Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
MRSC PUBLICATIONS › NEWS › Municipal Research News - September 1993
 

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

Municipal Research News

Resources for Washington'sCities and Towns
September 1993

Articles

MRSC Summer Activities

MRSC's electronic bulletin board, MRSC Online, was unveiled at AWC's annual meeting in June. It received an enthusiastic response. Persons attending the demonstrations were excited about the potential of the BBS as a tool for delivering information to city officials.

The users manual has been completed, and sent to persons who have initially signed up to use the service. As of the end of July more than 100 persons had signed up to access the service. If you wish more information about MRSC's online service, contact: Korki Hale for general information or an application; and Fred Ward for technical information at MRSC (206-827-4334).

Each year MRSC offers in internship for students in law, public administration, and related fields. The internships provide an opportunity to participate in our unique service program to city and town officials. This year, we are pleased to have a June graduate, Carol Tobin, from the University of Washington's Graduate School of Library and Information Science. While Carol just received her MLS in information science, she has more than ten years experience working for local government as a land use and environmental planner and as a consultant. With her combined background, she is assisting MRSC plan for future information delivery services.

Four new publications have been written and distributed to all Washington cities and towns during the summer: The New City Guide, Report No. 25, June 1993. Legal Notes: Proceedings of the Washington State Association of Municipal Attorney's Thirty-Seventh Annual Conference, Information Bulletin No. 481, June 1993. Municipal Service Delivery: A Survey of Washington Cities and Towns, Report No. 26, July 1993. Budget Suggestions for 1994, Information Bulletin No. 483, August 1993.

The sEcond phase of the Information Partnership Program, designed to enhance the Center's services to Washington cities and towns, was launched in June. Fifty-five municipalities were selected to participate in the project. Selection was based on population, form of government, land area, financial data, location and other pertinent data. Participation was also sought from cities with a reputation for local government leadership and innovation. Partnership cities were asked to designate a staff member who could serve as a permanent liaison to furnish information to MRSC. The goal is to establish an information gathering network which will regularly provide new information to MRSC. In turn, information collected can be provided to municipalities when needed. To date over 45 cities have agreed to participate. If you were not invited to participate, but would like to become an "information partner," we welcome your participation. Cities and towns are still encouraged to continue sharing information—ordinances, reports, studies, and other publications with your colleague by sending copies to the MRSC library.

MRSC is exploring the use of a voice mail system as an enhancement to our existing telephone service. We are looking at systems where the phone is answered in the way which you have been accustomed, i.e., a real person, but which gives you the option to leave a detailed message if the person you wish to speak to is not available.

MRSC Initiating New Library Loan Policies

For many years MRSC has been able to administer a very liberal loan policy for its users. Loan due dates were not enforced, lost materials were written off, and there were no overdue fines. Times have changed. The library is now serving twice the number of users. A more formal system must be put in place if everyone is to be served.

One of the most time consuming jobs of the library staff is contacting borrowers to return items if they are not being used and getting borrowers to renew items still needed. Many borrowers have been reluctant to return overdue items even though they are told that someone else is waiting to use them.

An incentive is needed to make our users aware that others may also need to use the materials. We have many conscientious users who are punctual and let us know when a renewal is needed. We appreciate this cooperation of the majority...but then there are the others. Our problem was outlined in the article "A Word About Overdue Library Materials..." in the December 1992 issue of Municipal Research News. The problem still has not been resolved.

So...MRSC is considering joining the ranks of other libraries and is changing its policies to include fines for overdue and lost materials. Such a policy will enhance our services by increasing accessibility to library materials, minimizing administrative costs, and maximizing the efficient use of MRSC staff time. When the new policy is in place, notification will be sent out with loaned items.

MRSC wants to retain its flexibility. If you need the materials longer than the loan period assigned, just give us a call to renew them. We are here to serve your needs and aim to accommodate where possible.

Aesthetic Regulations

Design Review: A Thumbnail Primer
by Mark L. Hinshaw, AIA AICP

There is a lot of talk about design review and considerable confusion about exactly what it is. First, let's say what it is not. Design review is not the imposition of one person's or one committee's personal tastes upon developers or upon the community as a whole. It is not something that concerns superficial, frivolous aspects of a building's appearance. It is not a way of enforcing a "theme" along a street or within a business district. Design review does not necessarily add significant costs to development projects.

