by Thurston County. A portier. of
this area is also served by Intercity Transit as it is a part of the
Public Transit Benefit Area.
Electrical power is provided by Puget Power; telephone by US West; and
natural gas from Washington Natural Gas. Betti Hawks Prairie Water
Supply and individual wells provide water to a limited number of
parcels.
11 Need for municipal services
A. Utilities
City of Lacey water is currently available to nearly all of the
annexati on area, a 1 though 1 i ne ex tens ions on pri va te property are
- 9 -
'0
(Q
sti 11 requi red to serve the more westerly properties. A UUD for
sewer is presently being formed which would make sewer available
to this area. Because of the existing and planned usage of much
of the propertYt it is expected that provision of adequate water
supply and sewer service is now and will continue to be of major
importance. It is also anticipated that City water and sewer will
serve the planned communities of Meridian Campus and Hawks Prairie
as was foreseen by the Thurston County Commi ssi oners when they
approved these projects.
B. Po 1 ice
The subject area currently receives police protection from the
County Sheriff's Department. The City of Lacey Police Department
is staffed at a higher ratio of officers to population and land
area.
C. Fire
The a rea current ly recei ves fi re protecti on from Thurston County
Fi re Di stri ct #3. The City contracts for fi re protection servi ces
with Fire District #3 within its current boundaries and as the
City limits expand, the fire protection area served under contract
also expands. (The contract includes a formula for increased
payment for any annexations which may occur.) Approximately sixty
acres of the proposed annexation lies within the boundary of Fire
District 8. Discussions are underway with the Fire Corrunissioners
of that district as to the impact of the annexation on them. (The
assessed value of this portion of the proposed annexation is
$119,400 while the tax collected is $1.00/$1,000 AV. The loss of
tax revenue to FD 8 would be $119. Voter approved bonded
indebtedness would remain with the property. This amounts to
$.1465/$1,000 AV.)
D. Library
Thurston County property owners pay a property tax assessment to
~he 5-county Timberland Regional Library District for library
services as do property owners within the City of Lacey. The tax
rate for property owners is the same in both jurisdictions,
however, the City has the responsibility to provide the library
facility. The City is now finalizing plans for construction of a
new library to be funded without an increase in property tax, but
which will include solicitation of funds from residents and
businesses within the total service area, which includes the
properties proposed for annexation.
E. So 1 i d wa s te
County residents within the area individually contract for solid
waste collection with Pacific Disposal or dispose of this material
themselves at the sanitary landfill. The same situation applies
for Lacey residents as the City does not have a mandatory garbage
collection policy.
- 10 -
o
iQ
F. Other municipal services
As development occurs within the subject area, the need for other
municipal services will increase, such as road and street
construction and maintenance, land use and construction code
enforcement, and general governmental support services.
12. Effect of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions
on existing uses
Current Lacey ordinances, regulations and resolutions would be in
effect for the area if annexed. The Lacey Comprehensive Plan,
Extraterritorial Planning Element, adopted in 1985, specifies the
zoning for the property that would be in force upon annexation. Except
for minor differences, the land use controls under Lacey would be the
same as they presently are under the County. Other ordinances or
regulations deal with'
Animal Control - As this area is already included in a dog control
zone, there will be no change.
Construction Standards for Streets and Utilities - Street standards for
"urban" streets in the County are essenti a 11y the same as for the
City This designation applies within the Urban Growth Management
Area. Utility installation standards are also essentially the same
Land Clearing - The City has a land clearing permit process Five or
fewer trees may be cut without a permit as may dead or diseased trees.
A waiver from the permit is granted for trees under a forest management
program. The building permit or site plan review process covers
removal of trees necessary for the construction process. The County
does not currently have a land clearing permit policy.
Business Registration and Business. and Occupation Tax - The City has a
$25.00 business registration fee and a S10.00 home occupation
registration fee These are one time fees. The County requires a
conditional use permit for home occupations, so the City's process is
less complex. There is also a Business and Occupation tax of .001
percent per $1,000 of gross revenue of retai 1 businesses and .002
percent for servi ce type busi nesses in the City. Manufacturi ng and
wholesaling are exempt from the City's B&O Tax.
Local Sales Tax - The sales tax inside the city is 7.8% which includes
.5% optional municipal sales tax and .3% for the Public Benefit Transit
Area. The area being proposed for annexation currently has a sales tax
of 7.3%.
Public Transit Benefit Area (PTBA) Boundaries - Most of the area is
included within current PTBA boundaries, however, as Clty boundaries
are modified the PTBA boundary is changed to automatically follow the
new city boundaries. (See Exhibit K)
- 11 -
o
Q
13. Present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the
area.
The area proposed for annexation by
government servi ces from Thurston County.
taxes of 1987 for collection in 1988 are:
the City currently receives
The 1 evy ra tes of property
239 - area proposed for annexation
242 - area in City
$/$1,000 AV
$16.4515
$16.5887
Tax Code Area
The property proposed for annexation wi 11 carry with it an earl ier
voter approved bond levy in the amount of $0.0769. On September 20,
1988 the voters of Fi re Di stri ct 3 approved a bond issue of $1. 93
million. Collection will begin in 1989 at an estimated $.24/$1,000 AV.
These tax assessments, of course, cover a broad range of taxing
entities, most of which will not be impacted by annexation.
Road Tax (eliminated): Thurston County has a road tax of
$2.1597/$1,000 AV which would be eliminated. This would amount to
approximately $19,664 or less than one percent of the $5,203,909 road
tax received by the County However, responsibility for any roads
within or bordering the area proposed for annexation would rest with
the City after annexation. ~
City Tax (imposed with annexation) The City tax is $3.1070/$1,000 AV.
It has been the genera 1 pol icy of the Ci ty Council that properti es
coming into the City through annexation would assume a proportionate
share of the City's bonded indebtedness. This is currently
$.3684/$1,000 AV and will retire bonds for two voter approved bond
issues (the police facility - 1985, and a transportation and public
safety issue - 1987).
Fire District Tax (regular levy - eliminated)' The regular levy for
Fire Oistricts 3 and 8 would be eliminated in the annexation area,
however, under it's contract with the City the Fire District 3 contract
fee would be adjusted so they would incur no revenue loss. In Fire
District 8 the loss is approximately $119, or less than one percent of
their $138,345 property tax revenue. The levy for the voter approved
bond issues described above would continue to be collected.
Thurston County Current Expense (conti nued). The County wou 1 d conti nue
to receive $1.7188/$1,000 AV for current expense and various mental
health and veteran's relief programs.
14. Prospects of governmental services from other sources.
The UGMA clearly articulates the policy of Thurston County and the
three major cities as follows
- 12 -
o
o
"POLICIES ON UTILITY PROVISION
1. Cities should be the primary utility providers in the UGM area.
The county may provide utility service in that area on an interim
basis, provided the developer agrees to annex to the city when
contiguous. "
The agreement further identifies methods of reaching this policy as
follows (in part).
"POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION METHODS (OPTIONS)
1. Within short-term urban growth area:
e. Cities provide or assist in providing water and sewer service
to urban development.
f. Require hook-up to municipal water and sewer when feasible.
g. Encourage annexations.
h. Cities require an annexation commitment as a condition of
util ity servi ce. "
The signing of the Urban Growth Management Agreement in June 1988 by
the Chair of the Thurston County Board of Commissioners and the Mayors
of the cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater clearly demonstrated the
commitment of these jurisdictions to foster and cooperate in the
logical growth of city boundaries and the provision of utility
servi ces. Except in rare ci rcumstances where the citi es are unable to
provide such service, they will be the logical provider. In the case
of the proposed annexation, the City of Lacey ~ the logical provider.
15. Probable future needs for such servi ces and contro 1 s.
The major portion of this proposed annexation consists of property
zoned light industrial (83 percent) under both Thurston County zoning
and the City of Lacey's Extraterritorial Planning Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Such development will certainly require municipal
utilities, not only for their own benefit, but to protect and preserve
ground water. Lacey development standards are similar to, but somewhat
more restrictive, than Thurston County development standards.
Development of these properties under City codes and regulations should
therefore provide for a higher standard of development.
16. Probab 1 e effect of proposa 1 or a lternati ve on cos t and adequacy of
services and controls in area and adjacent area.
Annexation to the City would result in reduced cost for utilities as
the Ci ty has an out-of-ci ty surcharge on uti 1 i ti es. These properti es
would become subject to a City utility tax and possibly to a Business
and Occupation Tax (manufacturing and wholesaling are exempt from the
tax).
- 13 -
o
o
The extension of services through ULID's will facilitate provision of water
and sewer to the planned communities of Meridian Campus and Hawks Prairie,
and their development is, for the most part, contingent on provision of
services as these were required by Thurston County in the approval of their
master plans.
17. The effect of the finances, debt structure, and contractual
obligations and rights of all affected governmental unlts.
The annexation will not have an immediate substantive financial impact
on either Thurston County or the Ci ty of Lacey. As descri bed in
Secti on 13 above, the amount of the road tax lost to Thurston County
represents less than one percent of their budget, and the City of Lacey
will assume road maintenance responsibilities. Historically some road
tax funds have been allocated to the Sheri ff' s Department by Thurston
County. Police protection responsibilities would be shifted to the
City of Lacey.
The County would continue to receive Current Expense tax revenue from
the properties within the proposed annexation, or $15,650 based on 1988
collections. As the properties develop and the assessed value
increases, the County share of total taxes collected would increase
proportionately. The County would realize a slight reduction of state
shared revenue based on population. This would include liquor excise
tax, state sales tax, and motor vehicle excise tax. As the area is so
sparsely populated, this amount would not be significant. The County
would note a slight reduction in permit fees, however, these are
generally designed to be self-supporting for the staff work involved.
These permits would become the responsibility of the City of Lacey.
County Road Tax is handl ed differently from Current Expense Tax. Upon
an annexation, that portion of the road tax which has been levied but
not collected in the annexed area is to be paid to the City when
collected. The City then must place the money in its street fund.
The property taxes collected by the City of Lacey would amount to
$28,289, based on 1988 collections, however, the actual transition of
this tax revenue is dependent on the approval date of the annexation.
For instance, if thi s annexati on is approved pri or to March 1, 1989,
tax collection on behalf of the City of Lacey would begin in 1990. If
the approval was after March 1, 1989 the collection would not be
effective until 1991.
Franchises - RCW 35A.14.900 prescribes that franchises or permits for
operation of public service businesses would be granted the right to
conti nue such servi ces for a peri od of not 1 ess than five years from
the date of the annexation. This would include telecable service.
Tele-Communications, Inc. is the provider of telecable service in the
City of Lacey as well as the northeast portion of Thurston County. No
significant changes are anticipated, however, City staff is currently
renegotiating the cable franchise wlth TCI. Any changes which may
possibly occur would be enhancements to existing service.
Fire District 3 Contract - The City contracts with Fire District 3 for
fire protection services. The District presently provides fire serVlce
in the area proposed for annexation, The contract between the City and
the Fire District sets forth a formula to adjust the contract fee based
on the assessed value of an annexation
o
(0
Fire District 8 - As discussed in Sections llC and 13, Fire District 8
would lose approximately $119 in property tax as a result of this
annexation.
Other Taxing Entities - No changes would occur to taxes received by any
other taxing entity as a result of the proposed annexation.
18. The effect 'of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual
economi c and soci a 1 interests, and on the 1 oca 1 governmenta 1 structure
of the county.
Thurston County would receive a smaller proportion of property taxes
for roads as a resu It of the annexati on, however, thi s accounts for
less than one percent of the County's road budget. The County's
rsponsibility for road maintenance would be reduced by approximately
2.1 miles. The County would continue to receive funding for current
expense purposes. There would also be a reduction ,in the tax base of
Fire District 3 as it relates to the levy, however, this would be
addressed through the City I S contract with the Fi re Di stri ct. The
District would continue to receive that portion of property tax
earmarked for bond redemption. Fire District 8 would experience a
slight reduction in their property tax revenue.
The actual dollars (based on 1988 tax collections) are shown below'
Current Loss wi Per-
Total AV Annex AV Levy Tax Annex cent
TC Road $2,409,551,810 $9,105,100 $2.1597 $5,203,909 $19,665 .37%
FD 3 741,114,198 8,985,700 1.1785 873,403 10,590 *
FD 8 138,345,063 119,400 1.00 138,345 119 .08%
* As explained in Section 17 above, the contract between the City and
Fire District 3 provides a formula to adjust the contract fee for
annexations.
As discussed in section 8 above, both the current County zoning and the
proposed City zoning provide for up to 240 single family dwellings.
The light industrial and commercial zoning are expected to generate a
variety of new employment opportunities at a variety of salary levels.
...}/ It is not expected that this annexation would result in any
~ ~ modification to the governmental structure of the county.
An Environmental Checklist was prepared and a Determination of
Nonsignificance issued on July 27, 1988. (See Exhibit M)
- 15 -
PARCEL NO.
o
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
1G
1H
11
1J
1K
2
3
4A & B
5
6
7
13H
14A, B & C
15
16
17A & B
18A & B
19
20
21A & B
22A & B
23
24
25
26
27
o
cd/990
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS
NAME
Hawks Prairie A
Hawks Prairie B
HMS Industrial Ltd. Partnership
949 Partnership, c/o Brad Corner
Dorothy Howard, et al.
Thurston Industrial 87, c/o Brad Corner
Walseth Land Group, c/o Brad Corner
Light Industrial B, c/o Brad Corner
919 Partnership, c/o Brad Corner
Thurston Commercial, c/o Brad Corner
Lacey Commercial, c/o Brad Corner
LEL Ltd.
Burtis Corp
Olympia Cheese Co
Clifford Mulberg
Quentin Bickle, et al
M. J Kaufman
Bruno Betti, Trustee
Hawks Prairie Assn
Marvin Tufts
Robert Reiley
Campbell Family Partnership
Tom Martin Canst , Inc
Vic Kaufman, et al
Lloyd Stoner
Donald McDonald, c/o Hawks Prairie 84
Brad Corner, c/o Hogum Bay 8
Star Moving & Storage
Michael Pennachi
Ameron, Inc.
Empire Enterprises, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Co.
ADDRESS
~
f-<
H
J:Q
H
::I::
:x:
w
110-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004
110-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004
18800 Hwy. 99, Suite 1, Lynnwood, WA 98036
110-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004
1014 W. 5th, Olympia, WA 98502
110-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA
110-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA
llO-llOth Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA
1l0-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA
110-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA
110-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA
PO Box 2508, Salem, OR 97308
c/o PO Box 7600, Los Angeles, CA 90051
3145 Hogum Bay Rd. NE, Olympia, WA 98506
10212 5th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98125
2523 N. Eastside St , Olympia, WA 98506
7711 Martin Way, Olympia, WA 98501
2900 Marvin Road NE, Olympia, WA 98506
1320 Stewart SL, Seattle, WA 98109
935 Marvin Road NE, Olympia, WA 98506
2204 Pearl Beach Dr. NW, Olympia, WA 98502
410-17th St , #1200, Denver, CO 80202
2750 Hogum Bay Road, Olympia, WA 98506
7711 Martin Way, Olympia, WA 98506
4111 Pacific Avenue, Lacey, WA 98503
110-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004
110-110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004
3625 S. Warner St , Tacoma, WA 98409
PO Box 2356, Billings, MT 59102
2910 Hogum Bay Road, Olympia, WA 98506
4111 Pacific Avenue SE, Lacey, WA 98503
QB-1, Tacoma, WA 98447
98004
98004
98004
98004
98004
98004
\0
-<
, !
10
...
o
~ ..
1> '"
@
~
\
\
~@
~
(\~
3.g
~~
\@
~
\ @ ~
@
~ \\
8 0 \\
t~
o
>1:1
..,;
~
..,;
o
ell
~:t3
~
~
r<1
~
r-\
o
~
';l:>"
~
';J:P
~
7-
~ lID
E.J(B.IBI'1: B( 1)
- ..
_ 17 -
\~'J~
~\\ -
I
\'.
\
01
...--...
J
l _ n.' ~..~' < II
I L ~~
~-11
--i---'-~~~-=~'--- "-:Rr;E:=-L~;T:'l "'Ii~. _"0 ..~
: ~t:
~ --I _.._~~~~
, - ( ./" . -'.. .' 1 ~ 'j
----, - -.,.. ; ':. '-v----" ',:. ;~ ~
: ~--: ':' \ .- ," .' ~. '--:" ;=::f~. T~ ,--
..,-'ri- ~I' ' '" ,. T~~ L " I:'-~!t\ rr @ ~ : .
= -~~:~ I ~~ rJ':i~::9\~~ !:
~;.cc-~/~L.~-LcL/ · 1 I .c:t:.~ &:Bri . r
h-': lJ!' ",c' ~17 ~t\J'" ~.i,.b _;:J _}~l,':~ E ~
~ I I \:::::jU;:: V ; -. I . --=:9 .:$}:r : r-. : . I iiLn;:)."i _:._' . ~ ~~
--- ~'-;.. ~~.. \..-:L . Ii! -~ I' . -- t::::--:
- 'W- "..!/ ~ ~ . ~ 1 ":"'.::: V ~
'/. --=. - ._~. '.' - [J[;= I~I. ,-~';""" 5::--_
~I '?l : ,., - !i :. (If'~~;~ !~p~ @ .,
~::" '8 '::. _'~ ...,'7f ~ :~'" ~i,,- ,Hl~.,JI T--1\
- '-kj [ "'.. :-.-.- . ;:::: ~~~~ ~ --- - "~~ \.~ - ~. .. S7i
~ . . ~ '~'. . '~;, . ~ ~1q....... ~. "":;G -..: :;. I,'" "'- ~
'.1'. ''''. ;~-rJH-S-;~ .':. :- ~~~j''::'_::! - --. ~.
\ 1 ~_: ", -:::-,,- j' ". -~'~\=, . ;:- ~'- ~~-... - -_. j' ~.
u: ',.,,,,. .' 1'\"" . , i . 'V.R:- J ;\ .,,, . ~ <:
,~. ..-,'U ~~:, ',i.. "'~' ,.......~- , a
. ...,',l __ ~:. '. ~\"-"-~: - ~ ~--'"'.~ ~ . ~ ~
~~~{' - .. ~. - ~~~ i !I:l- :..;.~> (' - .~~ ~ \, "-.; ~;~;.'I '-.':"1' -400 ~
l\\~~.=.~~~.~\-.~l.:'V,l' \:f~~. ~ -'~." _; ;/:.L'\:~, g~
--. ~._~ -~.. .....: ' r- I . "" '" .'. - -, - '. '.. f:S ~
\ . L.! ... .,.' I I ~ A ~ \~.~' {n ':. ~-.r '~... CJ
: .::;;z ~~ .".":~: ~ ~ ~ '\ ' ... ~ 'h "'P"~ ~ ~
;,f iC~;i t- f~~( '<<rP~l~ta,:~~ //~
I - -\ ~- I l ,," -,' '" .: .....-A'-:---J.V ~
, 'I ~ -r, /, " r " en
, . "--\' ~,~- · -..." -:..r, -: :l3r: : _.- ......-
.J'\ ' , \ -. ~ ~(1 -~Jl ~ I~' ~f" ~ I
~)I' '\.~I:":::-(' -q--,' I h~'-'7fl'T - ,~'/I" \ :1: .'T.". cp~L.
!.....:.J-l I : : '\' - \ - , /.. ../ I __ -
_ ~.z f- \~ I . i '. , I -. 'i" /"'" I ~
~'k t tW \ L : \ '- ,~,.::.~. \' I \ l:.:~ li!t ~~, '-
nil" .....j. \.\.,L~~, n' ).:.~. ~
\..~~,. JI[=,- P~t~ ~-";~~/~.~ "'u 1 6 EXHIBIT B(2) ·
""""-
o
o
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the southeast corner of the southwest one-quarter of the
southwest one-quarter of Section 3, T18N, R1W, W.M.N; thence north along the
north-south centerline of said southwest one-quarter approximately 660 feet
to the southwest corner of the north one-ha 1 f of the southeast quarter of
the southwest quarter of said Section 3, thence east along the east-'west
centerlines of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the southwest
quarter of the southeast quarter, and the southeast quarter of the southeast
quarter, all of said Section 3, approximately 1,980 feet to the southwest
corner of the north one-ha 1 f of the southwest quarter of the southwest
quarter of Section 2, T1aN, R1W, W.M.N., thence easterly along the east-west
centerline of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section
2, approximately 660 feet to the southeast corner of the nosth one-half of
the southwest quarter of the southwest Quarter; thence N 73 08'3211W, along
the property 1 i ne common to parce 1 number 11802340400 and 11802340300 as
recorded in Thurston County records of Thurston County Washington, to the
westerly right-of-way line of Marvin Road, thence north westerly along said
right-of-way line to its intersection with the east-west centerline of the
northwest one-quarter of Section 2, Tl8N, R1W, W.M.N., thence east along
said line approximately 2,640 feet to the north-south center of said Section
2, thence continuing east, approximately 2,640 feet, along the east-west
centerline of the northwest one-quarter of said Section 2 to the section
line common to Sections 1 and 2, TlaN, R1W, W.M.N., thence south along said
section line approximately 1,320 feet to the east quarter corner of said
Section 2, EXCEPTING therefrom the east 275 feet of the southeast
one-quarter of the northeast one-quarter lying southerly of County road
known as Old Hogum Bay Road; thence continuing south along the east line of
sai d Section 2 approximately 2,640 feet to the southeast section corner of
said Section 2; thence west along the section line common to Sections 2 and
11, Tl8N, RIW, W.M.N to the easterly right-of-way line right-of-way line of If
Hogum Bay Road, thence south along said easterly right-of-way line to the
northerly right-of-way line of primary State Highway Number 1
(Interstate-5); thence westerly along said right-of-way line to its
intersection with easterly right-of-way line of Marvin Road; thence
northwesterly along said right-of-way line to its intersection with the
; east=west section line common to Section 2 and 11, T18N, RIW, W.M.N., thence
west along said section line to the northwest corner of Section 11, thence
continuing west on the section line common to Sections 3 and 10, T1aN, R1W,
W.M.N. to the north one-quarter corner of Section 10, thence continuing west
along said section line of the Point of Beginning.
