The legislature finds that encouraging economic development in rural areas is a compelling reason to amend the growth management act. Additionally, creating a path forward for cities and counties to collaboratively seek solutions to the complicated issues regarding annexation will enable the local jurisdictions to appropriately allocate development without competing for resources.
Asking local jurisdictions to thoughtfully examine the status of their local economy and its potential for growth moving forward has been agreed upon as an appropriate addition to any jurisdiction's comprehensive growth management plan. The legislature finds that economic development is an equally important value and goal within the growth management act and should be thoughtfully considered accordingly.
As the growth management act has evolved and grown over time, it has become a trap for smaller jurisdictions. Small, rural jurisdictions need a safe harbor and an ally to help them effectively plan for their futures while giving them space from the threat of impending litigation costs. The legislature finds that a voluntary, limited safe harbor with assistance from the state may provide that necessary space for small rural jurisdictions to be able to invest their limited funds into growing their community instead of continually defending it from well-meaning outsiders. Small jurisdictions, particularly, in this climate are struggling to decide how to spend their limited funds. Adding more planning requirements only stretches nonexistent dollars. Looking forward, until the legislature finds that funding for planning for growth is a priority, these jurisdictions should not be punished, but instead encouraged to continue their planning endeavors. As such, the smallest, poorest jurisdictions should be given time and space to plan without being burdened by the requirements necessary to their bigger, more prosperous colleagues. The legislature finds that the rural areas of the state are important to this state and, during these difficult times, it is important to enable rural areas to focus on their economic development and growth.
This section adds a new section to an existing chapter 35A.14. Here is the modified chapter for context.
A code city as provided in RCW 35A.14.296(2) may collaborate with the county or counties where the code city is located to form an interlocal agreement regarding annexation of unincorporated territory within the urban growth area boundary. The interlocal agreement must be formed consistent with the planning requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW. This method of annexation shall be an alternative method and is additional to all other methods provided for in this chapter.
An interlocal agreement under this section will qualify the city for the annexation sales tax credit.
The agreement or plan under this section must address the following:
A balancing of annexations of commercial, industrial, and residential properties so that any potential loss or gain is considered and distributed fairly as determined by tax revenue;
Development, ownership, and maintenance of infrastructure;
The potential for revenue-sharing agreements.
This section adds a new section to an existing chapter 36.70A. Here is the modified chapter for context.
The economic development element required by RCW 36.70A.070(7) may include the following:
A summary of the local economy, such as population, employment, payroll, sectors, businesses, sales, and other information as appropriate;
A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy, which may include the commercial, industrial, manufacturing, natural resource, and other locally significant economic sectors and supporting factors such as land use, transportation, utilities, education, workforce, housing, and natural/cultural resources;
An identification of policies, programs, and projects to foster economic growth and development and to address future needs;
Policies to promote increases in family, individual, and business incomes;
An examination of whether sites planned for economic development have adequate public facilities and services, and, as appropriate, a plan for any needed public facilities and services;
Policies to encourage access to education and training for family wage jobs; and
Policies and opportunities to address economic development including existing industries and businesses, value-added manufacturing of locally produced natural resources, and the use of locally produced energy and other natural resources.
Each county and city planning under this chapter is encouraged to adopt comprehensive plans and development regulations that promote economic development in urban and rural areas, and evaluate economic performance in the jurisdiction in the time since the most recent update to the comprehensive plan. Each county and city planning under this chapter may make findings regarding the economic condition of the jurisdiction. If there is stagnation or economic deterioration during the period of time since the most recent update to the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan and development regulations may be modified to increase economic development opportunities.
[Empty]
Counties with a population of less than 75,000 as of January 1, 2021, as determined by the office of financial management and published on April 1, 2021, that are planning under this chapter, and the cities within those counties, may identify policies, programs, and development opportunities to address the potential for economic deterioration and to seize economic development opportunities that may deviate from prescriptive interpretations of this chapter.
