Ask MRSC Archives

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).

RCW 39.04.320(1)(a)(ii) says that the reduced $1.5 million threshold applies to all public works contracts “advertised for bid on or after July 1, 2026…”

It is our opinion that the initial advertisement date would be the controlling date, as that is the date your agency officially announces to bidders that the project exists.

If your public works contract is initially advertised on June 30 or earlier, and the estimated project cost is more than $1.5 million but less than $2 million, we do not believe your project is subject to apprenticeship utilization requirements under state law—even if subsequent advertisements occur after July 1.

If you are seeking a legal opinion, we suggest reaching out to your agency attorney. MRSC provides legal guidance and it is not a substitute for the advice of an agency’s legal counsel.

Depending on the specific language of the agency’s policy, the expenditure may be considered “airfare cancellation protection” or something similar. This may not be considered “personal trip insurance” if it directly benefits the employer if a trip is canceled. Accordingly, there may not be a direct benefit to the employee. This may also depend on who paid the costs upfront.

Your policy should clearly establish the general rules for travel and business expense reimbursement, as well as any exceptions to the normal rules. Reimbursable expenses should serve a fundamental public purpose and be reasonable. Some policies establish a list of non-allowable expenses. If the policy doesn’t address this kind of charge, we suggest updating it to prevent future confusion.

You could also reach out to the State Auditor’s Office, who may be able to provide another perspective from an audit standpoint.

For more information, please see our page on Travel and Expense Reimbursement Policies.

State law prohibits discharging a firearm in any public place or place where someone may be endangered by the discharge. See RCW 9.41.230. Violations of this provision are gross misdemeanors.

Local governments also have limited authority to enact laws involving discharge of firearms within their jurisdiction where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. See RCW 9.41.300(3)(a).

We also recommend that you discuss this matter with your town attorney or local law enforcement if this is an ongoing concern. Our guidance is general and not a substitute for the advice of the town’s legal counsel.

The fact that a public records requestor may have used ChatGPT or another artificial intelligence (AI) tool to write or assist in writing a records request does not mean that a public agency can deny the request. If it is a request for identifiable records, it is a legitimate request and must be treated as any other request.

The provision at RCW 42.56.080(3) related to “bot requests” was passed by the legislature to address a specific practice of an agency receiving multiple computer-generated requests in a 24-hour period. It reads:

An agency may deny a bot request that is one of multiple requests from the requestor to the agency within a twenty-four hour period, if the agency establishes that responding to the multiple requests would cause excessive interference with other essential functions of the agency. For purposes of this subsection, "bot request" means a request for public records that an agency reasonably believes was automatically generated by a computer program or script.

This provision has limited applicability and would not cover this scenario where a person has utilized AI to draft or assist in drafting a request.

If the request is difficult to understand, you can seek clarification from the requestor. That is one option for an agency’s “five-day response”. See RCW 42.56.520(d). You could also reach out to the requestor to see if they may want to narrow the request—although this is not a sufficient “five-day response” per RCW 42.56.520, and a requestor is not obligated to do so. Even if you seek clarification on parts of the request, you should begin fulfilling the parts that are clear.

MRSC’s Flexibility in Environmental Regulation page provides some examples of TDR county programs, including the following:

• Kitsap County Code Ch. 17.580
• King County Transfer of Development Rights

The Department of Commerce also has a Transfer of Development Rights webpage which includes examples of several programs, including some from Western Washington cities and the following counties:

• Snohomish County Transfer of Development Rights
• Whatcom County Code Ch. 20.89

And here are two additional county programs not referenced on those pages:

• Pierce County Transfer of Development Rights
• Thurston County Transfer or Purchase of Development Rights

Shared documents pose a problem for legislative bodies because of OPMA concerns. It is perfectly OK for a quorum of the body to view the same document outside of a public meeting (this is a passive receipt of information). However, because an action under the OPMA includes “discussion,” once a quorum starts commenting/viewing the other members’ changes to a shared document, there is a problem.

