Ask MRSC Archives

Yes, as long as they adopt clear criteria for the requirement and impose it consistently.

RCW 35.90.080(2) requires cities to include these mandatory statewide model business ordinance provisions in their local business codes:

1. A uniform definition of “engaging in business within the city;” and
2. A uniform licensing exemption threshold.

Beyond those mandatory provisions cities are free to adopt any otherwise lawful business licensing criteria which could include a business insurance requirement. See, e.g. RCW 35A.82.020 regarding a code city’s general licensing authority.

However, cities must establish clear criteria to apply such a requirement and enforce it consistently to reduce legal challenges or claims of discriminatory treatment from business license applicants. This can be practically challenging since deciding whether to buy insurance and the type and amounts of insurance to buy can vary significantly depending on the size, type and activities of an individual business.

It is accordingly important for cities to review any such proposed requirement with their city attorney to ensure that it is lawful and can be clearly and evenly applied. MRSC’s City Business Licenses and Fees page has additional general city business licensing information that may also be helpful.

In most cases no, but the precise answer depends on the authority for the union’s request.

The PRA (Ch. 42.56 RCW) applies if an agency has “fair notice” that a requestor seeks records under PRA authority. Courts judge fair notice by looking at the request’s language and the nature of the records the requestor seeks. See Germeau v. Mason County (2012). It is possible for labor unions to seek records under the PRA, but unions most often request city records and information under the authority of the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act (PEBCA, Ch. 41.56 RCW).

Requests under the PECBA are regulated by different standards than those in the PRA. The PECBA entitles unions to relevant city information as needed to carry out their collective bargaining responsibilities on behalf of covered city employees. See City of Bellevue v. International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1604 (1992). Union requests for information under the PECBA must reasonably put the agency on notice of a relevant purpose for the request. Requested information is presumed relevant if it relates to an employee in a bargaining unit and a union could use it to “sort out meritorious from frivolous grievances.” See Washington Public Employees Association v. Washington State Patrol (2004).

The answer depends more on the subcommittee’s authority and activities than on its “advisory” label.

The OPMA (Ch. 42.30 RCW) applies to agency “governing bodies,” which can include "any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment."

Truly advisory committees that only conduct internal discussions and advise governing bodies are not subject to the OPMA. See Citizens Alliance v. San Juan County (2015). But even subcommittees that are labeled “advisory” can act on a governing body’s behalf by exercising the body’s actual or de facto decision-making authority. This can happen when a governing body gives its decision-making authority to an advisory committee, or when a governing body routinely approves an advisory committee’s recommendations without discussion.

Identifying a subcommittee’s roles and responsibilities by reviewing its formation documents (such as bylaws or other policies or procedures) can also be an important step to determine whether the OPMA applies to it. The city attorney should ultimately review this documentation to determine if it qualifies as a city council committee subject to the OPMA.

For more information in the context of “meet and greets” specifically, see this relevant webpage, Advisory Boards and Commissions, and the blog post, Legal Requirements for Hosting Government Open Houses or Coffee Chats (2025).

If your agency is not named as a party to the litigation or hearing and the officer is only called as a fact witness in the proceedings, the subpoena probably falls under the Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE), GS2011-172, Compulsory Process Served on the Agency (Not a Party to Litigation), which requires retention “until no longer needed for agency business.”

In that case you would want to keep the subpoena until it has been satisfied (for example, by attending the hearing as required) or until it has been quashed (cancelled) by the hearing officer or withdrawn by the issuer. Holding on to the subpoena until evidence of its satisfaction is received (such as a record of the required court appearance) is a good practice.

If your agency is a party to the litigation or hearing, then another retention period in Chapter 1.10, Legal Affairs, of the CORE would likely apply.

Note also that there may be other agency reasons to keep the subpoena after the hearing, such as a part of the officer’s personnel records, performance reviews, or recognition of court appearances. But those reasons could probably be documented without retaining the document itself, and that is ultimately an agency’s determination to make.

