Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
MRSC PUBLICATIONS › NEWS › Municipal Research News - March 1996
 

Note: Some of the information on this archival Web page may no longer be current.

Municipal Research News

Resources for Washington's Cities and Towns
March 1996

Articles

High and Dry in Washington - The Battle for Water Rights

As if continually upgrading a water supply and distribution system weren't enough of a problem, cities and special purpose districts must assure themselves and their customers that sufficient water rights are available for growth or, in some cases, for existing customers. Water rights is a legal term that means a right to make beneficial use of public waters of the state at a given volume and from a specific source. More technically, "water rights" means transferable rights to the diversion, extraction or use of water arising by virtue of the ownership of land located contiguous to surface water or the issuance of a water permit by the Department of Ecology. Both surface and groundwater supplies can be affected by water right considerations. The Legislature has charged the Department of Ecology with responsibility to provide adequate records for efficient administration of the state's waters, and facilitate a return to the state of any water rights no longer exercised by putting said waters to beneficial use.

Editor's Note: The following article, written by Robert Wubbena, President of Economic and Engineering Services, gives a brief history of the water rights issue, explains why and how the issue is affecting Washington cities and towns, and describes what steps communities can take to plan for and improve their chances of obtaining future water supply needs.

Does Your Community Have Water Rights for its Future Water Supply? In the summer of 1995, the Department of Ecology completed an initial assessment of the water resource issues in 16 of Washington State's 62 Water Resource Basins. This past January, based partially on these assessments, Ecology denied several hundred pending water right applications from public water suppliers and other water users. Without sufficient water rights, many of these communities may now be faced with placing a moratorium on new growth and restricting Economic growth strategies. The options for future needs of the basins are uncertain.

Short History

The current situation is much different from the late 1800s and the early part of this century when Washington's community leaders located the necessary water supply, built their community, and planned for their future. As there was an abundance of water resources, there was little concern about their right to use the water; only about use of the water to meet community needs.

During the last 50 years, competition for available water supplies has become intense. Communities seeking an adequate supply for basic community needs and future Economic development have had to compete fiercely with other beneficial uses - industrial and agricultural out-of-stream uses and fisheries, recreation, aesthetics, and hydroelectric instream uses. Allocations of water for out-of-stream use have been primarily on a first in time, first in right basis (Western Water Law).

Beginning in the late 1970s, the state began to establish priorities of water use through a partial review of instream flow needs - the Instream Resources Protection Program (IRRP). In 1986, the IRRP proposed establishment of instream flow needs without regard to planned for out-of-stream needs for municipal and industrial uses. As a result of the identified conflict in instream and out-of-stream policies and projected needs, the state's water resource management program was put "on hold."

Recent Legislative and Administrative Activities

Since that 1986 event, there has been a continuing effort to develop a new "State Water Resource Management Strategy" that would both provide for future municipal and other out-of-stream needs and protect and manage the instream resource needs and objectives. In 1994, and again in 1995, the needs of local governments to plan for their future source of water supply were debated along with the other requirements for growth management, environmental protection, and Economic growth. No answers were forthcoming from the legislature, leaving local government with a set of water management laws that were first enacted in 1917 and last modified in any significant way in 1971. (Every effort to revise the laws since 1971 have been based on a single purpose objective.) Complicating the local government dilemma are the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), environmental permits, the debates associated with tribal treaty rights, and the legal constraints associated with wetlands, non-point pollution and the Endangered Species Act.

The issues described above have resulted in a more restrictive and conflicting interpretation of current laws by the state, the courts and regulatory agencies, as well as growing recognition that the state may not have enough water for all of the individualized plans for the future. In some areas, adequate water for communities to accommodate new growth and Economic development will not be available if allocation requests for instream flows control water rights without regard to flexibility for meeting the needs of public water suppliers.

Key Issues

Will conflicts in water policy management at the state level be resolved before those conflicts prevent local governments from complying with the Growth Management Act and meeting future water needs? Also, how much water does each community currently have, including access to a water supply and the legal rights to use that water?

What Can My Community Do?

The issues are complex and options can be many. The following provides an abbreviated summary of what a community should do to determine their water supply and legal water right status. Based on the findings, the community should then identify options and communicate with their elected officials to help define Washington's true water supply and resource management needs!

Planning for Your Communities Future Water Needs

  • What is your service area - urban and rural?
  • Is there a corresponding GMA comprehensive plan and growth projection?
  • What are your demand projections: 1-year, 6-year, 20-year, 50-year?
  • What is the surface and groundwater availability for future needs?
  • Do you have a water system plan? Are you part of a regional water system plan?
  • Do the above plans evaluate the status of water rights and water resource management options?

Steps to Improve Your Chances to Obtain and Reserve Water Supply Rights for Your Community's Future

  • Know what water supply is available or what isn't known - Basin Assessment I.
  • Define your water management options - Basin Assessment II. Link GMA with water resource management options, both local and regional.
  • Prepare a current water system plan to address each of the following:
    • Demand projections
    • Source of supply analysis
    • Water Right adequacy
    • Wellhead Plan/Basin Management Plan
    • Major Capital Improvements Plan
    • Financial Plan for major facilities
  • Link your regional Water Resource Plan with your GMA policies.
  • Develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with state and local agencies to manage implementation of selected projects and program. (Don't rely on a state program).
  • Prepare for a 50-year "Water Supply Development and Management Program" for your community rather than a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) once every five years. (Don't rely on a state program to reserve water for your future needs).

Conclusion

The state of Washington has very diverse geological climates, growth patterns and needs for water. These diversities are both strengths and weaknesses. Your community should look to the future, assess its strengths and weaknesses, and develop a plan for meeting future water needs. If the plan includes a need for additional water supply, the plan should be definitive.

by Robert Wubbena, President
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc.

Bob Wubbena is Corporate President of Economic and Engineering Services (EES), and its Vice President for water resources and regulatory affairs. A widely experienced utility professional, Bob is skilled at working with governmental as well as private agencies. He is actively involved in numerous professional organizations such as the American Public Works Association, American Water Works Association, and American Water Resources Association, to name just a few.