MK'st
1jpw9
- 19 -
EXHIBIT C
u
o
.. ..
I ..
~.............
......... ....j
.......... ...., .
............. oj
::::....:.:::..1
:::::.. ::'::::i '
.. .
.. .
'" .
........ .
. .... .
~
.....
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
I. . . .
,.-
.
-
.
r-
.
o
l\)
,
.;:a.
..........
~
:I:
.
()
o
~
~
l.I
......... .
.. ............
. i:::::::::::::
..............
..............
..............
............ .
..............
........... ..
..............
....... .....
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
llmlll
..... .......
...............
........ ....
....... ....
..............
........ .....
-
~
(]
~
~
.. ... ..::::..:::... ....:.:.....:. ...... .......:........ "...... ::::: !
,~
\
I
~1'\lI""'''I''''''''\II'';
"
j-
I
...
n
c:
:;0
:;0
CT1
Z
-1
n
o
c:
Z
-1
-<
N
o
Z
......
Z
~
):0
:z
o
n
o
3:
'"0
:;0
m
:I:
CT1
Z
(,I)
......
<:
CT1
'"0
..
):0
:z
o
m
U'l
......
~
:z
J>
-1
--
o
:z
-'1
I
).
;~ --
;11 ~- --
U - 20 -
i
EXHIBIT D
o
:0
~i:
\
I
\
\
I
I ,
LJ
I
\
\
\
\l
I
I
I . . · ·
I . . . ·
I . . .
. . . .
. . . .
:t
.
(')
('\
~
~
;
;.....
~l
--
EXHIBIT E
- 21 -
~
::0
o
~
o
Con
('T'1
o
n
.....
--l
-<
N
o
Z
.....
z
en
:J>
z
o
n
o
:3:
~
::0
('T'1
:!:
!"11
:z
Con
-
<:
('T'1
~
r-
J>
:z
o
!"11
Con
.....
en
z
J>
--l
..-
o
z
I
'"
illustration of the official
the TRPC offices.
"v"'SQ Y.
tr~ (.L'y RS"'C
,
_. -"'"
i.
ANNED COMMUNITY.
IS will govern the
development for
JUS and Hawks
nunities.
I of Yelm Highway is
he intent is for those
Yelm Highway and
River that access off
evard to eventually
'58
~J
,
-1
)7
EXHIBIT F
SCALE
....--
2:llJ .cD lOGO .xl
HAWKS PRAIRIE RD' .
I .
1
I
Ot'\ J I
(e1~ - ;-
:J ! I
,.....
'-I
@I
@
@
32ND. .~ VE. N.E.
,....
I
@
@
,-
@
I 10lJ1f1JVO CJfDIJP I"f/IlW. C ...
m' CF l.A..EY n,rrrH, TO:;
:LP~ ~, PT"mlC r.:m
ULID-10
;.:: jt~,,- ;&8." _" 0"' '........ I ,
__ -C1~- 35
S( 1
I @
1
1
1
1 I
---~-~-------L------I
--.... I -------
I I
I I
I J I
I I @
@.j.. I +
I
I 2
@ CI\QI'l ~
--S!i- --+ -- --
I
I
I
o
\
\
\
\
\
I
""
I
I
'"
o
'"
'"
:.r
.;.-+
@
:.r
"
I
_...l
'"
'"
..
I
'-I
@
--I--
I
I
I
@~
1
'1. I
! eJ ~ --1--
t
I
1
i
I
I
I
~-~.
~ @
@
.....
@
e
n
..
~
@
"'-
-I~
@i@
@
......
9"0>
_:'"--@- -
-
-+-
.....
I-
I
.....
@
- 23 -
.,..,. @
@ w
~
x
.x> @ u;
'..
@ s\
o
--
@
EXHIBIT G
o
cffj
r7.J
~o
dffj
~ ~
~tr1.
I~d
o
\ \~v"J"c- \
~~ \
\' ~b
\ ~?~
'\
U \! )
~..-
~
<S> '~\
\ <'0;>> ~\'>- C:::C,
(S)(t>- \ [...
If
-
c:
.J..J\
~
-~
\c--- V
_ l--- '24f
"5:
~ ~~~
'0"\ -,J 1 (i.~
<s> '" bY
" ~~\ /. I(~ " -
c ~ "1> ~~"'" la, , . . ;;.'"
( r-LI 1:-}- '---
H-H
\ F;\' ~ .
\
\
~
~~~
,=- ~
-"'""
\
\
\
0l-~
0>
~J
~
c..?.5' ,
\
\
\
A~
~~
\~
\c
"\\
-\
\\\
~
. -".,
=-
0l-~
0;>> ,
.~(~ \
\.?
6'
c
-......'
, r. '
'.) ~0/> '\\
.......~rt-- \\
.?
c:::..=
~ c
~ ~ 1
~ ~~~. ~
.'0.. '. \' -? ~ \.~ ~
..I" mb ~\ \ \~, \
\\\ 1+-\
~ -I'
.~.-.:: i \
f l\. .,
i l' .iERIDI,I. p.D \.r..
\
\
(,
\
EXHIBIT H
_ 24 -
o
:0
BETTI'S HAWKS PRAIRIE WATER SUPPLY SERVICE BOUNDARIES
./.\.....s :~\[~lc: ~O.,..'t (
I I
I L _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __~
-. ----------
i
I
I !\ r I
- - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,. - - -
I !! \\ ' !
CITY' : \\ OF : LACEY I
' I ~\ :
\>
-\\
\....
.~
,'~ I
r ',------1---
-----"1-\ - I
I, I
~~
\~
\
\ -- - - --...--
"
- 1\\
BETTI'S HAWKS PRAIRIE WATER SUPPLY \
o 0 ~L!U/L///lu.lLtLLUL&h /.
. " ....~. '.:'. _._---- -.---
~
--......----.
3Zn~ ",it ."1 E
L-_
L-
.-
:
CITY
OF
LACEY
- 25 -
EXHIBIT I
o 0
G~S'JLUTJ:O~" S If I
CI':'Y .J? LACEY
A :U:SO:;:"u':'ION ';DOP':'IlTG POLICrZS OF THE CITY REL:..TIHG TO G].mnI: AND
\mi"E;~ATION
i,'nmREAS, it is necessary in order to ?rovide -juidelines
for future cOuncil action, city staff activities and clti=e~ ac~ion
blat tIle city establlsh pollcies regardi.ly future ;rrOt.rtLl anJ. -3.:mexa-
C 1.cm, a~ld
~'7HSR::AS, t.r'.e ci tj council ,ilshes co encourage and sU~)90rt
;:laaned cO~:'u"TIuni t:' g:-Ot,rth throw; il a comt:rehens 1. ve c 1. ty :..e\12..l..) LJ:':lent )lan
and plannlng efforts for the urban area surroundins t~e C1.ty, and
~illE~EAS, ~he council ~as deterre1.nea t~at 1.t is necessary
to consider the i@pact of any annexation or ot~er growt~ ot t~e city
upon exist.ing city residents and ~ity services to assure tnat any Jro-
posed ;ro-rth is consistent with the long range financ1.al 90sit.ion of
bot>. tile c 1. t:' a!1d 1. ts residents aild ",-ill not i3pose -lL-:lon eXlsting Cl. ty
residents a long-ter~ flnancial burden wlthout ~ correspondi!1g benefit,
~1C"", c.L:e~cfore
:;E Ir::' ~ESJL\l::lJ 3Y ~:-:= ~I':Y CJu:!CIL OF TI!E CI':'Y )f LACEY,
-;'SH:;:~h..-;T'J~i, t~at t~lose certain pollcies set forti1 in L~a'c document
ent.itled Lacey Growth Policy an~ t~at certain docuTlent entitled Annexa-
tior: ?oilcies, both cf wh1.ch are att3ched .1ereto and ~ade a ~art hereof
1
- 1. -
- 26 -
EXHIBIT J
o
;0
as though fully set fortn are ne~eby adopted as the policies of the
City of Lacey on growth and annexation which policies are to be
inc8rporated in the cOQprehens~ve plan of the city when such plan
lS 8the~wise modified in the future.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF 7HE "CI':'Y OF LACEY, \7ASHINGTON,
this /3 ~ay of , 1983.
:~~
,;,ttest:
/
to Form:
':ity .:"tto:::ney_
- 27 -
EXHIBIT J (CONTINUED)
o
o
November 29, 1982
LACEY GROWTH POLICY
Moderate growth is expected to continue. Projections show 21,437 to 23,581
persons residing in Lacey and 165,600 to 166,550 in Thurston County by the
year 1995. Additional land will be needed within the City limits to
accommodate residential, commercial, industrial and public land uses. Present
land use, topography, drainage, land costs and the economics of utility, road
and service extensions must be recognized in planning for the future.
GOAL
It is the goal of the City of Lacey to encourage and support planned
community growth through a Comprehensive City Development Plan and
planning efforts for the urban area surrounding the City.
POll Cl ES
It is the pol icy of the City of Lacey
1. To encourage orderly growth and development consistent with the City's
abi lity to provide adequate and efficient publ ic services and fad lities and
desire to maintain high quanty service provision.
2. To encourage economic growth consistent with the long-range financial
position of the City and its residents.
a. To promote a healthy mix of residential, recreational, commercial
and industrial land uses.
b To provide adequate commercial and industrial zoning inside existing
City limits or through the annexation of contiguous areas.
c. To support a diversified economic base by locating light industrial
and manufacturing activities within existing urban areas, whi Ie
maintaining the environmental quality of the City.
3. To pursue an active annexation policy as a means of achieving the
planned logical growth of the City, consistent with City policies and
guidel ines
_ 28 = 1 -
EXHIBIT J (CONTINUED)
'\
o
o
November 29, t 982
ANNEXATION POLICIES
I n considering annexation as a means of meeting community needs, it is first
necessary to establish definitive objectives and policies as an official City
position. These objectives and policies can then become the framework from
which specific annexation requests can be reviewed and evaluated.
OBJECTIVE I. The City of Lacey should develop uniform criteria to use in
evaluating annexations.
Pol icies
The City should evaluate all annexations on the basIs of their
short- and long-term community impact.
2. The City should, as a minimum, analyze and evaluate the condition
and safety of all streets, the availabilitv and condition of public
utilities and the demand for emergency services (police, fire and
medical). Public services and faci lities to be analyzed may include:
a. Sidewalks, curbs and 1 ighting;
b Recreational services (parks and open space), and
c. Human services (health care, social services).
3 Annexation of land should be directly dependent upon the City's
ability to provide, acquire, operate and maintain general services
and utility services. Annexation wi II take place only after the City
is satisfied that general services, utility resources and necessary
utilitv plan capacity can be made available In a manner cost
effective to the City
4 In order to accomplish the above, the City of Lacey should adopt
uniform annexation procedures including the following
a. The City should designate City staff to perform the following:
(1) Receive and process annexation requests
(2) Furnish the pub I ic and City officials with annexation
Information.
(3) Prepare technical studies and assessments on the Impacts
from annexation
b The Cltv mav r~auire orooertv nwners within ;:In :1nne,<ina :1rea
:0 Jssume a prOra1:3 share of ~he CI~V'S bonoed indebtedness
existing at the time of annexation
c The City should cause a comprehensIve plan and/or proposed
zoning to be prepared for all annexations. Existing zoning of
the area mav be honored, provided it is consistent with the
Comorehenslve Plan The zoning ~lasslfication soeclfied at the
time of annexation should be in effect for a reasonable perIOd
- 29 -
EXHIBIT J (CONTINUED)
- 2 -
o
o
of time after annexation, before a change in classification is
considered.
d. Prior to any annexation, the City should confer with affected
special districts and other jurisdictions to assess the impact of
annexation.
e. The City should require staff to prepare a report assessing
the probable short- and long-term financial, economic, and
social impact from annexations.
f. The City should forward reports, plans, studies and
agreements of areas requesting annexation to Thurston County
and the Boundary Review Board with the request that they
assist the City in their implementation.
OBJECTIVE II. The City of Lacey should consider annexations that best
meet the growth goals and policies of the City
Pol icies
1. The City should participate with other units of general government
and special districts in identifying logical urban service areas.
2. The City should follow the provisions of RCW chapters 35.13A,
35A. 14. 380 and 35A. 1~. ~oo regarding its relationship to water and
fire districts when annexation takes place.
3. The City may, by Council approval, utilize the extension of utilities
and services to encourage and guide needed and desirable urban
growth, provided that'
a. The area served by water and/or sewer be subject to a
contractual arrangement wherein it is agreed that all utility
improvements meet City standards and that residents of the
area agree to annex to the City at such time as the City deems
appropriate.
b. The owners of lands to be served by such water and/or sewer
service agree to participate, financially, to the extent and in
the manner ag reeable to the City, in capital improvements
taking place, or projected to take place.
c. The owners of lands to be served by such water and/or sewer
service provide, when requested, by Loca I Improvement
District or other non-City funds, specified water and lor sewer
suoolv tr~nsmission rlic:;tributinn ~nd st0r~g~ f~ci lities,
intertied with City systems. Ownership and control of such
fad lities shall be transferred to the City following
construction, inspection and acceptance.
d. I n those instances where extensions or improvements to City
water and lor sewer service are provided, the Citv mav waive
all or anv part of surcharges and/or utilitv charges which
might otherwise be applicable.
- 30 -
- 3 -
EXHIBIT J (CONTINUED)
o
o
OBJECT IVE III. The City of Lacey should consider annexations that
preserve established neighborhoods and community identity.
Policies'
1, The City may suoport individual area identity and citizen
participation within newly annexed areas by'
a. Adopting land use controls in newly annexed areas which
favorably characterize that particular area.
b. Encouraging and providing opportunities for a maximum degree
of citizen participation in governmental planning and decision-
making processes.
OBJECTIVE IV The City of Lacey should cooperate with Thurston
County and other jurisdictions in addressing areawide
comprehensive planning, zoning and service provisIon to areas
outside its corporate limits that are likely to be annexed at a
future date.
Pol icies
When determmed to be advantageous to the Ci ty, the City should
assist in the creation of interlocal agreements to provide technical
and financial support to planned urban areas within the City's
sphere of influence for the extension and improvement of public
services and facilities.
2. The City should cooperate with Thurston County and other jurisdic-
tions to establish uniform road and utility standards within adopted
service areas of the City
3 The City should participate in the planning for areas outside its
boundaries but within its service areas to ensure that land uses are
compatible with the Lacey Development Plan policies and land use
designations
OBJECTIVE V The City should encourage the provISIon of more favorable
urban annexation legislation to facilitate more orderly planning
and growth of the City
Policies
The City should support state legislation which imoroves, 3implifies,
and gives cities more authority m the annexation process.
2 The City should support state legislation to slmollfv Boundarv
Review Board procedures and otherwise make annexations easier.
The City should partlcioate with other municipalities In proposing
Improved state legislation on annexation policv and procedure.
- 31 -
- 4 -
EXHIBIT J (CONTINUED)
----
.... N T l
" -
i
,
It>
,
,
(" -9 C (" /~
(
"" ~c \
" \ Oc
-J- ..0,,:'-.. ~
"' G'
J'o ~/",
V.. So'
< < "-vO"
~~
------
--,
J
"
_=Ji
-1.-- \
_ _.....;.- lUr:::.: 'I
, .~. ',)>' \
~,-o ,--~,J~~" .,':..~~ .
^.'--::""' .' .......:.~~:~:~. L
r , · ~ .<: .....-:""- .---" \
... ", ;O","_L. f ,......,..' -.~
,; ._rtf" I ./;-D-/' \ ...
" I i\. ~~~. '
--1-- .::..~~~, 1:...... -.,
I ~---.,..' -;.. ~
I \" :'.. -~ -, ~=-_..~~~
-..c.. __~S:~~
... ~
.. ~.... .~ '-,
......' ~
~,
~-I .~ -
!:~OO -,,---
~ ' \ ~- , ;' ,.
., ~ _, 1-., >.,'" y:~
d....(.~t::"J ~,......... ~,;-l
:~ 1- ~.~
r- ~."U
\ r-~
.... ,#' \ I ~ , . r-
~I ?o, 1 ~ L-
....__l
Wc"':'.t-'", , ........( 1:
\ FORT
-~
,
'.
~H
...
,
~
... .
--
-
.. ...
",~,,"...QV~" '\ ,,~.....,;
,
~~l
.. t
".
,-
I
~i
.,
---r-'
-----
I
__ __--..-J.--
-'
~. 0.,0
_--.; 1:'1- ~~ <
';'I,"t~~
-~'tl. .'
10 I.....~--::' '\
r'--_l /' I
_ _ _"':'::"'J
",:." .....:,-- "~...:.: \ ,,~.:~:~... ~~:.
. L. . / , r-'~~-? .
~~ ...... ~ I~' ""
_ I; <.-:: _\;-{ 1
I ~~, ~
I ;-1: ~
~ I. I ~~C;,.-'"
~-~
,.----=-___ __ r
,~;_ ,'J' - '---.../-d
-.=~ I ~- ------ ..
-- , -
t I " :..'.!...~ ,
__~" __ l_~- '
... _::x::::;i- -" '
, , ' -"t I I,. ,'oc' ,
)---7"--~ ~_ ~' \- --'0>1 'J..' - I
_ _ ' r-- _- ~..L--...
; ----....~ '---- ~;;;; - ;)..~--' ~
; - .-,. --{ . ' ~-- - - .., --''-;~'"'' --~-
, ,~J ---- .
" " ", I --- :
__..,!:......s--.
~ ~ I /1 __ - ,-
~~-'=- - ::;:~'.:
_ _'#----' r 50.'" U^'O" -,- ~.
~- - l ~.
. ~';l.r.'~'l.Y'"'' .,.-
-L. _ __.J I
I .
--I
:; ~
:,;r..
';I~S~
'"
..
:.
,.
,.,
.-,._.I..-'~_ ";.'" ~ ,,~~" .~o. ~l/~" a"-" .......- ......;~(c'- --. .. '" .
jOO'-' .v'~ -,.- ,"_""'L~'U"-'--. ~-
. "801' ,-"" ... ,t;ti.,,~ ) r _="+_ . ._ -<- ~. '" : : ' -;:: '/" "..... -r'
',. ,. , - , ,.., r "'-' " ... ..... = . ".. ,. , ,'"-
, _ ".'_ ,.. _ ,_ l'~ .,;=>- : .. s' , . . , , , ,.:.......
1"1 - - -..' ~ -'~.=~ '-~ ." . - -. ,'~~ " ..-
~ g !.':c ~ if ~ .'u, ,~ . ' ~ - -~" ~ E.' ..... ..... . ~
: ; \ 1~ \ " " -;1<: ~~ <A'. --'" .0 ,b'~ ';0,,11' ,..aU ~:. ~ :.
,.1 ,.,,00. <c"" '. ' /"". ./f/ ~~ , o.~~~ :, ~ ~t ~~- l'''~- -- '000
~~. ,~.i" (\ _ '>7 Q:i )'-' J~'" ~ 'l,( g::~ . =- . 1 i~: ~ .,.,~.. t\.
,,'" : \ l j,ii-:JL{(' ,"" ....-~ 0 E ' 'U ~~l.b ' ."
.' ? o! _ .... ,",..." '" .,e ..' r.~ ~ ~.:--.::=~ . I ' ~, ~.,. K .'W'" =.. '
\ . ...,..' = .' - ;I: ,4 · ~ · ""-~ ".~'
_~' -,1 (II ..... .,.'f: ~ ~ . Qlr ~.~ .~.~. !~J ..."... '0' :=-' ~ ~." " ~:"::t"""" 0,. I _ ! ~; .....?o..... <:>...
_ '" ~". J; . ~.; .'. .,e "'r;, ~ ==~ 'OMn ' '" .--'
~ '. ....~:. 1, ' .'..' c =, - _,,'u.. "".... .' ....... ..
! eo c, ':::;:" ::. ,0. ~ If nP . .....' .= ~:.c. 1"" ' AU.....
. ~. Y'';' 0 ~ I....:t <""'l '~=~:(;'\ ~ t~ ~. ~ :.::......~.. .." :
'. ...." _.._'. .' '-' 0< ~, ,,' ":', ~
~ IJ \." _" I ",,' ,~.. .r ,~ ~ '......~ . 'no' "":}' ........ ~-'Y'~ ~ ~
..c' : \ ~ _~o." F~ r~i.- I~ a /f':1l ~:~'.~~~ ~.~ v./j/ Z5;' ~\~,; ~"An", I~ ~~G - . ,~[,..o'
\\. t::' '::(;: ~ ~f.1: l "'o.c;-.L()I.';' '/, /, ." '~'\~" I. "-'" J " · ~J. ..:;;:: -
\~\' .0 ,., . ,~__,..i .. . ...... .. .. ... .nionN .-..-
~" -;;;.:... . .".... 7;:~J .v',',\- .UL'JI.H. o( //, /'. , '"~ IrLcoIt<lO ~ . "- l./~. I'lL.. -rr-
,'", I.!\:- l ;'.O<,;,'0~')U'.}O'~( //"'/ .n"/'''':- '!/~, ,:0,.0,..... ,..'I1Ool-...... \l~I-"o~, \"'--.