Whether the contract is procurement only or also public works depends on the nature of the installation work. If the installation requires the installing provider to pull cables in walls, custom fit cabinets, and other alterations to your location, then it probably becomes a public work with prevailing wages. As a public works project, you would include both equipment and installation costs as a total package for the estimated project cost to determine the applicable competitive requirements for the project. Since the contract estimate falls below $350,000, RCW 39.04.152(1)(a)(i) allows awarding the contract through a small works roster.

This scenario is legally possible generally but there are a couple of issues to consider.

First, if the city’s councilmember is elected as its mayor, they may need to determine whether their continued employment with the other city will create conflicts of interest in their mayor role (such as when entering into an agreement with the other city). The mayor would need to address conflict situations case-by-case in consultation with the city attorney. See MRSC’s page on Ethics and Conflicts of Interest.

Second, if the councilmember’s other city employment is a “public office” it may be legally incompatible with the office of mayor, precluding the councilmember from holding both positions simultaneously. See our webpage on Incompatible Offices to see what is considered a public office, and when holding two simultaneously is considered incompatible.

Probably not. The OPMA’s open public meeting requirements apply to governing body meetings involving action. RCW 42.30.020(3) broadly defines “action” as transacting official agency business, and it includes things like governing body “considerations,” “discussions,” and “reviews.” Required OPMA training is within the agency’s official business, and it arguably involves governing body members considering, discussing and reviewing the training information and materials they receive.

The Citizens Alliance (2015) case holds that governing bodies do not violate the OPMA by passively receiving information. But members of a governing body are perhaps unlikely to stay completely silent during required OPMA training with no questions, discussions, etc. (and in any event doing so may further defeat the training’s purpose). RCW 42.30.110 also sets forth permitted executive session bases which do not include receiving general legal training.

Based on the above, OPMA training sessions attended by a governing body quorum or more should be held in public session. Alternatively, agencies can give non-public training sessions to the governing body members in sub-quorum groups or individually. RCW 42.30.205(3) allows for remote and internet-based training that might make it easier to facilitate separate training sessions.

Lavan v. Los Angeles (2012) is the principal court case in this area. It requires local agencies to give homeless persons “meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard” before discarding or destroying their unabandoned belongings on public property. The case doesn’t precisely define when property becomes “abandoned” but it declares that owners do not abandon their property by temporarily leaving it to accomplish daily tasks (like showering, eating, going to court, etc.). Garcia v. Los Angeles (2021) holds that Lavan’s notice requirements also apply to “bulky” encampment items like furniture and large appliances.

Kitcheon v. City of Seattle (2024) is another important local decision holding that local agencies can dispense with this notice requirement when homeless encampment property poses public health or safety hazards or obstructs public property.

As for how much notice is required, no case specifies a precise timeline. But the notice timelines in Yeager v. City of Seattle (2020) and Hooper v. City of Seattle (2017) survived court challenges, so they may be good examples of potential notice policies for agencies.

MRSC’s position is that local agencies can amend and extend procurement contracts by agreement at any time before the contract’s expiration date. But local agencies cannot “amend” procurement contracts after they expire, and after expiration an agency would have to start a new procurement process to renew the expired contract.

There are a few issues with extending contracts. For federally funded procurement contracts, if the original procurement was a “micro” procurement and the amendment takes it over the micro limit, 2 C.F.R. Sec. 200.324 requires the agency to do a cost or price analysis. And 2 C.F.R. Sec. 200.325(b)(5) requires agencies to make their independent cost estimates available to the federal funders on request.