The Department of Ecology has recruited a Water Rights Advisory Committee to assist and advise its staff on water rights issues. Dave Williams, an AWC Municipal Policy Associate (1-800-562-8981), is a member of that board. Doug McChesney (360-407-6647) is the staff contact person at the Department of Ecology.

Introducing....

 John Carpita
Public Works Consultant

John Carpita joined MRSC in January, 1996. He has BS and MS degrees in Civil Engineering from Montana State University. A registered professional engineer since 1972, he is currently registered in Washington and Idaho. John has had a widely varied 25 year career as a consultant, county engineer, city engineer and project manager. Most recently, he was project manager for two large roadway and bridge improvement projects with the City of Issaquah combining TIB funds, FHWA funds and local improvement districts. With MRSC, John is a resource for engineering design, contract document preparation, construction contract issues, local improvement districts, sewer, water, storm drainage and solid waste issues, and resource conservation.

Andrew J. Derby
Librarian/Information Specialist

Andrew (though he usually answers to "Drew") joined the MRSC staff in February of 1996. He received his Master of Librarianship from the University of Washington. Drew has worked for several libraries. His most recent job was as a reference/children's librarian for the city of Benicia, CA. He comes to MRSC on the strength of his technical and reference skills. He is the new coordinator for the Information Partnership Program and is responsible for MRSC Library Technical and Information Services. Drew is also a professional storyteller and puppeteer, performing for area pre-schools and family organizations whenever time permits.

While in California Drew met his fiancee, Renee, and they decided to return to Seattle. Both Drew and Renee enjoy the Pacific Northwest lifestyle of books, movies, and limited sun breaks. They also enjoy exploring the Burke-Gilman trail whenever weather permits. They plan to be married in August.

"The Beast" is Back!

MRSC's burgeoning inquiry load, "The Beast," is back - and it has grown. January 1996 brought a new record for that month. The high for any previous January was 552. The total inquiry responses prepared for January 1996 was 659, more than 100 more. And MRSC's consulting staff has not grown. Our budget is limited just like yours. We'd like to again appeal to you to help us handle this animal.

MRSC's board and staff all agree that handling inquiries is our primary function. You, our customers, obviously agree. You keep calling us more and more. And each survey over the past several years has indicated that inquiry responses are what you rely upon us for the most. We brought "The Beast" to your attention in the December 1994 and the March 1995 issues of Municipal Research News. Many of you commented to us then that you had read it and understood it, and your manner of calling us showed that you had listened. So we're coming to you once again to ask that you observe the following five requests:

  • Anticipate your needs. Please call us as far in advance as you can.

  • Define your question as clearly as possible. Give us as much reference as you can.

  • Be sensitive to our necessary priorities. If every request is "urgent" we can't keep up.

  • Give us as much background information as possible.

  • Be willing to speak to our voice mail. Again, be as explicit as possible.
And now, experience makes it necessary to add one more:

  • Please don't call a short time later and give the same question to a different consultant. Time devoted to duplicated efforts can be better spent.

We continue to update our computer and data base systems, our library system, and our bulletin board as quickly as possible. We don't think there's much more we can do at the present time to achieve greater mechanical efficiencies. We try to stay on top of any innovations and implement them when we think they will help.

The consultants at MRSC have come up with some suggestions that we think may save time and frustration for both you and us. Perhaps the following list should be titled, "Top Five Ways You Can Help Tame 'The Beast'":

  • Ask the MRSC receptionist for the person with the skill in the area of your question. If you simply ask for whom you know, we then either have to take time to reassign your question to the consultant with the necessary expertise, or spend extra time consulting with that person in order to get you the best possible answer. Our data searches are more efficient in our individual expertise areas.

  • If someone else makes the call to MRSC for you, please be sure they fully understand what it is you want and can articulate it clearly to us. Too many return calls asking for clarification is time consuming.

  • Please try to make your requests as specific as possible. Requests that begin with, "Send me everything you have on. . . " give our otherwise sturdy consultants heartburn.

  • If you find what you needed from some other information source before you hear from MRSC, please let us know so we can avoid the duplication of effort. But let us know what source you found so we can all use it.

  • Once again, please review the points given at the top of this article and remember to observe them.

Thanks for listening. The growl you heard was really a gentle purr from "The Beast." It's not quite ready to completely devour a consultant.

New Public Works Board Policy

At the January 9, 1996, Public Works Board meeting, the Public Works Board, with the Assistant Attorney General's concurrence, approved the following policy: Sanitary Sewer Side Service Connections

Effective with the 1997 application cycle, sanitary sewer systems will be extended to include repair/replacement of sewer side service connections on privately owned property, if it can be demonstrated that the work done on the private property will benefit the public system. The applicant, at the time of application, must have in place an ordinance or resolution declaring such repair/replacement to be a public policy of the jurisdiction and setting forth the finding of public benefit.

Applications for 1997 are due March 15, 1996. If your jurisdiction would benefit from this new policy or you would like more information, please contact Denise Van Housen at (360) 753-4283.

MRSC Online

Training

If you will be attending the municipal clerks' conference in Kennewick, and would like a half-hour training session on Thursday, March 21 in using MRSC Online, please call the MRSC receptionist to schedule a time. As time allows, we may also be able to take a look at MRSC's home page on the Internet.

Ordinances

The ordinance database now spans six years, from January 1990 to present. You may search this database online by keyword, and obtain any ordinances of interest from the MRSC library. The full texts of some, but not all, of the ordinances are available for download in the online file library. If your city can send copies of your ordinances to MRSC in word processing format, please contact Lynne De Merritt in the MRSC library.

Publications

Since the beginning of 1995 all MRSC publications have been available in file format in addition to paper format. We distribute the files using Adobe Acrobat which retains the formatting of the original document when viewed with the Acrobat reader program. In this way, you do not need the word processing and desktop publishing software that MRSC uses to prepare the documents. Last year, each city was sent a copy of the Reader program; you may also download a copy online from the Main File Library for Windows, DOS, or Macintosh operating systems. As MRSC completes new publications, we give each city the option of receiving the publication on disk. At the same time, we make the publication available for download. Recent new or updated publications include Knowing the Territory, Handbook for Councilmembers, and Accessory Dwelling Units.

