Ask MRSC Archives

WAC 296-126-040 requires a pay stub to be furnished on payday, and subsection (3) says (with emphasis added):

The pay statement may be furnished or made available electronically provided each employee has access to receive and copy it on the payday. If an employee cannot receive an electronic pay statement at work or at home on the established payday, the employer must provide a written pay statement to the employee on the payday.

We recommend that agencies check any collective bargaining agreements that may include provisions affecting this issue, as well.

There is no state law requirement to advertise port property available to lease. Your port should follow its local policies and procedures for finding and securing a reliable tenant and for determining the terms of the lease including a fair market rate for the property. The authority to lease port property is found in RCW 53.08.080:

A district may lease all lands, wharves, docks and real and personal property owned and controlled by it, for such purposes and upon such terms as the port commission deems proper: PROVIDED, That no lease shall be for a period longer than fifty years with option for extensions for up to an additional thirty years, except where the property involved is or is to be devoted to airport purposes the port commission may lease said property for such period as may equal the estimated useful life of such work or facilities, but not to exceed seventy-five years: PROVIDED FURTHER, That where the property is held by the district under lease from the United States government or the state of Washington, or any agency or department thereof, the port commission may sublease said property, with option for extensions, up to the total term and extensions thereof permitted by such lease, but in any event not to exceed ninety years.

This statute allows port property leases with duration up to fifty years with options for extensions and a different period for property with airport property. RCW 53.08.085 requires a port’s tenant for a lease of more than one year to provide insurance, a bond, or other security. The port district statutes do not have provisions about advertising or how to otherwise find a tenant for a lease of port property.

Generally, local governments are allowed to go back six years for underbilling. RCW 4.16.040(2) provides for a six-year statute of limitations for an account receivable, which is defined as “any obligation for payment incurred in the ordinary course of the claimant's business or profession, whether arising from one or more transactions and whether or not earned by performance.” MRSC published a blog post in 2021 covering this topic, A Quick Guide to Utility Account Overcharges, Undercharges, and the Statute of Limitations, which you may find helpful.

As stated on our Collection Practices for Delinquent Utility Accounts page, utilities may set up payment plans with customers, but they must charge a reasonable rate of interest. We recommend working with the customer to determine a reasonable schedule to repay the delinquency. You may also have a local policy that covers repayment plans. If so, that policy should be followed.

Many cities include provisions in their codes that establish a framework for the use of park facilities and community centers. These provisions generally include information about the authority to impose fees and basic rules for the use of facilities. However, the more detailed procedures and guidelines for the reservation system are typically handled through administrative policies. Administrative policies may include information on the reservation process, availability, fee schedule, and cancelation policy.

Here are a few code examples:

• Bothell Municipal Code Ch. 3.40
• Grandview Municipal Code Ch. 2.75
• Kettle Falls Municipal Code Ch. 12.16 – See Sec.12.16.020 (Reservation for Park Use), and Sec.12.16.025 (Rental Policy for Community Room and Kitchen).

Here are a couple of administrative policy examples:

• Bellevue Parks & Community Services Facility Rental Guidelines (2020)
• Yelm Community Center Rental Policies (2017)

You can find more examples on MRSC's Public Facility Rental and Use page, through a Google search of the General Code site (formerly Code Publishing) (e.g., see search results) and/or through our city website search tool (e.g., see search results).

MRSC’s position is that members of a governing body can vote to approve minutes even if they did not attend the meeting for which they are approving minutes. There is no law that prohibits members from voting to approve minutes for a meeting they did not attend.

While it may seem irregular for members to vote on something of which they have no knowledge, we think, as a practical matter, that members who did not attend the meeting would defer to those who did and vote along with them (whether to approve or to amend the minutes). Of course, if members do not feel comfortable voting to approve minutes for a meeting they did not attend, then those members may certainly abstain from voting.

Robert’s Rules of Order (Section 41, page 355) recognizes the right of absent members to vote on minutes: “It should be noted that a member’s absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval.”

