I. Meeting convened at 9:30 a.m.

II. Attendance

A. Members Present: Ryan Durkan, Chair; Commissioner Phil Best, Skip Burch, Tom Campbell, Sheila Collins, Keith Dearborn, Kathy Dietrich, John Herrick, Terry Husseman, David Moseley, Kimberly Ordon, and Dave Roseberry. Also present: Scott Merriman, Alternate for Loren Dunn.

B. Staff Present: Harry Reinert, Chris Parsons, and Julie Knackstedt.

III. Chair's Report

A. The Chair noted that, after the last Commission meeting, she had worked with staff to take the topics Commission members had identified as issues they would like to consider further and ask for assistance from both Commission members and experts outside the Commission to prepare papers discussing these topics. She noted the Commission members had been provided with a list of the papers and the individuals working on them. She said the papers would not make recommendations, but would rather be used to inform the Commission about these items so that it could discuss them and develop a consensus on the policy direction for that issue. The drafting committee the Commission authorized at the last meeting would then be asked to take that policy direction and develop legislation for the Commission to review. Mr. Husseman has agreed to serve as chair of the drafting committee.

She said the Commission would be considering three issue papers later in the meeting.

B. The Chair said that she had started meeting with representatives of some of the interest groups interested in the Commission's work to get a better sense of where there potential areas for consensus may lie. She said she was encouraged by the meetings she has held so far that there is room for common ground. People are interested in what the commission is doing and in helping the Commission come to consensus on the issues.

C. The Chair noted that she had sent a letter to Representative Ballard asking that the House Republican Caucus appoint members to the Legislative Sounding Board. She has also invited the Chelan County Commissioners to provide information to the Commission that they believe would help the Commission understand their concerns.

D. The Commission's next two meetings will be in Olympia on September 10 and in Yakima on October 8. The Chair said there might be a need to schedule a special meeting in September to get through its discussions in order to make a develop a draft report at the October meeting. She said the Commission would probably hold at least two public hearings in October. One will be in Spokane on October 22.

IV. Advisory Committee Reports

A. Finance Advisory Committee

1. Commissioner Best's Report. Commissioner Best presented the Draft Report of the Finance Advisory Committee. He noted that the Committee had a broad range of representation. The Committee held over twenty meetings as well as a number of workgroup meetings.

The Committee recognized that it's goal was to enable integrated planning and environmental review so that project specific review could be streamlined without adverse environmental harm. He said that even a streamlined project review process requires some project specific review of He noted that there had been a three years of grants from the state to fund pilot projects to test this integrated approach. Two of these projects, the South Everett Subarea and the Thea Foss Waterway in Tacoma, are nearing completion and ready to move to phase two which will determine how successful they are in making the permitting process more efficient.

The Committee developed a set of criteria to use in evaluating the funding options that Commissioner Best reviewed with the Commission. With these criteria in mind, the Committee developed a list of twenty-five funding mechanisms that it then reviewed for suitability. The list was divided into two broad categories: those options which dealt with generating revenue at the state level; and those options that dealt with generating revenue at the local government level.

The Committee thought the existing Planning and Environmental Review Fund (PERF) grant program was working well to date and needed to continue. The program is valuable in part because it operates statewide and is generating some useful information from a number of different areas. In order to fund the PERF program, the Committee identified three state funding sources. One would be from the state general fund and another would be allocating a portion of the sales tax on new construction to PERF. Both of these options have the drawback of competing against other programs that also seek state general fund revenues.

A third option is to pool state planning resources that are related to growth management planning. This would include funds spent directly by state agencies as well as some grant programs for local governments. The Committee believed that by making better use of existing resources, it would be possible to get additional benefits from those funds. The Committee also believes that there will be an added benefit of developing coordination among the different state agencies and local governments whose funds are involved.

The Committee is recommending an appropriation of $9 million for the next biennium. This will fund approximately 45 integrated planning and environmental review projects at an average of $200,000 per project. This would be an increase over the average funds available in the current biennium. The Committee believes that the current level is not sufficient to allow for detailed environmental review necessary to meet the expectations of those who are looking towards the integrated planning process as a way to improve the permit process. In addition, as more cities and counties satisfy their GMA obligations, they will be eligible for grant funds. In the last biennium, there were 24 requests for a total of $4.8 million. Less than $3 million was available, so a number of qualifying grant requests that had to be turned down. The average grant was $115,000, although a subarea plan costs on average at least $185,000, and can often go considerably higher.