Discussion Forums

By posting a message on MRSC Online, you can receive suggestions and advice from your colleagues around the state. For Windows users, click on Forums, then on Forum, Select. Choose a subject area, or the General message area. Finally, click on the icon of the pen to write your message. For DOS users, type F at the main menu prompt, and then S to select a forum and ? to see a list of the forums. After selecting a forum, choose W to write a message or R to read messages. See your users' guide for details, or call Fred Ward at MRSC.

BBS vs. Home page

MRSC maintains both an electronic bulletin board system (MRSC Online), and a home page on the Internet's World Wide Web. The Web page (or home page) contains some of the files from MRSC Online for you to view, and links to other sites of interest on the Internet. At this point, the BBS is more extensive and also contains several databases, the discussion forums, and the file libraries. In the future, MRSC may expand its home page to include databases (see the article, "MRSC on the Internet"). For now, our home page is housed on the city of Seattle's server (http://www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us/cities/mrsc/mrsc.htm)

MRSC on the Internet

As mentioned in the MRSC Online column, MRSC may soon be expanding its presence on the World Wide Web. Last December, we sent letters to all of the customers of Code Publishing to determine interest in making municipal codes available on the Web in fully searchable format. We began with these cities because they already have their codes in Folio Views, full-text retrieval software. But even if your city is not a customer of Code Publishing, you may be able to have your code converted to the Views format. Call Fred Ward at MRSC for details.

If we proceed with this project, MRSC would set up a Web server in our office. In addition to the municipal codes, the Office of the Code Reviser would make the RCW and WAC available in Views format. Anyone throughout the world with access to the Internet, could search these documents by keyword. In the sEcond phase of the project, MRSC would make some of the databases that are now available on MRSC Online, also available on the Web. These might include the ordinance summary database, an index to contracts and interlocal agreements, and the Officials of Washington Cities Directory. In the third phase of the project, those of you who do not already have home pages elsewhere could use this Web server to make municipal documents available to your citizens and to officials in other cities.

Information Technology and Services Survey

In conjunction with the Communications Technology Center (CTC), we recently mailed a survey on information technology and services to each city clerk. The purpose of the survey is to assess the need to form a consortium to provide you with services such as computer telephone support (help-desk services), on-site consultation, network design and installation, and pre-completed requests for proposals. In the June issue of Municipal Research News, we will discuss the results. The survey also serves as the first annual inventory of software and hardware used by cities. We hope that this information will assist you in making purchasing decisions.

ASK MRSC

Council Study Sessions - Must minutes be kept of council work sessions or study sessions?

Yes. A council work session or study session is a meeting of the city council if more than a quorum of councilmembers are present. This is true even if no final action in the form of voting on ordinances, resolutions or motions occurs. RCW 42.32.030 requires that minutes be kept of all regular and special meetings except executive sessions.

The minutes may be very brief and do not have to reflect all that was said at the meeting. At a minimum the minutes should indicate the councilmembers who were present, the time and place of the meeting and the general nature of the business that was discussed.

Drinking Offenses - May a city or town make it a criminal or civil offense under local ordinance to be drunk in public?

No. Such a local enactment is prohibited by RCW 70.96A.190. However, this statute does not affect the enforceability of a local rule or ordinance against drunken driving, driving under the influence of alcohol or other similar offense.

Mayor Pro Tem - May the mayor pro tem vote on matters coming before the council when he or she is presiding at the meeting?

Yes. The appointment of a councilmember to serve as mayor pro tem and preside at a council meeting does not in any way restrict his or her right to vote on matters coming before the council while they are presiding. This is true in all classes of mayor-council cities and towns.

Overtime Pay - Must overtime be paid at the end of the pay period in which it was earned?

As a general rule, overtime should be paid on the regular pay day for the work period in which it is earned. However, if the correct amount of the overtime cannot be determined until after the regular pay period, overtime may be paid after the regular pay day, although that should be done as soon as practical. See Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 CFR Sec. 778.106.

Planning Commission - Does state law now allow a city to delegate authority for approval of preliminary plats to the planning commission?

No. The controlling statute, RCW 58.17.100, was amended in 1995 but that amendment did not change the planning commission's advisory role with regard to preliminary plats. The city council may delegate authority to hold a public hearing to the planning commission, but the commission still may only make recommendations on preliminary plat approval.

However, the 1995 amendments to the state law did change how the council may respond to a planning commission recommendation, if the council disagrees with the recommendation. If the planning commission has held a public hearing, the council no longer must conduct a public hearing to take an action inconsistent with the planning commission recommendation. After considering the matter at a public meeting, the council may adopt its own recommendations and approve or disapprove the preliminary plat. Prior to the 1995 amendment, the council could only make a change in the recommendation of the planning commission after a full public hearing.

Side Sewer Maintenance - Who has responsibility to maintain the side sewer?

This is the responsibility of the private property owner. The length of the line between the house and the main line or meter which is located on private property is not the responsibility of the city to maintain and repair. Repairs to this portion of the water or sewer line should be at the expense of the private property owner. (Also, see article "Sanitary Sewer Side Sewer Connections in this newsletter.)

Traffic Violations - Is it a violation of a state traffic law for a car to pull a sled behind it on a public street?

Yes. RCW 46.61.765 provides that no person who is riding upon a bicycle, roller skates, sled or other toy vehicle may attach himself or the toy vehicle to any vehicle upon a roadway. It is a traffic infraction to do so. This provision is a part of the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance (MTO) and so any city or town that has adopted the MTO may enforce this provision by citing to a local ordinance.

Utility Surcharge - Is there a limit on the amount of the surcharge that may be charged by a water utility to outside customers?

There is no specific limit set out in state law that authorizes a city to consider location within or outside the city in determining rates. A surcharge of 50 percent was upheld in Faxe v. Grandview, 48 Wn.2d 342 (1956). The court indicated that the surcharge must be just and reasonable but there is a presumption that the rates set by the city are just and reasonable. Many cities charge a 50 percent surcharge on nonresidents and some go considerably higher.

