Ask MRSC Archives

RCW 82.02.050-.110 and WAC 365-196-850 authorize counties, cities, and towns planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to impose various types of impact fees, including for transportation, schools, parks, and fire protection facilities. For non-GMA cities, there is authority in the Local Transportation Act (LTA), Chapter 39.92 RCW, to impose transportation impact fees to mitigate the impact on infrastructure from development.

As we note on our Revenue Guide for Washington Cities and Towns (p. 144), this allows for a fee charged to developers to mitigate the impacts on infrastructure and capital facilities because of increased demand resulting from new development. Revenues are restricted and may only be used for transportation. The fee may be imposed by any city, but since typically impact fees are assessed under the GMA rather than LTA the city cannot impose both. Since your city does not plan under GMA that restriction does not apply. Also, the fee does not require voter approval. The fee must be limited to the “amount that the local government can demonstrate is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development.” See RCW 39.92.030(4).

The fee authorized under Chapter 39.92 RCW does not run afoul of the prohibition on development fees in RCW 82.02.020. That section specifically says that “Nothing in this section prohibits counties, cities, or towns from imposing transportation impact fees authorized pursuant to Chapter 39.92 RCW.”

Our inquiry database indicates that the City of Lacey imposes a Local Transportation Act fee. See Lacey Municipal Code Ch. 14.21.

MRSC’s Selected Funding Sources for Public Facilities webpage includes several additional examples of ways to help mitigate impacts resulting from development, including the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) mitigation, voluntary agreements, and local improvement districts.

It depends. Generally, all elected officials and candidates for elected office are required to fill out a financial disclosure form (also known as the F1 form). However, RCW 42.17A.135 exempts “candidates, elected officials, and agencies in political subdivisions with fewer than two thousand registered voters as of the date of the most recent general election in the jurisdiction” unless the candidate receives or expects to receive $5,000 or more in contributions.

There is also an exception in RCW 42.17A.200 for “an office of a political subdivision of the state that does not encompass a whole county and that contains fewer than five thousand registered voters as of the date of the most recent general election in the subdivision, unless required by RCW 42.17A.135 (2) through (5) and (7).”

The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has a helpful webpage, Personal Financial Affairs Disclosure, that explains the filing requirements and another one about Enforcement, that talks about the process and possible penalties. Because the PDC is the enforcement agency for this, the district is not responsible for ensuring the commissioners comply with the reporting requirement.

The authority to waive connection and hook-up fees, as well as other rate relief programs, comes from RCW 35.92.020(5) and RCW 35.67.020(5) which authorize cities and towns to “provide assistance to aid low-income persons in connection with [municipal utilities and sewer] services.” And RCW 35.92.380 requires that any waivers of system development or connection charges be done pursuant to a program established by ordinance.

None of these statutes contains language similar to that in RCW 82.02.060 requiring the waived fees to be paid from sources other than impact fee accounts. I find nothing in our inquiry database that indicates that SDCs, if waived pursuant to an adopted ordinance, require backfilling from another source.

7.a. Historically, the PDC has routinely advised and held that with respect to election-related publications, one jurisdiction-wide objective and fair presentation of the facts per ballot measure is appropriate.  
 
In addition, if an agency* has also customarily distributed this information through means other than a jurisdiction-wide mailing (e.g. regularly scheduled newsletter, website, bilingual documents, or other format), that conduct has also been permitted under RCW 42.17A.555 so long as the activity has been normal and regular for the government agency. For more discussion of fact sheets, see this staff analysis. 
 
b. The PDC will presume that every agency may distribute throughout its jurisdiction an objective and fair presentation of the facts for each ballot measure.  If the agency distributes more than this jurisdiction-wide single publication, the agency must be able to demonstrate to the PDC that this conduct is normal and regular for that agency.  In other words, the agency must be able to demonstrate that for other major policy issues facing the government jurisdiction, the agency has customarily communicated with its residents in a manner similar to that undertaken for the ballot measure.  
 
c. Agencies are urged to read the definitions of "normal and regular" at WAC 390-05-271 and WAC 390-05-273. Agencies need to be aware, however, that in no case will the PDC view a marketing or sales effort related to a campaign or election as normal and regular conduct. 
 
8.    The PDC attributes publications or other informational activity of a department or subdivision as the product of the local agency as a whole. 
 