Another of the Committee's recommendations would also achieve better coordination. The Committee believes that Graphical Information Systems (GIS) are an important element to achieving the desired goal of a more efficient permitting system. With a common data, both public and private entities will be able to both provide and rely on the same information. This will reduce duplicative studies, resulting in lower costs. It will also allow for better understanding of the cumulative impacts of development, which will be better for the environment.

A third part of the Committee's recommendations addresses the means by which local governments can generate funds to pay for integrated planning and environmental review. The Committee believed that, at least for the next several years, funding from the state general fund was appropriate because GMA planning is a state requirement. In the long run, the Committee believes that a revolving loan fund may be appropriate. This will require a better understanding of benefits of the integrated planning and environmental review process. Local governments are being asked to pay for activities that they have not had to pay for in the past, and at a stage where there may not yet be any revenue sources to help pay the costs of the required analysis. In order to make use of a revolving loan fund, though, local governments will need tools to generate the funds necessary to pay back the loans. In addition to existing mechanisms, the Committee identified some other ideas, not all of which were being recommended. These included: allowing local governments to charge a fee for use of or reliance on governmentally developed information, a local option real estate excise tax, a new planning special district, and a special lottery to pay for planning costs.

Commissioner Best explained that the Committee believed there was a need for better coordination of GIS at both the state and local levels. The Committee thought this could be best done at the local and regional level.

He said the Committee also believed there was a need for better coordination between local comprehensive planning and special purpose districts. It thought one way to achieve this objective would be to provide an incentive to local governments that coordinate with the special purpose districts.

2. Questions

(a) State Grant Program

Mr. Campbell said that although the Committee had done an excellent job of developing a list of options, he was less clear on the justification for the $9 million appropriation for the grant program. He noted that the report itself says that there concept of an integrated plan and environmental review had not yet been tested to determine whether it could actually deliver the anticipated benefits. He also said it appeared from the report that the state was being asked to pick up nearly the entire cost of a subarea plan. He was not sure this was supportable, since local governments and developers will see much of the benefit from these projects.

Mr. Best said the grants did not pay for the entire cost of the plans. Local governments and private parties will be providing matching funds.

The Chair asked how the Committee had developed the number of projects. Ms. Parsons said the Committee expected increased interest because more local governments have satisfied their basic GMA requirements and are ready to move on to subarea and neighborhood plans where integrated planning and environmental review is more feasible. She also noted that under the last round of grants, with very little notice and a short application period, there were applications for considerably more funds than were available.

Mr. Merriman asked whether the Committee had considered where general fund money should come from. Ms. Parsons said the Committee did not identify any particular source for general fund money. Although the Committee has not yet been able to identify the specific amounts, it's recommendation for pooling planning funds would identify some specific programs. This would also allow for better coordination of some planning activities that may now overlap or duplicate one another.

Mr. Husseman thought there were two different ideas encompassed in the pooling concept. One would be to pool money from local grant programs. The other would be to pool existing state general fund money that is appropriated to state agencies which have appropriate planning activities. Ms. Parsons said she thought the intent was to look at grant programs that had planning elements, not at agency state general fund appropriations. Mr. Husseman noted that to the extent that one takes money from grant programs for local governments, there is really just a shift of money from one purpose to another. He said Ecology would want to work closely with local governments on how this would affect the grant programs it administers. He also noted that a state general fund appropriation is certainly the cleanest in some ways, but it may be a difficult proposition politically. He asked about the proposed allocation of a portion of the sales tax on new construction. He said a very small percentage of that tax would generate the $9 million suggested by the Committee.

Mr. Reinert noted that under Initiative 601 it is quite possible that allocating a percentage of the sales tax would have the same impact as a general fund appropriation. Initiative 601 imposes a spending lid on the Legislature and it restricts the ability of the Legislature to shift revenue to other governments as a way to get around the spending limit. The main benefit might be that it would provide a steady funding source over the years, as opposed to the need for biennial appropriations.

Mr. Moseley said he thought getting general fund money and taking funds from existing local grant programs were not attractive options. He thought it might be possible to structure the tax on new construction proposal in a way to get around the I-601 limitations by allowing the tax proceeds to stay with the local government, rather than being sent to the state and then returned. He also suggested that it might be possible to limit the program to jurisdictions that have growth needs. Commissioner Best noted that to some extent relying on the new construction tax would provide money after it was needed, since the expense would have been occurred earlier in the planning process. He said Mr. Moseley's suggestion might be better suited to a pay-back mechanism.