Update on Sales Tax Equalization and Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Distributions

Sales tax equalization certification for 1996. The sales tax equalization payments certified for 1996. The 70 percent figure for the first half cent of the 1995 city sales tax collections, to which payments were equalized for 1996, is $56.45. Every jurisdiction that earned a per capita sales tax for the first half cent that is less than this amount will receive an equalization payment in 1995 that makes up the difference. The Department of Revenue multiplied this difference by each city's April 1, 1995 population. If your city levies both half cents of the sales tax, the department doubled the amount to calculate the total for which your city is certified. Remember, however, in 1996 there will not be enough money to fully equalize your sEcond half cent. Cities that levy only the first half cent of the sales tax are guaranteed the amount shown in the table. Cities that levy both half cents will receive less than that shown in the table. Refer to the discussion in Budget Suggestions for 1996 if you cannot remember how this works.

How's the sales tax equalization forecast doing? Almost right on target. Our forecast in Budget Suggestions for 1996 was made in July 1995. We forecast that every city would receive the full amount for which they are certified on the first half cent. We also forecast that cities levying the sEcond half cent would receive 60 percent of the amount they are certified for (i.e., they would be cut back 40 percent), averaging out to about 20 percent on the full cent of the sales tax.

In July, there were a number of unknowns. Some of those are now more predictable. For example, we know the amount for which existing cities (our apologies to newly incorporated cities -- by "existing cities" we mean those that were in existence during all of 1995) qualify. It is almost exactly equal to the amount assumed in the July forecast. And, based on three months' revenues, it appears that our forecasts for Shoreline and University Place are close to the mark. So the remaining unknowns are the sales tax receipts of Lakewood and Edgewood (we will have some idea of what they are this summer) and the motor vehicle excise tax receipts. Right now, the forecast for MVET is a little higher than it was in July. So if our assumptions about Lakewood and Edgewood are correct, the cutback may be a little less than 20 percent. However, we suggest that you continue to use 20 percent as your cutback amount if you are levying both half cents of the sales tax.

To summarize, if you only levy the first half cent of the sales tax, you can count on the amount shown in the table. If you levy both half cents, multiply the amount in the table by 80 percent (20 percent cutback) to get your estimate. Remember that the July and October distributions will probably be smaller than those for January and April because Lakewood and Edgewood will be eligible then.

Update on motor vehicle excise tax receipts (the ones distributed by population).
Cities will receive an unexpected bonus in 1996. In Budget Suggestions for 1996, we told you to use $11.34 as the estimate of the per capita distribution for the motor vehicle excise tax. This figure was considerably lower than the amount received in past years because, effective January 1, 1996, one-third of the cities' tax goes to the counties to pay for local government public health. But - "Surprise!" The monies distributed in January were collected in October, November, and December of 1995. Therefore, none of that money was diverted to the counties. An extra $4.2 million (compared with our prior forecast) was distributed to cities. Our new forecast for 1996 is $13.00 per capita. Remember, the next three payments will be smaller. Do NOT multiply your January receipts by four and assume that is what you will get for the year. The portion of the motor vehicle excise tax that goes into the sales tax equalization account was not affected by this timing issue. by Judith Cox, MRSC Finance Consultant

Total Certified For 1996

Remember, You Will Not Get All You Are Certified for. See Article on Sales Tax Equalization and Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Distributions.

Airway Heights $44,110.38
Albion 66,101.66
Algona 93,274.36
Almira 1,176.81
Anacortes 45,219.11
Asotin 41,960.74
Bainbridge Is 872,994.95
Beaux Arts 21,657.23
Benton City 124,806.40
Black Diamond 107,251.29
Bonney Lake 429,739.85
Bremerton 285,106.32
Brewster 40,784.25
Bridgeport 150,550.61
Brier 624,249.14
Buckley 220,457.02
Bucoda 53,382.79
Burien 429,123.91
Carbonado 64,239.92
Carnation 35,877.88
Cashmere 94,069.74
Castle Rock 48,979.65
Cheney 355,945.25
Chewelah 64,765.75
Clyde Hill 285,662.85
Colfax 52,350.88
College Place 565,088.01
Colton 31,912.49
Conconully 11,969.25
Concrete 24,148.66
Connell 149,501.84
Coulee Dam 82,338.53
Coupeville 7,288.14
Creston 18,316.19
Cusick 13,452.66
Darrington 48,532.52
Davenport 58,904.92
Dayton 114,941.17
Des Moines 1,586,028.13
Duvall 160,400.47
Edmonds 773,147.55
Electric City 86,383.86
Elmer City 31,115.99
Endicott 18,396.72
Ephrata 79,963.87
Everson 59,698.49
Fairfield 20,679.79
Farmington 9,851.35
Federal Way 453,488.32
Ferndale 14,443.37
Fircrest 485,992.44
Forks 85,017.54
Garfield 43,270.79
George 17,724.44
Gold Bar 105,557.24
Goldendale 39,956.18
Grandview 403,192.21
Granger 199,863.20
Hamilton 20,529.70
Harrah 38,870.04
Harrington 23,210.20
Hartline 16,631.33
Hatton 10,871.46
Hoquiam 451,399.40
Ilwaco 309.60
Index 5,910.50
Ione 27,108.78
Kahlotus 19,064.51
Kettle Falls 71,490.65
Kittitas 75,337.02
Krupp 6,363.07
La Center 36,565.72
La Crosse 10,003.04
Lake Forest Park 539,275.49
Lake Stevens 234,468.26
Lamont 9,462.89
Latah 8,107.88
Lyman 14,781.05
Mabton 147,561.47
Malden 21,266.39
Mansfield 25,225.73
Marcus 14,869.93
Mattawa 123,891.65
McCleary 119,043.94
Medical Lake 248,133.02
Medina 31,646.21
Mercer Island 1,049,229.02
Mesa 8,588.82
Metaline 1,586.97
Metaline Falls 21,033.15
Mill Creek 357,797.43
Montesano 23,834.27
Mossyrock 23,747.33
Mountlake Terrace 1,324,718.37
Moxee 52,198.61
Mukilteo 796,694.17
Naches 4,732.85
Napavine 78,392.16
Nespelem 4,172.43
NEWCASTLE 338,809.70
Nooksack 61,162.24
Normandy Park 576,154.07
North Bonneville 46,534.70
Northport 26,828.43
Oak Harbor 650,235.62
Oakesdale 30,861.83
Oakville 49,569.61
Orting 136,715.28
Pacific 391,534.14
Palouse 61,052.35
Pateros 26,245.82
Pe Ell 32,256.27
Pomeroy 44,654.47
Prescott 17,710.18
Pullman 777,976.69
Rainier 97,286.64
Raymond 56,915.03
Reardan 26,614.67
Republic 6,623.55
Richland 330,340.57
Ridgefield 70,213.29
Riverside 15,676.80
Rock Island 7,897.24
Rockford 20,587.03
Rosalia 34,736.89
Roslyn 58,661.55
Royal City 60,171.06
Ruston 44,642.14
Sedro-Woolley 94,247.13
Selah 124,247.87
Soap Lake 85,917.41
South Bend 51,707.06
South Cle Elum 22,568.59
South Prairie 42,311.46
Sprague 13,584.85
Starbuck 6,295.96
Steilacoom 493,221.31
St. John 3,519.46
Sultan 94,699.08
Tekoa 45,424.91
Tenino 68,401.67
Tieton 47,256.26
Toppenish 385,763.68
Uniontown 21,845.18
Vader 34,570.41
Waitsburg 59,035.93
Walla Walla 338,962.01
Wapato 207,626.01
Warden 117,682.34
Washougal 73,051.94
Washtucna 16,695.64
Waterville 61,119.62
Waverly 3,155.49
West Richland 551,346.38
Westport 35,588.00
White Salmon 44,709.69
Wilbur 33,246.44
Wilkeson 31,895.06
Wilson Creek 12,852.56
Winlock 36,230.41
Woodway 50,476.40
Yacolt 44,100.95
Yarrow Point 48,310.53
Zillah 109,369.70
Total $24,162,234.83