9.    Providing an objective and fair presentation of facts to the public of ballot measures that directly impact a jurisdiction's maintenance and operation, even though the measure is not offered by the jurisdiction, may be considered part of the normal and regular conduct of the local agency.  The agency must be able to demonstrate that for other major policy issues facing the jurisdiction, the agency has customarily communicated with its residents in a manner similar to that undertaken for the ballot measure. 

No, under state law, all city and town elected offices (including council positions) are elected on a nonpartisan basis. See RCW 29A.52.231. Although a candidate may choose to disclose their party affiliations in the course of campaigning for office, this information would not be placed with candidate names on the ballots, nor should the city include a candidate’s preferred political party in city information. RCW 29A.04.110 defines “partisan office” and does not include elective offices in cities or towns:

"Partisan office" means a public office for which a candidate may indicate a political party preference on his or her declaration of candidacy and have that preference appear on the primary and general election ballot in conjunction with his or her name. The following are partisan offices:

(1) United States senator and United States representative;
(2) All state offices, including legislative, except (a) judicial offices and (b) the office of superintendent of public instruction;
(3) All county offices except (a) judicial offices and (b) those offices for which a county home rule charter provides otherwise.

In addition to judicial positions and the state superintendent of public instruction, city, town, and special purpose district elective offices are required to be nonpartisan. RCW 29A.52.231 provides:

The offices of superintendent of public instruction, justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, judge of the superior court, and judge of the district court shall be nonpartisan and the candidates therefor shall be nominated and elected as such. All city, town, and special purpose district elective offices shall be nonpartisan and the candidates therefor shall be nominated and elected as such. (Emphasis added).

Washington law requires local governments (including special districts) to prepare meeting minutes, but it does not address who signs them. RCW 42.30.035 simply provides:

The minutes of all regular and special meetings except executive sessions of such boards, commissions, agencies or authorities shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection.

Therefore, local governments may establish their own procedures for approval of the minutes. It is very common for minutes to be signed by the presiding officer. And technically, the minutes do not need to be signed at all if it can be shown that the minutes were approved by the Board in open session. So, there is a lot of flexibility for local governments with respect to who signs the minutes. Having the minutes signed by all members present at the time of approval is one of several options.

MRSC published a blog article last year on Salaries for Elected Officials that includes a detailed section on “May an Elected Official Refuse a Salary?”

As the linked article notes, there are specific provisions in state law for some positions, such as fire and port commissioners, but there is not a comparable provision for cities. Nevertheless, many cities do have local policies on the topic. Here is a city example from Stanwood, and a county example from Chelan County:

• Stanwood Ordinance No. 1342 – Waiver of Mayor/Councilmember Salaries (2013) – Allows mayor or councilmembers to voluntarily decline all or a portion of their salaries, with the waived money to be used for general government purposes, unless the individual mayor/councilmember directs that it should be used for a different purpose.
• Chelan County Municipal Code Sec. 1.164.030 – Allows an elected official to voluntarily receive a salary less than that established for their position.

We recommend reviewing the article and any local procedure for waiving or donating one’s salary with the city’s legal counsel.

Regardless of any markings or how the letter got in the hands of the elected official, if the content of the letter pertains to the conduct of government, it is a public record. Whether an exemption applies is a separate question, but someone placing the words “confidential” on an envelope does not relieve an agency of the obligation to make public records available for inspection or copying. You could consider giving third party notice to sender who could then try to seek an injunction to prevent the letter’s release.

The preliminary draft exemption only applies to pre-decisional policy recommendations and opinions. It does not apply to raw factual data or the implementation of the policy. For a more thorough discussion, please see our 2016 blog post Explaining the PRA's Deliberative Process Exemption. Based on the information provided, it is unlikely the deliberative process exemption could be applied to all or even part of the draft investigation report.

However, depending on the nature of the violations, consider looking at RCW 42.56.250(6):

Investigative records compiled by an employing agency in connection with an investigation of a possible unfair practice under Chapter 49.60 RCW or of a possible violation of other federal, state, or local laws or an employing agency's internal policies prohibiting discrimination or harassment in employment. Records are exempt in their entirety while the investigation is active and ongoing. After the agency has notified the complaining employee of the outcome of the investigation, the records may be disclosed only if the names of complainants, other accusers, and witnesses are redacted, unless a complainant, other accuser, or witness has consented to the disclosure of his or her name. The employing agency must inform a complainant, other accuser, or witness that his or her name will be redacted from the investigation records unless he or she consents to disclosure;

Until you have informed the employee of the final decision, the records are exempt in their entirety. And even after the investigation is final, certain names must be redacted. I suspect this exemption is more likely to apply to your documents at issue.

