Appendix C:  Description of Governance Options
INCORPORATION
The State of Washington, through the provisions of Chapter 35 and 35A RCW provide for the creation of new cities through a petition process initiated by residents of the area proposed to be incorporated. RCW 35.02.030 requires that the petition:
(1)	Indicate whether the proposed city or town shall be a non-charter code city operating under Title 35A RCW, or a city or town operating under Title 35 RCW;
(2)	Indicate the form or plan of government the city or town is to have;
(3)	Set forth and particularly describe the proposed boundaries of the proposed city or town;
(4)	State the name of the proposed city or town;
(5)	State the number of inhabitants therein;
(6)	“Pray” the city or town be incorporated.
The process set out in the incorporation statutes for initiating incorporation is shown in Figure 1.  In 1994 the legislature adopted SHB 2176 which changed the process for handling of petitions (see steps 3 & 4 in Figure 1).  The bill also provided a priority process for competing annexations and incorporations, whereby annexations initiated within 90 days of the start of the incorporation process would have priority over the incorporation effort.
ANNEXATION
Annexation may be a preferred alternative when formation of a city is not financially viable, or when, even though cityhood is possible, the annexing city can provide more or better quality services than a city on its own could provide.
Annexation is appropriate if the unincorporated area is satisfied that the annexing city can and will provide the services it needs.  The decision may also be influenced by whether the annexing area can “get a seat” on the city council.  Figure A-2 sets out the basic approaches to annexation.
It should be noted that cities can be organized pursuant to two different statutes.  “Non-code cities” are generally those organized prior to 1967 pursuant to RCW Title 35.  In 1967 the legislature provided a new, more flexible incorporation option.  Cities organized under the new statute (RCW Title 35A) are called code cities.  Older cities could opt to reorganize under the new statute.  Bothell, Lake Forest Park and Kirkland have all exercised this option.

Figure 1: Incorporation Process
STEP 1:	INTERESTED PERSONS OR GROUPS DETERMINE BOUNDARIES TO BE PROPOSED FOR NEW CITY, FORM OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSED, ETC. AS PRESCRIBED IN RCW 35.02.030 (above)
STEP 2:	PROPONENTS FILE NOTICE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH COUNTY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.  LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY ADVISES BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD OF NOTICE (SHB 2176, SECTION 1), PAY $100 FILING FEE
STEP 3:	BRB HOLDS PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE PROPOSAL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF STEP 2 (SHB 2176, SEC. 1)
STEP 4:	ON DAY AFTER MEETING IN STEP 3, AUDITOR ASSIGNS PETITION A NUMBER.  PROPONENTS MUST FINALIZE LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO BE USED ON PETITION AT THAT TIME. (SHB 2176, SECTION 2)
STEP 5:	PROPONENTS SEEK SIGNATURES; MUST HAVE 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS SIGNED NO LATER THAN 180 DAYS (0R NEXT BUSINESS DAY) AFTER PRELIMINARY MEETING IN STEP 2 (RCW 35.02.020 A)
STEP 6:	WITH SIGNATURES COMPLETED, PROPONENTS FILE FORMAL NOTICE OF INTENTION TRIGGERING THE BRB REVIEW PROCESS
STEP 7:	BRB DECIDES WHETHER TO INVOKE JURISDICTION WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF FORMAL NOTICE OF INTENTION
STEP 8:	IF BRB INVOKES JURISDICTION, IT HOLDS HEARINGS, CONDUCTS NECESSARY STUDIES, AND MAKES A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.  THE BRB MAY AMEND BOUNDARIES PURSUANT TO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA (RCW 36.93.010 et seq., as amended by SHB 2176) AS PART OF ITS APPROVAL.
STEP 9:	COUNTY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY SETS ELECTION DATE AT NEXT SPECIAL ELECTION HELD AT LEAST 60 DAYS AFTER BRB ACTION.(RCW 35.02.078 as amended by SHB 2176)

Figure 2: ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ANNEXATION TO CITIES (RCW 35.13, 35A.14)
A.	City may initiate an annexation by petitioning for an election in the proposed area- potential BRB review (RCW 35.13.015)

B.	Election may be initiated by petition of equivalent of 20 % of registered voters; potential BRB review (RCW 35.13.020 et SEQ.)
If city agrees to annexation, issue is then voted upon
Takes 50% to pass
Takes 60% if city has required the annexing area to assume its existing indebtedness
		
C.	Petition by owners of PROPERTY CONSTITUTING 60% of THE ASSESSED VALUATION (AV) OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA (FOR CODE CITIES), OR 75% OF AV (FOR NON CODE CITIES).