.;:.: . \ ~ _,. '"., .;,ClO~' ,aOI.'Ol ._" / ' / ..... ,/ d) ~
~ '---'. '\'::~ ~ .."....'" i\~" ~ ,-,")()l. ;r~(; '~( ~",', ~ / 7 :~. ~,~~ - _:~~~~;~). 4 Ii; (~...("I Jo".'()lII \
~,_.j _-g' _ '( ....{I' _ ,., ....t I I~, ,( '" a1~,~"
~___- l.Ul1 ~ ~ ....." \" ~. ,,',.. O,"l' m ~. ' ". '.. ' .; ..,
v.." ~"yo" .f ,"" ,tl>~"'~'...u, ~~ h ' . ~ . ~ ,,~<t u ' '! ,>- """
~ I I: 1"/. .') fJJ '''0o)~~ll "'t<.f~r~ "//....,;,:....... .'\.1 -r;~", ......". '0 ., ~ .'
; ~. ;\ "'J'" '",,, jo.' ' ~,v'p- .~ I" I.) IJ ,,"'.,.. -'c'
~ !:. 'f:/1 u;V (; ~\'~'~~'~"J$~~~r~: *,f ~1~~;' '~"~J,k'/ ~''T''', "p:-~:',,; - ",~,t,:i,,\, ,;=c
" . '0" " ,~'A" ~ ,y. -' . 01 ' .~~ 1'9\\ ." ~.
.... . .' '; , l'" .,,<I....,.....~ ikt .' . ~ I:'''' 7" " '''':'. ' ...... ." '!
~:/.\.; ~G.:ry,~1!~ ;ir~~'~~i.m'~;:J,-~''''1(..:~.'k~llf/:'''' "llf\JO'I~IJ'I..,.~'., :.:-- ..<)").'~'(-' ',)'J()~0' ,-
,~ .' ,,-; l'\;:~~~~\: 1 'l 'iJp "~J~'; I' ,.,.......... ~~ ~ \)')~ ~ t.)., ." .'")"'~ ;0'1' ~ ) ir.')')' ~
. R0. ~....~ .. . H ,. /'" ,., ..., ..... ,,,~" .. i """'"' - ," y ,., ~'O" 0'.";.''' ,c
.....: "v i _,. ~ - fie -.~: - "_ .., .. ~ n l,y; ~ . < <. \ -ri~ ..,- "..J"~~' "', . '8r.-~c.')'.' ,vl'1"'0C)r\ ~
_ ", '" _ = .." ~", "., . .. . "'... , n.... ,.. .,.' ..,." ...",,' . ,,,'.'
_~ '. 1. c.'- ....,). ..)r~~ .l-.,.. !\. ..' ~ fw.",..;r" 'J {......... J ~o \ ,n, .;:r _c." ..-..1 - ""',. ' , ., ,.,,~," ~.l'l)....O'_v'"
. .' " ", .. ,,..'~" ,_" ~ .,,,"c. ",,0 .""
-n "",..,>.;,' 1 :.',;.\.~nn0 ~(;''''~''J;'1.~~lla'J ;~ r): .~..~g~ ~\~_.~ ti,,) '1' ~,. ,1)')",;0)'1" )jC').
O n"_ 1, ~ ,." ,:, '/~'.) ..,' .'1" ."", :',.~'.I' ci' .; ~ ",.. .. . I,.V,I) :", " 'Y.J ~"'()(')'i-'
N. , 1') '"- .1) .~' _ ' ,.. "J l'. ;C,,~, 1\.......lII~O;' . ;=:" i: \ ~" '. \' ~,;()~.:' ."" "J ~'. ".)'.)' h ) )0,
~ .. '0 'Y ~,.,,, " ,,", ... ,,~.., .' ,"'J .,on< '" ",' ~ ' ,,' · <' ."" 10nco '"" '''00'''00 if' on 'i "
".- , , ). ') . 'J ... CS' QClO' '0' '.. . , " _ ' " " i " '1\,.) l' . '0" .., i()!'!0Q() ~'?";, .~C' 1. ~
~ )" \ ~ -.. ~..~ ,~~~,..~ ,!>or) 'e\'_<)'~""" \ ", ~t'l".;'\:''<d \, "'<.1 C"',"-' "'()~C'I.)('()' .)C)<~;." ~
. ..' H' ,~.., '" "~'.' ~ ~n""'''' 0'''''' " ,~C ,,, ... . .. . ",y.'\" "..0>l0 'O~"" 1>0'" ,
, " I l'~ .. I '0. ~ ~ ''', i "7. " . -
. ,,) .,l_.'" 'IV r" ,)( '.. ~")C'\;." I ,~..,-, F~~ ,'t. ,), I J).'" lU ..:~',"1H iU U:'.J' ..' ,) YJU000' dl'v :r
. 'J"" ","~r"UU.-I4) ~~' 0< \2'':'. ~,,~,,! J'l'Yl' )')'~'Y';:' ,),,')';\0r, ~:~:~'.V'\' ")OOQ000" <-
r-'" ;D' ),~"..., ij _... ... ,'J ~ . , r,.\.\; ~ 9 ',',1 I l ~ -'Q" ) "-',)0 ),'.....>' ')1)0(" H · ~.~ "ll:I . .j"';";;::"- <) <:
,,~ .. '0'" ," .. '" < . .". ~"" '0 · '00'_00<'-"" ~. , . ,,,- '.....~I ""
I' I . ~. ~ ,.! \ 'Lt') ." '..) ,i~h ~'f-;' ;;;{:9" . il'~" ;, HLoG! ~ . ~~O~~ Q ,,, - r -TC!v<' '" ! <!::;j
.,; '. ~ :1. '" ;I.~ . 0'" Ei;l~~'~OO '00"'""""";""" \" ,ooe 0'" OooOOCp.. i t&N.
.<. ..:::: ~ '-2': . ,'~ lfi"" 00 ,.. .000" ~ ""ood'! .,Q2~ o~~;;""bQOOOOO 'r7 4JJ
_ :. 'L.-'-o- 1.~eJ"\)\l"'j~~'~.'~4;'o '. ,,:;:::~;J'~;:;;;'n~_ J->lQnk'~' '<S'"' ,,'.. "V=") :o"':')()~'~(,\0f)r;r..l r~ ~,'
v> .. ,., . '. ~, .. ",' "'.. ....~. .-..., . ",', "0"""- i i Z ~
~ ., ~ ~"" "...." '0"~"'u 'J'~V _I~ :.,' IV 0.. - ~ C\/ ..., ~ qt. ,,', ;;;~I
.. ~.. "'j -r ...... I,' ') ~n\l...... r"~).' ',0" "',:; W! lit ~ l~ _I,~ )y~'J op
"'~.. . I'" ('I: I(Y),' '" ""~,. 'i,\ '~U .0. ~,..,,~~ c: ,
;> ..' .. , ". ." ,. ~, ,...."~ ..,., 'S .. - ....G= ,
... . 'j' ~n~' -., ~\ I'U' ," "" r:;:c, , .).,.t.J<] ,...A II
;:::. ,..t::~~;:'" ...... .~..:'\~. ..jjI,'/~';~~~~!' ~~~ J !(~\
_",q.: t. F ....."'" ~OO, k ~o6c~ D-~-~\
--t'- .~::' :a>J~. q:;' .oJ.' t r.: .....': 0(' 'l ~~' ')1.)"00';;
~ :~.. - f . "'~t.., I J'Y' . 'o'ci~,"l(., . ~~ ...
y ..... c " . ",' . .,," , ' t.
, . "..' '0' . . v'" .. ·
J-;;::J~lY""'" .~. ,~,......... ....';" ,,:, -0 ~",.,. ,,'00 ;: <
, =-< . . : _.~ . ,-,'. ~.' .. ~~g~4<j</~~. ~~
N .., :: QO 'Y .,,,~ U~,.
\ N _, _.~. .0." '" ')(.. ..~~~:. . ~ ~ \II .. <JI
, ." . . .. .. .. .. ..
i' "'-.. . .. .. . ' .. .. .. . .. v, .- ....:. .. . ~ ,g 8 g g
~,' ~~,~~u_..o.,." '::~ ~ [f' .1:'. . 13500 \
., ,. ,.,' ~~~ . ").
~ ~t:o~vriN"'~ '~.,.: .~ ~ ~
"..... _~_~.<I~::~ ::..~,~ " '....00 0
.c:~nL,~~t~~'" :\ll Q~ . = ..: ...,
l-i~"~J? ).."If,'L'~: ~
t . ,:' ....".. .t:...J.'. .
, . ~ IU"'. l:ti~t:'
" ~, ~ ~u.i.. ~7{:';" . :
~ c~: tol~ . ~/' ": J
/. ."^, ~-,:. ~I;.' \.
4.
r~'<ii~J~~: ~;;;. ~t:
: ~ ~r ~~! "!~{. :D
, i. ~ ".;~ 'b: ,,"~,~i.:":, ".: ~
~"~Vl' ~~t~.
o . ,..~~ ~ '
~ :,.;~. L~
.a.
o
o
o
0;;.,
v
o
(T1
-a
sC
J>-l
-<-<
()
o:J-I
::::O-<(f)
(j)
-l
rn
<
(T1
Z
15500
~
IJl
(Jl
o
o
16500
........J>
\.DC
~CJ
-l
o
::::0
:I:
o
S
J:>.
z
If))
.at .
-.j
'"
o
o
...
, l::-'
<I
17S00
,L
CJ
(f)
-I
::::0
en
)>
3:
en
.
JJ
m
m
o
::::0
(T1
<
(j)
rn
o
J
18500
~
..
i ;--
)>
c:
c
-
-1
o
J]
.....
en
~
:I
C
:x
U
-
(
-
till
)>
c:
c
(
(
C
o
"
"
-
-
-4
o
(")
m
~
o
o
DATE:
October 3, 1988
SUBJECT-
File
Dave Burns. AICP. City Plannef/iJ
Reduced Scope of Annexation Proposal and Environmental
Impact Review 88-05
TO:
FROM-
It is noted that the original annexation proposal was for annexation of 726 - 05
acres into the City of Lacey _ On July 27, 1988, a proposed determination of
nonsignificance was issued and on August 24, 1988 a final declaration of
nonsignificance was issued on the proposal. Subsequently, the scope of the
proposal was reduced to 482 _ 6 acres _ The responsible official has determined
that the original environmental clearance is adequate to address the
environmental impacts from the reduced proposal. Therefore, no additional
environmental clearance has been deemed necessary The original
determination of nonsignificance and supporting documents shall satisfy the
requirements of RCW 43 _ 21C,
DRB _ kb
cd/998
o
o
SEPAl Case No.: EIR 88-05
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Proponent:
City of Lacey
Description of Proposal: Annexation of 726.05 acres to the City of Lacey.
Location of Proposal:
The annexation area is located in Sections 2, 3, and
11 of Township 18 N, Range 1 of the existing
incorporated boundary of the City of Lacey.
Date of Issuance:
August 24, 1988
Threshold Determination. The lead agency for this proposal has determined
that it does not have a probable significant adverse
impact upon the environment. An Environmental
Impact Statement is not required under RCW
43 21C 030(2)(C). This decision was made after
review by the Lead Agency of a completed Environ-
mental Checklist and other information on file with
the lead agency This information is available to the
public on request.
Jurisdiction.
City of Lacey
Lead Agency
Community Development Department
Responsible Official.
There is no comment period for this DNS. The lead agency and other
agencies with jurisdiction over the proposal may issue or continue processing
any necessary approvals. >If no other approvals are necessary, the applicant
may begin work.
Community Development Department
P 0 Drawer "B"
Lacey, WA 98503 (206) 491-5642
RLp.kb
cd/955
vII cd9
cc Department of Ecology
.,
o
fO
SEPA/Case No.. EIR 88-05
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Proponent:
City of Lacey
Description of Proposal: Annexation of 726.05 acres to the City of Lacey
Location of Proposal:
The annexation area is located in Sections 2, 3 and
11 of Township 18, Range 1 north of the existing
incorporated boundary of the City of Lacey.
Threshold Determination: The lead agency for this proposal has determined
that it does not have a probable significant adverse
impact upon the environment. An Environmental
Impact Statement is not required under RCW
43 21 C 030( 2) ( C) This decision was made after
review by the lead agency of a completed Environ-
mental Checklist and other information on file with
the Lead Agency This information is available to
the public on request
Conditions I Mitigating
Measures:
No mitigating conditions applied.
Jurisdiction.
City of Lacey
Lead Agency:
Community Development Department
Responsible Official.
Environmental
ReVi~~ __
Environmental Review Officer
David R. Burns, AICP
Comment Deadline.
July 27, 1988
8/19/88
Date of Issuance:
This DNS is issued under 197 -11-340( 2), the lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date of issue. No permits may be issued, and
the applicant shall not begin work until after the comment deadline has
expired and any other necessary permits are issued If conditions are
added, deleted, or modified during the 15-day review period, a modified DNS
will be issued. Otherwise, this DNS will become final after the expiration of
the comment deadline
I'
NOTE Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and Lacey City Code 14 24.170(A), a
project denial based upon environmental information, and a conditioned or
mitigated Determination of Non~ignificance (DNS) may be appealed by any
agency or aggrieved person Appeals are filed either with the Community
Development Department when there is also an underlying governmental action
or with the City Council if there is no underlying governmental action.
Appeals to the City Council must be filed within ten (10) days of the issuance
6
o
(
,
o
/
(
of the written decision (refer to the Lacey City Code for time periods on
appeals filed with the Community Development Department).
Community Development Department
P.O. Drawer "B"
Lacey, WA 98503 (206) 491-5642
DRB :kb
cd/935
vii cd7
cc: Department of Ecology
Thurston County Planning
Thurston County Boundary Review Board
Thurston County Public Works
Ask us.
We will give you straight a
The County has designated part of the Bear Creek area to be comprehensively
planned as future master planned communities. The County did so for three very
important reasons:
o Protect The Environment
o Build Quality, Affordable Housing
o Avoid Suburban Sprawl
We have almost completed our environmental studies and will publish an Enviromental
ImpactStatement, which will be available for your review later this fall Public hearings
will be conducted in early 1993.
You may have heard or read conflicting information about the Bear Creek master
planned communities Please call us directly with your questions. We would
be happy to brief you or a group of your neighbors about our project sites, our
development plans, and what we have learned from our technical studies.
To learn more about Blakely Ridge, call John Adams or Anne Ossewaarde
at 391-4700.
To learn more about Northridge, call Peter Orser, John Spangenberg or
Leslie Lloyd at 455-2900.
@ Printed on Recycled Paper
~11'"
....
-
Blackhawk Port Blakely Communities
and
The Quadrant Corporation
POBox 130
Bellevue, WA 98009
Bulk Rate
US Postage
PAID
Bellevue, WA
Permit No. 444
************************3-DIGIT 985
DIRECTOR 26*
CITY OF YELI'l
PLANNING DEPT
PO BOX 479
VELM WA 98597-0479
.edmond Area Ma
. .
"- ~_..' ". <-..-
We know our neighbors
have questions about the
Bear Creek master
planned communities..
/7
Organization And Reorganizatioll U/ 28A.31S.260
records of his or her office accordingly Thereafter the one or more junior high schools or hIgh schools, the re-
board of directors of the distriet shall organize in the gional eommittee shall, in its discretIOn, prepare a pro-
manner provided by law for the organization of the posal or proposals for annexation to the sehool dIstrict in
board of a district of the class to which said district then which the town is located any part or all of the territory
belongs. (1991 c 116 ~ 25, 1990 c 33 ~ 306, 1975-'76 aforesaid which has been included in the town and for
2nd ex.s. c 15 ~ 3 Prior' 1975 1 st ex.s. e 27 5 ~ 89; 1975 annexation to the school district In whieh the town is 10-
c 43 ~ 1, 1969 ex.s. e 176 ~ 125, 1969 ex.s c 223 ~ cated or to some other school distriet or distncts any
28A.57 140; prior' 1947 c 266 ~ 9; Rem. Supp. 1947 ~ part or all of the remaining territory of the school dis-
4693-28, prior' 1909 p 264 ~~ 2, 3, 4, RRS ~~ 4695, triet affected by extension of the limits of the town.
4696, 4697 Formerly RCW 28A.57 140, 28 57 140] PROVIDED, That where no school or school site IS lo-
cated Within the territory annexed to the town and not
less than seventy-five pereent of the registered voters
residing within the annexed territory present a petition
in writIng for annexation and transfer of said territory to
the school district In which the town is located, the edu-
eational servlee distriet supenntendent shall declare the
territory so included to be a part of the school distrIct
containing said town. PROVIDED FURTHER, That
territory approved for annexation to a city or town by
vote of the electors residing therein prior to January 12,
1953, shall not bc subject to the provisions herein re-
spccting anncxation to a school distrIct or school dIS-
tricts AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That the
proviSions and procedural requirements of this chapter
as now or hcreafter amended not in conflict with or in-
consistent with the prOVisions hereinabove In this section
stated shall apply In the ease of any proposal or propos-
als (1) for the alteration of the boundaries of school dis-
tricts through and by means of annexation of territory as
aforesaid, and (2) for the adjustment of the assets and
ltabiltties of the sehool distrIcts Involved or affeeted
thereby
In case of the incorporation of a city or town contain-
ing territory lying in two or more school districts or of
the uniting of two or more cities or towns not located in
the same school distriet, the educational service district
superintendent, except wherc the incorporation or eon-
solidation would affeet a district or districts of the first
class, shall (1) Order and declare to be established in
each such case a SIngle school district comprising all of
the school distrIets involved, and (2) designatc eaeh such
district by name and by a number different from that of
any other dIstrict in eXlstenee In the eounty
The educational service district supenntendent shall
fix as the effectivc date of any declaration or order re-
quired undcr this section a date no later than thc first
day of Scptember next succeeding the date of the issu-
ance of such declaration or ordcr (1985c 385 ~ 19;
1975 1st ex.s. e 275 S 90; 1969 ex.s. c 176 ~ 126, 1969
ex.s. c 223 ~ 28A.57 150 Prior' 1965 ex.s. c 108 S I,
1963 c 208 ~ 1, 1953 c 49 ~ 1, 1947 c 266 ~ 5, Rem.
Supp 194 7 ~ 4693-24, prior' 1909 c 97 p 265 ~ 3, RRS
~ 4703 Formerly RCW 28A 57 150, 28 57 150 ]
Effective date-----197S c 43: "The effective date of this amendatory
acl shall be July I, 1975.' [1975 c 43 S 37] .
Severability-I97S c 43: 'If any provision of this amendalory act,
or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the re-
mainder of Ihe aCI, or the applicalion of Ihe provision to other persons
or circumstances is not affected." [1975 c 43 S 38.1
Rights preserved--Severability-1969 ex.s. C 176: See notes
following RCW 28A.31O.01O.
28A.315.240 Classes of districts--Change of
classification-Delay of authorized, Notwithstanding
any other provision of chapter 43, Laws of 1975, the
.educational service district superintcndent, with the
concurrence of the superintendent of public instruetion,
may delay approval of a change in classifieation of any
school district for a period not excecding three years
whcn, in fact, the student enrollment of the district
within any such time period does not exceed ten percent,
either in a decrease or increase thereof [1975 c 43 ~ 35
Formerly RCW 28A.57 145 ]
-Reviser's note: 'Educational service dislrict superintendenl" has
been substiluted for' intermediate school district superintendent" pur-
suant to RCW 28A.310.010 and 28A.310.900.
Effective date---Severability-1975 C 43: See notes following
RCW 28A.315.230.
28A.315.250 City or town districts, Each ineorpo-
rated city or town in the state shall be compriscd in one
school district. PROVIDED, That nothing in this seetion
shall be construcd; (I) To prevent the extension of the
boundaries of a school district beyond the limIts of the
city or town contained therein, or (2) to prevent the in-
clusion of two or more incorporated cities or towns in a
single school district, or (3) to ehange or disturb the
boundaries of any school district organized prior to the
incorporation of any city or town, exeept as hereafter in
this section provided
In case all or any part of a school district that oper-
ates a school or schools on one site only or operates ele-
mentary schools only on two or more sites is included in
an incorporated city or town through the extension of
the limits of such city or town in the manner provided by
law, the educational service district superintendent shall
(I) Declare the territory so included to be a part of the
school district containing the city or town and (2) when-
ever a part of a district so included contains a school
building of the district, present to the regional eommit-
tee a proposal for the disposition of any part or all of the
remaining territory of the district.
In casc of the extension of the limits of a town to in-
clude territory lying in a school district that operates on
more than one site one or more elementary sehools and
Sc~crabilily-19115 C 385: See note following RCW 28A.315 020.
Rights preserved--Severability-1969 ex.s. C 176: See noles
following RCW 28A.310.010
28A.315.260 Reorganization of districts by transfer
of territory or annexation. A new sehool district may be
formed comprising eonttguous tern tory lying 111 either.a
[1990-91 RCW Sup~page 515)
B 6 The Seattle Times Monday, August 24, 1992
fun
u t $2 I1II
in vacant land
III
n51
Associated Press
PORTLAi'W - The state pen-
sIOn fund lost up to S2 millIon in
deats that left it holding vacant
land that could cost m1l1ions more
to unload, a newspaper says
A former manager of the Ore-
gon Public Employees RetIrement
Fund agreed to buy about 250
acres of land because he believed
it eventually would be sold to a
large New Jersey development
company at a higher price, the
Sunday Oregonian reported.
Terry Canby says the Beaverton
real-estate broker and the tw.o
Seattle-area developers who put
together the deals assured him that
Roeblmg Management Co. of Pa-
ramus, N.J , would buy the land.