For purposes of this section, economic deterioration is exemplified by, but not limited to, any combination of the following performance outcomes:
Incomes that are at least $10,000 less than the statewide median household income for the same year as established by the office of financial management;
A decrease in the county's household median income during any year within the prior eight years;
The inability of the jurisdiction to add new full-time jobs in sufficient quantities to provide for population increases;
Decreases or stagnation of economic start-ups during multiple years within the prior eight years;
Unemployment rates that are higher than the national and statewide averages over multiple years within the prior eight years; and
In situations where the competing goals of this chapter would restrain economic development in the counties described in subsection (3)(a) of this section, and the cities within those counties, that are experiencing economic deterioration, the growth management hearings board and courts shall afford deference to local development choices that make economic development a priority, consistent with the presumption of validity required under RCW 36.70A.320.
This section adds a new section to an existing chapter 36.70A. Here is the modified chapter for context.
For certain countywide planning policy, comprehensive plan, and development regulations specified in this section, counties and their cities may apply for a determination of compliance from the department finding that the action is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and chapter 43.21C RCW and the applicable rules.
Counties and cities may submit the following actions to the department for approval under this subsection:
Development of or amendments to the housing element;
Development of or amendments to comprehensive plan or development regulations designating or protecting critical areas;
Development of or amendments to comprehensive plan or development regulations to designate or assure the conservation of resource lands;
Development of or amendments to countywide planning policy, comprehensive plan, or development regulation amendments that change the urban growth area;
Countywide planning policy, comprehensive plan, or development regulation amendments that govern the siting of essential public facilities;
Findings of noncompliance referred to the department by the growth management hearings board under RCW 36.70A.330.
Matters submitted to the department for approval become effective when approved by the department as provided in subsection (5) of this section.
[Empty]
Upon receipt of a proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy, the department shall:
Provide notice to and opportunity for written comment by all interested parties of record as a part of the local government review process for the proposal and to all persons, groups, and agencies that have requested in writing notice of the proposed action. The comment period shall be at least 30 days, unless the department determines that the level of complexity or controversy involved supports a shorter period;
In the department's discretion, conduct a public hearing during the 30-day comment period in the jurisdiction proposing the comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy;
Within 15 days after the close of public comment, request the local government to review the issues identified by the public, interested parties, groups, and agencies and provide a written response as to how the proposal addresses the identified issues;
Within 30 days after receipt of the local government response pursuant to (a)(iii) of this subsection, make written findings and conclusions regarding the consistency of the proposal with the goals and requirements of the growth management act and with applicable guidelines and procedural criteria adopted by the department, provide a response to the issues identified in (a)(iii) of this subsection, and either approve the comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy as submitted, recommend specific changes necessary to make the comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy approvable, or deny approval of the comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy in those instances where no alternative comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy appears likely to be consistent with the goals and requirements of the growth management act and with applicable guidelines and procedural criteria adopted by the department. The written findings and conclusions shall be provided to the local government, and made available to all interested persons, parties, groups, and agencies of record on the proposal.
If the department recommends changes to the proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy, within 90 days after the department mails the written findings and conclusions to the local government, the local government may:
Agree to the proposed changes by written notice to the department; or
Submit an alternative comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy. If, in the opinion of the department, the alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by the department and with this chapter, it shall approve the changes and provide notice to all recipients of the written findings and conclusions. If the department determines the proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes proposed by the department, the department may resubmit the proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy for public and agency review pursuant to this section or reject the proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy.
The department shall approve a proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy unless it determines that the proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy is not consistent with the goals and requirements of the growth management act and with applicable guidelines and procedural criteria adopted by the department.
A comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy takes effect when and in such form as approved or adopted by the department. The effective date is 14 days from the date of the department's written notice of final action to the local government stating the department has approved or rejected the proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy. The department's written notice to the local government must conspicuously and plainly state that it is the department's final decision and that there will be no further modifications to the proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy. The department shall maintain a record of each comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy, the action taken on any proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy, and any appeal of the department's action.
Promptly after approval or disapproval of a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy, the department shall publish a notice consistent in the Washington State Register that the comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy has been approved or disapproved.