Mr. Moseley asked whether the business community would have difficulty supporting this type of proposal. Mr. Dearborn said that it would probably depend on whether the sales tax rate would somehow increase and who would be affected by the change. The Chair said these were questions the Commission would want answers to before it could move forward on this proposal. Mr. Dearborn said the would not like to see this money just go to more planning. He said local governments should have to demonstrate that there would be tangible benefits from their proposal.

Mr. Merriman noted that it was very difficult to get money for the current PERF during the last session. He thought the idea of charging a "reliance" fee was interesting. It could use market forces as a way to assure that the product was worth the price, , since if it was not the project applicant would prepare its own documents. He said he was unsure how those who are not required to prepare environmental documents would be assessed under this approach.

Mr. Reinert said the Committee did not discuss this issue in much detail because it did not believe it was appropriate to charge for public documents. The Chair noted that there might be a similar issue in the question of whether a private developer could charge a "late-comer" fee on those who later rely on documents prepared by that developer. Commissioner Best said these ideas had merit, but there were some legal issues that the Committee was not sure it could untangle.

Mr. Dearborn said it was important to remember the benefits that are intended to accrue from an integrated planning process. He said the developers want to know what benefits they will receive. The benefits need to be tangible, not intangible. If the benefits are tangible, developers will be willing to pay their fair share of the integrated planning costs. He said that there was also a question of how to assure that the grant funds go to areas where growth will occur and will receive a benefit.

Ms. Parsons said that the South Everett and Thea Foss programs are starting show some benefits of improved public participation, better permitting, and identification of appropriate development. She said that other programs have not yet shown their benefits, because they have not progressed far enough. The Chair asked whether the Committee had considered continuing the existing grant program at the same level. Commissioner Best said the Committee believed that there would be increasing demand for grant funds. Mr. Dearborn said that he understood that many projects were still in progress. He thought that grant applications should include a statement of the benefits in terms of permit processing the local government would anticipate. He did not think that public participation and agency coordination were the types of benefits that would satisfy most developers. Mr. Merriman said that the public benefits to the environment also needs to be clear. Mr. Dearborn agreed. He said that a faster permitting process would only be possible if the environmental review addressed the concerns of neighborhood and environmental organizations. He said the benefits could not be a one sided process.

Mr. Husseman was concerned that benefits might translate into only economic issues. Mr. Dearborn said he thought process benefits would also be important.

Mr. Campbell said there needed to be a clear relationship between the costs and the benefits. He said one way to demonstrate benefits would be to evaluate the difference in costs to a developer under the current system and under an integrated planning system.

Mr. Merriman asked whether this might be something that could be brought before the Legislative Sounding Board. The Chair said this would be possible, although it would be helpful to clarify the issues that it thought it needed to present to the Sounding Board.

The Chair said that she sensed the need for some additional information about the benefits of at least the two programs that have moved along the farthest. Ms. Parsons noted DCTED has started an analysis of the programs. Mr. Dearborn said he was concerned about the benefits that all parties could agree to, not just an analysis of how the programs worked. He thought it might be possible to use this information to develop some models that could then be used by other local governments.

The Chair also asked the Committee to look at how much money the different funding options would generate, including some of those rejected. She said this would help the Commission determine if there could be some way to combine several different funding sources.

(b) Local Government Funding Options.

Commissioner Best noted that the Committee was recommending expanding some existing programs to include planning in addition to the normal capital facilities funding. The Committee was also intrigued by tax allocation financing, but realized that there were legal issues.

Mr. Dearborn said the programs that rely on a public approval process through a vote for support made some sense. This would allow for a determination that the benefits are worth the cost. He said the problem with most of these proposals is that they will generally work only in small geographic areas. They would probably not work for larger subareas. Commissioner Best said the Committee had considered a special purpose districts modeled on library capital districts. The Committee did not think it would be useful only for planning. Mr. Dearborn said that this was a limitation on nearly all of the bonding options suggested. He said that one way to proceed would be to get a clearer linkage between planning an capital projects in all of the different bond programs.

Mr. Moseley asked the Committee to reexamine the Real Estate Excise Tax. He also asked that the Committee look at whether the second one-quarter percent of the tax should be voter approved. Mr. Reinert said the Committee had discussed the REET several times. There was considerable opposition in the Committee to any changes. Several committee members noted that the Legislature had restricted the uses of the REET over the years. He also said there was concern that there would be less money for capital facilities.