Design review is a tool that can do what conventional zoning, by itself, cannot do: produce quality in new development or redevelopment. Design review can allow higher density development to be placed into neighborhoods without radically altering their character. Design review can encourage new development to respect historic attributes of a community. Design review can give residents a greater sense of pride in their community.

Design review is legally defensible, that is, depending upon how you do it. Fortunately, we have had a recent decision from the Washington State Court of Appeals (Anderson v. Issaquah) that gives cities and counties some guidance. First, the Court established that design review is a legitimate extension of zoning authority. While some jurisdictions may have felt uneasy using design review for fear that they would be out on a limb, legally, this issue is now resolved.

However, the Court also said that, in order to be constitutionally valid, a design review process must follow certain principles, principles that are necessary for the administration of any piece of local legislation. It cannot involve arbitrary decision-making, it must be fair and open, and it must be consistent in application.

A city or a county cannot just appoint a design review board and let the board decide what to allow. This is one thing that the Court of Appeals clearly found unacceptable. (Incidentally, other state courts are beginning to make similar findings, as with a recent case in Illinois.) Some design commissions have reviewed projects on a case-by-case basis, with the belief that "we can't tell you what we like, but we'll know it when we see it." This way of making decisions is not defensible and will not survive a court appeal. Local jurisdictions, through their decision-makers, cannot just "wing it," making things up as they go along. The Court insists upon seeing a fair, a deliberative process that uses standards by which to review projects.

Standards need not be rigid, inflexible formulas, with numbers and excessive detail. However, they must have certain attributes. First, they should be written down and preferably illustrated with examples. SEcond, they should be formally adopted, published, and made available to all interested parties. Standards must be clear, explicit, and sufficiently specific to provide direction to developers and designers. They should avoid vague terms like "harmony," "compatibility," and "interesting." In fact if terms are used, they should be defined so that people are using the same meanings.

Standards used in a design review process are often called "design guidelines." Unlike zoning codes, which are prescriptive and specific, design guidelines are more descriptive and suggestive. They seek to encourage creativity, rather than conformity. They are meant to inspire people to create development that fits the desired character of the community. The City of Bellevue and the City of Kirkland have each adopted detailed design guidelines for their downtown areas. Bellevue also has guidelines for "transition" areas between single family and multiple family residential zones. The City of Seattle is currently adopting guidelines for multifamily and commercial development. But, once guidelines have been established, decision-makers cannot set them aside and substitute their own personal opinions.

Ideally guidelines make the development process operate more smoothly by making the expectations known to all parties involved. This does not mean that guidelines need to cover absolutely all possible circumstances. Judgment will still need to be exercised by a design review board but based on a foundation of clear criteria.

Developing a fair and open process with explicit standards is not an easy task. One thing that will probably not be considered acceptable by the courts is borrowing guidelines directly from other communities. Like any matter of locally-oriented public policy, it is necessary to determine the needs of your own community and to develop design guidelines that suit your situation. This takes time and it takes some work. Similar to any planning process, the public must be given an opportunity to participate.

Using the basic concepts described above, communities can embark on the development of a design review program. Preparing an appropriate, defensible design review process requires an unusual combination of skills. Knowledge of land use law and environmental law is extremely important. Design review is also an exercise of applying design principles to a legal framework. Thus, expertise in urban design is necessary as well. So, doing design review correctly requires using specialists in both law and design.

Communities can use design review effectively and fairly, but only if they take the time and energy to determine exactly what they want. In such a way, design review can be a powerful tool in implementing growth management plans.

Aesthetic Regulation—Legal Issues
by Bob Meinig, MRSC Legal Consultant

There is no question that a city may consider aesthetics in regulating the use of land. The state court of appealsrecently affirmed this by stating that "aesthetic standards are an appropriate component of land use governance." Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64, 82 (1993). The question remains, however, as to how far a city may go in regulating on the basis of aesthetics. May aesthetic issues be the sole basis of a city's exer cise of its "police power" (e.g. zoning) authority? For example, may a city deny a building permit for an otherwise permitted use only on the basis of the structure's proposed design or color scheme? May it require yards to be maintained even where the failure to maintain does not result in a fire hazard or other type of health or safety issue? The court of appeals in Anderson v. Issaquah avoided these types of issues, noting merely that it is "far from 'settled' in Washington case law."

Aesthetic regulation may come in various forms. It may come in the form of design review regulations, such as in the Anderson v. Issaquah case, as discussed in the accompanying article by Mark Hinshaw. It may be a component of nuisance regulations, such as in those dealing with the accumulation of junk and debris in yards or with the height of grass and weeds in yards. Billboard and sign regulation also clearly has a strong aesthetic component.