The department's final decision to approve or reject a proposed comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy may be appealed according to the following provisions:
The department's final decision to approve or reject a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy may be appealed to the growth management hearings board by filing a petition as provided in RCW 36.70A.290.
A decision of the growth management hearings board concerning an appeal of the department's final decision to approve or reject a proposed greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement or amendment must be based solely on whether or not the adopted comprehensive plan, development regulation, or countywide planning policy complies with the goals and requirements of the growth management act and with applicable guidelines and procedural criteria adopted by the department, or chapter 43.21C RCW.
If approval of a determination of compliance by the department under this section is appealed to the growth management hearings board under RCW 36.70A.280, the city or county may not be determined to be ineligible or otherwise penalized in the acceptance of applications or the awarding of state agency grants or loans under RCW 43.17.250 during the pendency of the appeal before the board or subsequent judicial appeals.
This section modifies existing section 36.70A.020. Here is the modified chapter for context.
The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040. Any changes or additions to this chapter after December 2020 must only be mandatory two years after the requirement becomes state law if funding sufficient to cover the additional costs is specifically provided for those planning requirements by the state. The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations:
Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.
Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities.
Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance.
This section modifies existing section 36.70A.280. Here is the modified chapter for context.
The growth management hearings board shall hear and determine only those petitions alleging either:
That, except as provided otherwise by this subsection, a state agency, county, or city planning under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of shoreline master programs or amendments thereto, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the board to hear petitions alleging noncompliance with RCW 36.70A.5801;
That the twenty-year growth management planning population projections adopted by the office of financial management pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 should be adjusted;
That the approval of a work plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(a) is not in compliance with the requirements of the program established under RCW 36.70A.710;
That regulations adopted under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(b) are not regionally applicable and cannot be adopted, wholly or partially, by another jurisdiction;
That a department certification under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(c) is erroneous**;**
That a department determination under RCW 36.70A.060(1)(d) is erroneous; or
That a department approval under section 4 of this act is clearly erroneous. Actions submitted to the department for approval may only be appealed to the growth management hearings board within 60 days following publication by the department of a determination of compliance.
A petition may be filed only by: (a) The state, or a county or city that plans under this chapter; (b) a person who has participated orally or in writing before the county or city regarding the matter on which a review is being requested; (c) a person who is certified by the governor within sixty days of filing the request with the board; or (d) a person qualified pursuant to RCW 34.05.530.
For purposes of this section "person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, state agency, governmental subdivision or unit thereof, or public or private organization or entity of any character.
To establish participation standing under subsection (2)(b) of this section, a person must show that his or her participation before the county or city was reasonably related to the person's issue as presented to the board.
When considering a possible adjustment to a growth management planning population projection prepared by the office of financial management, the board shall consider the implications of any such adjustment to the population forecast for the entire state.
The rationale for any adjustment that is adopted by the board must be documented and filed with the office of financial management within ten working days after adoption.
If adjusted by the board, a county growth management planning population projection shall only be used for the planning purposes set forth in this chapter and shall be known as the "board adjusted population projection." None of these changes shall affect the official state and county population forecasts prepared by the office of financial management, which shall continue to be used for state budget and planning purposes.
This section modifies existing section 36.70A.330. Here is the modified chapter for context.
After the time set for complying with the requirements of this chapter under RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b) has expired, or at an earlier time upon the motion of a county or city subject to a determination of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.300, the board shall set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether the state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
The board shall conduct a hearing and issue a finding of compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of this chapter and with any compliance schedule established by the board in its final order. A person with standing to challenge the legislation enacted in response to the board's final order may participate in the hearing along with the petitioner and the state agency, county, or city. A hearing under this subsection shall be given the highest priority of business to be conducted by the board, and a finding shall be issued within forty-five days of the filing of the motion under subsection (1) of this section with the board. The board shall issue any order necessary to make adjustments to the compliance schedule and set additional hearings as provided in subsection (5) of this section.
If the board after a compliance hearing finds that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance, the board shall transmit its finding to the governor.