Mr. Dearborn said that if there were a clear linkage to capital facilities that would be implemented by a plan, there might be less opposition to using the fund. Mr. Merriman noted that there had also been other suggestions for REET over the years, including using some of the money for acquisition of open space.

B. Permit Monitoring Workgroup

Mr. Burch said the Workgroup had compiled the results of the survey it had conducted late in the Spring and asked Mr. Rick Smith to summarize the report for the Committee.

Mr. Smith said there was a good cross-sample of responding jurisdictions, with the exception of Central Puget Sound, where a number of the larger cities had not yet replied. He said the Workgroup was hopeful more jurisdictions would respond in the near future.

Although it is difficult to come to any clear conclusions, he noted that the median time to review all types of applications was less than 120 days. However, some types of applications had wide ranges, some with an upper limit of two or three times the 120 time-frame.

Mr. Smith said the next step for the workgroup was to start the process of conducting interviews with the jurisdictions that had been identified earlier. He said he would be working with Commission staff and the work group to start that process.

C. Statutory Review Advisory Committee

The Chair said she had asked Mr. Campbell to co-chair the advisory committee together with Mr. Dick McCann. Mr. Campbell said he and Mr. McCann had not yet had an opportunity to meet, but that they had put together a revised membership list for the Commission's review. He noted that there were a number of vacant spaces in the proposed membership list and that he and Mr. McCann would be looking for suggestions.

Ms. Ordon said that Karen Walters, with the Muckleshoot Tribe, had agreed to sit on the Committee. Ms. Collins expressed concern that citizen representatives from other parts of the state would have a difficult time coming to meetings in the Seattle area. She asked that there be some effort to involve them as effectively as possible.

V. Public Comment

A. Maxine Keasling - Woodinville Resident.

Ms. Keasling said the that she thought there was too much money spent on planning. She said existing capital funds are needed for that purpose and should not be diverted for planning. She also expressed concern about recent actions by the King County Executive in vetoing some zoning changes approved by the King County Council. She said the tendency of the GMA was to make much of the rural area unaffordable for any but the very rich.

B. Mr. Rufus Rose - Island County Planning Commissioner

Mr. Rose noted that Island County had developed some GIS information at a reasonable cost. He said it would be useful to contact them about what they had been able to do. He also noted that Island County was probably unable to respond to the Commission's survey because it was too busy responding to recent Board decisions. He also expressed concern that the survey respondent

C. Chris Leman - Coalition of Washington Communities

Mr. Leman expressed concern that Commission mailings did not include more detailed minutes from Committee meetings. He thought that since the Committees were where some of the most important business of the Commission was being conducted, it was important to provide as much information as possible about Committee deliberations.

D. Karen Walters, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe

Ms. Walter said the federally recognized tribes and the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department were looking at ways to combine information about fish and wildlife habitat. The information will be put into a GIS system. There is a need for additional state resources. Local governments could also help the process by making their information available to the project as they conduct their GMA planning. She thought the reluctance of local governments to look beyond their own watersheds argued for a state role in GIS development.

VI. Issue Paper Discussions

A. Board Appointments - Issue Paper # 3

Mr. Reinert reviewed the appointment process for members of the Growth Management Hearings Boards. There had been a suggestion that the Board members should be subject to Senate confirmation. There was also a suggestion that their terms should be limited to four years, instead of six. He said this had been proposed as a way to enhance the political credibility of the Board members and to assure more accountability. He reviewed the history of the creation of the Boards. He also reviewed the requirements for appointments of other governor appointees. He noted that all the other quasi-judicial bodies have members who are confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. Reinert also reviewed the benefits and problems with the options of having members subject to Senate confirmation and having shorter terms.

The Chair suggested starting discussion with the appointment mechanism. Mr. Merriman asked how current Board members would need to be affected. Mr. Reinert said he had not looked into that issue, but that it would need to be dealt with. He said there would also be a need to look at how to handle members who were not confirmed. Mr. Merriman said it might be useful to have some historical information on past confirmation problems.

The Chair asked whether there was any sentiment to pursuing this idea. Mr. Husseman suggested asking the Legislative Sounding Board. Since it is really a question of Senate prerogatives, it might be appropriate to seek their input. Commissioner Best agreed. The Chair thought the Commission should have a better idea of whether this might be value added.