No direct legal authority allows cities to “close” businesses for tax or licensing noncompliance, but some cities pivot to criminal enforcement when civil measures like fines are not effective in convincing a business to either comply or cease doing business in violation. Some examples for consideration:

• Auburn Municipal Code Sec. 1.25.035 – Allows its code enforcement officers to post “stop work orders” at properties in violation of its business and licensing codes, and makes violations of such orders a criminal misdemeanor.
• Seattle Municipal Code Sec. 6.68.010 – Imposes criminal misdemeanor penalties for violations of its business license code.
• Airway Heights Code Sec. 5.04.130 and Tacoma Municipal Code Sec. 6A.10.220 – Make it a misdemeanor to fail to pay the B&O tax in those cities.

If a city decides to explore criminal enforcement, it may be prudent to first review its underlying business license code to ensure compliance with the model ordinance requirements in chapter 35.90 RCW. Additional information about the model ordinance and general city business licensing can be found on this MRSC page: City Business Licenses and Fees. Also, if a city contracts with other agencies for police, court, and/or prosecution services, it might also be beneficial for the city to consult those agencies for input before pursuing criminal enforcement measures.

No, MRSC does not maintain a list of all current special purpose districts. Instead, on our What Is a Special Purpose District? page we have the following information:

How Many Special Purpose Districts Are There in Washington?

It can be difficult to determine the precise number of special purpose districts in the state at any given time. Unlike cities, towns, and counties which are fairly static in name and number, special purpose districts change with some frequency. New districts are formed and existing districts merge, change names, operate with DBA's ("doing business as" names), are assumed by cities/counties, become inactive, or are formally dissolved.

In addition, some sources may use different criteria, such as only counting districts that have independent governing bodies.

State Auditor's Office Data

Perhaps the best source of statewide data is the State Auditor's Office (SAO). State law requires SAO to be notified of the formation and dissolution of special purpose districts, and all local governments are required by state law to submit an annual financial report to SAO.

SAO makes recent annual financial report data available through its Financial Intelligence Tool (FIT), where users can browse by government type.

No. There is no state law requirement for a public hearing when reducing (or increasing) a city’s water utility rates for customers. There might be a local requirement for a public hearing but there is not a state law requirement. A city may also choose to hold a public hearing for such utility rate changes, even if the proposal is for a decrease and not an increase (e.g., for transparency and public input).

For solid waste utility service rate increases only, there is a 45-day notice requirement in RCW 35A.21.152(1) for city contracted or directly provided solid waste service:

(1) A city that contracts for the collection of solid waste, or provides for the collection of solid waste directly, shall notify the public of each proposed rate increase for a solid waste handling service. The notice may be mailed to each affected ratepayer or published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the collection area. The notice shall be available to affected ratepayers at least forty-five days prior to the proposed effective date of the rate increase. [Emphasis added]

Even for solid waste disposal services, there is not a public hearing requirement or any required notice of a rate decrease, just proposed rate increases.

Regarding water utility service rates, RCW 80.28.010 and the West Terrace Golf (2024) case require city water rates to be reasonable, considering the value of water service to the public and fair compensation to the city for providing the service. Although these authorities impose no specific public outreach requirements in setting water service rates, holding a public hearing before adjusting water service rates could help to establish the “reasonableness” requirement in these authorities, so holding one may be worth considering in that context.

If this involves a pending records request, we must defer to the legal advice of your town attorney. MRSC can provide general education on the topic.

If you are unsure about what specific records a requestor is seeking, we encourage agencies to make a request for clarification as allowed by RCW 42.56.520(1)(d). You can explain that you are unsure about exactly what they mean by the “town council meeting records,” but then explain what you think it means and the types of records you would provide under your own interpretation – but invite them to clarify.

We recommend that an agency put a deadline on a request for clarification, such as “If you have not responded to our request for clarification by [date], we will assume you do not want to provide clarification and as such, we will process your request as submitted.” If portions of the request are clear, an agency should respond to those portions while waiting for clarification on the unclear sections.

In this case, if you never get a clarification, you might consider producing all the types of records included in the list of the CORE records retention schedule for governing body meetings (see DAN GS50-05A-13 on page 43):

Governing/Executive/Policy-Setting Body Records

Records documenting the actions, meetings and membership of the agency’s governing body, executive management team and other policy-setting/decision-making boards, committees, commissions, councils, task forces, etc.