D.	10 acres or $800,000 - simple petition by owner- no review  (RCW 35.13.172)

ROLE OF KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
Although the title of the King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) suggests that it is a county agency, the BRB for King County and all other counties with populations of 210,000 was created directly by the Legislature.  The applicable statutes are codified in Chapter 36.93 RCW.  The statute specifies that counties with a population of one million or more have an eleven member BRB, appointed as follows:
	3 persons appointed by the governor
	3 persons appointed by the county “appointing authority”
3 persons appointed by the mayors of the cities and towns located within the county, 
and
 2 persons shall be appointed by the board from nominees of special districts in the county.
The Boundary Review Board’s task is to review certain annexations to cities and special purpose districts, incorporations of new cities, and the creation of new special purpose districts.  The cases over which the BRB has jurisdiction are set out in Chapter 36.93.090 RCW, as follows:
	“The board may review any such proposed actions pertaining to:
		(1)  The:
	(a)  Creation, incorporation, or change in the boundary, other than a consolidation, of any city, town, or special purpose district;
	(b)  consolidation of special purpose districts, but not including consolidation of cities and towns; or
	(c)  dissolution or disincorporation of any city, town or special purpose district, except that a board may not review the dissolution or disincorporation of a special purpose district which was dissolved or disincorporated pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.96 RCW:  PROVIDED, That the change in the boundary of a city or town arising from the annexation of contiguous city or town owned property held for a public purpose shall be exempted from the requirements of this section; or

	(2)  The assumption by any city or town of all or part of the assets, facilities, or indebtedness of a special purpose district which lies partially within such city or town; or
	
	(3)  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 Chapter 57.08.065 RCW or Chapter 57.40 RCW, as now or 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 Chapter 56.20.015 RCW or Chapter 56.36 RCW, as now or hereafter amended; or 

	(5)  The extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district. 
Certain exemptions from BRB jurisdiction are also set out in Chapter 36.93.105 RCW.
While the Board is authorized to review any of the above actions, it does not formally do so unless one of the following occurs within forty-five days of the filing of a “notice of intention” by the jurisdiction proposing the action:
•	Five board members request review (with significant exceptions)
•	Any governmental unit affected requests review
•	A petition requesting review is filed and signed by 5% of the registered   voters in the area, or the owners of 5% of the assessed valuation in the area.
•	A majority of the board members concur with a request from 5% of the registered voters residing within 1/4 mile of the proposed action
The objectives of the BRB are set out in Chapter 36.93.180 RCW, which reads as follows:
	Chapter 36.93.180 RCW Objectives of boundary review board.  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;
(5) 	Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement 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 long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority.
The Boundary Review Board statute also provides also provides guidelines for the BRB’s to use in pursuing the state objectives as follows:
	Chapter 36.93.170 RCW Factors to be considered by board - Incorporation proceedings 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, 35A.63, or 36.70 RCW; comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW; applicable service agreements entered into under chapter 36.115 or 39.34 RCW; applicable interlocal annexation agreements between a county and its cities; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other populated area; the existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural 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 such 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.
The BRB is also to act consistent with the Growth Management Act, particularly with regard to the Urban/Rural line. (Chapter 36.93.157 RCW)  In other words, the BRB cannot allow the annexation or incorporation of rural areas.
Notably, the GMA also contemplates the demise of the BRB in King County, as follows:
	Chapter 36.93.230 RCW Power to disband boundary review board.  When a county and the cities and towns within the county have adopted a comprehensive plan and consistent development regulation is pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the county may, at the discretion of the county legislative authority, disband the boundary review board in that county.
As a practical matter, this would not occur until all of the urban areas were included in negotiated Potential Annexation Areas, so that the need for the BRB might be obviated.
The BRB, then, has potential jurisdiction over the incorporation and annexation alternatives, and may also play a role in the Status Quo alternatives with regard to changes to any of the special purpose districts, such as the Northshore Utility District or Fire District 16.