But Donald Hanson, Roebling's
president, told the Oregonian he
knew nothing of the deals Hanson
said his company would not have
been interested because it buys
shopping centers, not vacant land.
~ The state bought the land in
j Washington County from Beaver-
~ ton broker Lorraine Wilcox and
% Venture Partners Inc., a Kirkland,
, Wash., a company owned by Win-
~ stan Bontrager and William A.
~ ~ Fisher
, Bontrager and Fisher worked
for Roeblmg when the land was
sold to the pension fund between
September 1987 and September
1989, but they were not the eom-
pany's agents, Hanson said.
The Oregon State Treasury,
which manaO"es the penSIOn fund,
paId almost $10 million to buy and
improve the land.
Sales documents show Wilcox
and her husband, Glen, grossed
close to $14 millIon from the
deals. Venture Partners and its
associates cleared nearly $640,000
Wilcox said in an interview that
Canby knew about the transac-
tIons and fees, and approved them.
She denied any wrongdoing
"All I dId was just work as a
broker on the deals," Wilcox said.
"I've been absolutely crucified."
Canby declined comment.
Bontrager and Fisher did not
respond to several telephone mes-
sages left at theIr Kirkland office.
D ils of the transactions sur-
facf' n the Oregon Real Estate
I ses
n
eals
Agency investigated Wilcox, who
handled the sales The deals are I
also under investigatIOn by the
U.S Attorney's Office, the Internal
H.evenue Service and the Oregon
Department of Justice.
- "In thiS case, It appears we
have sigl1lficant losses," said Paul
Sundermler, a state attorney as-
signed to the Oregon Real Estate
Agency
Canby reSigned his Treasury
job in July 1991 after the state
Attorney General's office began
investigating a pattern of irregular
transactions that Canby approved.
Canby pleaded guilty to one count
of criminal racketeering in March.
Wilcox, who filed for bankrupt-
cy in 1984 with her husband,
hoped to make some money by
investmg in 82 acres of reSidential
land in suburban Washington
County, said Ken Elliott, the law-
yer for the Wilcoxes.
After failing to get a bank loan,
Wilcox went to Canby with a deal.
She claimed she had a buyer who
would pay $2.5 million for the
parcel after certain land-use issues
were resolved.
The pension fund could buy the
property for only $1.8 million, then
resell It for a $700;000 profit,
Wilcox said.
The Wi1coxes also sold only 67
acres to the penSlOn fund keeping
15 acres they later sold to the
Tigard Water District for $125,000
The expected resale of the main
parcd never materialized.
Ve~ure Par1ners then agreed i
to buy thl' I3nd for $:3 25 million jfl!
the penSIOn fund extended sewer i
and water lines to the site. '
Canby accepted the offer, and
the pension fund paid $500,000 to ,.
install the utilitieS. But Venture
Partners never bought the land. f,'
Dunng the next two years, the
pensiqn fund spent nearly $7.5
milhon more buymg land from the
Wilcoxes and Venture Partners.
Bontrager and Fisher since
have become the subjects of a
federal inveStIgatIOn, but lawyerS
at the V.S attorney's office iri
Seattle will not discuss the case. \
The Oregon Department of JUS" .
tlce also IS considering a laWSUIt,; .
SaId Deputy Attorney General Jack
Landau :
r
~<:?
PAGE 14
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce
impacts are:
The joint plans are reflected in the Urban Growth Management Agreement,
the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan and zoning for the area and the
Lacey Extraterritorial Plan which mirrors the County Plan and will take
effect upon annexation.
s. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,
including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses
incompatible with existing plans?
The County and City Plans are substantially similar, thus discouraging
inconsistent or incompatible uses.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are.
Continue with the implementation of the existing plans.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation
or public services and utilities?
/'
The annexation will permit the coordinated delivery of planning,
construction and utility services. The annexation's one step to
accomplish that.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. IdentifYt if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local,
state, or other requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal is consistent with state and local laws or requirements in
connection with the protection of the environment.
ENVCHL
TXTCDIO
- 46 -
~
TEL. INQ NO
DATE.
REC/REF
INQUIRER.
TITLE.
RE.
SUMMAR Y
(:;
3
117~O
u
o
90-0202 Y
GRANDVIEW
1/16/90
PES
JODY WHEELER
CLERK
May condItIon be placed by councIl on annexatIon request?
Annexation laws do not contemplate conditions for annexatIon other
than approval of zonIng or assumptIon of Indebtedness. WhIle the
council may "requIre" that the residents of an area perform certaIn
tasks before beIng eligible for annexatIon, enforcement of a promIse
may be dIffICUlt. It might be better to start an LID for the area,
thereby aSSUrIng that the requIred work WIll be done and that
property owners of the area wIll be responsible for paYIng for the
work.
****************************************
INFORMA TION GIVEN
Perhaps, although enforcement of such a conditIon could be diffICUlt If not
ImpOSSIble. RCW 35A 14 120 outlInes the procedure for the dIrect petitIOn method
of annexa tIon for a code CIty This statute con templa tes that an InItIal pet! tIOn
WIll be cIrculated by the "inItIatIng partIes" and turned Into the CIty for reVIew
The legIslatIve body wIthin SIxty days of the fIlIng of the request are to meet
with the initIating partIes to determIne "whether the code CIty will accept, reject,
or geographIcally modIfy the proposed annexation, whether It shall reqUIre the
sImultaneous adoption of the proposed zonIng regulation and whether It shall
require the assumptIOn of all or of any portIOn of the eXIstIng CIty Indebtedness
by the area to be annexed." If the CIty approves the annexation request at thIS
level, petItIOns then can be circulated In an effort to obtaIn SIgnatures
representIng property of not less than 60% In value of the area sought to be
annexed Id.
It IS qUIte clear that the CIty need not agree to have the annexatIon proceed. If
It does agree, It may require that certain elements be Included In the annexatIon
(zonlOg, indebtedness) The statute, however, does not contemplate other
condItions, such as sewer hnes belOg fIrst lOstalled. WhIle the CIty may requIre
such constructIOn, It may be dIffICUlt to enforce the condItion, In the event the
annexation proceeds and the CItIzens of the area fall to perform.
I suggested tha t creatIOn of a local Improvement dIstrICt mIght be pref era ble. If
the resIdents of the area agree to the formatIOn of an LID, the reqUIred
Improvements could be built, or at least approved, prIor to the annexatIOn
process beIng begun. This would be a separate actIOn whIch would be readIly
enforceable by the city There simply IS no mechanism allOWIng for the
enforcement of a bare promIse to lOstall the Improvements.
90-0202
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
G
311~O
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR YAKIMA COUNTY
6
7 YAKIMA COUNTY (WEST VALLEY)
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
8 NO. 12, a Washington Fire
Protection District; STEVEN
9 B. PUHRMANN and DIANNE L.
PUHRMANN, husband and wife;
10 and FLOYD T. LEITCH and
MARIAN R. LEITCH, husband
11 and wife,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 vs .
14 CITY OF YAKIMA, a Washington
municipal corporation,
15
Defendant.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
NO. 91-2-01036-5
MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 The plaintiff landowners entered into Outside utility Agreements
19 with the City of Yakima. Plaintiff Leitch signed an outside utility
20 Agreement on May 20, 1981, and plaintiff Puhrmann on March 20, 1986. In
21 exchange for receiving sewer service from the city, they agreed, among
3 . It Sign any and all notices , petitions and
any other documents requested at anytime by the
City leading to the annexation to the city of
Yakima of the property affected ...
22 other things, to:
23
24
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION - 1
'.,
~.,.:,,~"""""""'~..~~'..,.~..=:7 ..'M:'l'
'"
r
o
o
1
and
2
3
4. ... the promises made herein, do constitute a
covenant running with the land described above and
shall be binding on the undersigned owner(s), his
(their) successors in interest to such property
4
5
6
Plaintiffs now claim those outside utility Agreements are invalid
7 and unenforceable. During oral argument, plaintiffs acknowledged that
8 Paragraph 3 of the outside utility Agreement was the provision primarily
9 in dispute.
10
Plaintiffs contend the city did not comply with legislative
11 requirements in order to have authority to enter into the outside
12 utility Agreement, inasmuch as RCW 35.67.310 requires the City pass an
13 ordinance in order to contract with property owners for outside sewer
14 connections. Plaintiffs contend that since the city passed Resolutions
15 instead of ordinances, the outside utility Agreements are void as a
16 matter of law.
17 Plaintiffs further claim the Agreements were signed under coerClon
18 and violate their First Amendment rights. It is further urged that no
19 right could be wa'i ved in their Agreements because they were not ln
20 existence at the time the agreements were signed.
It is also claimed
21 that the agreements are in violation of public policy, that they are an
22 unreasonable restraint on property and that plaintiffs have a right of
23 access because of the funding scheme for the Regional Waste Treatment
24 facility.
25 II
MEMORANDUM OPINION - 2
~ ~'O' ~ 'J~'.-.\ <:) .
4{:9 C,-," ~
~
...
.un / _-- - --.- -- .__n__
ANNEXATION CONTRACT
COMES NOW, the City of Sequim, a Third Class Muni-
.
cipal Corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter
referred to as "City", "Sequim", or "City of Sequim"; and
Highland Hills Company, hereinafter referred to as "proponent",
"developer", "Highland Hills", or "owners"; and in and for the
mutual considerations and covenants hereinafter expressed,
agree as follows:
WIT N E SSE T H:
I. PURPOSE:
It is the purpose of this agreement to deline?te
conditions under which the City of Sequim shall annex pro-
perty legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, which
Exhibit and the description contained thereon is incorporated
herein.in full by thif reference as if fully set forth, which
property consists of approximately six hundred and twelve
(612) acres contiguous to the existing southeast boundary
of the City of Sequim.
Included within the real property to be annexed to
the City of Sequim is a planned unit development consisting
~
of approximately four hundred andJeighty-six acres (486), the
legal description of which is contained on Exhibit "B" att-
,
ached hereto, which Exhibit is incorpora-t'rc;l in full by this
reference, as if fully set forth herein.
It is a further purpose o~ this agreement to insure
that the planned unit development requested by the proponents
and approved by the City as a condition to this annexation be
established so that the construction of all necess~ry and con-
templated improvements be coordinated so as to integ+ate the
~ ------'". --~ ----
y
'.
"
....
.
planned unit development to the existing City in a manner
that will make compatible all utilities services facilities
extensions, transportation facilities and the like. It is
further the intent ro coordinate construction activities with-
in the PUD during development to minimize annexation aDd PUD
construction impacts upon the continuing daily operations and
maintenance of existing City services and facilities.
II. DEFINITIONS:
A. En~ineer: The City Engineer, or an engineer
of the municipality, including such assistants as are authorized
to represent said City Engineer.
B. Inspector: The City's authorized represen-
ative assigned to make all necessary inspections of the work
performed or being performed, or of materials furnished or
being furnished.
C. Specifications: The d)rections and require-
ments of the standard specifications of the City of Sequim,
as contained in the contract documents, and as supplemented
by such special provisions as may be provided herein, or
promulgated pursuant to the rules and regulations of the
City of Sequim.
, '1-.
D. Plans: The official drawings, plans, pro-
.
files, typical cross-sections and s'.lpplemental drawings, or
reproductions thereof, approved by the e~gineer, which show
t~e location, character, dimensions, and details of the pro-
posed development and work to be perfo~ed pursuant to this
agreement. All such documents are to be considered as a part
of the plans whether attached to the specifications or separ-
ate therefrom. The terms "standard drawing" genera,J.ly used
Page Two
'I
!
"
I
....
.
in the specification text and "standard plan" generally app-
earing in the titles of drawings, are synonomous for refer-
ence purposes.
E. Contract: ~he written agreement between City
and the Owner covering performance of the conditions and
agreements of the parties. The contract shall include the
contract documents and any and all supplemental agreements
promulgated p J.rsuant to paragraph -X \ V " following.
The contract documents are compVlmentary and what
is called for by one shall be as binding as if called for by
alt. In case of discrepancies, plans shall govern over spec i-
f~cations, supplemental specifications shall govern over stan-
dard specifications, and special provisions shall govern 9ver
specification plans. Where appearing on plans or drawings,
dimensions denoted by actual figures shall govern over scaled
dimensions. In case of any ambiguity or dispute over inter-
~
pretation of the provisions of this contract, the decision
of the City shall be final.
F. Contract Documents: The term "contract docu-
ments" means and includes the following:
1 This "Annexation Contract", dated the
da y 0 f
.
~ ,1980.
2. A draft environmental impact statement, dated
July, 1979, ent:i.tled "Draft Environmental Impact Statement;
Highland Hills Conpany Annexation Proposal and Planned Unit
Development".
3. A final environmental impact statement, dated
December,J,979, and entitled "Highland Hills Company, Proposed
.,
,i
:i
1.:(" Ii
.!; !.
[.1 : ~
Page Three
.----.---.---.---,~....~~........~,.......~....--~.- ~ _~.,_..~_ -___~...:::_=_=_--'-,..- ~...... ,.-~~~-~_----'-"_______~ .....,.,-;:::."'f.l.... ~~.~ .~:......:.~-:._ ~_.~ __ _
,1..
Annexation to th~ City of Sequim and A Pllnned Unit Develop-
.
ment Proposal, Final Environmental Impact Statement."
4. The standard specifications for municipal public
works construction prepared by the Washington State Chapter
of the American Public Works Association, 1975 Edition and
any amendments thereto adopted by the City of Sequim.
5. A letter dated June 25, 1980, signed by Louis
A. Torres, II, of Clark and Associates Engineers, Port Angeles,
and addressed to the ''Mayor and City Council Members".
6. A letter dated July 10, 1980, and addressed to
the "Honorable Mayor and MC:..mbers of the Sequim City Council",
srgned by Louis A, Torres, II., of Clark and Associates, Engin-
e~rs.
7. Memor8~da; official minutes of the City of Sequim
Planning Commis3ion and City Council; tape recorded trans-
cripts of hearings, wor~ sessions, and regular meetings of
the City of Sequim Planning Commission and Sequim City Council;
and other docllinents, recordings and the like comprising the
official City of Sequim record of proceedings regarding the
Highland Hills annexation and planned unit development pro-
po sa 1.
('
~ - The Highland Hills Company Planned Unit
Developm~nt to be located on the real property described on
Exhibit "B", attached hereto, and as further described in the
draft environmental impact statement and final environmental
impact statement referred to above.
III. CONDITION PRECEDENCE:
It is understood and agreed by,and between the parties
hereto that the following constitutes a condition precedent to
I I
'\
Page Four
.
:i
,'lL
this contract, and, if for any reason it is liupossible, or
-
impractical .cor the proponent to comply, then ordinance No.
of the City of Sequim annexing the property described
on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, shall be void, and shall be
of no force and effect, and this contract shall be terminated.
Proponents shall prove a water source of sufficient
capacity to meet the needs of the development proposal, in
accordance with those standards proposed at pages 17 and 18
of the final environmental impact statement and in accordance
with proposed written conditions submitted to the City of
Sequim by Lou A. Torres, II., of Clark and Associates, prior to
the planning commission hearing of the City of Sequim Planning
~ommission held on the 12th day of March, 1980.
Proponents shall pay for the hiring of a certified
ground water geologist and/or geologists to prove said water
source, and all tests in connection with proving the proposed
water source shall be at the expense of the proponents.
IV. ANNEXATION:
A. The City agrees to annex the real property
legally described on Schedule I~", attached hereto. Said
property is contiguous to the existing City limits of the
City of Sequim as required by law.
B.1\. The owners recognize that the City will incur
no lia~ility should the area not be annexed. The owners, never-
theless, covenant that in addition to the above, certain cir-
cumstances will prevail should the area be annexed, which cir-
cumstances are set forth hereinafter as conditions.
V. CONDITIONS:
A.
General Conditions:
1.
The owners of property described on Exhibit
..
, '
, r
Page Five
,_.
,.
.
"A" attached, hereto shall assume existing City indebtedness
on a pro-rata basis.
2. ~edication of all streets, alleys, parks, pedes-
trian ways, open spaces and lots necessary for public services
will be provided to the City of Sequim, in such legal format
and form as acceptable to the City and/or required by law.
3. All lots and areas within the annexation shall
be bound by and subject to the existing laws and ordinances.
of the City of Sequim where not specifically supe~ceded in
the annexation ordinance and/or contract.
4. Construction of all improvements shall meet
C~ty standards, City Engineer's Approvals and APWA Standards
and amendments
thereto officially adopted by the City of
Sequim, unless specifically exempted herein.
5. All development shall be in accordance with
preliminary plat plans presented to the City.
6. Improvcl:lents that are to be provided over a
phased period of time shall be bonded to insure completion
in accordance with City Engineer's requirements.
7. All planned unit development maps submitted with
the proposal shall govern development of the proposal unless
amended by proper procedure as set forth in City Ordinances.
\.
8. The developers and proponents shall be bound
by all affirmative representations contained in the draft
.
environmental impact statement, the final environmental im-
pact statement and/or statements or written submittals made
at hearings and meetings by their author~zed agents.
9. The annexation contract s~all be binding upon
the proponents of the annexation, their successors, heirs
,
.
,
and assigns. All agreements herein shal~'pe deeme~ appurtenant
to the land within the proppsed planned unit development, as
il
;1
ppq,e Six
r, .'
~
described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated by
this reference, and shall be deemed to be covenants running
with and appurtenant to the land described.
10. City's costs incurred in inspecting proponents'
construction of required i~provements' shall be reimbursed to
City by the proponents. These costs shall not exceed the
reasonable costs of employing one full-time inspector during
construction phases.
11. The determination of "reasonable necessity" or
"necessary", as it relates to discretionary requirements here-
under, shall be made by t~e City.
..
12. Discretionary decisions relating to construction
of required or contemplated improvements shall be made by the
City, both as to manner of construction and location, and as
to the necessi~y of the improvements to be constructed.
13. Decisions of City Staff shall be reviewable by
the City Council upon the written request of proponents for
such review. The decision of the City Council after such re-
view shall be final unless reconsidered on proper motion at
a regular or special meeting of the City Council held within
thirty (30) days of the date of the original City Council
,
decision on the matter.
14. Improvements to be provided by the proponents
r
shall be provided at the proponents' sole expense.
B. Streets:
I. GRID SECTIONS: Two grid sections are to be used
in the proposal. A major access and arterial along Still Road
is to consist of a 34 foot paving strip ~ith concrete cu~bs
II;
i
i '
L
!(
'I ~.
I!
,
i
;i
,
i
I
.i'
i
Page Seven
t", ~
and gutters on both sides. All asphalt paving shall have a
minimum thickness of 3".
All other streets shall consist of 32 feet of asp-
halt paving, including rolled asphalt curbs, and are to be
constructed in accordance with the City Engineer's specifica-
tions and/or APWA standards pursuant to General Condition #4.
2. The proponent will apply a vegetative sterilant
to areas to be paved. Proponent will further install a barrier
or "ribbon" a minimu;.... of six (6) inches in depth where any in-
growth of weeds or other vegatatioll occurs within the paved
surface or curb profiles within five (5) years of the date of
the dedication of
improved right-of-way to the City. The
barrier or "ribbon" shall be installed in accordance with the
City Engineer's Standards and/or requirements. The determina-
tion as to areas for which said barrier must be provided shall
be at the discretion of the City.
3. ARTERIAL: The proponent m~st construct an ar-
terial from Highway 101 to the proposed P&D to the standards
of the City as a function of Phase I. No occupancy of any
lots shall be allowed prior to the City's acceptance of that
new access road. In addition, at least one additional access
"
to the PUD from Happy Valley Road must be completed ,to serve
:' t
Phase I,. and b.oth access roads ruus t be connected within the
PUD.
.
4. ALLEYS: Paved alleys 16 feet in width, located
-=
within 60 foot right-of-ways, containing in addition thereto,
pedestrian walkways 6 feet in width of asphalt
paving shall
be required within the planned unit development.
,
i \
Page P:ight
t:\ .""
~
5. ROAD GRID' Establishment of road surf2ces and
right-of-ways for connections to the City of Sequim's quarter
mile road grid shall be required as established within the
PUD preliminary plat.
6. STREET PARKING' All streets shall be established
so as to allow parking on at least one side of all residential
streets.
7. Proponents will be responsible for maintenance
and repair to any road damaged through use by the proponents
during construction phases.
8.
Proponents shall provide a t~ow blade and auto-
capable of being mounted upon a City Utility
matic sander
vehicle to help defray initial costs of snow removal in the
annexed area. This shall be provided upon or prior to City's
acceptance of any finaL plat for
phaseIof the Highland
Hills Planned Unit Deve19pment.
:'
C. WATER SOURCE:
1. Developers shall provide and dedicate to the
City of Sequim, a water source compatible to the City water
system and of sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the
d~velopment prQPosa~ in accordance with those standards
'l.
acceptable to the City of Sequim and the State of Washington
Departments of Ecolog~ and Social and Health services.
2. Said water source shall not adversely affect
a.quifers above 400 feet and all water shall be from deep
a. quifers.
3. Reservoir capacity of at least one million
gallons shall be provided as needed and as dependent upon
the water source to be dedicated to the City by pro~onents
Page Nine
Q ~
-.
/
to provide adequate storage and to insure that the needs of
the development proposal can be met in light of the amount of
water, the quality of water, the nature of obtaining water
(pump systems and/or the like), and othei.matters necessarily
h
taken into account.
4. Proponent shall provide 8 inch water line stub
outs; gate valves and the like; necessary to provide the
full area annexed with potential for water system trunk line
service.