Also includes interagency/national/external policy-setting/decision-making bodies for which the agency acts as secretary/keeper of the official records.

Includes, but is not limited to:

• Agendas, meeting/agenda packets (briefs, reference materials, documents for approval, etc.);
• Speaker sign-up, written testimony;
• Audio/visual recordings and transcripts of proceedings;
• Minutes;
• Appointment, reappointment, and termination correspondence/communications;
• Selected images/photographs showing the committee membership at particular points in time (such as board/committee portraits, etc.) and/or significant stages of the board/committee’s life.

In general, no; however, if a position is advertised, there are state laws that govern what must be included in that advertisement. As discussed on our Hiring Procedures page (see the “Advertising and Recruitment” section):

An employer may want to first open a position to its current employees; in such an instance, it may choose to internally post the job on appropriate internal communication channels. Some collective bargaining agreements or policies require that new or vacant positions be first made available to union membership before they are advertised publicly.

Although it may be a good idea to advertise an open position publicly to help ensure the hiring of the most qualified individual, neither federal nor state law requires advertising. If the person authorized to fill a position wanted to, they could hire the first person coming through the door without any advertising. Local government regulations, however, as well as generally accepted hiring practices, may require that open positions are advertised, and if such requirements exist, they must be followed.

If a position is advertised, any employer with 15 or more employees must disclose the position's wage scale, salary range, or fixed wage amount, and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant (RCW 49.58.110). For details and examples, see the Department of Labor & Industries Administrative Policy ES.E.1 Equal Pay and Opportunities Act.

In general, job openings may not be advertised in a way that excludes people with criminal records from applying. However, the law recognizes several exceptions to this general prohibition in RCW 49.94.010, including:

• Those who will have unsupervised access to children under 18, vulnerable adults, or vulnerable persons; and
• Positions in law enforcement or criminal justice agencies.

In addition to advertising an open position, a local government may choose to actively solicit or recruit candidates. Recruitment may encourage applications from more qualified and experienced candidates who might not otherwise be aware of the position. […]

We also recommend that you discuss this matter with your agency attorney who will be in the best position to advise you further. Our guidance is general and not a substitute for the advice of legal counsel.

The public hearing requirements for a six-year update to the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) are set forth at RCW 35.77.010. There is not a minimum number of days for public hearing notice in this statute. If your local code sets forth a time frame for notice, that time frame should be followed. If local code is silent, then a reasonableness standard applies. We’ve generally recommended seven to ten days’ notice.

Sometimes state law will define how much advance notice must be given for a required public hearing. For example, in code cities, amendments to a zoning ordinance require a public hearing with published notice at least 10 days prior to the hearing. See RCW 35A.63.070 and RCW 35A.63.100. Other types of ordinances do not have a set number of days’ notice. A list of ordinances that require public hearings is available in Appendix C of MRSC’s publication Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties.

MRSC’s Transportation Planning page includes examples of local transportation plans, including transportation elements of comprehensive plans, transportation improvement plans, and transportation studies.

And MRSC’s Public Hearings page includes an overview of the legal requirements for conducting public hearings in Washington State and the basic procedures that should be followed for a proper public hearing.

We recommend that local governments adopt general notice requirements for public hearings where there is no time frame set forth in statute.

Pursuant to RCW 35.67.025, all public property shall be subject to the same rates and charges as private property. The statute specifically states:

Except as otherwise provided in RCW 90.03.525, any public entity and public property, including the state of Washington and state property, shall be subject to rates and charges for stormwater control facilities to the same extent private persons and private property are subject to such rates and charges that are imposed by cities and towns pursuant to RCW 35.67.020. In setting these rates and charges, consideration may be made of in-kind services, such as stream improvements or donation of property.” [emphasis added]

RCW 90.03.525 is an exception for the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) with respect to state highway right-of-way or any section of state highway right-of-way for the construction, operation, and maintenance of stormwater control facilities. These properties shall be 30% of the rate for comparable property. This exception does not appear to apply to other property owned by WSDOT, only highway rights-of-way.