Aesthetic regulation may also be a part of environmental controls imposed under the authority of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). For example, SEPA identifies one of its purposes as being to assure "for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings." RCW 43.21C.020(2)(b) (emphasis added). A city is entitled to consider the aesthetic impact of a project, along with other identified adverse environmental impacts, in requiring mitigating conditions.

View protection is another form of aesthetic-based regulation, one that, at least in the context of shorelines, is given statutory recognition. The Shoreline Management Act, in addition to expressing policies for protection of aesthetic values and for preserving scenic vistas, expressly prohibits the issuance of a shoreline substantial development permit for any structure over 35 feet in height that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences. RCW 90.58.320.

No matter what the form, to be legally more secure, aesthetic regulation should be tied to other legitimate public purposes. Thus, design guidelines can be linked to the maintenance of property and other Economic values or to the preservation of the historic character of a community (which, of course, does have Economic consequences). Similarly, view protection has a clear property value basis, but could also be justified on general public health and welfare grounds and as contributing to the overall quality of life in a community.

Aesthetic regulation in the context of nuisance regulation can generally be justified on public safety grounds. An accumulation of junk and debris, for instance, may present a danger to those people who must enter the property or who travel along the right-of-way abutting the property. Some cities have enacted ordinances relating to nuisances that regulate "unsightly" conditions or areas by prohibiting the accumulation, collection, or "untidy storage" of things such as scrap iron, vehicle parts, old appliances, and junk vehicles, where such material is clearly visible from a public place such as a sidewalk or street. Since such unsightly conditions may exist regardless of any potential health or safety concern, enforcement of these types of ordinances may in some instances be based solely on aesthetics.

The regulation of vegetation on private property also has an aesthetic component, although this type of regulation may be nuisance-based. Tall grass and weeds, if dead and dry, may pose a fire hazard. However, if such vegetation is overgrown but is green and does not present a fire hazard, its regulation would seem to be based solely on aesthetics. Nevertheless, a public health and safety justification may exist in that such vegetation could harbor harmful rodents.

Our state supreme court may eventually directly confront the question of whether aesthetic considerations alonejustify exercise of a city's police power authority. In a number of other states, the highest courts have confronted this issue and have allowed regulation based exclusively on aesthetics.

Regardless of whether aesthetic regulations will be justified in this state on that basis alone, they must provide specific and understandable guidance to decisionmakers, enforcement authorities, and to property owners. The Anderson v. Issaquah case provides a noteworthy example of a court finding that a city failed to provide that guidance, resulting in a violation of a property owner's constitutional due process rights.

A city should also be aware of other potential legal issues. Some aesthetic regulations may need to be balanced against the burdens they impose on private property owners. In some instances, such as billboard and sign regulation, aesthetic controls implicate constitutional free speech issues. Because of these and other legal considerations, it is advisable for the city attorney to review any regulations with a strong aesthetic component.

Selected List of MRSC Library Holdings on Design Review and Guidelines

Compiled by Carol Tobin, MRSC Intern

The following publications on design review and design guidelines are available from the MRSC Library. The library has many additional holdings on these subjects.

  • City of Olympia urban design guidelines for downtown, prepared by Olympia Design Review Task Force. Olympia, Wash.: Planning Department, 1988. Contents: building design, site design, landscaping, linkages, signs and street graphics. [PL 5.2220 O46 C57 1988]

  • Communities of place: design principles, Anton Nelessen Associates. Princeton, N.J.: A. Nelessen Associates, c1991. [PL 10.0000 C611 1991]

  • Community design guidelines manual, Fort Drum Land Use Team. Watertown,N.Y.: Fort Drum Land Use Team, 1989. Prepared for upstate New York, practical model for any rural area. [PL 10.0000 C6 1989]

  • Design review: tool introduction; ordinance, compiled by Jim Davis; University of Washington Growth Management Planning and Research Clearinghouse. Seattle: Growth Mgmt. Plan & Res. Clearinghouse, 1991. Included in Tools that Work series: Tool no. 6. [PL 8.6200 T645 1991 no.6]

  • Design for mountain communities: a landscape and architectural guide, by Sherry Dorward. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, c1990. Includes design guidelines for planners to use in mountain area projects. [PL 10.4000 D454 1990]

  • Housing as if people mattered: site design guidelines for medium-density family housing, by Clare Cooper Marcus and Wendy Sarkissian with Sheena Wilson and Donald Perlgut. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, c1986. [HO 7.0000 H655 1986]