The board may refer a finding of noncompliance to the department. The purpose of the referral is for the department to provide technical assistance to facilitate speedy resolution of the finding of noncompliance.
Alternatively, the board may recommend to the governor that the sanctions authorized by this chapter be imposed. The board shall take into consideration the county's or city's efforts to meet its compliance schedule in making the decision to recommend sanctions to the governor.
In a compliance hearing upon petition of a party, the board shall also reconsider its final order and decide, if no determination of invalidity has been made, whether one now should be made under RCW 36.70A.302.
The board shall schedule additional hearings as appropriate pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section.
This section modifies existing section 90.58.080. Here is the modified chapter for context.
Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the required elements of the guidelines adopted by the department in accordance with the schedule established by this section.
[Empty]
Subject to the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of this section, each local government subject to this chapter shall develop or amend its master program for the regulation of uses of shorelines within its jurisdiction according to the following schedule:
On or before December 1, 2005, for the city of Port Townsend, the city of Bellingham, the city of Everett, Snohomish county, and Whatcom county;
On or before December 1, 2009, for King county and the cities within King county greater in population than ten thousand;
Except as provided by (a)(i) and (ii) of this subsection, on or before December 1, 2011, for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;
On or before December 1, 2012, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within those counties;
On or before December 1, 2013, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and
[Empty]
Following approval by the department of a new or amended master program, local governments required to develop or amend master programs on or before December 1, 2009, as provided by subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, shall be deemed to have complied with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) of this section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable dates established by subsection (4)(b) of this section. Any jurisdiction listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) of this section that has a new or amended master program approved by the department on or after March 1, 2002, but before July 27, 2003, shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable date provided by subsection (4)(b) of this section.
Following approval by the department of a new or amended master program, local governments choosing to develop or amend master programs on or before December 1, 2009, shall be deemed to have complied with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of this section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable dates established by subsection (4)(b) of this section.
[Empty]
Following the updates required by subsection (2) of this section, local governments shall conduct a review of their master programs at least once every eight years as required by (b) of this subsection. Following the review required by this subsection (4), local governments shall, if necessary, revise their master programs. The purpose of the review is:
To assure that the master program complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and
To assure consistency of the master program with the local government's comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local requirements.
Counties and cities shall take action to review and, if necessary, revise their master programs as required by (a) of this subsection as follows:
On or before June 30, 2019, and every 10 years thereafter, for King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and the cities within those counties;
On or before June 30, 2020, and every 10 years thereafter, for Clallam, Clark, Island, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;
On or before June 30, 2021, and every 10 years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Kittitas, Lewis, Skamania, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and
On or before June 30, 2022, and every 10 years thereafter, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and the cities within those counties.
In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, local governments are encouraged to begin the process of developing or amending their master programs early and are eligible for grants from the department as provided by RCW 90.58.250, subject to available funding. Except for those local governments listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, the deadline for completion of the new or amended master programs shall be two years after the date the grant is approved by the department. Subsequent master program review dates shall not be altered by the provisions of this subsection.
In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, the following shall apply:
Grants to local governments for developing and amending master programs pursuant to the schedule established by this section shall be provided at least two years before the adoption dates specified in subsection (2) of this section. To the extent possible, the department shall allocate grants within the amount appropriated for such purposes to provide reasonable and adequate funding to local governments that have indicated their intent to develop or amend master programs during the biennium according to the schedule established by subsection (2) of this section. Any local government that applies for but does not receive funding to comply with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section may delay the development or amendment of its master program until the following biennium.
Local governments with delayed compliance dates as provided in (a) of this subsection shall be the first priority for funding in subsequent biennia, and the development or amendment compliance deadline for those local governments shall be two years after the date of grant approval.
Failure of the local government to apply in a timely manner for a master program development or amendment grant in accordance with the requirements of the department shall not be considered a delay resulting from the provisions of (a) of this subsection.
In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, all local governments subject to the requirements of this chapter that have not developed or amended master programs on or after March 1, 2002, shall, no later than December 1, 2014, develop or amend their master programs to comply with guidelines adopted by the department after January 1, 2003.