Additionally, RCW 43.09.210(3), known as the “Accountancy Act,” requires agencies to provide true and full value for services rendered from another agency or department. It specifically states:

All service rendered by, or property transferred from, one department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, or public service industry to another, shall be paid for at its true and full value by the department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, or public service industry receiving the same, and no department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, or public service industry shall benefit in any financial manner whatever by an appropriation or fund made for the support of another.

Local governments are not allowed to benefit financially from other local governments or even other departments within one agency.

We recommend that you discuss this matter with your city attorney who will be in the best position to advise you further. Our guidance is general and not a substitute for the advice of the city’s legal counsel.

Even though it’s only advisory to the city council the task force’s taking public comment can subject it to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), but only if it is a committee of a governing body (like the city council). See RCW 42.30.020(2).

If the mayor formed the task force with no city council input or direction, and it answers only to the mayor, it is less likely a city council committee subject to the OPMA. On the other hand, the OPMA will more likely apply if the mayor formed this task force at the city council’s request or direction and/or if the council is empowered to oversee or direct the task force’s work. Having committees comply with the OPMA is the safest course in uncertain cases.

The city attorney should ultimately review this task force’s formation and work to determine whether it qualifies as a city council committee subject to the OPMA.

Public records authorities generally require agencies to allow and facilitate public inspections of their records. RCW 42.56.090 mandates that “public records shall be available for inspection and copying during the customary office hours of the agency.” WAC 44-14-040(8)(a) similarly provides: “consistent with other demands, the (name of agency) shall promptly provide space to inspect public records.” Further, WAC 44-14-04004(2) allows requestors to specify their preferred method of records access, which can include inspection. Individual requestors might seek or agree to receive records through methods other than inspection, but if they don’t the agency should have physical inspection space available.

But the authorities do not specify where that physical records inspection space must be. WAC 44-14-04005(2) says “often an agency will provide the records in a conference room or other office area,” but it doesn’t further specify a location. RCW 42.56.520(1)(b) requires agency computer access for digital records in some instances, but again it does not specify the computer’s location. A records inspection location ultimately cannot excessively interfere with essential agency functions. See WAC 44-14-04005(2).

A public space in an agency’s building will probably qualify as an allowable “other office area” for records inspections. But it should be reasonably free from distractions and interruptions to facilitate the requestor’s inspection and to reduce claims that the agency effectively denied records access by choosing an impractical or unsuitable location.

Note also that RCW 42.56.100 requires agencies to adopt rules and regulations related to processing public records requests. Since this records inspection request is a new one for the agency, this might be a good opportunity to review and enact applicable rules to address similar requests in the future.

The agency’s counsel can give a definitive opinion and advice on the legal feasibility of any specific chosen records inspection location, but we hope this general guidance helps.

Two authorities support concluding that the municipal court judge makes the hiring decision regarding the municipal court clerk:

• First, RCW 3.50.080 provides that “all employees of the municipal court shall, for all purposes, be deemed employees of the city or town. They shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the court.”
• Second, Washington State Court General Rule GR 29(f) lists the duties of a municipal court presiding judge. They include hiring and supervising “all personnel employed under the judicial branch of government.” See GR 29 (f)(5)(b).

No. The provision at RCW 42.30.070 in the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) related to establishing a regular meeting schedule merely requires appropriate legislation (an ordinance, since this is a city) establishing the schedule. The adoption of an ordinance does not require a public hearing unless a specific statute directs it (e.g., for budget adoption or to adopt development regulations). The city could choose to hold a public hearing for transparency purposes, but it isn’t required. The ordinance amending the schedule would also be on the meeting agenda and the public will have an opportunity to provide public comment before final action (see RCW 42.30.240).