To be a “meeting” under the OPMA, (1) a majority of the legislative body “meets,” (2) with the collective intent to transact official business, (3) and during the “meeting,” the members took “action” as defined by the OPMA— which includes discussions or deliberations. MRSC has a blog post, What Constitutes a Serial Meeting under the OPMA?, that provides more information on the “collective intent” to transact official business.

MRSC’s assessment is that if all members of the governing body are aware that the other members have access to the same document, and the members shared comments on the document, there would be OPMA concerns.

Here are some alternative ideas:

• Allow less than a quorum to access and comment on the shared document (and do not let the remainder of the members see those changes until the meeting).
• Rather than allowing a quorum to comment and view others’ comments on a shared document, allow each member to share their comments with staff, which staff can then consolidate and share at the open public meeting (but not before).

Potentially yes, however, the commissioner should consult with the district’s legal counsel for an opinion based on state law and any adopted district policies/procedures.

In general, the Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers (chapter 42.23 RCW) prohibits municipal officers from using their positions to secure special privileges or special exemptions for themselves or others, and from entering into certain contracts or having other personal financial interests with their jurisdictions. A park district commissioner is included in the definition of municipal officer. Employment with one’s own agency is considered a contract relationship.

RCW 42.23.030 specifically prohibits a municipal officer, or their office, from directly or indirectly receiving a financial benefit from a contract if the contract is made by, through, or under the supervision of the municipal officer. Any contract entered into by a municipality in violation of this prohibition is void.

The provision limiting interests in contracts does have some limited exceptions that may apply to officers working as employees, including RCW 42.23.030(5) & (6)(a):

(5) The employment of any person by a municipality for unskilled day labor at wages not exceeding $1,000 in any calendar month. The exception provided in this subsection does not apply to a county with a population of 125,000 or more, a city with a population of more than 1,500, an irrigation district encompassing more than 50,000 acres, or a first-class school district;

(6)(a) The letting of any other contract in which the total amount received under the contract or contracts by the municipal officer or the municipal officer's business does not exceed $3,000 in any calendar month.

MRSC’s page on Ethics and Conflicts of Interest provides an overview of the ethics and conflict of interest laws that apply to municipal officers, including prohibited uses of public office, special privileges and exemptions, contract interests, remote interests, and exceptions.

As indicated, the park district commissioner should consult with their agency’s legal counsel before also accepting employment with their own district.

Under Washington law, there are no specific requirements or standards for public access like day use parks. State law allows each cemetery district to establish its own regulations. Accordingly, public access rules are a matter of local discretion.

Here’s a summary of the applicable law:

Chapter 68.52 RCW is the statute governing public cemeteries and morgues generally. See RCW 68.52.030:

Counties and cities may provide for burial, acquire cemeteries, etc.

Each and every county, town or city, shall have power to provide a hearse and pall for burial of the dead, and to procure and hold lands for burying grounds, and to make regulations and fence the same, and to preserve the monuments erected therein, and to levy and collect the necessary taxes for that purpose, in the same manner as other taxes are levied and collected. [Emphasis added.]

Chapter 68.20 RCW grants cemetery authorities extensive regulatory powers. See the following statutes:

• RCW 68.20.060:

  Specific powers—Rule making and enforcement.
  
  A cemetery authority may make, adopt, amend, add to, revise, or modify, and enforce rules and regulations for the use, care, control, management, restriction and protection of all or any part of its cemetery and for the other purposes specified in RCW 68.20.061 through 68.20.067, 68.20.070 and *68.48.080. [Emphasis added.]
  
  *Reviser's note: RCW 68.48.080 was recodified as RCW 68.56.050 pursuant to 1987 c 331 s 89.

• RCW 68.20.061:

  Specific powers—Control of property.
  
  It may restrict and limit the use of all property within its cemetery, including interment rights.

• RCW 68.20.066:

  Specific powers—Prevention of improper assemblages.
  
  It may regulate the conduct of persons and prevent improper assemblages in the cemetery.

• RCW 68.20.067:

  Specific powers—Rules and regulations for general purposes.
  