Newly incorporated cities are not included in the table because their equalization works differently than that for other cities.

Public Disclosure: Always Changing, Always Challenging

Municipal Research and Services Center has a new publication on public disclosure laws applicable to cities and towns that should be ready for distribution soon after receipt of this newsletter. We hope that it will enable you to find quick answers to many of your public disclosure questions. We will, of course, continue to respond to your telephone inquiries on this topic. However, because our volume of calls has steadily increased, we encourage you to review this new publication to see if there is a clear answer to your question before giving MRSC a call.

Copying Costs

Last year the legislature clarified the specific charges allowed for copying of public records. The statutes are found at RCW 42.17.260(7) & (8) and RCW 42.17.300 in the 1995 Supplement to the RCWs (Volume 9 in the green RCW paper-bound edition). Cities are not allowed to charge for the time city staff spends in locating or making available a public record for inspection. Cities can, however, charge for the actual costs connected with copying a public record, including the staff time spent making the copies and mailing the copies, if they produce and make available a statement containing the factors and manner used to determine the costs. Otherwise, a city cannot charge more than 15 cents per page for photocopying. Actual costs for postage and delivery can be included, as well as the costs of any envelopes.

Electronic Data and Records

Public disclosure laws apply to all public records, whether in paper form or in a computer file. A number of complex issues on this topic remain to be sorted out over the coming years. Some cities have already drafted policies concerning records that are in electronic form. Our publication has examples of some of these policies.

The positive side of having records in electronic format is that as computer technology increases many already computerized records can be made available to the public more readily. MRSC has a wealth of information available on our computer bulletin board that is accessible for review or downloading by anyone with a modem and some basic computer skills. Cities and towns may decide to respond to disclosure inquiries for electronic records by computer, thus eliminating photocopying or mailing time and costs. As usual, some cities will pioneer this new frontier, and MRSC will keep you informed of the benefits, costs and problems.

The laws concerning retention and destruction of public records apply to all public records whether they are kept in electronic format or paper copies. Consequently, computer files must be maintained in accordance with the state records retention schedule, the same as records in traditional paper form.

Salary Disclosure

MRSC is often asked whether salaries of public employees can be disclosed. Salaries of all public employees and officials are public records and must be disclosed upon request. The Attorney General's office issued an opinion almost twenty-five years ago on this issue, stating that there is no exemption that would allow salary data to be withheld. Note, however, that some types of payroll information may not be disclosed, such as tax information, payroll deductions, social security number, and residence address or phone number if printed on the pay records. Records detailing the gross monthly wages of city employees should be disclosed; disclosure does not violate an employee's right to privacy as that term has been defined in the law and interpreted by the state courts.

Exemptions and Prohibitions

While most of the disclosure exemptions are located in the Public Disclosure Act statutes (RCW 42.17.250 through 42.17.348), other exemptions can be found throughout the statutes. Our new publication lists all of the statutory exemptions relevant for cities and towns.

In addition to the exemptions, there are numerous statutory prohibitions to disclosure. An example of disclosure prohibition is the Criminal Records Privacy Act, which specifically prohibits disclosure to the public of much of the non-conviction data that appears on computer "rap sheets." Other disclosure prohibitions involve records that are commonly considered private, such as tax records, medical records, and juvenile records.

Personnel Records and the Right to Privacy

Certain types of information contained in public employee personnel files are exempt from disclosure, and our new publication discusses this topic in depth. There has been a lot of litigation on disclosure of information in personnel files. The state supreme court has ruled that the public has a legitimate interest in records concerning on-the-job acts of misconduct by city employees that have been investigated and sustained. Our courts have also ruled that performance evaluations which do not discuss specific instances of misconduct are exempt from disclosure. We recommend that you carefully review issues concerning disclosure of personnel records with your city or town attorney. MRSC is, of course, available for consultation on this.

Disclosure Procedures

Our new publication also has a chapter devoted to disclosure procedures. Generally speaking, these procedures are clear and have not caused much controversy. Cities are required to maintain and make available an index to the city records listed in RCW 42.17.260(3). Responses to requests for disclosure must be prompt, within five days. Any denial of disclosure must be put in writing, stating the statutory exemption and how it applies to all or part of the records. Cities are required to adopt procedures for prompt internal review of decisions denying inspection. Our new publication has an appendix providing copies of sample city ordinances and policies.