  • Kirkland downtown design guidelines, prepared by MAKERS for the City of Kirkland. Kirkland, Wash.: City of Kirkland, Spring 1991. [PL 5.2210 K55 1991]

  • Multifamily design review, Kent Planning Department. Kent, Wash.: Kent, 1991. [HO 7.0000 M86 1991]

  • Residential development handbook for Snohomish County communities: techniques to increase liveability, affordability and community viability, prepared for Snohomish County Tomorrow by MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design with Mark Hinshaw. Everett, Wash.: Snohomish County, May 1992. [HO 7.0000 R489 1992]

  • "Setting standards for community design and appearance," by Wendelyn Martz, ICMA. Washington, D.C.: InternationalCity Management Assoc., Nov. 1991. 10 p. (MIS report, International City Management Association (ICMA)). [PL 10.0000 MIS23:11]

  • "Survey of design review practices," by Brenda Case Lightner. Chicago: APA, Jan 1993. 4 p. (PAS Memo, APA). [PL 0.0000 A6pm 1/93]

Resource Sharing - The Washington Cities' Information Partnership

Copies of the following items are available from MRSC's library. Should your city or town have a publication, new service, or procedure that can be shared with other municipalities, please provide information to MRSC for inclusion in the next issue of the newsletter.

From Anacortes—City of Anacortes Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 1993. [PL 6.4000 A5 1993]

From Bellingham—Narrative report of Bellingham Farmers' Market Project and Financial assistance agreement between the city and the Bellingham Farmers' Market Association [LR 73.0000].

From Carnation—Personnel Policies City of Carnation, June 1993. [PE 6.0500 C35 P45 1993*]; City of Carnation Comprehensive Plan, 1992. [PL 6.4000 C35 1992]

From Mercer Island—Information Master Plan, August 5, 1993. 9 p.

From Redmond—Visions for Redmond, May 1993. [PL 1.4000 R42 V555 1993]

From Renton—City of Renton Interim Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, June 1993. [PL 6.4000 R43 L35 1993]; City of Renton Interim Zoning Code, June 1993. [PL 8.7000 R43 I5 1993]

From Skykomish—Town of Skykomish Comprehensive Plan, February 1993. [PL 6.4000 S56 1993]

From Walla Walla—City of Walla Walla, Washington Personnel Procedures Manual, June 1993. [PE 6.0500 W33 C555 1993]; Long Range Management Plan, May 1993. [G 9.2000 W331 L655 1993]

From Woodinville—City of Woodinville Citizen Information Reference Guide. 20 p. [PR 3.2000]; Compensation and Classification Analysis, City of Woodinville, by Dodge & Associates, May 1993. [PE 12.0000 W6 C65 1993]

Update on the Cable TV Act of 1991

by Judith Cox, MRSC Finance Consultant

Finally, almost a year after its enactment, the Federal Communication Commission has formulated the regulations for the implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Local governments will now have some control over customer service standards, technical standards, and rates for "basic" service.

Customer Service Standards

The legislation provides that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) develop a list of customer standards that the franchise must meet. These standards include having a 24-hour telephone service that answers 90 percent of the calls within a 30-sEcond period, having a "conveniently located" office, and providing "appointment win dows" for installation and repair, such as promising to show up either at a specific time or sometime within a four-hour period. (MRSC has the complete list in its files.)

To enforce these standards in your community, you simply need to write a letter to your cable company sayingsomething like the following.

    Dear ABC Cable Company:

    The City of Twin Peaks is going to enforce the Federal Cable Customer Service Standards on [Month] [Day], [Year].

The date you choose must give them 90 days notice. No matter what your current franchise says about customer service standards, the new federal law prevails if it is more stringent than your current standards. This action can be taken immediately. If, once you review the FCC list of standards, you find that you have some problems that are not addressed, you can make them matters of discussion when you renegotiate your franchise. The FCC standards are simply minimum standards.

Technical Standards

Your operator should be in compliance with these standards right now. If one of your citizens complains about the quality of her signal, you can ask the company for its public file showing the results of its tests demonstrating that it is in compliance. Again, you don't need to rewrite your franchise to include this. The federal law says that operators must be putting out a clear signal right now.

Rate Regulation

  • Where can rates be regulated? Rates can be regulated anywhere that there is no "effective competition" from another cable company. We have been told that there is probably no effective competition, as the FCC defines it, anywhere in Washington.