There are a few records that local governments are required or highly encouraged to post online if they are able. Here are the ones that MRSC has previously identified, but there may be others:

• Agendas for meetings must be posted online 24 hours in advance unless the jurisdiction is so small it does not meet the statutory thresholds in RCW 42.30.077 and RCW 42.30.080. Public agencies are encouraged to record and/or stream online meetings and make those recordings available online (RCW 42.30.220).
• Interlocal agreements must be filed with the county auditor or, alternatively, listed by subject on a public agency’s website (RCW 39.34.040). This includes “piggy-backing” on procurement contracts of another agency.
• Many jurisdictions meet their obligation to post a list of contracts awarded under the small works roster process as required by RCW 39.04.200 by posting online.
• Many jurisdictions meet some of their public participation obligations under the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.035, by posting notices online.
• We were unable to locate a specific state or federal requirement, but it appears there is a requirement or highly encouraged practice to post collective bargaining agreements online as well.

And more generally, see the legislative intent note to RCW 42.56.520:

The internet provides for instant access to public records at a significantly reduced cost to the agency and the public. Agencies are encouraged to make commonly requested records available on agency websites. When an agency has made records available on its website, members of the public with computer access should be encouraged to preserve taxpayer resources by accessing those records online.

We encourage jurisdictions to look over their public records requests for the last several years and see if there is a pattern of requests. If they see such a pattern, they should consider prioritizing placing those records online. It is common to receive a records request for previously received records requests and therefore some jurisdictions automatically post online what records requests they have received.

Additionally, as the world moves more and more online, when setting up a website we highly encourage agencies to choose a system that allows easy and efficient document uploading capacity.

Below are some examples and resources that should be helpful. Additionally, some programs may be located in personnel manuals (see our Personnel Policy Manuals page for examples).

Local examples:

• Anacortes Accident Prevention Manual (2020)
• Davenport Fire Department Accident Prevention Program (2016) – This covers the whole city, not just the fire department, and includes an Appendix that lists specific safety programs by department.
• King County Accident Prevention Program (2015)
• Port Townsend Accident Prevention Program (2020)
• Redmond Personnel Manual Section 15.40 Accident Prevention Program (2018) – p. 118 states: “In addition to the City-wide Safety Committee and various Departmental Safety Committees, the City has developed and will maintain an Accident Prevention Program as required by WAC 296-800-140. The City’s Accident Prevention Program is outlined in writing and is tailored to the needs of each department’s workplaces and operations and to the types of hazards that may be present. The Accident Prevention Program must include:…”
• Renton Accident Prevention Program (2016)

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries resources:

• Safety & Health
• Accident Prevention Program

While there is no applicable state law on this, the widespread practice is to have your governing body adopt a new resolution rescinding the previous one. This will provide a clear audit/timing trail for the board’s actions. Here is a link to Ellensburg Resolution No. 2021-20 – Terminating COVID-19 State of Emergency (2021) that you could use as an example. And as always, check with your agency attorney for specific drafting advice.

If the original resolution was worded in a way that the local declaration terminates when the state terminates its declaration of emergency, then there is no need to adopt a rescinding resolution. But if that is not the case, the best practice is to adopt a resolution rescinding the emergency. Otherwise, the manager/mayor/executive arguably continues to have the extra powers granted to them in the original resolution.

We are looking to update/revise our Accident Prevention Program. Do you have examples to share?
Below are some examples and resources that should be helpful. Additionally, some programs may be located in personnel manuals (see our Personnel Policy Manuals page for examples).

Local examples:

• Anacortes Accident Prevention Manual (2020)
• Davenport Fire Department Accident Prevention Program (2016) – This covers the whole city, not just the fire department, and includes an Appendix that lists specific safety programs by department.
• King County Accident Prevention Program (2015)
• Port Townsend Accident Prevention Program (2020)
• Redmond Personnel Manual Section 15.40 Accident Prevention Program (2018) – p. 118 states: “In addition to the City-wide Safety Committee and various Departmental Safety Committees, the City has developed and will maintain an Accident Prevention Program as required by WAC 296-800-140. The City’s Accident Prevention Program is outlined in writing and is tailored to the needs of each department’s workplaces and operations and to the types of hazards that may be present. The Accident Prevention Program must include:…”
• Renton Accident Prevention Program (2016)

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries resources:

• Safety & Health
• Accident Prevention Program

To our knowledge there is no state legislation related to gas-powered leaf blowers, however a jurisdiction can choose to regulate them locally.

