It was a quietly significant legislative session on land use and growth management issues. Several long-running policy debates came to a head and a potentially wide-ranging growth management act review process was given the go ahead with funding in the budget. For the most part, cities fared well in the outcomes of these issues.

School siting

For many years advocates for school districts have come to the Legislature seeking assistance for districts facing challenges siting schools outside of urban growth areas (UGAs). Their concerns have been varied. Some face challenges with regional plans which preclude the siting of schools outside of UGAs if they serve urban students. Others need to extend utility services outside of UGAs.

AWC and cities have historically supported some measure of flexibility for schools, so long as local control for cities is retained, impacts are mitigated, and costs of service extensions and other impacts are borne by the school district. The bill that finally passed (HB 2243) met those tests. Schools are authorized for siting outside urban areas, at the consent of the affected cities and county. Any impacts of the facility must be mitigated as required in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Utility extensions are permitted, at the consent again of the city and county, and with all costs borne by the school district. There was some controversy about a provision of the bill that allows immediately adjacent landowners to connect to sewers installed for the school. That provision was initially vetoed by the Governor but later in session agreement was reached and the same provision was ultimately passed again and signed.

Buildable lands

Concerns from the development community about the “Buildable Lands” review process undertaken by urban counties has for several years yielded bills that cities have opposed. A more collaborative approach this year led to resolution of another long-standing policy discussion in the form of SB 5254. The developers sought changes to the review process that would, from their perspective, better incorporate market realities and land usability concerns into city and county evaluations of whether sufficient land exists to accommodate planned growth. Local governments have opposed proposals that would have instituted new requirements that relied on qualitative information or data that was otherwise unattainable such as land owner willingness to sell. This session there was a series of negotiating meetings which allowed all parties to find common ground and identify short-term law changes that all could live with. The changes include direction for a forthcoming stakeholder process to identify changes to the Department of Commerce's guidance for the buildable lands review. AWC will be coordinating with city planners to participate in that process.

Since state funding to conduct this mandated review has been greatly reduced over the years, we made it clear that renewed funding from the state is necessary. In the end the bill passed with language spelling out that any future buildable lands responsibility for counties and cities (under the old guidance, or under the new, yet to be developed guidance) is contingent upon sufficient funding from the state.

GMA review

Finally, for several years legislators have discussed implementing some sort of large scale review of the Growth Management Act (GMA). This year the state provided funding to the Ruckelshaus Center, a facilitation group housed at the University of Washington and Washington State University, to undertake a series of guided stakeholder and public conversations about growth management and related issues. The goal is to identify areas where there is enough common understanding of challenges and opportunities to warrant additional focused policy discussions. AWC will be actively participating in this process, to ensure that city voices are heard and that city concerns are considered.