  • Who can regulate rates? For "basic" service, cities and towns can regulate the rates. "Basic" service includes local commercial television stations plus any public, educational, and governmental stations required by the system franchise to be provided to subscribers. The FCC can regulate "expanded basic" service and, in some cases, "basic" service. "Expanded basic" service includes channels like ESPN, CNN, C-Span, etc. Individual channels that are sold, such as Showtime, HBO, and pay-for-view television are not subject to any rate regulation.

  • How can rates be regulated? To regulate the rates for "basic" service, cities and towns must be certified by the FCC. Requests for certification may be submitted no earlier than September 1, 1993. (This date was recently moved up from October 1.) Before applying, the city needs to write a resolution authorizing someone to file the certification. (MRSC has a copy of a resolution from the city of Vancouver that might help you.) The necessary forms for the certification have not been distributed yet by the FCC. They will probably be available in late August, which means that most cities will not be able to take advantage of the September 1 submission date. AWC will distribute the certification forms as soon as it receives them.

In your certification application you must state that: (1) you will adopt and administer rules that are consistent with FCC regulations; (2) that you have the legal authority to regulate rates; (3) that you have the staff to administer the rate regulation program; and (4) that the procedures in the rate regulation proceedings will provide a reasonable opportunity for consideration of the views of interested parties. Unless your application is found defective, your certification will go into effect in 30 days.

Once you have received your certification, and adopted rate regulation and rules for the participation of interested parties, you can notify the cable company that rates will be regulated. The company has 30 days in which to provide you with its rate schedule and the FCC's "benchmark" rates. These benchmark rates were set by comparing rates in what the FCC considers to be competitive markets to those in noncompetitive markets. Your cable company can argue that its costs of service are higher than these rates, but it needs todemonstrate that this is the case. No company needs to reduce rates more than 10 percent. That appears to be the amount of difference in rates that the FCC has determined that competition provides. If your city finds the rates to be unreasonable compared to the benchmark, you can order a reduction of those rates to the maximum allowed by law.

To regulate the rates for "expanded basic" service, either the city or town or a subscriber can register a "Cable Programming Services Complaint." Once again, the benchmark rates provided by the FCC will be relevant.

  • Can things other than rates be regulated? Yes, a city can regulate equipment rental charges such as additional outlets and remote controls. The cable company needs to fill out forms showing the city what the actual cost of service is.

  • Supposedly there is a rate freeze until November 15, but the cost of "basic" service has gone up in my city. Well, here the regulations are sort of complicated. The FCC is allowing cable companies to rEconfigure their rates in this interim period, based on the benchmark rates. If a company, for example, finds that its "basic" rate is lower than the benchmark rate, it can raise it now, as long as it lowers other rates so that the total effect is "revenue-neutral." This kind of rate adjustment has raised basic rates in Clark County, for one.

  • This is all very complicated—where do we get help? We have learned of some places not to get help.

    • Don't depend on your cable operator. Even if the company seems accommodating now, it may not be in the future. This does not mean, however, that you shouldn't meet with them and try to work things out in a non-confrontational manner.

    • Don't rely on your local broadcast operators (the local stations that are affiliated with the major networks). There are some aspects of the legislation that are putting the local affiliates and the cable companies in conflict with each other. Your city officials could find themselves involved in a conflict of interest if they talked to local broadcasters.

Some places to get help include a videotape of the session on cable TV at the 1993 AWC conference in Yakima. MRSC has copies of this tape for library loan. It won't make you an expert, but it will give you background for talking to the cable companies or consultants. In addition, our librarian will be gathering information for the library, and our attorneys will be available to help you sort through the process. Curt Pavola of AWC can also provide assistance. The real experts are at the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), (202) 626-3160. NATOA is associated with the National League of Cities.

Other Tips

  • Seek advice from municipal sources. Small cities might be able to receive help from nearby larger cities. If you receive services from the same cable operator, you can form a formal or informal consortium to file for certification jointly and work out problems with the cable operator.

  • Small cities might have to hire a consultant for part of this process. Although we have been told that any city that has someone who can read a financial report can match wits with the companies, we have also heard of cities whose franchisers have simply told them that they will move out because "they can't afford" to provide service. We will be getting a list of consultants for our files.

  • If you are about to renegotiate your franchise contract, do not sign any agreement for more than 10 years. Don't even open negotiations talking about 20 years. Too many things are changing.

  • If you don't think that you can handle regulating your basic service, you can ask the FCC to do it. However, you must show the FCC why you can't do it given that you are collecting franchise fees.