For example, the city of Seattle is phasing out gas blowers – here is a Kiro7 article about it: Seattle City Council approves ban on gas-powered leaf blowers. And here is a link to Seattle’s Resolution No. 32064 (2022), as well as their Supporting Documents. According to this Seattle City Council press release, Washington D.C., the entire state of California, Burlington, Vermont, and 100 other jurisdictions have banned gas leaf blowers.

Another angle is to approach this through the city noise ordinance; Clyde Hill has a specific code provision (see Sec. 8.10.030(G)) that applies to leaf blowers (prohibiting usage of blowers that exceed a 45dBA sound level prior to 7:00 am and after 6:00 pm on weekdays and prior to 10:00 am and 4:00 pm on the weekend and holidays).

And below are some additional examples from both Washington State and elsewhere.

Examples from Washington State:

• Sumner Municipal Code Sec. 8.14.090
• Tumwater Municipal Code Sec. 8.08.030

Examples from other states (includes outright bans as well as noise restrictions):

• Burlington, VT Municipal Code Article 21-14
• Calistoga, CA Municipal Code Sec. 8.21.020
• Coronado, CA Municipal Code Sec. 36.24.020 – Leaf blowers powered with a combustion or gasoline engine are prohibited.
• Creswell, OR Municipal Code Sec. 9.25.140
• Palos Verdes Estates, CA Municipal Code Sec. 8.28.040
• Pasadena, CA Municipal Code Ch. 9.37
• South Pasadena, CA Municipal Code Sec. 19A.12.4
• Veneta, OR Municipal Code Sec. 9.20.040

MRSC’s position is that state law does not require written submittals to be included in the meeting minutes. RCW 42.30.035 requires minutes to be kept and made available to the public. RCW 35A.12.110 (for code cities) also requires that a “journal of all proceedings shall be kept, which shall be a public record.” Neither of these statutes require minutes to be kept in any specific form.

MRSC shares the general opinion of the Washington Municipal Clerk’s Association and noted parliamentarian Ann McFarlane that “action minutes” is the better practice. For a more detailed explanation, see her blog post Less Is More: Action Minutes Serve the City Best.

This does not mean the city just throws away the documents. Items submitted as written testimony (such as what you describe) are required to be kept for six years after the end of the calendar year in which they were submitted, then transferred to the Washington State archives for permanent retention. See the Local Government Retention Schedule (p. 40).

We defer to your city attorney to advise you on the city’s specific practices.

MRSC has consistently taken the position that “actual attendance” under the district commissioner compensation statutes (RCW 70.44.050) includes remote attendance, whether via video conferencing or via speaker phone, unless your district has adopted a policy that requires attendance in-person.

The Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion a few years ago that concluded a governing body can legally conduct a public meeting via telephone or video conference call so long as the participants can hear, be heard, and participate effectively in the meeting. See AGO 2017 No. 4.

Additionally, the Open Public Meetings Act was amended this year to explicitly allow board member remote attendance so long as it allows real-time verbal communication (RCW 42.30.230). This may still require some action by the district board to consider remote attendance—ideally pursuant to a written policy that sets forth the circumstances under which remote participation will be allowed. But, unless local policy prohibits it, a member should be able to attend a commission meeting via phone or video without it impacting their compensation.

MRSC is aware of no federal or state statute that requires the town to display the U.S. and State flag when the town offices are closed unless it is one of the days where those flags are required to be displayed along with the POW/MIA flag.

Courts have interpreted the U.S. Flag Code to be advisory only and there are no penalties for violating it. RCW 1.20.017 requires public entities (including towns) to display the POW/MIA flag along with the U.S. and state flag only on specific days. RCW 1.20.017 does not contain any exception that would allow the town to not display the flags on those days if the town hall were not open for business. MRSC has an extensive summary page on this issue: Flag Display. But you should also consult your town attorney to see if there are any town codes or policies related to display of flags that you need to consider.

Here are some resources that should be helpful:

• U.S. Census Bureau:
  • Home-based Workers - Notes that the American Community Survey (ACS) includes a question for those 16 and over who were employed and at work in the previous week, on the method of transportation usually used to get to work. Home-based workers are those who reported “work from home” on this question.
  • This recent Census article highlights that the number of people primarily working from home tripled between 2019 and 2021 (with Washington State having one of the highest percentages of home-based workers) and indicates that the Census will release additional ACS statistics over the next few months.
• Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM):
  • American Community Survey (ACS) - Includes ACS resources and state contacts to reach out to for assistance.
  • County and City Data - Offers a collection of links to information about specific Washington counties and cities.
• Washington State Employment Security Department: Employment Estimates - Provides monthly estimates of nonfarm employment, by industry, in Washington state.