  It may make and enforce rules and regulations for all other purposes deemed necessary by the cemetery authority for the proper conduct of the business of the cemetery, for the transfer of any plot or the right of interment, and the protection and safeguarding of the premises, and the principles, plans, and ideals on which the cemetery is conducted. [Emphasis added].

• RCW 68.20.070:

  Rules and regulations—Posting.
  
  The rules and regulations made pursuant to RCW 68.20.060 shall be plainly printed or typewritten and maintained subject to inspection in the office of the cemetery authority or in such place or places within the cemetery as the cemetery authority may prescribe.

With respect to abandoned cemeteries, there is a right to access for visitation. See RCW 68.60.080:

Abandoned cemetery—Lawful entry purposes.

It is lawful to enter an abandoned cemetery for purposes of:
(1) Burials pursuant to RCW 68.60.070 and associated rules;
(2) Care and maintenance activities authorized under RCW 68.60.030; and
(3) Visitation of graves.

Additionally, historic preservation grant recipients must provide reasonable public access per RCW 27.34.420(7)(c):

Public access to the exterior of properties that are not visible from a public right-of-way must be provided under reasonable terms and circumstances, including the requirement that visits by nonprofit organizations or school groups must be offered at least one day per year. Tribal access must be provided under reasonable terms and circumstances to historic cemeteries in which there are Indian burials.

For more information on cemeteries, see our topic page on Cemeteries and Cemetery Administration.

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.

From a legal perspective, MRSC does not see any issues changing the requirement from a state driver’s license to a valid driver’s license in general. You should nevertheless reach out to your risk pool or insurer to discuss just in case.

Also, for each position, you should consider whether driving is an essential job function or is related to a legitimate business purpose.

Under this new law, RCW 49.58.120, it is unlawful for an employer to require a valid driver’s license as a condition of employment or to include in a job posting that an applicant must have one, unless it is an essential job function or is related to a legitimate business purpose.

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 requirements local governments must follow related to lost property can be found in RCW 63.21.060, which states:

Any governmental entity that acquires lost property shall attempt to notify the apparent owner of the property. If the property is not returned to a person validly establishing ownership or right to possession of the property, the governmental entity shall forward the lost property within thirty days but not less than ten days after the time the governmental entity acquires the lost property to the chief law enforcement officer, his or her designated representative, or other designated entity under *RCW 63.32.060, of the county in which the property was found, except that if the property is found within the borders of a city or town the property shall be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer of the city or town, his or her designated representative, or other entity of the city or town so designated under RCW 63.21.090. A governmental entity may elect to retain property which it acquires and dispose of the property as provided by chapter 63.32 or 63.40 RCW.
*Reviser's note: The reference to RCW 63.32.060 appears to be erroneous. RCW 63.21.090 was apparently intended.

The last sentence of the above statutory provision gives the city the option of disposing of the property in the same manner that the police or sheriff departments dispose of property instead of forwarding the property to these departments (see chapter 63.32 RCW and chapter 63.40 RCW). These statutes appear to be procedurally identical, so either one would be useful for your purposes. The statutes are pretty lengthy so it would be worth your time to read them in full. Here is the summary version for personal property in the hands of police:

1. Provide written notice to the owner, if known.
2. 60 days from notice, if the property is not claimed, the agency can:
a) Sell the property at a public auction to highest bidder.
b) Retain the property for agency use; except the owner has the right to reclaim the property within 1 year of receipt of notice.
c) Destroy the property if it has no commercial value or the cost of the sale exceeds its value and other factors are met.
d) Donate the property to nonprofit charitable organization.

With respect to the wallet, see these requirements in RCW 63.21.090:

Designation of alternate entity to accept, store, retain, and dispose of found property.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a county, city, or town may designate an alternate department or governmental entity to accept, store, retain, and dispose of found property as required under this chapter, rather than the chief law enforcement officer or his or her designee, so long as the alternate department or governmental entity complies with the requirements and procedures under this chapter.
(2) Regardless of whether a county, city, or town designates an alternate department or governmental entity under subsection (1) of this section, the chief law enforcement officer or his or her designated representative is responsible for retaining any of the following types of property in accordance with the requirements of this chapter: A bank card; charge or credit card; cash; government-issued document, financial document, or legal document; firearm; evidence in a judicial or other official proceeding; or an item that is not legal for the finder to possess. A county, city, or town designating an alternate department or governmental entity under subsection (1) of this section shall establish procedures for ensuring these types of property are directed to the chief law enforcement officer or his or her designated representative.