  • Be certain that the your franchise agreement defines "gross revenues" (on which you will be collecting franchise fees and utility taxes) to include all revenues. This means equipment rentals, advertising, home shopping services, and whatever else the cable operator gets revenue from in addition to revenues from cable TV service. The definition in your current franchise agreement may be more restrictive than that, but, when you renegotiate, you should use the broadest definition.

Ask MRSC

This column contains summaries of recent inquiries answered by MRSC consultants.

Allowable Water Pressure - What is the minimum allowable water pressure?

According to WAC 246-290-420 (4), water pressure at the customer's service meter, or property line if a meter is not used, shall be maintained at no less than 20 pounds per square inch (psi) under MID conditions.

MID refers to "maximum instantaneous demand" which means the "maximum rate of water use, excluding fire flow, experienced or expected within a defined service area at any instant in time," per WAC 246-290-010.

Bill Delinquency - When determining bill delinquency, does a city use the post office cancellation date or the date payment was actually received?

RCW 1.12.070 provides that any payment to any political subdivision, which would include cities, by means of the U.S. Mail, shall be deemed filed and received by the receiving agency as of the date shown by the Post Office cancellation mark.

Also, this statute provides that if the date provided for filing a report, claim, tax return or remittance falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, then the filing will be considered timely if performed on the next business day.

Board Member Abstention - May a member of a board abstain even if the person has no specific conflict on the issue?

Yes, unless a local rule of procedure prevents the abstention. Generally, a member of a board is not required to vote and may choose to abstain, even if there is not a conflict. Because this causes some problems, some boards have enacted bylaws that require a member to vote unless there is a specific conflict.

Councilmanic Debt - Do property owners in an annexed area have to assume councilmanic debt?

Everyone in the annexed area, not just property owners, bears the burden of this councilmanic debt. Councilmanic debt is not a debt backed by voted property taxes. It is backed by the revenues of the general fund, some of which are property taxes, some of which are not. If this area is annexed, all the citizens will share this debt burden in the sense that the general fund revenues that pay the debt service cannot be used for other city services. In contrast, if there is voted debt outstanding, the legislative body may require an assumption of part or all of that debt as a condition of annexation. That question is voted on by the voters in the area to be annexed.

Councilmanic Vote - Does the mayor pro tem retain his/her councilmanic vote in a third class city when serving as mayor pro tem?

Yes. RCW 35.24.200 provides in part, "the appointment of a councilman as mayor pro tempore or clerk pro tempore shall not in any way abridge his right to vote upon all questions coming before the council."

Incompatibility of Office - May a councilmember also serve as a reserve police officer?

Under 1993 legislation that is now in effect, a councilmember may also serve as a reserve police officer if authorized by a two-thirds vote of the council.

Interest on Unpaid Public Contracts - Must cities pay their public contract bills within a certain time period in order to avoid paying interest on the unpaid bill?

Yes. A statute enacted in 1992 indicates that interest is due on unpaid public contracts at a rate of one percent a month if not paid within 30 days. This applies to cities and towns for all types of contracts, including personal services, goods and services, public works, travel, etc.

Presiding at Council Meeting - Who presides at a council meeting when both the mayor and the mayor pro tem are absent?

For code cities, RCW 35A.12.110 specifically provides that a councilmember selected by a majority of the council at the meeting would preside in the absence of both the mayor and mayor pro tem. For other classes of cities, there is no statute that governs. It would be up to the council to decide this issue. The logical approach would be to follow the same procedure mandated by statute for code cities.

Registration of Contractors - How should a city verify the registration of contractors in accordance with Ch. 18.27 RCW?

Beginning July 25, 1993, all cities are required to verify the registration of the general contractor or specialty contractor listed on a permit application. The Act, as amended, states that "verification" means "the receipt and duplication by the city, town, or county of a contractor registration card that is current on its face."

In addition to making a copy of the license, the city is also required to print the contractor registration number on the building permit. The city must also provide a written notice to the building permit applicant informing them of the contractor registration laws, and the potential risk and monetary liability to the homeowner for using an unregistered contractor. The Washington Association of Building Officials has prepared such a statement based upon suggested language from L & I. The Washington Association of Building Officials can be reached at (206) 586-6725.

Registration of Contractors - What is a city's responsibility if a permit applicant insists that no contractor will be used on the project?

L & I advises that a city should file a statement, signed by the applicant, which states that no contractor who is required by law to be registered will be performing any work on the project.