We don’t think a public agency is prohibited from offering a candidate for employment a higher compensation than was advertised in a job posting; however, an agency should be able to justify why higher pay was offered than what was advertised.

There is a requirement to describe compensation and benefits in job postings in the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). Specifically, in RCW 49.58.110, effective January 1, 2023, all employers with 15 or more employees are required to disclose in their recruitment advertisements the wage scale or salary range for each job opening. As set forth in the Department of Labor and Industries policy interpreting this requirement (Administrative Policy ES.E.1), “wage scale or salary range” means both the minimum and maximum compensation the employer reasonably and genuinely expects to pay.

Generally, as long as employers include in their recruitment posting and advertisements the compensation range they “reasonably and genuinely expect to pay,” then there would be room to ultimately pay a different amount, if needed based on nondiscriminatory reasons for a particular candidate. We suggest working with your district’s legal counsel to document the basis or bases for deviating from the expected wage/salary range that was published in your advertisement. You may also want to review the compensation currently being provided to other employees in the same or similar positions in order to ensure pay equity in the workplace.

For more information, here is a link to MRSC’s 2023 blog New Legal Requirements for Job Postings. As summarized in this blog:

The legislative intent in first enacting and then amending the EPOA includes taking steps towards gender equality by requiring employers to provide compensation and benefits information to applicants and employees and by prohibiting employers from seeking the wage or salary history of an applicant for employment in certain circumstances.

Finally, your agency may have a local policy about only offering compensation within the advertised pay scale. If so, the agency should follow that policy. Likewise, if the position is subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or civil service there may be provisions there that apply.

RCW 42.56.520 requires that the initial response occur “within five business days of receiving a public records request.” MRSC advises that any requests that come in during non-business hours are not “received” until the start of the next business day (which would then trigger the five-day clock). We recommend articulating this in the locally adopted PRA policies so a potential requestor is clear about how after-hours requests will be treated. See the Attorney General Model Rule WAC 44-14-03006, regarding form of requests.

To our knowledge, de-annexation has rarely, if ever, been formally initiated in any Washington city. Looking at  our Local Ballot Measure Database that goes back to 2011, it does not appear any city has tried to reduce its boundaries since that date. Even so, MRSC gets occasional questions on de-annexation indicating that at least some cities have considered it. There is little specific guidance such as a court case or attorney general  opinion or even past experience on any issue related to de-annexation procedures. 

Nevertheless, we think that de-annexing the land would need to follow the procedure for reducing a city boundary at Chapter 35.16 RCW. The process may be initiated either by a petition signed by at least 10% of the voters voting at the last general municipal election or by resolution of the city legislative body. Regardless of how  the process is initiated, an election must be held on the issue, and proper notice must be given. Both those living within the area to be de-annexed and all other city residents are to vote on the de-annexation. Approval of three-fifths of the votes cast is required to authorize de-annexation. The legislative body would then adopt an ordinance defining and fixing the city's revised corporate limits.  

A "reduction of city or town limits" (de-annexation) is exempt from a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review (RCW 43.21C.227). The action to reduce city limits may be subject to potential review by a boundary review board (BRB).  

If this involves moving territory from one city to another city, then the process in RCW 35.10.217 for annexation of an area from one city to another would be followed. 

Chapter 70A.145 RCW, related to fire suppression facilities, does not specify who is responsible for hydrant maintenance. RCW 70A.145.040 says a city, town, or county may contract with purveyors for fire suppression facilities, services, or both. This can be in the form of a franchise agreement, an interlocal agreement, or an agreement under other contracting authority. RCW 70A.145.030 allows the water purveyor to pass the cost of fire suppression facilities and services to its customers.

One statute that agencies should consider is the “local government accountancy” Act (RCW 43.09.210) which requires that local governments receive the “true and full value” for all property and services transferred from one department or public entity to another. What is “true and full value” is determined by the legislative body.