Conclusion

Responding to public record disclosure requests can be time consuming for city staff. Sometimes public records can be a source of embarrassment, particularly when they reveal mistakes or errors made by city employees or officials. But the public disclosure act and the open public meetings act are the foundation for an open government. In this time of distrust of government, it is essential that the public have access to records in order to dispel false rumors or accusations and to inform the public of the detailed work done by the city to provide municipal services. by Jim Doherty, MRSC Legal Consultant

Resource Sharing - Information Partnership Program

The goal of the Information Partnership Program is to seek out current materials on a variety of relevant topics that can only be found from one source -- the cities and towns of Washington. Our latest request brought in a good response for new subject materials as well as information requested in earlier mailings. Your continued support and utilization of donated documents is providing answers to many challenges and problems faced by municipal employees each day. The materials below may be requested by employees and officers of Washington cities and towns by contacting the MRSC Library via mail, telephone (206-625-1300, or 1-800-933-6772), fax (206-625-1220), or e-mail (mrsc@wln.com).

MRSC bids farewell to Paul Steere, the Information Partnership Program coordinator for the past two years. Paul has left for sunnier shores as he accepts the library directorship for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas on the island of Saipan (somewhere south of Japan). His replacement, Erica Zwick, is a returnee to Washington State after a seven year stint in Benicia, California, as a city librarian.

EconOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Downtown Vancouver Space Available: Abbreviated Report [3 p. + map]
Tabulated data on land, buildings, retail, office, and other space available for sale or lease; includes large scale (1"=600') color map entitled, "Space Available Downtown Vancouver Land & Buildings for Sale or Lease," September 1995; updated monthly.
Vancouver, 9/95, ED 3.4000

Downtown Investment Guide [portfolio]
Attractively illustrated and packaged folder with brochures describing the city, location, community, investment opportunities, data sources, permits, licenses, fees, and contact names, addresses and telephone numbers.
Vancouver, 12/95, PR 7.4000 PUBLIC ACCESS, REPORTS, CITIZEN INFORMATION

Disclosure of Public Records [16 p.]
Memorandum with policy procedures, flow chart, types of information by city departments, fee schedule, request form, and copy of Ordinance No. 1008 (9 p., passed 2/11/93).
Des Moines, 5/5/93, G 5.9500

Inspection of Public Records [8 p.]
Ordinance No. 2754 implements the Public Disclosure Act.
Port Angeles, 3/16/93, G 5.9000

City Council Orientation Notebook [loose-leaf, var. p.]
Compilation of information and city documents and brochures for the newly elected city council member.
Vancouver, 1995, G 4.2000 V35 C45 1995

City of Vancouver Citizen Survey: Area of Residence Results: Supplemental Report [21 p.]
Prepared by Brent S. Steel for the period April-May 1994 under the auspices of the Program in Public Affairs, Washington State University, Vancouver.
Vancouver, 1994, G 9.3200

City Clerk's Office [citizen information & comment form; 2 p.]
Lists publications and services available for no charge or for a fee; also has space for "comments, questions, complaints or suggestions for other services you would like to see available." Form offers a personal reply if name and address is included and form is mailed or placed in a drop-box at city hall.
Des Moines, undated, PR 4.0000

State of the City 1995 [26 p.]
Includes fiscal and management issues; arranged by city department.
Port Angeles, 5/1/95, PR 3.1100

City of Vancouver Citizen Handbook [19 p.]
Professionally designed guide with photographs and diagonal edgecuts revealing each printed subject heading, such as City, Directory, About Town, Parks, Neighborhoods, etc.
Vancouver, Spring 1994, PR 3.2000

Dear Fourth Plain Area Neighbor (Newsletter on annexation) [6 p.]
Letter to households in a newly annexed area giving the results of the "one year check up" survey and information on city standards, taxes, traffic changes, street construction projects, garbage and recycling, lighting and other changes due to the annexation.
Vancouver, 3/7/94, G 3.1150

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

1994 Anacortes Computer Committee Report Outline [7 p.]
Current and future city computerization plans (AIM, Anacortes Information Management system) with short fall definition sheets, interface flowcharts, and updated (1/16/95) cost estimates.
Anacortes, 5/9/94, IS 0.0009

Friday Harbor Information Management Plan [40 p.]
A framework for budgetary and organizational implementation of a cost-effective, user responsive information management model.
Friday Harbor, 8/95, G9.4000 F75 I5 1995

LIBRARY LEVIES

Fort Vancouver Regional Library Levy Lid Lift [various documents]
Staff Report No. 195-93, with Resolution No. M-2848 passed 9/7/93; Memorandum 8/22/90 on history of city involvement with the Library District with attachments (Ord. No. M-2228, 6/29/81; Staff Report 197-81, 6/15/81, on Library Annexation), Staff Report 178-90, 8/20/90, Endorsement of Library Levy.
Vancouver, 1981-1993, LIB 6.0000

SAFETY PLANS

Employee Health and Safety Policies [1 v., var. p.]
Policies and forms regarding blood borne pathogens exposure control and prevention, control of communicable, infectious, environmental and vector borne diseases.
Anacortes, undated, PE 1.6050 A5 C55 1995

Safety Plan and Policies: a Supplement to the City Personnel Manual [66 p.]
Establishes goals, objectives, policies and procedures for each city department including injury and incident reporting, education and training, hazard communication, chargeable conduct, disciplinary action level matrix and appendices for confined space entry, hearing conservation, and blood borne pathogen exposure control.
Des Moines, 1/18/95, PE 1.6000 D44 S25 1995

Safety and Health Policy [12 p.]
Town safety prevention program consisting of orientation, safety bulletin board, various forms, training programs, checklists, investigation and reporting, recording hazards, record keeping and crew safety meetings.
Winthrop, undated, PE 1.6000

NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAMS

Downtown Neighborhood Element [5 p.]
Chapter 10 of the Greater Des Moines Comprehensive Plan. Outlines goals, findings, policies, and strategies.
Des Moines, 10/95, PL 5.2210