Sewer/Water Service Extension - Is the city required to pay for the cost of extending sewer or water service within the city?

The city is not required to extend sewer or water service to all properties within the city at city expense. Most cities enter into latecomer agreements with the developer which include payback agreements for those who initially constructed the sewer or water service extension.

Taxation of Federal Agencies - May a city levy a utility tax on a federal agency?

The general rule is that the federal government and its agencies are exempt from any local taxation unless it consents to be subject to the tax.

Utility Accounting - Can utility accounting be done on a cash basis if revenues are over $500,000 a year?

Yes, as long as they are less than $2 million a year. Until recently, all utilities with revenues over $500,000 per year were considered to be "classified" entities and they needed to do their accounting using a double-entry bookkeeping system. Now that limit has been raised to $2 million. (BARS, Vol.1, Part 1, Section 0, page 5). Any utilities with revenues less than $2 million are considered to be "unclassified" and may keep their books using single-entry accounting.

Zoning for Amateur Radio Facilities - May local zoning regulations cover amateur radio facilities?

The Federal Communications Commission has adopted rules which impose a limited federal preemption on local zoning regulations affecting amateur radio antennas (97.15(e) CFR).

Basically, under the FCC rules, it appears that cities may not adopt local zoning regulations which would have the effect of precluding amateur radio communications. Local regulations must reflect an effort to reasonably accommodate amateur radio facilities and must constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate regulatory purpose.

New Ordinances Received by MRSC

The Center's library prepares a monthly list of recently enacted ordinances received from cities and towns. For a copy of ordinances listed here or the complete list, call the MRSC Library at (206) 827-4334.

City Hall Council Chambers and Lobby - Use Regulations—Port Angeles Ordinance No. 2769 establishes a permitting process for use of city hall council chambers and lobby area, establishing permitted activities, designating the Director of Parks and Recreation as the official to issue permits; adds ch. 12.10 to municipal code. (PP 3.7000).

Community Center Use Regulations—Port Angeles Ordinance No. 2770 amends provisions relating to the use of the Ver Burton Memorial Community Center. Passed 7-93. (PP 6.2000).

Comprehensive Plan - Downtown Neighborhood Element—Des Moines Ordinance No. 1042 adopts the downtown neighborhood element of the Greater Des Moines Comprehensive Plan. Passed 6-93. (PL 6.4000 D44) UTILITIES ELEMENT - Tumwater Resolution No. 477 amends Tumwater's comprehensive plan by adding a new section, the utilities element. Passed 5-93. (PL 6.3200)

Executive Secretary to Mayor—Edmonds Ordinance No. 2937 provides that the position of executive secretary serves at the pleasure of the mayor; salary is set by the annual salary ordinance; terms and conditions of employment as well as job duties are set forth in job description developed by mayor with concurrence of city council. Passed 6-1-93. (PL 11.3000)

Home Occupation—Algona Ordinance No. 726 and Ordinance No. 727 removes home occupations from the conditional use permit and creates a new chapter dealing with home occupation permits. Passed 5-93. (PL 8.3153)

Human Services Commission—North Bend Ordinance No. 913 establishes a human services commission; creates ch. 2.25 of municipal code. Passed 3-93. (H 5.1000)

Impact Fees - Schools—Tumwater Ordinance No. 1357 authorizes the collection of impact fees for schools for that portion of the city that is served by the Olympia School District; amends ch. 3.50 of municipal code. Passed 6-93. (PL 7.4300)

Lots - Nonconforming—Edmonds Ordinance No. 2936 provides for the development of substandard lots in a manner consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in situations where there are no negative impacts to the neighbors or the general public; provides for the ability to accept additional density under the city's mandate under GMA. Passed 6-93. (PL 8.2400)

Panhandling—Kirkland Ordinance No. 5373 prohibits pedestrian interference in public places. Passed 6/93. (PS 7.4270)

Public Records Inspection—Deer Park Ordinance No. 1993-631, Policy 1993013, and implements procedures for the inspection of public records. Passed 5-93. (G 5.9500)

Pullman Ordinance No. 93-10 adds a new chapter 1.105 entitled Public Records. Passed 5-93. (G 5.9500)

Public Records Retention—Deer Park Resolution 1993-006 adopts policies for retention and destruction of general city records. Passed 4-93. (G 9.4000)

Transit Supportive Business Zoning—Lynnwood Ordinance No. 1947 provides for a new land use designation, mixed use/transit supportive/business zone; creates ch. 20.37 of Lynnwood code. Passed 3-93. (PL 5.2500)