Here are two examples of franchise agreements that address fire hydrant maintenance:

• Highline Water District/Normandy Park Water System Franchise (2017) – Hydrants are included as something the district is required to maintain.
• Shoreline/Seattle Public Utilities Public Water System Franchise (2017) – Hydrants are included.

There are no term limits set forth in state law for local elected officials such as mayors, councilmembers, and county commissioners. There are nevertheless some local governments that have adopted ordinances providing term limits for these elected officials. Note, however, that not all local governments have authority to impose term limits. A 1991 opinion of the Attorney General,  AGO 1991 No. 22, concluded that charter counties, charter cities, and non-charter code cities have authority to adopt term limits, whereas towns, second class cities, and non-charter counties do not. Charter counties, charter cities, and non-charter code cities have “home rule authority” which means they have broader legislative powers in matters of local concern than towns, second-class cities, and non-charter counties (for more information on “home rule,” see the Seattle University Law Review article, “Home Rule” vs. “Dillon’s Rule” for Washington Cities).

MRSC does not have a comprehensive list of all the local governments in Washington State that have adopted term limits, but here are some examples: 

• Edgewood Municipal Code Sec. 2.10.015 – See term limits for mayor.
• Port Angeles Municipal Code Sec. 2.02.010 – See term limits for city council. The city has term limits for other boards, commissions, and committees, including the Public Safety Advisory Board (see Sec. 2.26.030) and Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (see Sec. 2.70.030).
• Spokane City Charter Article II – See Section 6 on qualifications for elected officials.
• Tacoma City Charter – See Article II, The Legislative Branch. Section 2.1 includes terms for city council, Section 2.3 includes terms for citizen commission on elected salaries, Section 2.4 includes terms for the mayor, Section 3.8 includes terms for planning commission, with additional terms listed in other sections.

Additional examples can be found through a Code Publishing site Google search, including examples of terms for various boards, commissions, and committees in Friday Harbor, Lacy, Lake Forest Park, Oak Harbor, Olympia, Puyallup, Rainier, Sammamish, Sequim, Westport, and Yakima. An additional example from Woodland can be found through a Municode site Google search.

Term limits imposed on state-wide elective offices by initiative were found unconstitutional in Gerberding v. Munro (1998).

We don’t think it would meet the statutory requirements for a special meeting notice to simply include a QR code that links to the business to be transacted. Certainly, a QR code could be included on the notice that links to the agenda and additional information, but the notice itself would need to include all the required information set forth for the special meeting notice at RCW 42.30.080. Specifically, the notice “shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.”

The “business to be transacted” does not necessarily need to be a full agenda but should identify the general business intended to be addressed at the meeting. And no final disposition may be taken on any matter not identified on the notice.

Keep in mind that not everyone has smart phones or the technological understanding of QR codes to utilize them. So, excluding required information from the posted notice could result in a lack of access for some.

Here is a blog post that may be helpful: Special Meetings: Answering Some Frequently Asked Questions (2024).

Yes, a jurisdiction may appoint a youth advisor on a planning commission. Chapter 35.63 RCW (applicable to first- and second-class cities and towns) does not place many restrictions on who may serve on a planning commission (not even residency, age, or citizenship). For code cities, RCW 35A.63.020 provides, in relevant part:

By ordinance a code city may create a planning agency and provide for its membership, organization, and expenses. The planning agency shall serve in an advisory capacity to the chief administrative officer or the legislative body, or both, as may be provided by ordinance and shall have such other powers and duties as shall be provided by ordinance...

Below are a few cities that designate a spot on their planning commissions for youth or student representatives:

• Auburn Municipal Code Sec. 2.45.010(B) – Establishes an ex officio “youth representative” position on their planning commission.
• Edmonds Municipal Code Ch. 10.03 – Allows a student representative (high school or college student) on any board or commission.
• Pacific Municipal Code Sec 2.36.030 – One planning commission position is reserved for a 16- to 21-year-old, with a one-year term.