Mr. Herrick said that he was not sure that Senate confirmation would bring a lot of additional credibility to many members of the public. The Chair said the Steering Committee had similar thoughts. She did not see that this particular proposal would really add much to the process or would be perceived as solving a problem.

Commissioner Best noted that he does hear comments about the fact that the Board members are not subject to Senate confirmation. These are often from people who are dissatisfied with the decisions are use the argument as another reason to criticize the Board. He did not think they perceived it as a serious argument.

Mr. Moseley said that there would be some benefit in taking arguments away from those who wish to criticize the GMA. He also thought the GMA Boards were just as important as the other quasi-judicial boards that are subject to confirmation. He thought the audience that this recommendation would really be addressed to would be the Legislature, rather than the general public and it might be more likely to see confirmation as being of some value. It would also make the Legislature more accountable. Mr. Roseberry thought there would be some benefit. He could see the Senate might want to avoid the controversy. He said there might be more support if members were elected. Ms. Dietrich said that Clark County Citizens United also supported election of Board members. Ms. Collins said that in her area there was not strong sentiment for changing the current process.

Mr. Dearborn expressed concern about the possibility of elected boards. He said he was not sure the Boards were the right long term solution for resolving disputes under the GMA. If members are elected, it would be much more difficult to change them in the future if that were a desirable policy decision.

The Chair asked whether members had comments on the four year term suggestion.

Mr. Herrick said that four year periods would probably be too short a period for new members to develop the expertise to become effective board members. Other commission members were in agreement.

The Chair said she believed there was a consensus to drop the proposal to reduce the terms of appointment. She heard Commission members wanting to get feedback from the Legislative Sounding Board on the concept of having GMA Board members subject to Senate Confirmation. The Commission also would like more information about prior experiences with Senate failure to confirm appointments.

B. Invalidity Authority - Issue Paper # 4 - Sally Clark -- Hillis, Clark, Martin, and Peterson

Ms. Clark reviewed the history of the invalidity authority. During deliberations of the Governor's Task Force on Regulatory Reform, local governments became concerned about the impact of a finding of non-compliance by a Board on development activity. The Task Force recommended statutory language to address this situation. The language has achieved its objective in part, but has generated some other concerns. These include problems local governments are having in coming into compliance with the GMA, impact on pre-GMA ordinances, impact on existing lots, and the standard that applies to have an invalidity order lifted. The 1996 Legislature passed a bill to make changes in the authority of the Boards to issue invalidity orders. The Governor vetoed those provisions. She concluded by reviewing the list of options set forth in the issue paper.

Steve Clagett with 1000 Friends of Washington suggested that in addition to looking at the invalidity authority, the question of vesting needed to be examined. He noted that the Commission had been provided some information at an earlier meeting.

Mr. Campbell asked whether over time the Boards were being more clear in the way they issued their orders to reduce the unintended side effects of the order. Ms. Clark said that there were some examples where the Boards had been clear, but that in other cases the Board had not been as precise as would have been desirable. Mr. Dearborn said that in many cases it would be very time consuming for the Board to be as precise as would be desirable. It might amount to a case-by-case decision making process.

In response to a question, Ms. Clark reviewed the history behind SSB 6637 from the 1996 Legislative session. It would have limited the effect of invalidity orders to subdivisions and would have delayed the effective date of an invalidity order for 90 days. The Governor vetoed these sections. Mr. Merriman noted that the environmental community perceived these provisions as essentially a 90 day rolling period that might never result in bringing a local government into compliance with the GMA. Mr. Dearborn asked whether this particular issue of the delay effective date was the major point of controversy with the bill. Ms. Clark said there were other provisions that were also controversial, including the exclusion of the bill to most permit applications.

Mr. Husseman suggested that if the purpose of the 90 day waiting period is to give the local governments an opportunity to respond, it might be possible to allow the Boards to issue a temporary stay that would give the jurisdiction time and incentive to respond. Ms. Clark said that for some circumstances this might not be enough time.

Mr. Merriman thought it might be helpful to include some information in the issue paper about how Washington's rule on vesting compares with other states.

Commissioner Best said there was some confusion about what happens if a county has not adopted a savings clause. He noted that Kitsap County had to fall back on the planning enabling act to adopt some interim zoning regulations. He asked whether there could be some additional clarity brought to what rules are in effect after a zoning ordinance has been declared invalid. Mr. Dearborn noted that Island County has been taking individual applications through a declamatory judgment process to determine whether they are vested. He said this was not a very efficient use of court time.