Additionally, some cities do their own employment studies (either in-house or through consultants) that would analyze various local employment data to inform their comprehensive plans.

In general, the answer is “no.” The only exemption applicable to dates of birth (DOBs) is RCW 42.56.250(8) for employee month and year of birth if found in personnel records.

Note, there are a few exemptions that protect a person’s identity – for example RCW 42.56.240(2) protects witnesses and victims of crimes when their life/safety/property is in danger or they request nondisclosure. But, on its own, the DOB would not personally identify an individual (if their name and other identifying information was redacted out). So, we don’t recommend relying on this exemption to redact a DOB.

We have a page on Disclosure of Personal Identifying Information in Law Enforcement Records. As you will see, it doesn’t mention DOBs. We also have a sample arrest report which shows what to redact and what not to redact.

Generally, the city may allow use of its facilities on a non-discriminatory basis. It may also produce fact-based information regarding a bond measure.

As we note on our Use of Public Facilities in Election Campaigns page, "normal and regular conduct" is allowed. Under this exception, a local government could prepare an objective and neutral presentation of facts concerning a ballot measure. For example, details could be provided to citizens concerning the financial impact of an initiative on the local government, such as how revenues would be affected by its passage. Care must be taken that this information be presented in a fair, objective manner.

Many local governments also allow use of their meeting room facilities on a nondiscriminatory, equal access basis to the public, usually for a rental fee. If this is the case, then it would be allowable to hold a public forum for citizens with pro and con representatives discussing an initiative in a public meeting hall.

You can get more specific guidance as well as some examples from the Public Disclosure Commission’s website. Their PDC: Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns provides an overview of Washington state law in an easy-to-read format indicating what activities are permitted or not permitted, as well as general questions to consider.

The city should consult its city attorney on the specific language the city intends to share, as well as the use of the city facilities.

Seattle and King County’s comprehensive plans specifically identify gun safety, while other jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans more broadly address violence, crime, and/or public safety (see examples below). Additionally, community health needs assessments and community health improvement plans are often either referenced or adopted by reference in comprehensive plans. For example, the King County Comprehensive Plan references the community health indicators (see violence & injury prevention) that are part of the King County Community Health Needs Assessment, 2021-2022 (see discussion of firearm-related deaths).

Here are some examples of goals and policies from Washington comprehensive plans:

• King County Comprehensive Plan – In Chapter 4 of the “Regional Health and Human Services” section, see H-102.e and H-209, which include references to firearms.
• Kirkland Human Services Goals and Policies – See Policy HS-5.3 in the Human Services chapter. It includes as a goal area “A safe haven from all forms of violence and abuse.”
• Redmond Comprehensive Plan – In the Chapter “Shoreline Master Program,” see SL-46 “Incorporate crime prevention principles in the design of public access to make facilities safe and easy to patrol and supervise.”
• Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2020) – In the Chapter “Community Well-Being,” see public safety policy CW 5.7 “Work in partnership with state, county, and community agencies to prevent violence, including that associated with substance abuse, and firearms injuries.” Other examples include GS 3.27, CW G5, BL-G15, and NN-P18.
• Spokane Social Health Chapter – See SH 6 on Safety, and related policies (CPTED, natural access control, natural surveillance, community oriented policing services, etc.).
• Vancouver Comprehensive Plan – See the Police section in the Public Facilities and Services Chapter, which includes data and strategies around crime and violence.
• Yakima Comprehensive Plan – See policy 7.4.7 “Encourage community policing, CPTED principles, and community watch programs to improve public safety for both businesses and residences.

Here are a few examples from other states:

• Oakland Safety Element - Public Safety – Includes policies and actions related to violent crime.
• Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan – See Goal 5 and related action steps, which include “Follow a public health approach to ending violence by reducing the factors that put people at risk for being involved with violence” and “Expand the use of non-enforcement, community-driven public safety strategies and responses such as restorative practices that can address and repair the harm caused by a crime.”
• Stockton General Plan – See Goal SAF-1, Safe Community (public safety is a top community priority). Policies SAF-1.1 and SAF-1.2 address violence and crime.