MRSC’s Youth Participation in Local Government page includes examples of youth on other boards and commissions. Also see our Planning Commissions page, which includes Examples of Planning Commissions if you’d like to review how other jurisdictions have constituted their commissions.

Requiring a longer notice of rent increase than the statutory minimum of 60 days set forth at RCW 59.18.140 is not preempted by state law. Some jurisdictions require longer written notice of rent increase than the statutory 60 days notice period (see examples listed below). Advance notice of rent increase is not considered a control over the amount of rent charged as described in RCW 35.21.830. Legislative attempts to preempt local rent increase notice periods have not been successful. For example, see HB 1460 Bill Report (2019).

Examples of Codes:

• Seattle Municipal Code Sec. 7.24.030 – The Seattle minimum is currently 180 days.
• Auburn Municipal Code Sec. 5.23 .040 – Auburn requires 120 days for increases that are more than 5%, less than that is in accordance with state law.

There are government entities in Washington that have offered employees early retirement incentives. An agency should have a policy in place that describes the early retirement program such as who qualifies, how the financial incentive is calculated, and any restrictions or limitations on when the early retirement incentive can occur. The policy should also discuss how the program equates to cost savings over time. Agencies should also document how the retirement incentive is reasonable. An excessive incentive would likely be considered a gift of public funds.

Here are some example programs from governments in Washington:

• Everett Separation Incentive Program (2018) – Proposed program included in city council agenda.
• King County Voluntary Separation Program (2021)
• Washington State Voluntary Separation and Retirement Incentive Program (2019)

We would recommend working with your agency attorney if your agency wants to develop its own early retirement incentive program.

There is no state law that dictates how jobs must be posted or for how long. There may be a local policy regarding job postings. If so, that policy should be followed. Similarly, if there are positions that are covered under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), then that agreement should be consulted. But in general, the agency can remove the posts when they are no longer needed. For more information, see our Hiring Procedures page which includes a section on Advertising and Recruitment.

The only comprehensive anti-fraud policies we found are from other states:

• Fernley, NV: Fraud Policy (2017)
• Gainesville, FL: Fraud Risk Management Policy (2021)
• Lakeland, TN: Anti-Fraud Policy (2008)
• Phoenix, AZ: Fraud Prevention and Reporting Policy (2015)
• St. Helena, CA: Fraud Prevention and Detection Policy (2018)

Below are some Washington State resources:

• Washington State Auditor’s Office (SAO): Fraud Program – Including these pages, Preventing Fraud and #BeCyberSmart
• Washington Technology Solutions (WaTech): Cybersecurity Resources – See also Training and Events

There are also anti-fraud policies found within policies covering specific activities/uses (e.g., personnel policies, credit card use policies, cybersecurity policies, etc.). Below are some resources related to these policies.

MRSC resources:

• Being Cyber Aware in the Age of COVID-19 (2020)
• Big Cybersecurity for Small Jurisdictions (2017)
• Credit Card Use Policies
• Cybercrime: A Hard Lesson (2021)
• Cyber Plans: What to Do If Your System Is Attacked (2019)
• Cyber Response and Insurance (2019)
• Cybersecurity Resources for Local Governments
• Electronic Vendor Fraud: How to Protect your Agency from the Latest Cybercrimes (2019)
• MRSC and WA State Auditor: Information Security Assessment Tool
• Internal Controls for Utility Finances

The below personnel policy manuals from MRSC’s Personnel Policy Manuals page include references to fraud:

• East Wenatchee Personnel Manual and Procedures (2022) – See 102.4.8, 200.6, and 203.1, which reference various types of fraud.
• Ellensburg Personnel Policies Manual (2023) – See section regarding disciplinary action for fraud on page 22. Section 10.1 also references fraud.
• Issaquah Personnel Policies (2022) – Page 21 of the PDF notes that “Procedures for submitting fraud, waste, abuse, and whistleblower complaints are generally accessible on the agency Office of the Inspector General Hotline or Whistleblower internet sites.”
• Kitsap County Personnel Manual – References fraud on pages 18 and 61.
• Port Orchard Personnel Policies Manual (2023) – See 3.1, which references fraud.
• Sequim Personnel Policy Manual (2022) – Page 48 references fraud protection.
• Sunnyside Personnel Policies (2022) – Fraud is referenced in 1.14. The GAO Fraud Hotline and Dept. of Veterans Affairs Fraud/Waste/Abuse Hotline are also included.