Mr. Dearborn suggested that there might be a hybrid approach that might be considered. He noted that part of the compromise of the 1991 amendments to GMA was to spread responsibility for decision making among a number of different parties. For example, sanctions are recommended by the Boards to the Governor who makes the decision. He asked whether sharing the responsibility for imposing invalidity would be worth considering. He thought this might make the decision to impose sanctions somewhat more palatable.

Mr. Merriman said that he wondered whether sharing responsibility would lead to higher chance that a local government would comply with GMA. He noted that the current process for imposing sanctions against Chelan County has not lead to compliance with GMA and there has been shared responsibility there.

Ms. Ordon asked how allowing a local government to "graduate" to non-compliance might encourage compliance with the GMA. The Chair thought that allowing a local government to come into compliance with a specific element at a time might make the task seem less daunting.

Mr. Dearborn suggested that there were two options that would not be acceptable: making no changes and eliminating the power to issue an order of invalidity. He thought the Commission should focus on minor corrections and the option requiring projects to comply with GMA while the a new ordinance is being drafted. Commission members tended to agree, but many members wanted more time to review the paper in more detail before making

Mr. Herrick noted that the option requiring court approval runs counter to the idea discussed in Issue Paper #3 of giving the Boards more credibility.

The Commission agreed to postpone any decisions until a later meeting.

C. Standard of Review - Issue Paper # 4 - Pat Schneider, Seattle City Attorney's Office and Tommy Prud'homme, Attorney General's Office

Mr. Schneider and Mr. Prud'homme reviewed the standards of review that apply in different contexts when either quasi-judicial bodies or courts review decisions of fact-finding bodies. Mr.
Prud'homme said the different standards could be thought of as a continuum, with some providing more deference to the fact-finder and other providing less deference. He also noted that different standards may apply when there are questions of fact as opposed to questions of law.

Mr. Schneider said that in considering the impact of any change in the standard of review should be carefully considered because of the unique situation presented by the GMA. The decisions under review in GMA are legislative decisions that are different from the more routine kinds of decisions reviewed by an appellate body. He said there was a real chance that the doctrine of unintended consequences would play out with any new standard if the problems were not thought out carefully. Mr. Schneider suggested that in the end it might be better to speak in terms of the burden of proof that applied to the local decision, rather than the standard of review.

Commissioner Best noted that in many other circumstances there are a set of rule making procedures that help spell out the meaning of a statute. He asked whether some process like this might help here. Mr. Schneider said this might be a help. He said there are a number of different models that could be examined. Such a process might help with the criticism that the Boards are making rules rather than interpreting the law. He recognized that this is a close question in many cases. The Chair noted that some other state quasi-judicial bodies have separate rule-making authority.

Mr. Campbell recognized that just changing the standard of review will not solve some of the questions that have developed over time. He said the drafters of the legislation may have been thinking more of a "show your work" concern. He thought they were trying to figure out how to integrate a legislative process with establishing some requirement that the legislative body have some information to support their decisions.

Mr. Schneider thought any review should be on the record. He thought that it might be better to be clear that the local governments have to be given some deference, but that the Boards do have some authority to disagree with the decision made by the local government. The question would then be how much deference to give to the local decision and how much evidence needs to be included in the record to support that decision. He also noted that if the statute had more precision in its requirements, it would be easier for both the local government and the Boards to apply the statute.

The Chair asked whether any of the standards of review applied to legislative acts. Mr. Schneider said that he was not really aware of any specific standard that applies. He said that it was really a peculiar form of constitutional analysis. The Chair said it would help her see what types of models might be available. Mr. Prud'homme said he could not find any similar provisions. He noted that in the agency rule making context the question is often whether the agency is acting within its statutory authority. He noted the GMA imposes a slightly different test because it limits the authority of local governments to act, by imposing some standards on what they can do.

The Chair recognized that Commission members had not had enough time to review this issue paper. She suggested postponing further discussion until the next meeting.

VII. Action Items:

A. Statutory Advisory Committee Membership and Workplan

The proposed workplan and draft workplan were approved, with the understanding that the Committee will present an updated workplan to the Commission.

B. Board Appointments - Issue Paper # 3

Tentative Consensus - Do not consider shortening term of appointments.

VIII. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.