Public Right-of-Way - Area Use Permit—Mill Creek Ordinance No. 93-302 amends ch. 12.08 of municipal code relating to the public area use permit system; expands the regulation of public area activities. Passed 4-93. (S 5.0500). DISTURBANCE- Monroe Ordinance

No. 1014 provides a new chapter of the municipal code entitled, Public Right-of-Way Disturbance and Restoration. Passed 6-93. (S 5.0300). TEMPORARY USE - Kirkland Ordinance No. 3370 relates to the temporary use of public rights of way and other city owned property by non-profit groups for special events, reducing the filing fee for certain temporary special event permits. Passed 6-93. (S 5.0300)

Taxpayer Information—North Bend Ordinance No. 898 relates to confidentiality of taxpayer information; amends section 5.04.200 of North Bend municipal code. Passed 9-92. (F 5.1000)

Transient Rental - Dwellings—Ocean Shores Ordinance No. 555 deletes the authorization of conditional use permits for transient rental of housing; provides a five year phase out for hardship cases. Brought by initiative petition before voters at special election May 18, 1993. Passed 5-93. (LR 46.0000)

Voluntary Contributions - Park Improvements—Walla Walla Ordinance No. 93-A-23 establishes a system where by individual's may contribute monies for needed improvements in the parks and recreation department; provides procedure for contributions to be made with payment of utility bills. Passed 7-93. (F 5.7300)

Whistleblower—North Bend Ordinance No. 921 adds chapter 2.80 to municipal code regarding the reporting of improper governmental action and protecting employees from retaliatory action. Passed 5-93. (PE 6.2100)

From the Library...

Accidents Will Happen: A Small Town Guide to Planning for Hazardous Materials Response from the National Association of Towns and Townships and the National Center for Hazard Communication {video and 2 guidebooks} (video running time approx. 14 min.) [PS 1.4400 A155 1990]

Conference Center Planning and Design: A Guide for Architects, Designers, Meeting Planners, and Facility Managers by Richard H. Penner. [PP 6.2500 C649 1991]

Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems by Stephen Woodley, James Kay, and George Francis. [EN 0.0009 E235 1993]

Ecological Risk Assessment by Glenn W. Suter II [EN 0.0009 E242 1993] City Distress, Metropolitan Disparities and Economic Growth (combined revised edition) by Larry Ledebur and William R. Barnes. A Research Report of the National League of Cities. [F 1.5000 C551 1992]

Ethical Insight, Ethical Action: Perspectives for the Local Government Manager edited by Elizabeth K. Kellar. (ICMA Practical Management Series) [PE 6.2000 E855 1988]

Kerr's Cost Data for Landscape Construction, 1993: Unit Prices for Site Development. 13th ed. [PL 10.1200 K455 1993]

Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations by Kotler, Haider, and Rein [ED 4.3000 M35 1993]

Meeting Business Attraction, Business Retention, and Industrial Development Goals: Tools that Work by Taylor and Ash (ICMA Special Data Issue) [ED 5.0000 M455 1990]

Preserving Communities and Corridors by the Defenders of Wildlife. [LR 97.0000 P749 1989]

Proposal Planning & Writing by Miner and Griffith. [F 5.3110 P755 1993]

Strategic Planning in Local Government: A Casebook edited by Roger L. Kemp (APA book) [G 9.2150 S857 1992]

Successful Public Meetings: A Practical Guide for Managers in Government by Elaine Cogan. [PR 2.3000 S855 1992]

The Older Worker: Effective Strategies for Management and Human Resource Development by Noreen Hale. [PE 8.0000 O455 1990]

Working on the Dream {video} presented by The National Association of Counties in cooperation with Intermountain Health Care, Inc. (running time 15 min.) [H 0.0009 W655 1991 VID]

MRSC Welcomes New Legal Consultant

James A. Doherty joined MRSC in July as a new legal consultant. He has a BA degree from Wheeling Jesuit College, an MA degree from St. John’s College in Santa Fe, and his JD degree from Northwestern School of Law, Portland. In addition to clerking in two Oregon city attorney offices, Jim has been assistant city attorney for two Washington cities. His fifteen year legal career also includes stints as a public defender, prosecutor, legislative counsel and assistant attorney general. The latter two positions were with the Government of American Samoa, in the South Pacific. Jim lives in Seattle with his wife, Judy, and two young sons, Ben and Alex.