And below are a few related articles:

• International City Managers Association (ICMA)
  • Fraud and Embezzlement in Local Government (2022)
  • It Can Happen Here: No Local Government Is Safe from Fraud (2023)
• Workable: Anti-fraud and anti-corruption policy template

No, state law does not require cities to maintain a historic preservation commission. These commissions are formed by local ordinance and are at a city’s option. From our page on Historic Preservation:

Local Historic Preservation

Local historic designations and districts offer the most robust protections. They can effectively limit alterations or demolition of properties and add additional review to permitting to ensure historic character is preserved.

Many Washington jurisdictions have code provisions establishing local historic designations and register programs. These provisions create a process for nominating landmarks and criteria for evaluating historic significance. Ordinances may also place limits on alteration and demolition of historic landmarks or make permits subject to approval by the preservation board or commission.

In addition to designating an individual historic building, local governments often establish historic districts to preserve the unique character of an entire area. Designation of historic districts may have nomination processes similar to those for local landmarks but often result in new zoning designations or overlay district that implements stricter permitting and review processes to protect historic elements.

Local historic preservation efforts are typically spearheaded by a historic preservation commission or board, either with or without staff assistance. The commission and its responsibilities are established by local ordinance. This often-appointed group is comprised of architects, historians, real estate professionals, and residents with an interest in historic preservation. The commission is typically responsible for reviewing applications for historic landmark status and permits for the alteration of historic properties.

The public records log is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA). RCW 40.14.026(4) provides (with emphasis added):

Each agency shall maintain a log of public records requests submitted to and processed by the agency, which shall include but not be limited to the following information for each request: The identity of the requestor if provided by the requestor, the date the request was received, the text of the original request, a description of the records produced in response to the request, a description of the records redacted or withheld and the reasons therefor, and the date of the final disposition of the request. The log must be retained by the agency in accordance with the relevant record retention schedule established under this chapter, and shall be a public record subject to disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW.

There is not an exemption that would apply that would allow an agency to redact names, emails, or phone numbers of individuals submitting requests. The requests themselves are public records subject to disclosure, along with the information voluntarily submitted by the requestor. Note that if there is credit card or other personal information such as social security numbers protected under RCW 42.56.230(5), then that information could be redacted. However, it is unlikely that information would be included in a log or records request.

Finally, an agency cannot provide a requestor a list of individuals if it is to be used for commercial purposes. An agency has a duty to investigate if it believes the requestor may be asking for a list for commercial purposes. See this Public Records Act FAQ, How should an agency proceed if it receives a request for lists of individuals?

Below are several resources and code examples:

Washington State Resources

• Data Center Knowledge: Washington State Approves More Data Center Tax Breaks (2022) – Discusses HB 1846
• Grant County Economic Development Council: Data Centers – Located in Moses Lake
• Washington State Department of Ecology: Data Centers – Includes a list of data centers regulated by Ecology (air quality permits)
• Washington Technology Industry Association (WTIA): The Outsized Impact of Data Centers in Rural Washington (2022) – Includes statistics on jobs, output, tax revenues, key considerations, and more