North Central Neighborhood Element [7 p.]
Chapter 9 of the Greater Des Moines Comprehensive Plan; includes map.
Des Moines, 10/95, PL 5.2100

Action Plans Empower Citizens to Define Their Neighborhoods [poster, 1 p.]
Enlarged reprint to be used as a poster; from the July 1995 issue of the Vancouver City Flyer.
Vancouver, 7/95, PL 5.2110

Esther Short Development Strategy: Preliminary Draft Revised [59 p.+ graphics]
Study of the core of downtown Vancouver and "functional heart" of Clark County. Extensive plans, maps, diagrams and related documentation.
Vancouver, 11/95, PL 5.2220 V35 E85 1995

Memorandum: Neighborhood Staff Assignments [2 p.]
Describes duties and responsibilities for senior city staff members who have been named as "Neighborhood Liaison" for a specific area.
Vancouver, 10/9/90, PL 5.2110

Neighborhood Associations [Map] [1 p.]
Map of the City of Vancouver with each Neighborhood Association named and outlined.
Vancouver, 10/95, PL 5.2110

Neighborhood Organizations (2.76); Neighborhood Dispute Resolution Program (2.80) [3 p.]
Excerpts from Chapters 2.76 and 2.80 of the Municipal Code outlining authority, boundaries, functions, accountability, responsibility, organization of Neighborhood Associations and the administration and funding of the dispute resolution program.
Vancouver, 1/89, 2/93, PL 5.2110

Neighborhood [series of trifold brochures]
Titles include: What is a Neighborhood Association?; How Do I Form a Neighborhood Association?; Neighborhood Programs; Neighborhood Speed Watch; Solving Problems Between Neighbors, Caught in a Conflict? Published by the Office of Neighborhoods or Neighborhood Mediation.
Vancouver, undated, PL 5.2110

Vancouver Neighbors [newsletter, 4 p.]
Sample copy (vol. 6, no. 11) provides information about city events, neighborhood activities and community issues; published by the city's Office of Neighborhoods.
Vancouver, 11/95, PL 5.2110

Vancouver City Flyer: Special Edition Annexation Update [4 p.]
Newsletter explaining annexation and its benefits.
Vancouver, Fall 1992, PR 3.5000

Join the City's Anti-Graffiti Gang [trifold brochure]
Advertises the hotline for reporting "graffiti in progress." Advises clean up procedures and urges citizens to "Act Fast" to remove graffiti.
Vancouver, undated, PS 7.1100

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Alternative Work Environments [8 p.]
Human Resources definitions and policies for flextime, compressed work week, job sharing, telecommuting, and regular part time and procedures for evaluating positions to be excluded from some options if it would negatively affect customer service, co-workers or FLSA agreements.
Vancouver, 9/7/95, PE 6.1300

Erica Zwick, Coordinator, Information Partnership Program

New Ordinances

All cities and towns are directed to send a copy of their ordinances to MRSC for inclusion in our ordinance pool. This is a selection of the ordinances received in the last three months. Ordinances are listed in a monthly ordinance list posted on MRSC's bulletin board, MRSC Online. The list of ordinances is cumulated in a database of Ordinances Summaries which is also on the BBS. As municipalities send copies of ordinances in electronic form, either by disk or by uploading to the BBS, they will be linked to the ordinance database they may be searched, viewed, and downloaded by the user. If you would like copies of the items listed below please contact Julie Penny in our library at (206) 625-1300.

Animal Control - Dogs - Coupeville Ordinance No. 512 provides for the regulation, control, licensing and prohibition of certain acts of dogs or their owners. Passed 10-95. (LR 3.5000)

Animal Control - Prohibited Conduct of Animals - Everett Ordinance No. 2091-95. Passed 9-95. (LR 8.2000)

Council Meetings - Town Meetings - Spokane Ordinance C-31544 provides for "town hall meetings" four times a year which shall be cablecast for the purpose of providing citizens access to the council to address concerns of city government. Passed 1-96. (G 4.2300)

Curfew - Parental Responsibility - Everett Ordinance No. 2103-95 expands the juvenile curfew to apply city-wide and makes the city's curfew regulations permanent. Passed 10-95. (PS 7.4271)

Economic Development Advisory Board Established - Lakewood Ordinance No. 31. Passed 1-96. (ED 2.2000)

Finance Business Licensing - Mukilteo Ordinance No. 863 adds a new chapter 5.04 of the municipal code for the purpose of expanding business licensing. Passed 12-95. (F 5.2100)

Finance - Credit Cards - Yelm Ordinance No. 574 adopts a system for the distribution, authorization, limits, payment and control of credit cards. Passed 1/96. (F 1.1150)

Gang Activities - Zero Tolerance - Lakewood Resolution No. 1996 expresses a position of zero tolerance for gangs and gang activities in the city; the city will incorporate this position in its approach to law enforcement and community based issues. Passed 1-96. (PS 7.4285)

Licensing and Regulating - Amusement Centers - Amusement Devices - Mukilteo Ordinance No. 866 adds a new chapter to the municipal code; repeals Ordinance No. 865. Passed 12-95. (LR 7.3500)

Local Improvement District - Business Improvement Area Established - Everett Ordinance No. 2097-95. Passed 9-95. (LID 5.1000) Nuisances - Public - Abatement - Lakewood Ordinance No. 32 provides for the identification, enforcement, and abatement of public nuisances. Passed 1-96. (PS 9.1000)

Nuisances - Public Property - Graffiti Removal - Lakewood Ordinance No. 37. Passed 1-96. (PS 7.1100)

Planning - Design Review Board - Coupeville Ordinance No. 506 establishes a design review board; transfers the responsibilities of the Historic Advisory Committee to that board; establishes standards and procedures for reviewing applications for design review. Passed 7-95. (PL 2.6000)

Safety - Bicycle Helmet Regulations - Poulsbo Ordinance No. 95-26 establishes bicycle helmet regulations; implements educational and safety programs. Passed 11-95. (T 3.5000)

Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair - Snow and Ice Removal - Soap Lake Ordinance No. 840. Passed 1-95. (S 4.2000)

Signs - Freestanding - Leavenworth Ordinance 1002 amends provisions relating to construction and design requirements for freestanding signs. Passed 1-96. (LR 82.4000)

Special Events - Event Permit - Soap Lake Ordinance No. 845 establishes an event permit; repeals ordinance No. 749 relating to festival permits. Passed 4-95.