., \
This shall require a maximum of 14 such connection
locations alor~ Still Road with the exact number and loca-
tions to be determined by the City Engineer.
5. All expenses for construction of the water
system, any electrical distr 1)ution systems to serve it;
and necessary pumps shall be
provided by the pro-
ponents.
D. SEWAGE TREATMENT:
1. Pro-rata financing of the new sewage treatment
system, (approximately 500,000 gallons per day) shall be pro-
vided by the developers. The proponent must provide funding
sufficient to pay 100 perc~nt of the costs of the treatment
plant expahsions deemed necessary to accomodate flows from
the proposed development. This funding shall be provided as
a function of Phase I,
2. O~f-sitn trunk lines capable of meeting the an-
nexation area's total sewage output shall be constructed by
..
the developers and connected from the proposed planned unit
development to the C~~yls trunk line facilities.
3. Proponent shall provide 'eight (8) incQ sewer
;
line plug stub-outs necessary to provide the full area annexed
1 : r
, ,
, i
:, '"
.,.
;j '1 ~
Ii
'j;;
j: !
I,!
: 'I'
I: ,
Page Ten
area with potential for sewer trunk line service. This shall
\! ~
require a maximum of 14 such connection locations along Still
,.
Road with the exact number and locations to be determined by
the City Engineer.
E. SURFACE WATER:
1. A storm water system trunk line shall be deve-
loped along Still Road which shall be of sufficient capacity
to serve the entire area annexed.
2. Additional culverting shall be provided as
needed along Schmuck Road at Bell Creek. Any culvert of
less than 36 inches currently existing in Bell Creek below
the existing City limits shall be expanded at the proponents'
sole expense.
"
3. Proponents shall construct and dedicate to the
City a complete storm sewer system within the planned unit
development.
4. Proponents shall provide surface water deten-
tion facilities sufficiept to limit surface water flows to 5
CFS during a 25 year storm of a 30 minute duration, with a re-
tention capacity of at least 650,000 gallons.
5. Proponents shall provide necessary catch basins
with silt arc oil traps.
6. proponents shall complete all off-site storm
~
water trunk lines and retention facilities during phase I.
. 7. Proponents shall obtain a discharge permit
.
(hydraulic permit) prior to any construction activity which
shall be directly dependent upon a completed storm water con-
trol system.
8. ProPQnents shall design the lower detention
filed so that it may be used during dryer seasons as a play-
field area, and shall construct and
\:
--
.;
~.
.,'
.
Page Eleven
ri
c ..
dedicate said detention field to the City.
,.
9. Should surface water pollutant levels within
the Highland Ditch appreciably increase as a result of con-
struction of the planned unit development, the proponents
shall provide all necessary facilities for hookups to City
water~or acceptable alternative water sources, by persons
currently relying on the Highland Ditch for domestic and
drinking water supplies. Those persons shall be deemed to
be third party beneficiaries of this annexation provision
and shall be entitled to attorney's fees and costs incurred
in enforcing required compliance of this condition by the pro-
ponents. Said third party beneficiaries shall have no cause
of action against the City of Sequim arising from this con-
d~tion.
10. The detention pond located immediately North
of the planned unit development shall be screened and land-
scaped so as to prevent easy access.
:..
11. The Highland Ditch shall be fenced at the pro-
ponents' expense in all areas within the Highland Hills PUD
boundaries where the ditch would be otherwise reasonably
~ccessible to children.
, F. SOIL:
1. Seventy percent of the proposed open space
within t~e Hignland Hills PUD shall remain undisturbed and
will retain its,.natural vegetation. The remaining thirty
p~rcent will be landscaped, planted with ~~ass, or used for
recreational purposes.
2. The proponents shall provide a landscaping plan
to be approved by the City prior to construction, showing
materials and timing for cut face and fill reclamation and
~ ,
, i
Page Twelve
~: ~
er osion control. Selected plant materials should, to the
extent practical, be oriented toward perpetuation of native
species important to support of existing habitat. All right-
of~ways (alleys and streets) shall be landscaped. Proponents
shall provide landscaping according to the approved landscaping
plan.
3. During the construction phases, dust control
measures and erosion control measures shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to, sprinkling. Such measur~s shall
be directed by the City Engineer and City Utilities Depart-
men t .
4. Those areas designated as open space shall be
preserved in their existing condition to the maximum extent
possible.
5. Native vegetation, including trees, shall be
retained wherever possible. Planting in open spaces and in
residential lots should, as much as possiple, utilize native
.'
species indigenous to the general area su4h as those recom-
mended in the EIS by the Department of Game.
G. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS:
1. pedestrian walkways within the PUD will be paved
in asphalt six. feet in width.
~
:'
2. Pedestrian walkways and rights-of-ways shall
.
be landscaped pursuant to the approved landscaping plan.
..
3. Concrete siu8walks five feet in width shall be
provided on at least one side of the Still Road access, and
tie into the paved pedestrian walkway system located within
the planned unit development.
4. pedestrian walkways shall ~e adequately ribboned
. ,
I
(edged) to establish a weed/grass/vegetC!-tion barrie-.r.
· i , i' 'ii" · · ill I:;:'!: :.!!~!~ l\~illl:! :. ':"
i ( rl.
: ! 1
'pi
!';, "
, ' 'I::
-; ,ii'
:1
,.
.1: "
Pag,"" 'T''''irteen
~ .
H. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE:
1. The developers shall provide play equipment,
back stops and a playfield area within the 20 acre park as
shown on the preliminary planned unit development plat, and
shall further provide three playground areas within the planned
unit development. A total of 51 acres of parks and open space
are to be provided and dedicated to the City within the planned
unit development.
2. The City Park Board'shall be provided with a
park plan by the proponents which shall include location of
,
the following minimum park facilities: (~) basic park con-
struction, including landscaping and the like; (2) establish-
I~
ment of one public restroom within the 20 acre park; (3) loca-
tion of drinking fountains; (4) locations for picnic areas,
provisions for tables and the like; (5) provisions for trash
r~ceptacles; (6) general play facilities such as backstops,
goals,-etc; (7) toddler and younger children's play facilities
within the three mini-park areas and 20 acre park.
3. A construction plan for staging construction
and improvements requir.ed within the playground areas to be
dedicated sh~~l be estdblished to avoid incurring maintenance
costs for parks which would not be used until certain popula-
.
...
tion increases occur within the development, as follows:
The first playfield area/park shall be provided
.
by the proponents within the Phase I area in accordance with
the PUD plat and shall be completed with all improv2ments
required at the time of phase I final plat acceptanc€.
A second playfield area/park shall be completed
with all improvements required by the proponents at such
time as building pe~its for 100 residence units h~ve been
issued by the City.
Page F0'.l~t"'en
;;;c .
;.
The third playfield area/park shall be com-
pleted by the proponents with all improvements required at
)
such time as building pennits for 800 resident units have
been issued by the City.
I. ELECTRICAL UTILITIES:
l'
1. A lighting plan will be provided by the
proponents and approved prior to construction. The lighting
plan shall establish the method of street lighting; the height
of street lighL standards; and location of street light stan-
dards.
2. All utilities shall be underground.
'-
3. The developers shall set aside two alter-
native sites for the location of a necessary electrical power
sub-station. One of said sites shall be dedicated to the
Clallam County Public Utility District at that agency's dis-
cretion and the second site shall revert to proponents for
use as a lot zoned RS 9000. Should the public utility dis-
trict affirmatively decline both sites, then said sites shall
revert to the proponents and be available for use as lots
zooed RS 9000.
J. FIRE PROTECTION:
:L. A municipal buildings/fire station lot
shall be dedic?ted to the City of Sequim near the peak of
Bell Hill as set forth on the preliminary plat of the PUD.
2. Fire Hyd~ants are to be established every
600 feet within the PUry and along Still Road. Fire hydrants
shall be located every 300 feet within commercial areas.
3. Fire protection measures, including sprinkling
to limit fire hazard, shall be provided during construction
,
Page Fifteen
f,
I I
~ .
phases to reduce the possibility of fire on Bell Hill and
adjoining lands.
4. All fire protection piping shall be si?ed, fit-
ted, and installed so as to allow service not only to the pro-
posed annexation area, but to adjacent areas which are not
within the project site.
5. Proponents shall construct a municipal build-
ing/fire station, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, on the
lot dedicated for such purposes within the planned unit develop-
ment. Said building shall be constructed when determined to
be necessary by the City Council of the City of Sequim, but
not before a date 2 years after the final plat of phase I of
the planned unit development has been approved. The building
shall be constructed after the City has reviewed and approved
building plans prov~ded by proponents.
K. GENERAL UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES:
1. Proponents shall provide an area not to
exceed 1.5 acres within the PUD for a City general utility
and maintenance facility. The specific location of said facil-
ity shall be made by the City upon advice of the City Superin-
tendant of Utilities. Development of the real property set
aside pursuant~to this condition shall be the responsibility
of the C~ty. Jf th~ development of the real property set aside
for this purpos~ is not commenced within 10 years of the date
of the property's dedication to th~ City, said property shall
revert to the proponents, or their successors, for use in
accordance with the preliminary plats contained in the draft
environmental impact statement and the final environmental
impact statement.
,
Page Sixteen
IP . .
~
VI. GENERAL FACILITIES:
A. PUD EXEMP1ION: Ordinance 299 of the
City of Sequim provides for the levying of a "general faci-
lity" charge at such time as building permits are obtained
for construction within the City. The purpose of said City
ordinance is "allocate the cost of needed expense" of the
City water cistribution system, water supply system, and
sanitary sewer collection system and treatment plant to those
who create the need for such expansion.
Whereas such facilit~ and/or contemplated ex-
pansions thereof are to be provided by the proponents for use
within the Highland Hil's Planned Unit Development, levying
,
of the general facilities charge required under City Ordinance
the.
299 on building permits issued for property withinJPUD, a~
described on Exhibit "B", attached hereto, would constitute
an inequitable surcharge upon said property's development.
Accordingly, the City agrees that upon formal
annexation of the property described in Exhibit "B", attached
hereto, the City shall, by ordinance, exempt the property de-
scribed therein from the general facility charge of Sequim
Ordinance 299, as it presently exists or as hereafter amended.
Should, however, for any reasons, the construc-
.
..
tion of water and sewer facilities required hereunder not take
place, the City shall have the right to repeal the gener~l
facility charge exemption granted pursuant to this contract
provision.
B. USE OF DEVELOPED CAPACITIES: It is understood
by the parties hereto that the proponents shall develope and
i
dedicate to the City,or finan~e,water distribution and collec-
. ii i
tion system and sanitary sewef ~and treatment f~ctl~ti~S of
! I:
., \
Page Sevent~en
,;; .
.,
sufficient size and scope to serve the contemplated future
population and development ,of the Highland Hills Planned
Unit Development in full. These dedications are to be made
to the City well in advance of the anticipated population
increases and development within the PUD.
It is understood and agreed that the ctty may
use the capacities of these facilities financed qr dedicated
pursuant to this agreement as needed and for areas not within
the Highland Hills Planned Unit
Development. The City
agrees that the City's use of the water and sewer capacities
dedicated or financed by the proponents for areas outside the
PUD shall not result in unavailability of the these munic~pal
services for subsequent development within the Highland PUD.
The City agrees to provide such services when requested within
all areas of the Highland Hills Planned Unit Development for
which a final plat has been accepted by the City. Further,
the City may not reject a final plat within the Planned
Unit Development on the basis that water collection and dis-
tribution systems and/or sanitary sewer and treatment capaci-
ties of the City are inadequate where such inadequacy is due
to the City's use of capacities prqvided by the proponents
herew1Jer in areas of the City not within the Highland Hills
PUD.
The City further agrees that it shall endeavor ,
as far as is practicable, to retain general facilities' charges
pursuant to the City O~dinance 299, and/or its amendments, at
a level that will reasonably reflect the City's anticipated
costs of providing the general facility services contemplated
. t?
hereunder.
III
Page Eighteen
.
, -
.r... ~
..
VII. FAMILARITY WITH LAWS AND ORDINANCES:
The parties are assumed to be familiar with all
Federal, State and local laws, ordinances and regulations,
which in any manner effect this agreement.
VIII. PUBLIC LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE IN-
SURANCE:
The proponent shall obtain and keep in force during
any construction pursuant to this contract, public liability
and property damage insurance in companies and iry&orm to
be approved by the City. Said insurance will provide cover-
age to contractors, any sub-contractors performing work pur-
suant to this agreement, and to the City. The City shall be
named as an additional insured on said policy or policies in-
so-far as the work and obligations performed under the con-
tract are concerned. The coverage provided shall protect
against claims for personal injuries, including accidental
death, as well as claims for property damages which may arise
from ac~or omissio~of the contractor or the sub-contractors
or, cby anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of
them. The minimum policy limits of said insurance shall be
I
as follows ~ Bodily Injury liab ility coverage with limits of
not less than $500,000.00 for bodily inju~y, including acci-
dental d~ath t9 anyone person, and SUbjec~ to that limit for
each person in an amount of not less than One Million Dollars
for each accident; and property damage coverage in an amount
of not less than $250,000.00 for each accident.
IX. INDEMNITY:
:f
The proponents hereby agree to save t4e City harmless
"
I
, ,
i!
Page Nineteen
" ~.
.. .
+.. "
from all loss or damage occassioned to it or to any third
person or property by reason of any acts or omissions on the
part of the proponents, proponent's contractors, sub-contrp-ctors,
agents, and employees in the performance of the requirements
hereunder, and will, after reasonable notice thereof, defend
and pay the expense of defending any suit which may be com-
menced against the City by any third person alleging injury
by reason of such acts or omissions and will pay any judg-
ment which may be obtained against the City in such suit.
X. ATTORNEY'S FEES:
Should litigation be necessary concerning any of
the terms or covenants of this agreement, the prevailing
I
party, in addition to costs, shall be entitled to a reason-
able attorneys' fee to be detennined by the court.
L
XI. NON-WAIVER'
Failure of the.City to insist on strict and/or
specific performance of any of the covenants contained herein,
shalL not constitute a waiver and the City shall have a right
to insist on strict performance and/or compliance with con-
tract conditions thereafter.
XII. . ASSIGNABILITY:
~
This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to
the benet"it of the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties
hereto.
XIII. FULL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES:
This agreement constitutes the full agreement of the
parties.
\
Page Twenty
- <1:~
_ .. f, C2i.
.
.. ~
.. -
XIV. AMENDMENTS:
Amendments and/or modifications to this agreement
must be in writing and signed by the parties or the parties'
agents to be valid.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
agreement this
'...
I ~.
.
day of
, 1980.
THE CITY OF SEQUIM
by:
MAXOR
HIGHLAND HILLS C6MPANY
by:
PRES !DENT
by:
SECRETARY
"
Page Twenty-One
,,---
....
& .3 \\ 2..
~\/'~
(~
nne
ation
greement
Frank Schnidman
Incorporated areas expand their phys-
Ical boundaries by annexing unincor-
porated contiguous territory The most
common motive for a landowner to
seek annexation is to acquire needed
governmental services such as sewer-
age water supply, and police and fire
~otection The motive of a munici-
.allty which seeks annexation is to
regulate development and to increase
the municipal tax base.
The methods and mechanics of an-
nexation vary from state to state, and
some statutes provide for more than
one method Many states authorize
some form of unilateral annexation
whereby both the decision to annex
and the power to perfect annexation
lie with the municipality All but a few
states provide for some method of
bilateral annexation, in which the
desire to annex may arise from either
the landowners or the municipality,
but in which the agreement of both
parties is required to perfect annexa-
tion The initiative to annex rests with
the municipality or landowners in the
area seeking annexation, in most cases
electoral consent must also be se-
cured, either in the area to be annexed
or in both the municipality and the
area to be annexed. In some states,
however an annexation is final once
~e governing body accepts a petition
~m a contiguous area.
~./ \..~'\
Illinois leads the nation in the number
of effected annexations It appears
that this is a result of the expeditious
procedures established in Illinois for
annexation. This paper will discuss
the Illinois experience in annexation
in hopes that this examination will aid
persons in other areas who are or will
be involved in the annexation process
Background
Acreage in the unincorporated area of
an Illinois county contiguous to one or
more municipalities can be developed
either under county regulations or,
after annexation, by municipal regula-
tions In the event that the developer
chooses to operate under the latter,
Illinois law allows the municipality and
the landowner to enter into a binding
agreement for a period of up to 10
years These "Annexation Agreements"
can cover a variety of important fac-
tors, even going beyond what would
be allowed if the property were already
within municipal boundaries
If the developer chooses to remain in
the county, the county can regulate
the subdivision of unincorporated land
in a manner similar to the powers of
a municipality If the county has not
adopted a zoning ordinance, then its
municipalities may exercise their zon-
ing jurisdiction extraterritorially for a
distance of one and one-half miles
into the county
In determining whether to develop in
the county or to seek annexation, there
are a number of important considera-
tions The first consideration is the
availability of a public water supply
and sanitary sewer Municipalities are
not required to extend such services
beyond their corporate boundaries,
and if they choose to do so a higher
price is usually charged for these
services These problems can also be
solved by seeking service from a
private utility company or by creating
a new private company but often
these are not feasible alternatives
The second consideration is the avail-
ability of other municipal services
such as tire and police protection, and
the extent to which their availability
affects the marketability of the project.
There are a number of other important
considerations which would seem to
favor annexation, yet there is an im-
portant one against which decisions
on where to develop must be weighed
County subdivision improvement
standards are not as high as those of
municipalities, and the county build-
ing code, zoning ordinance, and other
applicable ordinances are not as re-
strictive. This can mean a very sig-
nificant reduction in costs In this
event, it is the annexation agreement
itself which can provide the needed
incentive to seek annexation
urban land/june 76 7
Anne~ation
Table I --....---------. .,;. 'UF:i:i)
i ~ . ~~~~;iW;f~~[~:;:~;, /
Areas per Annexation of Those States Havi ng Tw?Per~ent or Grea~ ~<>:',-' " ,.,
of the Total Annexations ,;" D J,:~1lli~;~'.';;if,i(,iit',;L.)(.'::,ii.;~;'\
.,. _, 1970-1973 :.;".,w.,;,,,,,,.:,,,{,, '" ,'.,,;,,"'.
'i~:;.t:'e~L ~h;j'~~{J~.V~1t."5!',~;:~'U,~:;;tJ~;iitl
"
In addition to agreeing upon the ann~x-
ation of the land by the municipality
the parties are statutorily authorized to
make agreements with respect to the
zoning of the land to be annexed the
continuation in effect of amendments to
zoning building or subdivision codes,
limitation on increases in permit fees
and any other matter not inconsistent
with the code nor forbidden by
law Obviously these are all matters of
great importance to an owner or devel-
oper and an agreement with the city
or village on these subjects is extremely
beneficial With such an agreement. he
can project his costs with some accuracy
even though the development may take
three to five years to complete He
knows the rules and regJlations which
are determinative of his costs not being
changed in the middle of his protect by
a new councilor board of trustees
There are advantages for both parties
because in addition to other beneficial
provisions the municipality is assured
that the same project it agreed to will be
constructed and that it is not relegated
to relying on pretty photographs and
unenforceable promises.'
Illinois Annexation
The state of Illinois leads the nation
in the number of annexations effected
Between 1970 and 1973, Illinois ac-
counted for 18 percent of the total
annexations in the United States It
should be pointed out, as Table I
illustrates that of the 13 states which
each account for at least 2 percent of
the annexations between 1970 and
1973, Illinois had the least average
acreage per annexation (22.94 acres),
compared to a national average of
94 06 acres per annexation And as
Table II illustrates of the 13 states
whose municipalities have annexed
the greatest amount of territory, Illinois
again has by far the least acreage
per annexation
It appears that this trend in Illinois is
a function of the availability of a rela-
tively simple annexation procedure
Where the contiguity prerequisite is met.
and the owner of a single tract or all the
owners of several contiguous tracts and
all the electors, if any residing in the
territory desire to annex such territory to
a municipality they may do so by filing
a simple petition with the municipal
clerk. The corporate authorities of
the municipality to which annexation is
sought are required to consider the
petition If a majority of the corporate
8 urban land/june 76
I State';tJ~~&'rr~~ttJ~t~~~~~tri
l ,. , , , ; . ", -",' ,. ",. /!'nw m.2'-;':'9"O'" 7.'.'
IC~Yifornia :!i;:!i:, :i;ri1..;f',::V: !', '.-"''''-11' .
~!titi~l~~l\jil,!,~l~;~i:i !!t~I:\irj;l~1i{. ,. .<.~4;',:i2::2:~91,.,
t '-IllinOIS -."'."'>;"0.,:1\'. l).." :-,' :iH" .c"',).',". .
f}~~~~~:Ji:!}::Vf;~i,i": ;;W:W';' i~'W~1 l~~,"
\:. '~o~~h,,~~t~I!~a i ,8~;i
1..Ohio l'''''~'':''.-'"':i'' .7J,j
I!'.)'~:'('!,,:"i . .. '.
i' 5~~::: !,,~rJt;fi~:~
United States?3,698
'{:-;',,)
\:~i:' :~
. .~..~;.,,~-...i'-';.J.--...,~__;.;...._~~" ......,' ....r.J...:.;:;:......_..-;~_,.;:&_
authorities then holding of lice favor it,
annexation is accomplished by the
passage of an ordinance by such ma-
jority and by recording a copy
of the ordinance together with an accu-
rate map of the territory thereby
annexed 2
In essence, thiS means that if both the
landowner and the local elected offi-
cials favor annexation then it can be
accomplished without further delay
Compared to standard annexation
procedures which may require either
a referendum or court approval, this
is an expeditious procedure
Illinois does, however, have other
means of annexation, including those
which involve both the courts and
the electorate.
