Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boundary Review Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Skagit County commissioners vote to disband Boundary Review Board
Summary
The Skagit County Board of County Commissioners voted 3-0 March 18 to adopt a resolution disbanding the county's Washington State Boundary Review Board, a step planners say is justified by overlapping Growth Management Act processes; a resident urged caution, citing impacts on small property owners and special purpose districts.
The Skagit County Board of County Commissioners voted 3-0 on March 18 to adopt a resolution to disband the Washington State Boundary Review Board for Skagit County, as directed by an amendment to Countywide Planning Policy 12.17 and consistent with ordinance O2024-000010. The county's staff had drafted the resolution for the board's consideration.
The Boundary Review Board was established in Washington in 1967 to provide independent local review of certain changes proposed by cities, towns and special purpose districts — most commonly annexations. Robbie Eckroth, senior planner with Skagit County Planning and Development Services, told commissioners the Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 and the county’s comprehensive planning processes have, in many cases, duplicated the board’s role for city and town annexations.
Why it matters: disbanding the board shifts the procedural path for boundary changes to the GMA processes, county review and, in some cases, elections or other statutorily defined methods for special purpose districts. Skagit Council of Governments and the planning commission considered and recommended the change after years of review; the county adopted an amendment to Countywide Planning Policy 12.17 in December 2024 that directs dissolution by June 2025.
Robbie Eckroth summarized the multi-year review: the Skagit Council of Governments began discussions in 2020; in March 2022 a GMA steering committee recommended dissolving the board by June 2025; the amendment was reviewed again in the 2023–2024 docket with added analysis of likely effects on special purpose districts. Following public hearings and comment periods, the Planning Commission recommended approval and the Board amended the countywide policy via ordinance O2024-000010.
During the March 18 meeting, Commissioner Wiesen asked Eckroth to clarify how boundary changes would proceed under state law. Eckroth said there are multiple methods for annexation, including a petition method (which he described as requiring a substantial share of property owner support), an election method, or actions by cities where state law lays out the processes. He also noted that urban growth area expansions must be justified by population or employment growth and are subject to county review and appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
Resident Patrick Donnelly spoke during the meeting and urged the board to reconsider, saying disbandment could favor cities and make it harder for small property owners to contest boundary changes. Donnelly warned of possible new taxing districts and described the notification and legal costs he believes could fall on small property owners. Eckroth and county staff said statutory processes for special purpose districts vary by district type and kind of boundary change and that some changes proceed by election while others may be decided by a district board after a public hearing.
The formal motion to adopt the resolution to disband the Boundary Review Board was moved and seconded at the March 18 meeting and approved by voice vote, 3 to 0. Following the vote, commissioners thanked staff and public commenters; staff said they will assist citizens in identifying the appropriate statutory process for particular boundary-change requests under state law.
Votes at a glance: The Board approved a resolution to disband the Washington State Boundary Review Board for Skagit County (motion approved by voice vote, tally 3–0). The resolution implements Countywide Planning Policy 12.17 directing dissolution by June 2025.
The board did not adopt new local procedures at the March 18 meeting; staff emphasized that state law and county processes will continue to govern boundary changes and that methods for changes to special purpose district boundaries vary by district type.
Ending: Staff said they will provide guidance to citizens who inquire about pursuing boundary changes and that the county’s planning and public-works processes remain available to evaluate proposals under applicable state law and county policy.
