GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE

All 39 counties in Washington State are required to comply with some aspect of the Growth Management Act (GMA), 29 are required or have elected to prepare and implement comprehensive plans and development regulations. Many have spent significant local resources, not only on the preparation and implementation of comprehensive plans, but also on the defense of legislative decisions after appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Boards (GMHB) and the courts. The cost of GMA compliance is becoming burdensome for most counties.
Conflicting state and federal regulatory and environmental programs have made the task of implementing the GMA more costly than expected. For example, the GMA encourages counties to conserve agricultural lands in part by the clustering of new homes. However, once the homes are clustered, water laws and rules require Group B water systems, which require a water right. Quite often it takes too long to secure the water right so the developer doesn’t cluster the homes and instead utilizes exempt wells.

The effect of the GMA and the resulting shift of local taxation and financial resources between the county and the city were considered but not resolved when it was passed. The shift has reduced county capacity to provide revenues needed to support increased countywide responsibilities. The Legislature must address this shift in revenues and taxing authorities in order to ensure all levels of government are viable and can meet community expectations.

The effects of GMA implementation are beginning to be analyzed and documented. Complex issues, such as the Act's impact on affordable housing, the provision of urban services and infrastructure concurrent with growth, the facilitation of the siting of essential public facilities and the direction of new urban growth into designated urban growth areas need to be taken into consideration when changes in GMA are being debated.

When the Legislature mandates changes to the GMA and directs counties to amend their comprehensive plans and development regulations, it must provide adequate funding to implement the requirement. The Legislature must also repeal specific GMA requirements when the funding is eliminated. Adequate funding must also be provided for the ongoing update and amendment processes required by existing law.

WSAC Policy: Counties support sound comprehensive planning as a primary responsibility of local government because, done well, it protects the environment, while it promotes a strong economy. The state has as much interest in promoting this positive outcome, as do counties. The State must provide ongoing and adequate funding for planning and implementation. In addition, other land use and environmental statutes, for example the state environmental policy act and the shorelines management act, often result in overlapping regulatory schemes, both in GMA and non-GMA planning counties. The State, with counties and other interested parties must review these statutes with a goal of meeting the underlying objectives of the different statutes while eliminating duplication of planning and regulatory burdens on both county government and citizens.

The state must make every effort to resolve disputes through alternative dispute resolution and by providing incentives to reach its goals. Legal challenges to local action should be used only as a last resort. The state must participate early and often in the update process in order to avoid filing a petition for review with a GMHB after the fact. It also is essential to begin an on-going process of monitoring the impacts of the GMA and related state statutes prior to the enactment of any additional planning and development regulation.

Regarding annexations and incorporations, counties will work to support policies to ensure they do not continue to be burdened with the cost of capital infrastructure, facilities or other real property following the revenue loss brought about by the annexation or incorporation of an area. This includes roads, surface water management facilities and properties, parks facilities and properties, and other properties owned and/or maintained by counties, which should become the responsibility of cities upon an annexation or incorporation.

Finally, counties will pursue the following policy changes: a mechanism to provide revenues for mitigating the impacts of the GMA on the county revenue base; the ability of a county and its citizens to decide when a plan and development regulations should be updated; meaningful economic development opportunities in the rural areas; and greater deference to local decision making.