Annexation may also be effected where
less than all but at least a majority of the
owners of record (who must also be the
owners of more than 50% of the terri-
tory) and a majority of the electors if
any petition the Circuit Court therefor
Upon the filing of the petition and the
motion of the petitioner, the court sets a
date for a hearing on the petition of
which the petitioner must give appro-
priate notice by publication in a news-
paper published or generally circulated
within the annexing municipality
At the hearing the petitioners and ob- e
jectors may appear personally The court
first hears any objectors who wish to
exclude their properties and de-
termines the validity of the petition_ If
it complies with the statutory require-
ments the court must so find and order
that the question of annexation be
submitted to the corporate authorities
of the municipality
The city councilor village board as the
case may be may annex the territory
by the adoption of an ordinance by a
favorable vote of a majority of the
aldermen or trustees then holding office
Such ordinance however does not
become effective for 30 days after
passage during which time the corporate
authorities may on their own motion or
shall on petition of electors of the mu-
nicipality equaling in number 10% of
those voting for mayor or president at
the last general municipal election, call
a special election on the question of
annexation or submit it to the electors
at the next general municipal election.
If the majority vote is favorable the
annexation is final and if not. then the
ordinance of annexation is ineffective.
If the corporate authorities when the
question is submitted to them by the
court, reject annexation a similar peti-
tion may be filed by the requisite numb
of electors to require a referendum.3
~j:\~t.:;
Alabai]
Ariio~~"!!!1~
'California'
: t"',~I.;~
Color8:9 . ':
Florida'
Georgi
Illinois
Indian~
,L:..:j.;;,",
KansC!s.
Ohi6'1!~\li
;1~!~h
OklahOma
;1:"-:-'.;
Te!ln.~ss~
T exa~:,:ij:~I]!~
""hird annexation procedure is used
by territories surrounded by two or
more municipalities, In this instance
either municipality may annex upon
the petition of a majority of the owners
of record as long as the territory is
not greater than one-third the area of
Ihe annexing municipality prior to
annexation,
The fourth type of petition-the one
least used-is initiated annexation,
which is applicable only in unincor-
porated areas of less than one square
mile, having less than 500 inhabitants,
and contiguous to a municipality with
a population not in excess of 100 000
This procedure is initiated by a peti-
tion of 100 electors and a majority of
landowners to the Circuit Court, after
which a referendum in the territory is
held If the referendum is approved by
a majority of electors the question
goes to the corporate authorities If a
simple majority vote favoring annex-
ation is not achieved, then the ques-
Al is placed before a municipal
J~~rerendum
, ~"'.
~.:':U~:~/,;
Acreage per
,~ ,
:'!~JiAnnexation
12771
'!
605 58
\79 63
109,26
42,56
7006
0..-.,:94 06 . "~.
i'~".:~;.~..~';: f;;;'::.1,,'.-;: .
The Illinois statute also provides for
municipality-initiated annexation pro-
cedures A land parcel of less than
60 acres which is totally surrounded
by incorporated territory can be an-
nexed by an ordinance passed by a
simple majority of the corporate au-
thorities. Also the municipality can
initiate a referendum by adopting an
ordinance and submitting the question
to the electors in the territory desired
to be annexed If the proposal receives
a favorable majority of the votes, the
territory can be annexed
Content of the Annexation
Agreement Statute
Illinois municipalities along with
municipalities in a few other states,
notably California, Colorado, and
Maryland, had entered into annexa-
tion agreements without the sanction
of general state enabling legislation
The concern of both municipal officials
and developers for the validity and
enforceability of such agreements led
to the enactment of Illinois Revised
Statutes, Chapter 24, Section 11-151-1
et seq in 1963, the general enabling
legislation for annexation agreements
This statute does not create an addi-
tional method of annexation but rather
provides a statutory means for prop-
erty owners and municipalities to enter
into binding contracts detailing the
rights and responsibilities of each of
the parties. These contracts can bind
both subsequent elected bodies and
subsequent landowners for periods of
up to 10 years The statute originally
allowed only 5 years but was amended
in 1973 The statute also excludes
home rule municipalities from the 10
year limitation leaving only the limita-
tion of reasonableness.
Section 11-15 1-2 outlines the scope
of annexation agreements permitted
by the statute The terms of such
agreements may cover-
. Annexation of the subject
property
. Continuation in effect or amend-
ment of the municipal zoning
ordinance, building subdivision
and housing codes, official plans,
and related regulations,
o Limitation on increases in permit
fees (e g building permit fees,
sewer and water tap-on charges)
. Contribution of lands or monies to
the municipality or other municipal
corporation having jurisdiction
over the land to be annexed
. Granting of utility franchises.
. Any other matter not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Code
nor forbidden by law
This last item provides the greatest
leeway as to how far landowners and
municipalities can go in binding
themselves
Litigation Over Annexation
Agreements
There was no litigation concerning the
use of annexation agreements prior to
the passage of the stalute In 1963 In
fact this lack of litigation was one of
the reasons for the passage of the
statute, both municipal attorneys and
developers were uncertain as to what
could be Included in the agreements,
urban land/june 76 9
Annex.atioI1
and sought the security of specific
enabling legislation
In 1966, and again in 1968 the Illinois
Appellate Courts upheld this authority,
but it was almost a decade after the
passage of the state statute before the
issue reached the state's highest court.
Finally, in 1972, the issue of the au-
thority of municipalities to enter into
annexation agreements was placed
before the Illinois Supreme Court
Meegan v ViI/age of Tinley Park 4 was
a case in which a developer entered
into an annexation agreement in 1959
with the village of Tinley Park to annex
an 80-acre parcel in a series of Jour
steps Under the accepted plat of the
entire four-unit subdivision, which was
made part of the annexation agree-
ment by reference the property in-
volved in this litigation was earmarked
for a service station. The annexation
agreement did not provide for a
termination date.
In 1960, the village passed an ordi-
nance granting the developer the zon-
ing required for construction of the
service station which conformed with
the village's land use plan The prop-
erty in question was zoned B-1 a
classification which included gasoline
stations Then in 1962, the village
amended the B-1 zoning classification
to exclude service stations.
Between 1962 and 1969, no effort was
made to develop the property In the
interim, the developer sold the land to
Meegan. In 1969, Meegan filed an
application for a building permit for a
gasoline station and it was denied
Meegan then filed suit.
In upholding the validity of the 1959
agreement, the court denied Meegan
the right to construct the gasoline
station, stating that
Prior to 1963 there was no statutory
authorization for annexation agreements
However in that year the legislature
specifically authorized such agreements
(III Rev Stat.1963 ch 24 par 11-151-1
et seq) and in section 11-151-5
provided
Any annexation agreement executed
prior to the effective date of this Amend-
atory Act of 1963 which was executed
pursuant to a two-thirds vote of the
corporate authorities and which con-
10 urban land/june 76
tains provisions not inconsistent with
Section 11-15 1-2 hereof is hereby
declared valid and enforceable as to
such provisions for the effective period
of such agreement, or for 5 years from
the date of execution thereof whichever
is shorter
Since the annexation agreement was
executed in 1959, under the five-year
limitation imposed by the 1963 statute,
the agreement was not enforceable
after 1964 The court found this limita-
tion not in violation of either the con-
tract clause or the due process clause
of the Federal Constitution, because of
the state's power to establish all regu-
lations that are reasonably necessary
to secure the health, safety, comfort.
and general welfare of the community
In commenting on the effect of the
agreement, the court stated
it is clear that this amendment to
the ordinance did not affect pre-existing
uses and the annexation agreement
itself specifically provides that no subse.
quent change in the ordinances would
affect any rights under the agreement.
The ordinance amending the zoning
classification was a nullity insofar as the
annexation agreement was concerned
As long as the annexation agreement
was in effect, the parties with a right to
enforce the agreement could have done
so and their rights would not have been
curtailed or impaired by the amendment
to the zoning ordinance
Under the provisions of section
11-151-4 any party to the agreement
could have enforced and compelled
performance of the agreement within the
statutory five-year period_
Use of Agreements Under
Enabling Legislation
Noting that Illinois led the nation in
the number of annexations and that it
was the only state with speCific en-
abling legislation for annexation agree-
ments, field research was conducted
in the Chicago metropolitan area in
October 1975 to examine the actual
extent of annexation agreement use
and to interview those involved in the
process. From those interviews it
appears that nearly all tracts of land
annexed in the area in recent years
were subject to annexation agreements
and that there is a general feeling of
satisfaction with their use
Annexation agreements used in the
Chicago metropolitan area vary in t)
length from 6 pages for a small parcel
contract to over 350 pages for the
recent annexation of a 4,200-acre
parcel by the city of Aurora for the
"new town" of Fox Valley East. Since
Aurora is a home rule municipality, it
was not bound by the enabling legisla-
tion's lO-year time lim:tation The Fox
Valley East agreement is for a 20-year
period and required 10 drafts before
a mutually acceptable agreement
could be reached
The length of the majority of annex-
ation agreements, of course falls
somewhere in between In reviewing
a number of such agreements, it
appears that they are becoming qUite
standardized This standardization may
be due to the increased experience of
municipalities in the use of agreements
and also due to the development of
standard clauses or some type of
model form Typical clauses provide
for'
· Determinations of overall density
o Specifications for planning and a
engineering design standards ."
· Cost sharing formulas for sub-
division streets and roadways
· Provision for land donations or
monies in lieu of donation
. Zoning
· Level of permit fees
o A preliminary plat
This standardization is a matter that
concerns both landowners and devel-
opers Jerry DeGrazia, Vice President
of Kaufman and Broad Homes, Inc
(the largest home builder in the Chi-
cago metropolitan area) argues that
each individual parcel of property is
unique and that each is surrounded
by unusual circumstances He feels
that the concept of annexation agree-
ments was intended to tailor develop-
ment and its regulation to each
specific situation
Richard V Houpt is an attorney who
has negotiated approximately 60
agreements representing both land-
owners and muniCipalities. His view is
that depending upon the municipalit-a
standardization could be a result of V
increasing sophistication, or the use of
'}
I
I:
I
standard forms or both Houpt feels
that both parties have 'learned
by experience. ' and that the munici-
palities are now coming on a little
stronger They find that fees no longer
have to be frozen and that they can
require design modifications dedica-
tions performance bonds, or letters of
credit, in addition to payments from
developers to cover municipal costs
for legal and engineering work, etc.
After all municipalities do not have to
annex if they do not want to, and this
gives them some leverage
The developers on the other hand,
have learned how to play one munici-
pality off against another, finally seek-
ing annexation from the municipality
which offers them the best deal In
this regard it should be remembered
that under Illinois law with few excep-
tions the landowner must agree to
the annexation
Table III provides examples of typical
concerns often included in annexation
agreements This table is the index
to an annexation agreement for a
248-acre planned unit development
Each of the subsections contains
detailed language defining the rights
and responsibilities of all parties In
reviewing this and a number of other
agreements, it appears that there are
six major areas of concern to the
landowner (developer) and the
municipality.
. Zoning
. Provision of Public Facilities
. Application of Codes and
Regulations
. Dedication or Fees in Lieu Thereof
. Permit Fees
. Performance Bonds and
Letters of Credit
Zoning Zoning is considered the most
important element of the agreement
Zoning enables the municipality to get
an accurate picture of what will be
built and provides the developer with
protection against down-zoning
Municipalities would prefer to have a
planned unit development or at least
a provision granting [t prior to site
plan approval This may be acceptable
to a developer in some cases but if he
urban land / june 76 11
...
A1nl~ex.ation
IS planning a large scale project he
w/II want to retain maximum flexibility
The following clause from an a~ree.
ment entered into between the city of
f\laperville and larwin-Illinois tnc
dated September 17 1973 for a 783-
acre planned unit development is
illustrative 01 the wording required to
meet the needs of a large scale project
On the 30th day after the execution of
this Agreement or at the next regular
meeting of the City Council thereafter,
the CITY agrees to enact and adopt an
ordinance approving a preliminary plat
for a Planned Unit Development on the
Subject Premises under the provisions
of the Planned Unit Development Regu-
lations of the CITY as modified herein
providing for the uses shown thereon
a copy of which preliminary plat Is
attached hereto and marked Appendix A.
DEVELOPER agrees that the Subject
Premises shall be developed only in
accordance Ivilh the Plan as shown on
said preliminary plat as approved or
subsequently amended and agrees to
follow ail of the procedures of the
Planned Unit Development ordinance
of the CITY in connection with such
development except as modified herein
Because of the size of the proposed
development. the uncertainty of the
development of surrounding areas and
the inability to determine the effect of
development of surrounding areas upon
the Subject Premises the DEVELOPER
retains the right, in accordance with the
Planned Unit Development provisions of
the CtTY's zoning ordinance and without
amendment to this Agreement, to seek to
amend the plan to provide for possible
increases in the residential density of
the Subject Premises reasonably con-
sistent with the future developments in
such adjacent areas. The CITY will
expeditiously process such request in
accordance with its Planned Unit Devel-
opment Procedures but nothing con-
tained herein shall be construed as
requiring the CITY's approval of such
requests
Provision of Public Facilities. Public
facilities provisions are usually covered
by a number of the agreement's sec-
tions. Items covered include the
responsibility for payment of sub-
division streets and the formula to be
used In apportioning the cost of major
and minor arterials., provision of side-
walks, supply of water and sewer serv-
ices and the corresponding responsi-
bilities of the parties for construction
of needed water and sewer Jines
12 urban land/June 76
t)
~:~~~;i~ii
, I
!
:10:' \ ~
- 1 )- ~ '-
- .... "* /
)...;.1 ;-.J/.,t'.' I j; ~;.~
" 11\ ll.), ~ ~'-,-:I/
I .... .- -- llr
, ' It j.., I
{\ '~I)":.JI
.lo. ~l.....:L:1.1
1
e\
~
L _~
QIl&1'9UC K.A.1.I
The illustrative site plan for Larwin s 783 acre PUD in Naperville Illinois. IIldicates the
degree of detail required for this annexation (Courtesy. Department of Community
Development, City of Naperville )
e\
f).h9 following clauses from an agree-
J;rnent between the village of Boling-
brook and Winston Development Cor-
poration, dated December 15 1969,
Ilustrate how agreement can be
reached in a municipality which does
not presently supply such services
The Village agrees that, subsequent to
the adoption of an ordinance or ordi-
nances annexing the property herein-
above described it will as promptly as
is feasible adopt such ordinances and
take all such other official action as may
be required by law to authorize the
Village to engage in the business of
providing water and sewer utility service
to residents of the Village and to acquire
by purchase or lease operate and main-
tain a water works water distribution
system sanitary sewer system and
sewage treatment plant, and to execute
and make binding such agreements and
contracts as may be necessary to ef-
fectuate the foregoing (Paragraph 18 )
Subject to the issuance of the requisite
permits by the governmental bodies
claiming jurisdiction developers witl
commence or cause to be commenced
the construction of a waterworks and
sewerage system within the territory
which is the subject of this Agreement
A within sixty (60) days of the date that
.!!I the ordinance providing for the issuance
of waterworks and sewerage revenue
bonds by the Village as more fully
described in Paragraph 21 of this Agree-
ment, becomes effective It is aqreed by
the parties to this agreement that the
said waterworks and sewerage system
will consist of the following facilities and
equipment. (Paragraph 19 )
It is understood and agreed by the
parties to this Agreement that in the
event that within ninety (90) days of the
date of this Agreement the Village has
entered into a contract for the provision
or construction of sanitary sewage treat-
ment facilities other than the facilities
described in Paragraph 19 hereof on
terms that are mutually satisfactory to
the Developers and the Village then this
Agreement shall be modified or amended
so as 10 delete the requirement for the
construction of the sanitary sewage
treatment plant described in said
Paragraph 19 (Paragraph 20.)
The Village agrees that subsequent to
ti,e adoption of an ordinance or ordi-
nances annexing the property herein-
above described it will promptly adopt
an ordinance authorizing the Village to
issue waterworks and sewerage revenue
bonds in amount of not less than
8600 000 and not more than $800 000
A...~ and that il will promptly call such special
..:~Iections and take such other official
action as may be necessary to authorize
the issuance and delivery of such said
revenue bonds The Village agrees that
the said revenue bonds wilt be payable
only out of the revenues of the water-
works and sewerage systems to be
owned and operated by the Village as
more fully described in Paragraph 23
of this Agreement, and that the bond
ordinance and the form of the bonds
will be drafted in accordance with the
specifications set forth in Exhibit 0
attached hereto and made a part hereof
and shall be subject to the approval of
the firm of Chapman and Cutler as (0
the form of the ordinance and said
bonds (Paragraph 21 )
The developers agree that they will
purchase or cause to be purchased the
aforesaid waterworks and sewerage
revenue bonds within fifteen (15) days
after receipt of written notice from the
Village that the said bonds are ready for
delivery (Paragraph 22.)
Application of Codes and Regu-
lations. Provisions for modification or
prohibitions against modifications are
considered to be of prime importance
to the developer because these speci-
fications enable him to better predict
costs Clauses which allow modifica-
tion after a stated interim period are
often included Illustrative of this type
of clause are the fol/owing sections
from an agreement entered Into by the
villilge of Cilrol Streilm on October
21 1975
Applicability of Regulations
and Fees
Except as provided herein the ordi-
nances, rules and regulations of the
VILLAGE pertaining to zoning building
construction subdivision and all fees
required thereunder as the same exists
on the date hereof shall be applicable
to the Property In the event of any con-
flict between the provisions contained in
this Agreement and such existing or-
dinances, rules or regulations the pro-
visions of this Agreement shall super-
sede the same and such existing or-
dinances, rules and regulations shall
insofar as they apply to the property be
deemed to have been amended or modi-
fied accordingly Provided, however
that by general ordinance applicable to
all other property similarly situated in the
VILLAGE, the Corporate Authorities may
amend or repeal any provisions of such
ordinances, rules or regulations includ-
ing changes in fees, but such amend-
ments or repealers shall not be applica-
ble to the Property for a period of six
months after the passage of such an
ordinance
The six month grace period shall oper.
ate in such a manner as to allow the
DEVELOPER to redesign structures and
reprice such buildings such as may be
required by such changes in ordinance
The effect of the six month grace period
shall be construed as follows
Any construction carried out more than
six months after an ordinance amend-
ment or modification in law has taken
place shall be built in accordance wilh
the terms of the then current law without
regard to when the building permit for
the structure was issued The only ex-
ception to this implementation of the
ordinance change shall be when the
construction which has previously taken
place on a building or improvement shall
render it impossible or prohibitively ex-
pensive to incorporate the change re-
quired by the new ordinance in the
building or improvement already under-
way Where an increase in the fee
charged for any permit shall take place
any permit purchased during the six
month grace periOd shall only applv to
those buildings on which construction
has begun and is continuously carried
forward during the six month period
The six month grace periOd shall not
apply to increases in utility use rates
which increases shall be payable with-
out any grace period.
Changes in Regulations
If during tho term of this Agreemenl,
any existing amended modified or new
ordinances codes, or regulations affect-
ing the zoning subdivision development
construction of improvements buildings
or appurtenances or any other develop-
ment 01 any kind or character upon the
subject property are amended or modi-
fied in any manner to impose less re-
strictive requirements on the develop-
ment of or construction upon proper-
ties within the VILLAGE then the benefit
of such less restrictive requirements
shall inure to the benefit of the DEVEL-
OPER and anylhing to the contrary con-
tained herein notwithstanding the DE-
VELOPER may elect to proceed with
respect to the development of or con-
struction upon, the SUbject property
upon the less restrictive amendment or
modification applicable generally to all
properties within the VILLAGE.
Dedication or Fees in Lieu of
Dedication. Dedication or fees are
usually required from developers
whether they build under an annex-
ation agreement or are building on
land already within the municipality
urban land/ june 76 13
The Case Law on
Annexation Agreements
Although illinois appears to be the only
state with specific enabling legislation
empowering its municipalities to enter
Into annexation agreements munici-
palities in other states have entered
into annexation agreements The actual
use of annexation agreements is diffi-
cult to determine without a survey by
municipality but the amount of litiga-
tion concerning annexation agree-
ments is available California, Colo-
rado and Maryland have all reported
instances of litigation
California
Annexation agreements are often used
in California by those cities having
their own municipal sewer and water
facilities and until recently their valid-
ity has not been challenged MOrrison
Homes Corporation v City 01 Pleasan-
ton No 36 536 (Ct App Cal 1975)
resulted from a series of annexation
agreements entered into by the cdy of
Pleasanton and the Morrison Homes
Corporation in 1963 1965 and 1966
These agreements bound the city to
specific zoning provided certain dedi-
cations by Morrison Homes Corpora-
tion set the level o( certain fees and
promised the avail<1billly of sewer
capacity The sewer capacity clause IS
at issue in this litigation
In 1973 the state Regional Water Pol-
lution Control Board issued a Cease
and Desist Order prohibiting any fur-
ther connections to the city s treatment
plant after April 10 1973 because the
plant's discharge was in excess of
effluent standards and posed a danger
to public health When Morrison Homes
Corporation was denied a sewer con-
nection they brought suit for breach of
the annexation agreement.