In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, local governments may be provided an additional year beyond the deadlines in this section to complete their master program or amendment. The department shall grant the request if it determines that the local government is likely to adopt or amend its master program within the additional year.
This section modifies existing section 90.58.080. Here is the modified chapter for context.
Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the required elements of the guidelines adopted by the department in accordance with the schedule established by this section.
[Empty]
Subject to the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of this section, each local government subject to this chapter shall develop or amend its master program for the regulation of uses of shorelines within its jurisdiction according to the following schedule:
On or before December 1, 2005, for the city of Port Townsend, the city of Bellingham, the city of Everett, Snohomish county, and Whatcom county;
On or before December 1, 2009, for King county and the cities within King county greater in population than ten thousand;
Except as provided by (a)(i) and (ii) of this subsection, on or before December 1, 2011, for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;
On or before December 1, 2012, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within those counties;
On or before December 1, 2013, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and
[Empty]
Following approval by the department of a new or amended master program, local governments required to develop or amend master programs on or before December 1, 2009, as provided by subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, shall be deemed to have complied with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) of this section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable dates established by subsection (4)(b) of this section. Any jurisdiction listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) of this section that has a new or amended master program approved by the department on or after March 1, 2002, but before July 27, 2003, shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable date provided by subsection (4)(b) of this section.
Following approval by the department of a new or amended master program, local governments choosing to develop or amend master programs on or before December 1, 2009, shall be deemed to have complied with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of this section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable dates established by subsection (4)(b) of this section.
[Empty]
Following the updates required by subsection (2) of this section, local governments shall conduct a review of their master programs at least once every eight years as required by (b) of this subsection. Following the review required by this subsection (4), local governments shall, if necessary, revise their master programs. The purpose of the review is:
To assure that the master program complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and
To assure consistency of the master program with the local government's comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local requirements.
Counties and cities shall take action to review and, if necessary, revise their master programs as required by (a) of this subsection as follows:
On or before June 30, 2028, and every 10 years thereafter, for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and the cities within those counties;
On or before June 30, 2029, and every 10 years thereafter, for Clallam, Clark, Island, Jefferson, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;
On or before June 30, 2030, and every 10 years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Kittitas, Skamania, Spokane, Walla Walla, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and
On or before June 30, 2031, and every 10 years thereafter, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, and Whitman counties and the cities within those counties.
In meeting the review requirements of subsection (4) of this section, local governments are encouraged to begin the process of developing or amending their master programs early and are eligible for grants from the department as provided by RCW 90.58.250, subject to available funding. Except for those local governments listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, the deadline for completion of the new or amended master programs shall be two years after the date the grant is approved by the department. Subsequent master program review dates shall not be altered by the provisions of this subsection.
In meeting the review requirements of subsection (4) of this section, the following shall apply:
Grants to local governments for reviewing master programs pursuant to the schedule established by this section shall be provided at least two years before the adoption dates specified in subsection (4) of this section. To the extent possible, the department shall allocate grants within the amount appropriated for such purposes to provide reasonable and adequate funding to local governments that have indicated their intent to develop or amend master programs during the biennium according to the schedule established by subsection (4) of this section. Any local government that applies for but does not receive funding to comply with the provisions of subsection (4) of this section may delay the development or amendment of its master program until the following biennium.
Local governments with delayed compliance dates as provided in (a) of this subsection shall be the first priority for funding in subsequent biennia, and the periodic review compliance deadline for those local governments shall be two years after the date of grant approval.
Failure of the local government to apply in a timely manner for a master program development or amendment grant in accordance with the requirements of the department shall not be considered a delay resulting from the provisions of (a) of this subsection.
In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, all local governments subject to the requirements of this chapter that have not developed or amended master programs on or after March 1, 2002, shall, no later than December 1, 2014, develop or amend their master programs to comply with guidelines adopted by the department after January 1, 2003.
In meeting the review requirements of subsection (4) of this section, local governments may be provided an additional year beyond the deadlines in this section to complete their master program or amendment. The department shall grant the request if it determines that the local government is likely to adopt or amend its master program within the additional year.