MRSC also recommends that you discuss this matter with your 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.

It is a matter of local policy whether and how to provide holiday leave and pay to employees. As noted on this Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) page, Holiday, Vacation & Bereavement Leave:

Washington State does not require employers to provide leave or pay for holidays, vacations, or bereavement. These benefits can be found in your employer policies or collective bargaining agreement. They are generally an agreement between an employer and employee. L&I does not enforce these agreements.

For additional information, see our Paid and Unpaid Holidays page and this MRSC blog post, Taking a Break: A Primer on Legal and Other Holidays (2026).

Assuming your agency’s current holiday pay policies do not reflect the new work schedule, MRSC recommends that the agency amend its policies to reflect the 4/10 schedule as soon as practical.

There are few different policy approaches for holidays and 4/10 schedules, with the most common being to provide paid leave for eight hours on a holiday, with the 10-hour shift employee needing to use paid time off (PTO) or otherwise make-up for the two hours they would typically work. Here is a brief summary of some different approaches:

• The “Top-Off” Requirement: In this approach, the holiday benefit is fixed at eight hours. If an employee’s scheduled shift is 10 hours, they must "top off" the remaining two hours using other leave types.
• The "Full Shift" Model: In this approach, employers provide holiday pay that matches the actual hours the employee would have worked (i.e., 10 hours).
• The "In Lieu Of" or "Flex" Option: This type of policy addresses what happens when a holiday falls on the 4/10 employee’s day off. Some policies allow an employee to choose a different day off during the same workweek. Or, if the holiday falls on a Monday and that is the employee’s day off, the following Tuesday is considered the “in lieu of” holiday.

You can likely find many examples of these types of approaches searching examples on our Personnel Policy Manuals page. Search terms could include “alternative work schedule” or “alternative work period”.

Of course, if this relates to union employees, check the collective bargaining agreement for relevant provisions and this would also be a mandatory subject of bargaining.

MRSC’s understanding is that the procedures for a plat alteration in RCW 58.17.215 apply only in one circumstance related to a short plat. RCW 58.17.060(1), which addresses short plat procedures, states in relevant part:

The legislative body of a city, town, or county shall adopt regulations and procedures, and appoint administrative personnel for the summary approval of short plats and short subdivisions or alteration or vacation thereof. When an alteration or vacation involves a public dedication, the alteration or vacation shall be processed as provided in RCW 58.17.212 or 58.17.215.

So, unless the original short plat had involved a public dedication, the county would process a short plat amendment using the locally adopted short plat procedures.

Generally, no. RCW 42.30.070, which is the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) provision that requires the schedule for regular meetings to be set by ordinance, resolution, or bylaw, states that: “If at any time any regular meeting falls on a holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the next business day.”

If the governing body decided to hold that meeting on a different date besides the next business day, they could either cancel the regular meeting and reschedule it as a special meeting pursuant to RCW 42.30.080, or adjourn the regular meeting to the later time following the procedures at RCW 42.30.090.

Here is a blog post that explains the process for either adjourning (i.e., rescheduling) or canceling a public meeting, Best Laid Plans: Following the OPMA When Adjourning or Canceling a Public Meeting (2023). And here is a blog on special meetings, Special Meetings: Answering Some Frequently Asked Questions (2024).

The statute associated with charging for body camera footage is limited to “the reasonable costs of redacting, altering, distorting, pixelating, suppressing, or otherwise obscuring any portion of the body worn camera recording prior to disclosure only to the extent necessary to comply with the exemptions in this chapter.” See RCW 42.56.240(14)(f)(i).

It does not authorize charging for the time spent reviewing body worn camera footage to determine whether any exemptions might apply in the first place.

If your city has adopted copy costs, you can still charge by the gigabyte for the footage. See RCW 42.56.120(2)(b)(iv).