Wireless Communications Siting - Cellular - Lynnwood Ordinance No. 2065 amends the zoning code to regulate the siting of wireless communication facilities in or near residential zones and larger towers. Passed 1-96. (PL 8.3725)

New Acquisitions

The MRSC library prepares a list of new acquisitions each month, which is posted on our bulletin board, MRSC Online. If you would like to borrow one or more of these publications, contact Julie Penny in our library at (206) 625-1300.

Creating a New Civilization: the Politics of the Third Wave, by Alvin and Heidi Toffler; foreword by Newt Gingrich, Atlanta, GA., Turner Publishing, Inc., 1995, 112 p. (G 9.1500 C752 1995).

Employee Issues in Privatization, by Kathryn Denhardt, Jeffrey Raffel, Eric Jacobson, et al., MIS Report, Chicago, IL., ICMA, Oct. 1995, ( F 8.7000 MIS27:10 1995**).

The Enduring Challenges in Public Management: Surviving and Excelling in a Changing World, edited by Arie Halachmi and Geert Bouckaert, foreword by Frank P. Sherwood, San Francisco, CA., Jossey-Bass, 1995, xxix, 468 p. (G 9.0000 E545 1995).

The GMA Manual: A Guide to the Growth Management Act and the Decisions of the Growth Hearings Boards [of Washington (State)], Portland, OR., Oversight Publications, 1995, vii, 112 p. (PL 8.6200 G75 1995).

A Guidebook for Residential Traffic Management: Final Report, prepared by KJS Associates, INCA Engineers, Inc., R. David MacDonald; prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, TransAid Service Center, Northwest Technology Transfer Center, Olympia, WA., WSDOT, Dec. 1994, 88 p. + appendices, ill., photos, maps. (T 3.4000 G855 1994).

Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, by Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer, San Francisco, CA., Jossey-Bass, 1994, xxiii, 622 p. (G 9.7000 H345 1994). Managing in a Time of Great Change, by Peter F. Drucker, New York, Truman Talley Books/Dutton, 1995, xii, 372 p. (G 9.1000 M353 1995).

Performance Appraisals and Compensation Programs in Local Government, by Evelina R. Moulder and Gwen Hall, Washington, D.C., ICMA, 1995, 80 p. (PE 8.1000 P457 1995).

Remaking the Shopping Center, by Dean Schwanke, Terry Jill Lassar and Michael Beyard, Washington, D.C., ULI, 1994, viii, 172 p., ill., photos, plans. (PL 5.2230 R455 1994).

Safe Cities: Guidelines for Planning, Design, and Management, by Gerda R. Wekerle and Carolyn Whitzman, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995, xii, 206 p. (PL 10.4050 S235 1995).

Supervising Police Personnel : the Fifteen Responsibilities, by Paul M. Whisenand and George E. Rush, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1993, xvi, 352 p. (PS 6.1200 S94 1993).

Supervision of Police Personnel, by N. F. Iannone, 5th ed., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1994, xvi, 382 p., maps, plans. (PS 6.1200 S945 1994).

Violence in the Workplace, by Raymond B. Flannery, Jr., New York, Crossroads Publishing Co., 1995, xiv, 190 p. (PE 4.6310 V553 1995).

Water Supply Planning, by David W. Prasifka, Malabar, FL., Krieger Publishing Company, 1994, xv, 266 p. (UW 1.3000 W365 1994).

Yakima County Sepa/GMA Integration Project, Yakima County Planning Department, Yakima, WA., Yakima County, June 1995, 1 v. (various pagings), ill. (PL 2.0500 Y331 Y35 1995).

State Supreme Court Decision on "De Facto Repeal" Repeal of Criminal Code

State law requires that when a city that has a municipal court under chapter 3.50 RCW repeals "in its entirety" its criminal code, while continuing to hear traffic infraction cases in the municipal court, it must enter into an agreement with the county for payment to the county of the costs of prosecution, adjudication, and sentencing in criminal cases that are filed in district court as a result of the repeal. If agreement cannot be reached, then the matter must go to arbitration. RCW 3.50.800.

On February 1, the state supreme court decided in Whatcom County v. Bellingham that the city's repeal of most, but not all, of its criminal code resulted in a "de facto" repeal of the code such that the city should have entered into an agreement with the county concerning those costs or had the matter decided by arbitration. A de facto repeal is functionally equivalent to an actual, formal repeal. The court noted that the purpose of this requirement in RCW 3.50.800 is to prevent a deliberate shift of criminal justice costs from a city to the county. The court observed that such a shift of costs will occur when a city repeals a significant portion of its criminal code, when it adopts a policy of charging misdemeanors under state law rather than city ordinance, or when it exercises its discretion not to prosecute under its criminal code. The court held that the city now must arbitrate with the county concerning the fiscal impact of its decision to repeal a significant portion of its criminal code.

New Evening Master Degree Program Offered

The University of Washington Graduate School of Public Affairs (GSPA) now offers an evening Master of Public Administration degree for midcareer professionals with seven to ten years of progressively responsible experience.

A new nonprofit emphasis has also been added which focuses on issues such as management, fund development, marketing and public relations in a not-for-profit setting. Other areas of study include Urban and Regional Affairs, Education and Social Policy, International Affairs, or Environmental Policy.

The midcareer evening program curriculum emphasizes the practical application of the theories, values, and managerial skills critical to success in public life. Courses focus on human resource management, policy analysis and program implementation. In addition, special leadership seminars allow students to explore their roles and responsibilities as organizational leaders.

An information session regarding the Graduate School of Public Affairs programs will be held on the Seattle UW campus on March 7 at 5:30 p.m. in Bagley Hall, Room 461. For more information and an application packet, contact GSPA at (206) 543-4900 or e-mail: elainec@u.washington.edu.