Washington State City Codes and Ordinances

• Airway Heights Municipal Code Ch. 12.19 – Noted as a commercial, industrial land use for the purposes of transportation impact fees
• Bridgeport Municipal Code Sec. 17.08.110 – Definition of “Server Farm” notes that it requires a large amount of power to run and keep cool. They are allowed in several zones, but in most cases cannot occupy grade level commercial street frontage.
• Entiat Municipal Code Ch. 18.52 – Data centers must be harmonious with surroundings with regard to dust, smoke, etc.
• Moses Lake Ordinance No. 2899 – Ordinance relating to cryptocurrency mining, server farm, and data center operations. Focus is on electrical consumption. Notes fire safety hazard.
• Quincy Municipal Code Ch. 20.40 – District Use Chart. Listed as a CUP in B-D and L-I zones and permitted use in G-I.
• Renton Municipal Code Sec. 4-11-040 – See “Data Center” definition, which references another code section regarding warehousing (data centers are included)
• Seattle Municipal Code Sec. 3.23.050 – Regarding agreements for data center colocation space and services
• Shoreline Municipal Code Ch. 15.05 – Construction and Building Codes. Includes data centers.
• Sumas Municipal Code Sec. 12.08.015 – Notes that server farms are considered a “high density load”
• Warden
  • Municipal Code Sec. 17.06.010 – See definition of “Data Center, Server Farm and Clusters,” which includes this as a “high energy use intensity”
  • Municipal Code Sec. 17.40.030 – Server farms are allowed in industrial zones, subject to these standards (per table 1 footnote):

    a. The use of cargo containers, railroad cars, semi-truck trailers, and other similar storage containers for any component of the operation is strictly prohibited.

    b. Written verification prior to building permit issuance from Grant County Public Utility District (PUD) that the proposed development meets the PUD requirements.

    c. Written verification, prior to occupancy permit, of passed final inspection of the electrical permit from Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.

• Wenatchee Municipal Code Sec. 10.48.310 – Includes standards for cryptocurrency mining and data centers

MRSC Resource

• Bitcoin Comes to Washington (2018) – This article focuses on electricity consumption and PUDs.

Additional Resources

• Data Center Dynamics (DCD): City of Santa Clara to study impact of data center discharge on sewage system (2020)
• Dgtl Infra: Data Center Water Usage - A Comprehensive Guide (2024) – A comprehensive analysis of data center water usage
• IOPScience: The environmental footprint of data centers in the United States (2021) – Technical, but includes some good information, including the water footprint of data centers
• The Salt Lake Tribune: Yes, data centers use a lot of water. But a Utah company shows it doesn’t have to be that way (2022) – Uses closed, recirculating pipes with refrigerant to cool its servers. The article states that construction of the site helped fund a culinary water tank, which helps the city during peak demand periods. The spent water that the site discharges irrigates the park and city hall and a nearby subdivision. Facebook offsets its water impacts.
• The Washington Post: A new front in the water wars - Your internet use (2023) – Data centers rank among the top 10 water-consuming commercial industries in the United States. In The Dalles, Google disclosed that its data centers consume more than 25% of the town’s supply. Efficiency has improved.
• Water Footprint Calculator: Data Center Water Usage: Tackling Challenges Amid Historic Droughts, Wildfires (2022) – Notes that “The water use is primarily dedicated to dissipating heat produced by server farms that house data centers. According to one industry analyst, a 15-megawatt data center can use up to 360,000 gallons of water a day.” Discusses direct (to cool servers) and indirect (power plants that use water for cooling needs) water usage.

How an agency receives and maintains records received at a public meeting will be largely a matter of local policy. However, here is some guidance to consider.

From a records retention perspective, an agency only needs to keep one “record” copy of the documents for retention purposes. While the meeting minutes should reflect that records were received, copies of the records do not need to be attached to the official minutes. Since many agencies post their minutes online, not automatically including attachments keeps the minutes smaller and gives the agency the option to not “re-publish” material that may or may not be relevant to agency business just because someone handed it out.

Further, if an agency chooses to include them as part of the minutes, the retention requirements applicable to minutes would apply. If not attached to the minutes, then the agency would look to the individual record to determine the applicable retention period.