The trial court ruled in their favor and
directed the city to upgrade their
treatment plant to accommodate the
needs of Morrison Homes The court
also stated that the city could not im
pose any Increased connection fees
surcharges or levies against Morrison
Homes to cover the cost of upgrading
the plant Fin811y tile court awardecl
S26 075 in d81mges with addltion81
d;llly C18IllClQCS
Pleasemton has 8ppealed arguing th8t
the action of the state board served as
a complete defense to the breach of
14 urban land/ june 76
contract action The cily IS also chal-
lenginQ the leg81ity of the annexiltinn
agreement itself arguing that 2 munici
pallty may not contract a'''Iay lis i'ltJlllty
to exercise the police power and that
any contract between It and a private
party IS subiect to lillliti'ltions ilnposed
by laler police power regulations
Ouotlng The Law of MUniCipal Corpor-
ations the city states
The municipality authority as has been
said cannot bargain away the right to
make reasonable laws and In exerCise
the police power when0ver it becomcs
necessary to conserve or promote tl10
heallh or safety or wetfare of thr; corn
munit) So power conferred upon a City
to contract respecting a particular maner
does not conier power by implication
so as to contract with reference as
to embarrass or interfere wilh lis luture
control at the matter as the pu!)lic in
terest may require Hence all contracts
which interfere with legislative or I]ov
ernmental function of the munlcipillliy
are absofutefy void
The city also argues th8t A publIC
agency m8Y not Accepl1erms \Ih r:h
bind the future exercise 01 ti,e gov
ern mental powers over the li1nri iln-
nexed and that contracts purporting
to bind future legislative functions are
unenforceable
This appears 10 be Ihe first C?llfornia
litigation challenqlnC) Ille ilhilily 01 IllII-
niclpalilies to enler into 3nneXillion
agreemenls Unle',s the stale le'lIsI2-
lure intervenes it will be up to Ihe
courts to deCide on the validity of their
use
Colorado
City 01 Colorado Spnngs v Kitty Hawk
Development Company 392 P 2d 467
(1964) was a suit brought by a devel-
oper to recover money paid to Colo-
rado Springs as part of an annexation
agreement. The developer obtained
city water and sewer service \Ihich
the city had no obligation to furn:sh
on the condition the subdivision would
be annexed anri that 8 per cent of ap-
pmisal value would be p3id 10 the city
for park acquisition or other puhllc
purpose The court held tile i1qreelllenl
hinriinC) sti'llino th3t 1 Il1IInlrlp,lli1y 1113Y
impose conditions to annexation and
if the landowner IS not agreeable to fhe
terms he is fme 10 rernilin nl/I ,Id,}
Color3clo Sprinl)s HO"10v0r Ii 11('
choosrs to 3CCI'pt fhe 11'1111- 1111' 1:1 ,iI
OWI1Cr cnterl~ inlo ') Plllt'ly ((11111 Ii III il
relAtionship With thr clly
The court never direClly riiSClISS,~d Ihp.
issue of whether or not Colorado
Spnng..; could enter inlo such agree-
ments but did state
Plaintiff asserts that the agreement be-
tween It and the Cily '1,as ultra vires [in
excess of legal authority] I\ssuming
arguendo that thiS is so this IS no help
to the plaintiff since il is estopped to
assert such facl having received and
relilineel th0 b0ncfits conic rrr:d there
under anel the contract being fully
execuled on the part of all pilrties.
This case is tile only eVidence found
In the legal literature of the use of an-
nexation agreements in Colorado
0.,
"'CJ
Maryland
Mayor and Council at Rockvll/e v
Brookevilfe Turnpike Construction Co
Inc 288 A 2d 263 (1967) was a suit
l)roughi by the city of Rockvllle for
speCifiC performance on a contract
under which the city agreed to annex
il developer s tract and the developer
agreed 10 dedicate land to make pay-
menls in lieu of dedication In ordering
specific performance the court cited
City 01 Co/oraclo Splll1C1S v Kilt'l Hawk
Development Company and staled that
a municipal corporation as a prere-
quisite to granting annexation may im-
pose reasonable bona lide conditions
for public good and public welfare if
they are relClted to (he area to be an-
nexed and nearby areas
Orookevlilr; Turnpike Con,;!ruClion
Comp/my hilcl ilrquod that r;xilction of
Ihe conrJitions for 3nnexiltion consti-
tuted illegal and forbidden contract
zoning In responding the court stated
that
It is clear that one seeking annexation
may require a particular zoning classifi-
cation as a condition of his agreeing
finally to ilnnexation. The conditions
the city insisled upon were prerequisite
to annexing not 10 rezoning as to which
there WilS no signif/ccmt controversy
and the fact that an agreed upon zoning
classification woufd accompany the
annexation as a condition of the an-
nexee does not bring the rezoning within
the Maryland rule that rezon ng cannot
be granted condilionally
Justice Barnes dissenling in the opin-
Ion arqued that the agreement Nas
void heciluse the power to contract
for ilnncAAtion WiJS never delegated by
the General Assemblv of Maryli'llld
Th s issue WAS not discusssd by Ihe
m:::jority and thus no definitive IJn-
IIlnqc Oli the poml ie 10 be fnuncJ
~;ir\CI. lill: /ipPCll.S to I)c' Il1e olll'! re-
pml/'cl 1'.1';0 In fv1rll,/I;1I1d ron!0,;1111\) iln
3nncxJIIOn Jqreen10nl It can IJO 3S-
SUITl()c! Illil! C]lvr,n a similar IJel e tULl-
tion tile use of slIch aCjreemcnts
would be upheld
,
,')
\.."
)Agreement on dedication or fees in
lieu of dedication may enable the
municipality to exact a greater amount
of land or money than legal principles
would normally allow Dedication is
also one of the 'carrots which the
developer can hold oul to the munici-
pality in order to get what he wants
Donation of land for park or school
sites and of money for the use and
benefit of the school park or the fire
protection district are commonly
required by municipalities
Permit Fees. Permit fees were previ-
ously mentioned in the discussion of
codes and regulations It is a common.
provision to freeze all fees of the
municipality required for building per-
mits plan review inspection fees,
sewer and water tap-on etc. Means
for increasing fees to recover costs
are commonly included in agreements,
often with the provision of an interim
time period to give the developer time
to adjust his pnces to reflect the fee
increase
jAssurance of Developer Performance.
Assurance that the developer will
carry out his promises is provided by
performance bonds or irrevocable
letters of credit The following clause
from the Naperville-Larwin agreement
recognizes the high cost of perform-
ance bonds and provides an option
lor the developer
Performance Bonds and letters of
Credit. In lieu of any bonds or cash
escrow deposits for public improve-
ments the DEVELOPER at its election
may furnish to the CITY an irrevocable
commercial letter of credit in form ap-
proved by the City from a sound and
reputable banking or financial institution
authorized to do business in the State of
Illinois Such letter of credit shall be in
effect for the length of time required for
bonds or other guarantees
In lieu ot said letter of credit. the City
Council may permit the DEVELOPER to
submit such other security as it may
deem appropriate Said security shall be
limited to the amounts required for those
portions of the Subject Premises which
have received final plat approval by the
City Council All bonds guarantees,
letters of credit or other security shall
be reduced in amount as work prog-
resses and is completed and accepted
:.t
Table IV --'._--'----""-1
Advantages and Disadvantages In the Use of Annexation Agreements!-;,,]
To the Municipality -' I
Advantages I
o Control of development can be extremely detailed Specifications for density and bed- I
room mix as well as aesthetic control can be made part of the annexation agreement. I
o Requirements for dedication or lees in lieu of dedication, lor public purposes can be !
set in excess of what the courts would normally allow in standard subdivision (
regulations. !
o Through either court enforcement of the agreement, or threat to collect on the j
performance bond the municipality is more likely to get what was promised by the I
developer I
. If the municipality does not have the in-house staff to handle the negotiation of the I
agreement and its lollow-up the municipality can require the developer to cover these .1
costs. ,
. An annexation dgreement can be made binding upon subsequent owners of the land I
This assures the municipality that the subsequent owners or developers of the land :
will comply with the terms of the original agreement. I
. The agreement can be terminated and the parcel disconnected by the municipality in i
the event that a developer lails to exercise his purchase option and commence im- .
provements within a stated time period. " ,
. For municipalities who neither have nor want a planned unit development ordinance,
annexation agreements allow individual PUD structuring which is enforceable. .
o The increased front-end planning which must be done provides an increased oppor-
tunity for quality development to occur
Disadvantages
. It is difficult to provide for the changing needs of the municipality The zoning granted
may need changing the codes updating and the fees increased If these items are,.:'~
frozen by the original agreement. there is little that can be done io alleviate the '.,'''i''
municipality's problems.
. The competition lor a specific parcel of land by two or more municipalities can lead
to a municipality agreeing to more than it should The increased tax base and the
ability to regulate development, and other specific items may not adequately comperi'<
sate the municipality for what it has granted in return. .
. The use of annexation agreements may have a negative effect on comprehensive
planning The negotiation process treats each project on an ad hoc basis, and unless
the municipality firmly follows the dictates of its comprehensive plan elements
important to overall planning may be ignored
I
!
i
To the Developer I
Advantages I
. The guarantee of zoning the setting of code standards and permit fees all reduce I
some of the uncertainty in the development process. I
GO Methods of infrastructure financing can be stipulated which depend upon revenue I
bonds of the municipality Alternatively binding recapture arrangements can be worked
out if the developer provides facilities which benefit other properties. j
. A developer can acquire an option contingent upon the landowner's successful ~
negotiation of an annexation agreement. If agreement is not achieved the developer
can refrain from exercising his option. ]
Disadvantages
. The municipality's bargaining power often allows it to exact greater contributions of
land or money than would otherwise be required
. An attractive parcel of land may be on the market but be bound under a "bad"
annexation agreement. The required renegotiation of the agreement can create prob-
lems and delays which no longer make development of the parcel financially profitable.
. Annexation agreements require a long time to negotiate and involve front-end monies
with no guarantee that the project will ultimately be approved
urban land/june 76 15
Anne~ation
Summary',
The use of annexation agreements in
the Chicago metropolitan area is now
standard practice During fieldwork In
the area and discussions with a num-
ber of persons who have been involved
in over 100 agreements (by their own
rough counts) no person interviewed
was opposed to the use of annex-
ation agreements The lack of flexi-
bility in the agreements was cited as
creating problems when technology,
the market, or community or developer
desires changed These changes cre-
ate the need to renegotiate, and they
make the entire agreement subject
to change
Another problem mentioned was the
need at times to seek extension of an
agreement which is about to expire
For a variety of reasons the developer
may find himself unable to keep to his
original schedule and may find himself
faced with Ihe prospect of losing the
binding terms of the agreement espe-
cially zoning codes and level of
permit fees
The consensus of the interviewees
was, however that these problems
were minor The benefits of being able
to negotiate in detail to reach a com-
promise on the rights and responsI-
bilities of the parties and of being
able to bind each other seemed to far
outweigh the difficulties All parlies
interviewed seem satisfied with the
technique and indicated that the use
of these agreements would be of value
to other states in providing assurance
in the development process
Yet annexation agreements in them-
selves will not necessarily assure
sound planning and quality develop-
ment. As shown in Table IV, annex-
..~ 1at:cJy'$'!!f,f. 76;
, ~~;NiH~}1~hl' Ih'!; !L,
alion agreements have advantages
and disadvantages for both munici-
palities and developers One factor
which stands out when reviewing the
annexation activity in the Chicago
area is the lack of policy guidance as
to what territory should go to which
municipality A number of comments
were made about the competition
among local governments for parcels
of land proposed for good tax ratable
development Perhaps a means of
integrating regional interests into the
local decision to annex would be
beneficial
Demonstrating Iheir concern over the
impact of annexation activity on re-
gional planning the states of California
and Minnesota pioneered with legis-
lation in the early 1960s to creat ad-
ministrative bodies which would estab-
lish standards for the formation and
boundary changes of local govern-
ments Such administrative bodies are
now established in Alaska Oregon,
Michigan Nevada New Mexico
Washington and Wisconsin.
One example of this type of body is
the Local Agency Formation Commis-
sion (LAFCO) in California Each
county has such a commission author-
ized to approve or disapprove any
annexation proposal prior to Initiation
of annexation proceedings by any city
within that county LAFCO has broad
power to deny or amend proposals
after conducting a hearing on the
merits of the proposals Each LAFCO
may adopt its own stanrlards for evalu-
ating annexation proposals although
the statutes do specify certain factors
which must be considered These
factors include
o the probable population growth
in an area
o the availability of urban services, t
. the proposal s conformity with the
appropriate general and specific
plans and
. the social and economic effects
of the annexation on adjacent
areas
Additionally, LAFCO has the responsi-
bility of establishing "spheres of
influence" for each city and special
district within the county Spheres of
influence define the optimal future
boundaries of each governing agency
in the county and are factors to be
considered in evaluating annexation
proposals
A combination of annexation agree-
ments and this type of regional over-
sight may best work to promote
orderly urban growth
Frank Schnidman is ULI Research Counsel
and also visiting professor at the Univer-
sity of Virginia School of Architecture. This
article is based on research carried out
under a National Science Foundation-
funded study Techniques for Increasin~
Project Scale and Improving Land Use "'IE'
Balance in the Urbanization Process. The
opinions, findings and recommendations
expressed in this article are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the
views of NSF
Footnotes
1 Richard V Houpt "The Development
Process Lond Use and Zoning in Illinois
(Chicago Illinois Institute for COnlinlJi:19
Legal Education 1970) p 3-1 at 3-10.
21bid P 3-12.
31bid P 3-13
452 1I1.2d 354 288 N E.2d 423 (1972).
The previous litigation was: Maywood
Proviso State Bank v City of OakbrOOk
Terrace 67 III.App.2d 280 214 NE.2d 5C2
(1966) Elm Lawn Cemetery v City 01
Nor/hlake 94 III.App2d 387 237 NE.2d
345 (1968)
What Does
the Impact
Statement
Say About
Economic
Impacts?
Ronald C Faas, ExtensIon EconomIst,
WashIngton State UnIversIty
WREP 31
April 1980
^ 'l(
j
.G',:..:-':','r:o..-'. -W.,:,t. -:h',
. . .'. > . ,
. . .
. .
, . . ' '."..,;: ~ ..' , .
Mining, industrial expansion, and energy facility con-
struction affect the private sector of a community's
economy Such projects require new investment in
plant facilities and lead to increased local employ-
ment, income, and sales In addition, the new eco-
nomic activity often stimulates local business Com-
mercial activities and residential housing expand to
serve the new population
Local public officials and concerned citizens
must carefully evaluate the economic impact infor-
mation presented to them regarding a proposed
development.
Private sector economic impacts should be esti-
mated in any impact assessment. Examples of eco-
nomic information often found in impact statements
are presented here, along with some questions that
might be asked of the impact analyst. Tools used by
economists to assess private sector economic im-
pacts are also introduced, followed by some criteria
for evaluating the information presented in economic
impact studies
Private sector economic impacts are of interest
to various groups of people-and may benefit some
more than others New job opportunities are wel-
comed by workers, but may cause concern for exist-
ing employers because of higher wage levels The
purchasing power of the new industry and its em-
ployees is attractive to local business people and
outside investors Increased housing demand means
more business for local realtors, building contractors,
and property owners But it also means higher rents
for people in the community-including those on
fixed incomes
New investment generates increased property
and sales tax revenue This is of interest to local pub-
lic officials concerned about meeting increased de-
mands for services
Promoters of a particular economic delb8lopment
will strongly emphasize the new jobs, increased pay-
rolls, expanded sales, and new investments These
factors form a very persuasive argument when pub-
lic officials are asked to make a zoning change, grant
a variance, or allow a tax concession
Many people are affected by the private sector
economic impacts of a new mining or industrial ac-
tivity, and careful assessment of these impacts is
essential Accurate information about changes in
Weslern Rural Development Center
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
(503-754-3621 )
A regional center for applied social science and community development
cooperating with Land Grant Universities in
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
employment, income, and sales is needed to antici-
pate related changes-in population, housing, school
enrollment, capacity of public facilities, and demand
for public services And social stress related to
community growth is even more difficult to quantify
than economic or fiscal impacts
Data on private sector employment, income,
sales, and new investment provide a necessary base
for estimating related changes so that entrepreneurs,
public officials, and concerned citizens can respond
to rapid community growth in an informed manner
Public officials need to consider such economic
impacts when evaluating an environmental impact
statement (EIS) This document accompanies a re-
quest for official action relating to a proposed devel-
opment. The EIS may contain some information
about economic impacts in its socioeconomic sec-
tion, although sometimes economic impacts are not
even mentioned in the EIS Rarely will all categories
of economic impacts-employment, income, sales,
and new investment-be addressed in the EIS
Examples of
Economic Impact Data
The quality of information given in an EIS can be va-
riable The following examples were extracted from
actual impact reports
Example: Valley Resort Expansion
The assessed valuation of property in the county can be
expected to rise considerably as a result of the Valley
Resort expansion, though the amount of the increase is
impossible to estimate at this time The county may
benefit from increased sales tax revenues.
Employment projections are necessarily sketchy, but it
can be expected that the jobs available will increase in
the same occupational categories that now exist in the
Valley At present there are less than 50 people em-
ployed in the Valley At full employment. there will be
jobs created for at least 500
The resort example is particularly vague in its
estimates of increased investment (reflected by as-
sessed valuation) and increased sales (indicated by
sales tax revenues) No basis is given for the em-
ployment estimates, nor does the report indicate
whether the numbers cited represent people em-
ployed directly by the resort or the total employment
in the area.
Example: Subdivision Project
Jobs related to the project will be derived from construc-
tion activity for subdivision improvements and residen-
tial dwellings. Over the two-year construction period
proposed it is estimated that the project will provide the
equivalent of 15 full-time job slots and an annual payroll
of $375,000
A precise estimate of employment and payroll
associated with a subdivision project is provided in
this EIS However, the report does not mention the
assumptions on which these estimates were based,
nor whether these are direct impacts or total impacts
2
Example Factory X
As a new basic' industry in the area, Factory X, as a
source of employment. would sell much of its product
to markets outside of its location. Therefore its opera-
tions employees would represent an increase in basic
employment within the region New nonbasic' employ-
ment associated with the proposed development would
be persons employed by firms or industries within the
area that supply Factory X with production-process
goods and services, plus additional employees in
wholesale/retail trade, services, and local government
sectors.
Factory X's assessment of 450 basic jobs creating 900
non basic jobs, with a total employment growth of 1,350
may be high because the current level of non basic em-
ployment in County A is part of an existing trade/
service/governmental system serving a multicounty area
with a population of 30000 to 35000 or more A sub-
stantial proportion of any new jobs will be filled by resi-
dents of this area, whose trade, service and govern-
mental 'needs' are already fulfilled by the area s existing
system
The Department of Ecology has developed an alternative
assessment of total employment impacts, based on the
1972 Washington State Input-Output Model This an-
alysis suggests that an increase of 450 basic jobs would
generate 225 non basic jobs, for a total employment
impact of approximately 675 within the region
Employment impact projections by Factory X and the
Department of Ecology
Factory X DOE
New Basic (Export)
Employment during
plant operation
hired locally or
commuting
in-migrating new
household heads
450 450
300 300
150 150
New Nonbasic
(Service)
Employment
hired locally or
commuting
in-migrating new
household heads
900 225
675 169
225 56
fotal New
Employment
total hired locally
or commuting
total in-migrating
new household
heads
1 ,350 675
975 469
375
206
The EIS for Factory X provides some information
about employment, but leaves many other ques-
tions unanswered More information is needed about
changes in payrolls, sales, and new investment.
. The terms basic (export) and non basic (service) are discussed
in the Methodology section.
Some Key Questions
"-
Listed below are questions that should be consid-
ered when evaluating information about private sec-
tor impacts of a new development. If the proposed
new economic activity is being justified on the basis
of economic benefits-new jobs, payrolls, sales,
and investment-local officials need reasonable an-
swers to these questions to make informed public
decisions concerning the development
Employment
How many people will be directly employed by the
new export activity during the construction phase?
What kinds of construction workers will be
needed?
How many of each kind?
Will these be full-time employees or seasonal
workers?
When will they begin work?
How long will they be employed?
How many people will be directly employed by the
plant during the operations phase?
What kinds of workers will be needed?
How many of each kind of worker?
When will they begin work?
If seasonal workers will be employed, will the
timing complement or compete with existing
local seasonal employment?
How many of these new export (basic) workers
are likely to be hired from within the local com-
munity?
Will these be people currently unemployed or
employees drawn away from other jobs? Will
such vacancies be filled with new employees,
or will job functions be consolidated?
How many of the new export workers are likely
to commute from other communities?
How many are likely to migrate into the com-
munity and become new residents?
How many people might migrate into the com-
munity in hopes of obtaining a job, and possi-
bly add to the community's unemployment
rolls?
How many new service (nonbasic) jobs are projected
as a result of the new export activity?
How many workers are likely to be hired from
within the local community?
Will these be people currently unemployed, or
employees drawn away from existing jobs?
How many new service workers are likely to
commute from neighboring communities?
How many are likely to migrate into the local
community and become residents?
Income and Payrolls
What is the anticipated annual payroll of the new
export activity during the construction phase and
during the plant operation phase?
How will the payroll be distributed (by type of
worker) ?
How much is likely to go to workers hired from
within the local community?
How much is the income loss from previous jobs
not refilled in the community?
How much of the new payroll will go to com-
muters living outside the local community (who
tend to spend their income where they live)?
How much of the new payroll will be spent
locally-rather than outside the community in
neighboring trade centers?
How much additional service payroll will be gener-
ated in local businesses?
Sales and Output
What types of sales are expected by the new export
activity?
What is the expected annual volume of each
type of sales?
What are predicted types of purchases from local
support businesses by the new export activity?
What is the expected annual volume of each
type of purchase from the local business
sector?
What are predicted types of purchases from local
support businesses by the new workers at the export
activity?
What is the expected annual volume of each
type of purchase from the local business
sector?
