Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gma Compliance Growth Management Hearings Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would block jurisdictions from evading Growth Management rulings by repealing noncompliant rules
Summary
Senate Bill 5197 would direct the Growth Management Hearings Board to modify or rescind determinations of invalidity only when jurisdictions bring plans or regulations into compliance, and would bar final compliance findings where a jurisdiction has simply repealed the invalidated provision unless a compliant replacement is in effect. Supporters
Senate Bill 5197, intended as a narrow technical fix to Growth Management Act (GMA) procedures, was presented to the Senate Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs Committee and drew support from planning advocates and discussion with counties and cities about clarifying language.
Committee staff Greg Vogel summarized the measure, explaining that the Growth Management Hearings Board issues determinations of invalidity when a plan or regulation does not comply with the GMA and typically gives local jurisdictions a period (commonly 180 days) to come into compliance. SB 5197 would require the board to modify or rescind a determination of invalidity only if the board determines that the plan or regulation, after any invalidated portions have been repealed, will no longer substantially interfere with the goals of the GMA; it also would prevent the board from issuing a final order of compliance where a jurisdiction has repealed the invalidated plan or regulation unless the replacement rule is compliant.
Bryce Yaden of FutureWise testified in support and explained the practical problem the bill aims to fix: some jurisdictions respond to a finding of invalidity by repealing the newly invalidated regulation and reverting to an older ordinance that itself does not meet current GMA requirements, leaving no new rule subject to appeal because the repeal was treated as an administrative change. Yaden said the bill would require jurisdictions to adopt a compliant replacement rather than rely on repeal to remain out of compliance.
Karl Schrader of the Association of Washington Cities said the association supports the bill’s premise but urged clarifying language to avoid inadvertently upending the presumptive stability of comprehensive plans and to limit the fix to situations where law or policy has changed since the underlying ordinance. County representatives said they were working with bill sponsors and advocates to refine language that would be workable across counties of different sizes.
Committee members and witnesses said conversations were ongoing and additional drafting was likely before the bill moved further.