Will these local purchases by the new export activity
and its employees be made from existing businesses
or from new businesses (opened perhaps by outside
investors)?
New Investment
How much new capital investment is planned by the
new export activity?
How much new investment in expanded commercial
facilities can be expected by service businesses?
How much new housing investment is likely by new
employees or existing residents with increased in-
comes?
In some cases, the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) does not require including an economic
impact analysis in an EIS Why, then, should these
kinds of questions be considered in the analysis of
a new project proposal?
Usually, a new export activity directly employs
new workers, it may also stimulate increased indi-
rect employment in support/service businesses In
order to predict how much new population will be
drawn in by the project, it is necessary to estimate
how many of these new workers will be new heads
of households migrating into the community
Informed estimates of new population are impor-
tant for determining the increased school enrollment.
Demand for new housing also depends on new pop-
ulation, as well as on the increased income of exist-
ing residents
3
Reasonable estimates of future demand on pub-
lic facilities and services also depend on population
and housing projections Expansion of public facili-
ties and services, and when it can occur, depends
on increased tax revenue Increased tax revenue is
generated from assessed valuation of new invest-
ment and from increased sales in the community
Social impacts of a proposed project are diffi-
cult to predict without accurate estimates of
· new population likely to migrate into the com-
munity due to the new employment
· the level of new income generated
· the community's financial ability to provide addi-
tional public services and facilities demanded by
the new population
Careful attention to private sector changes in em-
ployment, income, sales, and new investment will
provide a reasonable base for predicting indirect
impacts from a new project. Changes in population,
housing, public facilities and services, and fiscal and
social impacts must all be anticipated by a com-
munity preparing for growth
Methodology
How do economists assess me private sector eco-
nomic impacts of a new development?
The economic multiplier is one tool that is often
used Multipliers are based on the interdependency
between two types of business sectors in the local
economy-the export (or basic) and service (or non-
basic) sectors
Export activities produce goods and services for
sale outside the local economy (exports) By selling
exports, these activities bring new dollars into the
local economy, providing fuel for growth Some
export activities in nonmetropolitan areas are agri-
culture, mining, manufacturing, tourism, and con-
struction of large-scale projects such as dams or
electrical generating plants By selling outside the
local economy, these export sectors are considered
"prime movers" of the local economy
Other business activities that sell goods and
services to residents or other businesses within the
local economy make up the nonexport (or nonbasic)
service sectors These generally include such serv-
ice-oriented businesses as retail grocery and cloth-
ing stores, auto and machinery repair shops, banks,
accountants, and doctors By selling their goods and
services within the local economy, the service activ-
ities circulate within the local economy the new
dollars brought in by the export sectors
An expansion in sales generally has a multiplier
effect such that total change in income for the local
economy is greater than the dollar volume of the
initial expansion alone An additional increment of
output by an industry producing goods for export
outside the local economy, for example, will require
additional inputs Firms and individuals supplying
the additional inputs to the exporting industry will, in
turn, increase purchases from their suppliers This
process continues through successive rounds of ex-
penditures Likewise, this cumulative effect can be
illustrated by tracing one dollar in wages spent by a
new worker at the plant Assume that the worker
spends 50~ locally, and 30~ outside the local econ-
omy, with the remaining 20~ being used for savings
and income taxes The local merchants receive 50~
and use 25lt to purchase goods from suppliers out-
side the community The remaining 25lt is spent
locally for wages, utilities, and purchases from other
businesses In this example, the initial 50lt spent
locally by the worker generates another 25lt of local
income the first time it is respent. This process re-
peats itself over and over again
--------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------,
20C I
saVIngs I
& taxes !
I
30e
leakage
-------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
25C
leakage
The multiplier concept of local respending patterns
Multipliers are an easy way to estimate the sum
of all the spending and respending without adding
up each individual transaction
Kinds of Multipliers
As described above, the multiplier is the numerical
relationship between an original change in economic
activity and the ultimate change in activity that re-
sults as the money is spent and respent through
various sectors of the economy There are several
kinds of multipliers used to assess private sector
economic impacts of new export activity, including
employment multipliers, income multipliers, and out-
put multipliers
An employment multiplier is the total change in
full-time equivalent employment (F T E.) generated in
the local economy for each change of one F T E in
an export sector of the local economy (Note that one
F T E can be a full-time job, or it can be two or
three part-time positions with total hours worked
equaling one man-year) In the EIS example, Fac-
tory X used an employment multiplier of 30 to esti-
mate that 450 new export jobs would generate a total
of 1,350 new jobs in the local economy In contrast,
the Department of Ecology used a more conserva-
4
tive multiplier of 1 5 to estimate that the same 450
new export jobs would generate a total of only 675
new jobs in the same local economy (Some possible
reasons for this variation from 3 0 to 1 5 are dis-
cussed in the Evaluating Multipliers section) Both
totals include the initial 450 new export jobs
A household income (or earnings) multiplier is
the total change in household income throughout
the local economy from a one dollar change in
household income payments by an export sector For
example, if the household income multiplier for min-
ing firms in the local economy was 2 5, each initial
$1 00 increase in the mining firm's payments to
households would generate another $1 50 increase
in other household incomes, making a total of $250
in increased payments to households throughout the
local economy
An output (or business) multiplier is the total
change in sales generated throughout the local
economy by a $1 00 change in export sales of a par-
ticular sector
Estimation Techniques
Techniques for estimating economic multipliers
range from guessing or using rules of thumb to so-
phisticated econometric models Two of the most
commonly used tools are the export base approach
and the input-output model In both approaches, the
local economy is divided into separate business sec-
tors
The export base approach uses a two-sector ex-
port and service model such as that described at the
beginning of the Methodology section An input-
output model further disaggregates export and serv-
ice activities into separate sectors, and an account-
ing is prepared of what each of the sectors buy and
sell from every other sector From either approach,
it is possible to derive multipliers that estimate the
changes in the economy caused by an increase or
decrease in sales of any particular sector of the local
economy *
However, an input-output model is costly to as-
semble, since it may require an extensive survey to
compile the data necessary for its computation
Furthermore, the predicted input-output relationship
may not hold true over time Thus, a forcast made on
the basis of a multisector input-output model may be
no better than a forecast based on the two-sector ex-
port base model
Export base multipliers have the advantage of
being quicker and easier to use They are also less
expensive to compute than input-output models and
have minimal data requirements Since the export
base approach generates a single aggregate multi-
plier, its accuracy for specific economic sectors is
far less than that of the input-output model-but it is
generally acceptable for most situations in smaller,
more rural economies
. Input-output multipliers can be calculated two different
ways. The Type I method does not include the household sec-
tor in the calculation. By assuming that once a dollar reaches
the household sector, it leaks from the economy, Type I multi-
pliers tend to understate the total impact. The Type II method
does include household interactions with the economy Type"
multipliers are applied more often in economic impact analysis.
5
Evaluating Multipliers
It was noted in the previous section that two different
employment multipliers-30 and 1 5-were esti-
mated by Factory X and the DOE. The two multi-
pliers resulted in differing estimates of total em-
ployment impacts of 1,350 and 675 new jobs to be
generated from 450 new export jobs What factors
might account for the difference in the multipliers
that were calculated? How might one judge what size
multiplier is more reasonable?
The essential test of accuracy for a multiplier is
how closely it reflects the actual economic relation-
ships in the economy under consideration
Due to the cost of conducting an export base
study or developing a local input-output model, an-
alysts often borrow multipliers that were not devel-
oped specifically from local data Such multipliers
are overlaid onto the area on the assumption that the
multiplier will adequately reflect the relationships in
the local economy An example would be the use of
a multiplier for the mining sector in Big Horn County,
Wyoming, to estimate impacts of new mining activity
in Ferry County, Washington Alternatively, a multi-
plier from the mining sector in the state input-output
model may be stepped down to the local economy
Such borrowing practices can save money and
time, and produce acceptable results when used
appropriately However, there are many instances in
which an economy is so unique that overlaying will
not produce accurate results In evaluating whether
an overlay or stepped-down multiplier has been used
appropriately, it is important to consider whether
economic interdependencies in the two areas are
similar or significantly different.
According to Gordon and Mulkey, the size of the
community income multiplier is directly related to
two variables
(1) the propensity of households to consume locally,
and
(2) the total (direct, indirect, and induced) income in
the local economy resulting from each dollar
spent in local consumption
In other words, the larger the proportion of income
spent locally and the larger the propensity for local
expenditures to generate income in the local econ-
omy, the larger will be the income multiplier
Several factors related to these two variables are
useful in examining the comparability of the econ-
omy for which a multiplier was estimated and the
local economy to which it is to be applied
Leakage and Local Consumption
Leakage is a drain On the local economy as house-
holds spend part of their income elsewhere Other
things being equal, the propensity to consume lo-
cally is expected to be relatively higher (and leakage
relatively lower)
· in a larger community that has a more diverse
economy;
· in a community located a substantial distance from
competitive shopping centers, and
· in a community where financial institutions are
local-economy-o riented
Population size and economic diversity can influ-
ence multiplier size A larger, more diverse area gen-
erally has a greater variety of businesses, thus, more
of a given dollar is apt to be spent locally before
leaking than would be the case in a smaller area A
multiplier for a county will be smaller than that for a
multicounty area, which in turn, will be smaller than
the multiplier for a statewide economy
A multiplier is also affected by the local econ-
omy's geographic location and accessibility of major
trade centers The total income generated by a new
export activity could be reduced drastically if a large
proportion of the new payroll is being spent outside
the local economy Money spent by local residents
for purchases in stores outside the local community
is leakage because it is not likely to get circulated
back into the local economy Thus, areas near trade
centers (with the trade center located outside the
local economy) have smaller multipliers due to leak-
age than do similar areas that contain their own
major trade centers The latter situation keeps more
of each dollar in the local economy for more rounds
of spending
Another form of leakage is the importing of raw
materials for local processing or manufacturing Con-
sider two areas with similar new manufacturing
plants, where one can buy raw materials locally, the
other must import those materials If a community is
able to provide the goods and services required by
both the workers and the plant, the multiplier will be
much greater than it would be if some or all of those
goods and services were purchased from outside
the local economy
Structure of the Local Economy
The amount of income generated in the local econ-
omy per actual dollar spent locally will vary with the
structure of each economy
Different sectors of the local economy, for ex-
ample, have different backward linkages to other
sectors of the local economy Backward linkages
refer to the inputs purchased If one new plant pur-
chases primarily labor, then its impact is likely dif-
ferent from another new development which makes
relatively large purchases of utilities, transportation,
etc, along with labor In some cases, a particular
new manufacturing industry may create a greatly ex-
panded demand for specific locally produced goods
and services
A multiplier for a particular sector, such as min-
ing, might also vary from one community to another
due to differences in excess capacity in the local
economic structure Local retail business establish-
ments operating with excess capacity could absorb
considerable new business before needing to add
more salespersons or expand their facilities In such
cases, the income multiplier would likely be higher
than the employment multiplier On the other hand,
if such businesses were already operating at full ca-
pacity, increased sales would likely create new jobs
and payrolls in operating the additional business
activity and in construction of expanded facilities to
handle the increased sales, thus contributing to
higher employment and income multipliers
Another case where the income multiplier could
be higher than the associated employment multiplier
is when a local labor market with excess capacity
can provide a large portion of the needed work
force If a labor market with excess capacity in-
cluded enough unemployed (or underemployed)
workers to meet the needs of a new mining opera-
tion, for example, then few new workers would be
drawn in from outside the local economy And if
very little of the needed work force were available
from within an economy having no excess capacity,
then a sizeable percentage of the new workers would
be drawn into the community, but perhaps as com-
muters rather than as new residents A relatively
higher income multiplier should result from new pay-
rolls to local workers being spent locally than from
those same payrolls going to commuters spending
most of their income outside the local economy
Another issue is whether an average multiplier or
a marginal multiplier has been determined The av-
erage income multiplier is typically presented as the
ratio of total income to export income at a point in
time The marginal income multiplier, on the other
hand, is the change in total income divided by the
change in export income over a period of time There
may be substantial differences in the value of these
two multiplier estimates due to changes in the rela-
tive importance of particular export sectors over
time
Accuracy of a multiplier depends on how well it
reflects the actual economic relationships in a par-
ticular local economy Since those actual relation-
ships are difficult and costly to determine, it is diffi-
cult to judge which size multiplier might be more
reasonable Rather than choosing a specific multi-
plier, an appropriate course might be to display the
employment impacts of using a range of multipliers
This recognizes the difficulty in obtaining an exact
estimate of the multiplier, yet allows the community
to anticipate the impacts of the high and low esti-
mates of changes in economic activity One prob-
able range of aggregate multiplier values is shown
in the following table for each county employment
size class
Average multiplier values and ranges by county
employment size classes
County employment Average Probable
size-class multiplier range *
1,000 - 2,999 1 7 15-19
3,000 - 4,999 1 8 15-20
5,000 - 9,999 1 9 16-21
10,000 - 19,999 20 1 8 - 2.2
20,000 - 49,999 22 20-24
50,000 and over 22 20-25
* Based on data for 375 Appalachian counties, there is a prob-
ability of 70 percent, or 7 chances in 10 that individual county
multipliers will be included within these ranges
Source Gadsby Dwight M "Current Procedures Used in
Evaluating Resource Conservation and Development Proj-
ects' Secondary Impacts of Public Investment in Natural Re-
sources, Mise Publ 1177 Economic Research Service U S
Department of Agriculture Washington, D C 1968
6
Conclusion
Some Precautions
Estimates of income and employment multipliers are
sometimes greatly exaggerated Gordon and Mulkey
argue that an aggregate community income multi-
plier of over 25 should be critically evaluated, and
should not be accepted for impact analyses without
a convincing explanation of why it is so large Indi-
vidual sector income multipliers, such as agriculture
and manufacturing, may be larger than 2 5, however
The size of the multiplier should not be the sole
criterion used in evaluating a new economic activ-
ity For example, a hot dog stand may have a high
multiplier, and pulp plant a much lower one One
should also consider the amount of initial employ-
ment, income, etc brought in by the new activity,
which along with the multiplier effect, influences the
total economic impact within the local economy One
hundred new workers in a sector with a multiplier of
1 1 would have ten times the impact of two new
workers in another sector with a multiplier of 5 5
An aggregate multiplier may not apply equally
to all service sectors in the local economy It should
be noted that some types of service businesses may
experience higher income impacts from each $100
of new construction payroll than other business sec-
tors do Similarly, within a given sector-retail busi-
ness, for example-that increased local business
might go to existing business establishments or to
a possible new shopping center opened up by out-
side investors
Multipliers indicate nothing about the profitabil-
ity of the proposed export enterprise Decisions for
or against a particular development must take into
account the financial viability of the enterprises com-
prising it-and economic multipliers cannot provide
this kind of prediction
Summary
Employment, income, and output multipliers are
tools for estimating private sector economic impacts
of a new development within a local economy These
tools provide no final answers-and in fact may gen-
erate more questions than answers However, local
public officials may be confronted with the use of
economic multipliers when asked to react to project
proposals, to environmental impact statements, or to
other studies containing economic impact analyses
The concepts presented in this publication will help
in determining which economic impacts are actually
analyzed, and to question and evaluate the assump-
tions on which the study's projections are based
For Further Information
Faas, Ronald C and Robert E. Howell "Coping with Rapid
Community Growth A Community Perspective" Western
Rural Development Center Oregon State University, Corval-
lis, OR 97331, WREP 20, Coping with Growth series, August
1979
Goldman, George E. 'Explanation and Applications of County
Input-Output Models." Cooperative Extension Service, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, May 1975
Gordon, John and Glenn Nelson "As Your Community Grows-
Some Economic Considerations." Cooperative Extension
Service, Purdue University EC 446
Gordon, John and David Mulkey "Income Multipliers of Com-
munity Impact Analyses-What Size is Reasonable?' in
Journal of Community Development Society of America Vol
9, No 1, Fall 1978, pp 86-93
Lewis, Gene et al "Economic Multipliers Can A Rural Com-
munity Use Them?" Western Rural Development Center,
Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 97331, WREP 24
Coping with Growth series, October 1979
Shaffer, Ron and John R Fernstrom. 'Selling a Community on
Industry" in John R Fernstrom, Bringing in the Sheaves
Oregon State University Extension Service, June 1973
Smith, Eldon D "A Synthesis How New Manufacturing Indus-
try Affects Rural Areas." Southern Rural Development Cen-
ter, Rural Development Synthesis Series No 1 A, September
1978
U S Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Co-
operatives Service Regional Development and Plan Evalu-
ation The Use of Input-Output Analysis. Agriculture Hand-
book No 530 May 1978
US Department of Commerce "County Business Patterns."
Annual Report.
U S Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis.
"Local Area Personal Income" Report, B EA supplement,
76-03, 1976
Washington Department of Employment Security "Employment
and Payrolls in Washington State by County and Industry'
Annual and Quarterly Reports.
The author appreciates the review and comments of Lee
Blakeslee Walt Butcher, Ken Duft, and Ralph Loomis of Wash-
ington State University Neil Meyer of University of Idaho and
Garnet Premer of University of Wyoming This publication is
part of the "Coping with Growth series produced by the
Western Rural Development Center Other titles in the series
include'
. Evaluating Fiscai Impact Studies Community Guidelines
. Minimizing Public Costs of Residential Growth
. Coping with Rapid Growth A Community Perspective
. Citizen Involvement Strategies in Community Growth Issues
. Interagency Coordination and Rapid Community Growth
. The Public Policy Process: Its Role in Community Growth
. Economic Multipliers Can a Rural Community Use Them?
. Incoming Population Where Will the People Live?
. Social and Cultural Impact Assessment
. Assessing Fiscal Impact of Rural Growth
. Programming Capital Improvements
. Rapid Growth Impacts of County Governments
. Growth Impacts on Public Service Expenditures Some Ques-
tions for the Community
. Community Needs Assessment Techniques
Copies may be obtained from the Extension Service at cooper-
ating institutions or from the Western Rural Development Center
in Corvallis, Oregon
7
II A Western Regional Extension Publication
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914 in cooperation with the U S Department
of Agriculture, Henry Wadsworth, director, Oregon State University Extension Service Other western state Extension directors in-
clude James W Matthews, University of Alaska, Craig S Oliver University of Arizona, J B Kendrick, Jr University of California
Lowell H Watts, Colorado State University' Noel P Kefford University of Hawaii James L. Graves University of Idaho Carl J Hoff-
man, Montana State University; Dale W Bohmont, University of Nevada, L. S Pope, New Mexico State University. Clark Ballard Utah
State University; J 0 Young, Washington State University; and Harold J Tuma, University of Wyoming The University of Guam Ex-
tension Service, Wilfred P Leon Guerrero, director, also participates. Extension invites participation in its programs and offers them to
all people without discrimination.
"'__ ~..~~~~~c,
- ~- -
"
~3, \ \ '0 ______
LAW OFFICES
JOHNSON & WILLIAMS
230 EAST FIFTH STREET
PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362
206/452-3895
GERARD A. JOHNSON
KENNETH DAY WILLIAMS
CURTIS G JOHNSON
January 21, 1982
Ms. Lynne De Merritt
Municipal Research & Services
4719 Brooklyn Ave. N. E.
Seattle, WA. 98105
Dear Ms. De Merritt:
I am enclosing with this cover letter, a great deal of material
prepared by the City of Sequim pursuant to an annexation and
annexation contract.
Some history of the proposal may be helpful for those reviewing
this material.
The City of Sequim was approached by the proponents of a large
planned unit development which would be located outside the City.
The proponents requested annexation to the City primarily for the
purpose of making use of certain pre-existing city utilities. The
city determined such a large annexation and development which
would, if fully occupied, nearly double the size of the city,
required special considerations, and after discussion, an
anne~ation pursuant to a contract binding upon all property
owners being annexed was deemed the best solution. Many of the
problems with such a proposal were eliminated by the proponents
ready acceptance of such conditions.
An environmental impact statement was completed after extensive
hearings and discussions and I have enclosed a copy of that
environmental impact statement with this material. I would
appreciate the return of the impact statement after it has served
its usefulness for your purposes. I do not have an additional
copy.
After many hearings both before the planning commission and the
city council, an annexation contract was proposed on behalf of
the city. As you will see the contract calls for extens~
consideration and for many development costs of city~services to
be born by the proponent. These include expansion of the sewage
treatment plant, development of water facilities, and even
included the erection of a fire hall to be located within the
annexed territory. All of the conditions were agreed to by the
pro po n en t s 0 f the pro j e c t .-
Subsequent to the acceptance of the annexation the developers
requested some delays. During those delays, it now appears, the
financing for the project disappeared and made it infeasible at
this time. I would anticipate that the developers will not sign
the contract.
As part time City Attorney I am paid on an hourly basis and an
early agreement between the proponents and the city was that all
of the city engineering services, and attorney's services, and
cost- of publication and the like, would be born by the
proponents, and paid as they were incurred. The proponents kept
this promise as well.
Whether the procedure we followed would work with developers and
proponents who exhibit less of a "first class" attitude in
dealing with municipalities is a question which we did not have
to face. In this instance, both parties atte~pted ~o resolve the
fundamental questions with fairness to the other party. In
gene'ral, the public, the City and the developers appeared quite
pleased with the manner in which problems were resolved.
The annexation contract which I have enclosed is a duplicate, and
may be kept by you. Please understand it is merely a first
draft, and that revisions were anticipated and would have
probably been necessary in many of the provisions.
very truly yours,
_' JOEIN.SON. & ~iAMS
~~ .sliL
Ken Williams
Sequim City Attorney
"-
~
KW/bb
enc.