skip navigation
Share this:


Below are selected “Ask MRSC” inquiries we have received from local governments throughout Washington State related to legal issues. Click on any question to see the answer.

These questions are for educational purposes only. All questions and answers have been edited and adapted for posting to the MRSC website, and all identifying information, including the inquirer’s name and agency name, has been removed.

Have a Question? Ask MRSC!

Officials and employees from eligible government agencies can use our free one-on-one inquiry service, Ask MRSC. With one call or click you can get a personalized answer from one of our trusted attorneys, policy consultants, or finance experts!


Are there special procedures to dispose of a city’s surplus firearms?  
Reviewed: May 2022

Firearms purchased and used by a city police department may be disposed of in the usual way a city surpluses other city property it no longer needs, with some caveats noted below. One option would be to sell the firearms by auction or trade to licensed dealers.

We recommend looking to see if the city has adopted procedures for surplussing city property (either in its code or policies). If it has, then those procedures should be followed. And here is a link to the MRSC webpage on the Surplus City or Town Property that includes practice tips and sample procedures.

Please be aware that some firearms that may be lawful for law enforcement officers to possess, may otherwise be illegal. See RCW 9.41.190. In that case, an option might be to sell them to another police agency or perhaps to disassemble the weapons and sell for parts.

Finally, firearms that are seized and forfeited are treated differently under RCW 9.41.098 (see in particular subsection (2)(a)) and RCW Ch. 63.32 (unclaimed). If you are dealing with forfeited or seized firearms, these provisions should be reviewed carefully.

(Link to this question)

We have local ribbon cuttings where city council is invited. May a quorum or more of the council attend without this becoming a meeting subject to the OPMA?
Reviewed: May 2022

A quorum or more of the council can attend a ribbon cutting ceremony without implicating the OPMA, provided no city business is transacted. See RCW 42.30.070 and this FAQ on our website: Are social gatherings or other organizations' meetings subject to the OPMA?

Two things to consider for social functions: a) If the invite is sent to all council members at the city you may want to consider posting a notice somewhere that council has been invited, a majority/quorum of the council may attend, and that they will not be conducting city business at the event; b) Your city attorney may want to conduct some refresher training on the OPMA.

We suggest that if a majority does attend a social event, they should take care to not all sit together (or in a quorum-sized group) and that they make sure to keep the event social, and not discuss city business among themselves while at the event.

(Link to this question)

What is the city's obligation to retain voicemails?
Reviewed: April 2022

If you do not convert the voicemail to transcription, the retention period will depend on the content of the call. If you do convert, then we think the retention schedule in CORE DAN GS2016-009 (page 162) would apply. Once the agency has confirmed transcription, it may destroy the recording. The agency will want to be sure it has captured all the relevant data – to and from numbers, time, length, etc.

The state archivist has the following guidance on voicemails: Managing Voicemails - Washington State Archives - WA Secretary of State

(Link to this question)

The city is receiving extensive public records requests from an individual requester that has the potential to interfere with city operations. What are some strategies for dealing with such requests?
Reviewed: March 2022

Here are a few blog articles on dealing with large public records requests:

  • Please Stop: Handling Public Requests (Oct 15, 2019) - Municipal employees sometimes must deal with a variety of requests, and some can be quite challenging. This article looks at what local governments can and cannot broadly do in terms of responding to large public records requests and complaints.
  • BIG Public Records Requests (Mar 3, 2015) - How can local governments respond to large public records requests? In light of some recent public records requests that have made the news, this blog post discusses overbroad requests, identifiable records, and the ability to provide public records in installments.
  • Handling Vague and Complex Public Records Requests: Developing Your Plan of Attack (Feb 28, 2013) - Have you ever seen a public records request that makes you scratch your head and think, "How am I going to respond to that?" Two public records officers from Snohomish County weigh in on strategies for dealing with seemingly impossible requests that are either too vague or too complex.

MRSC’s Public Records Act Basics page has a section with examples of public records policies, including policies that limit the amount of staff time spent on responding.

Finally, there is authority under the PRA for an agency to close a request if a requester fails to review or pay applicable copy charges for requested records. See RCW 42.56.120(4) and WAC 44-14-040 (Attorney General Model Rules).

(Link to this question)

Our city initially banned cannabis sales when it was legalized in WA State. My understanding is that means we cannot receive any tax revenue from cannabis sales. If our city lifted the ban, would we be eligible to receive revenue from state sales, even if we did NOT have a cannabis business in our city? 
Reviewed: January 2022

The marijuana excise tax has two components- the per capita share and the retail share. The per capita share is a portion that is distributed to all cities and counties that do not prohibit marijuana businesses. The retail share is distributed to all cities and counties where marijuana retailers are located. If the city were to allow marijuana businesses, it would qualify for the per capita share. If it had any marijuana retailers, it would also qualify for the retail share. For more information on the marijuana excise tax, we would recommend reviewing our Revenue Guide for Washington Cities and Towns, page 133.

(Link to this question)

The entire Council has been invited to a community meeting on homelessness. May a quorum of the council attend?
Reviewed: November 2021

Generally, the OPMA does not apply to a quorum of members attending a meeting not called by their governing body unless “action” is taken, which can include taking public testimony. AGO 2006 No. 6. We think there is a fundamental difference between 1) the council attending a meeting and passively receiving information as mere audience members, and 2) the council attending what is essentially a public listening session. Depending on the specific facts of the meeting, how the session is structured, and whether speakers address their comments directly to the councilmembers, it does run the risk of becoming “public testimony.” At the least, it runs the risk of “appearing” to be a violation of the OPMA even if a court ultimately finds that the facts of the session show there wasn’t technically a violation.

The conservative approach would be to have less than a quorum of the council attend the meeting and report back in a regular open meeting of the council. Alternatively, the community meeting could be noticed as a “special meeting” during which the council will take public testimony on the issue of homelessness.

(Link to this question)

What is the process for lifting a local ban on marijuana retail establishments?
Reviewed: November 2021

The process will depend on how the ban was put into place. If it is part of the zoning or development code, then the city or another party will need to initiate the code amendment process outlined in the local code. Here are some examples of cities that have lifted bans on marijuana-related businesses:

  • Fife Ordinance No. 1957 – In 2017, Fife lifted its marijuana ban on production, processing and retail sales
  • Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 19-011 – In 2019, Spokane Valley amended its municipal code to allow licensed marijuana transporters
  • University Place Ordinance 685 – In 2017, University Place amended its code to make changes if the Council chooses to allow such uses in the future
  • Yakima City Council Meeting Packet - May 17, 2016 – In 2016, Yakima passed a Resolution declaring intent to lift its ban on recreational and medical marijuana production, processing, and directing Planning Commission to develop land use regulations pertaining to locations and regulation of such uses (pg. 100)

(Link to this question)

How does a town dispose of property that has no monetary value (e.g., carpet remnants, broken office equipment, and obsolete computer equipment)?
Reviewed: September 2021

As a matter of procedure, the council should list and declare these items surplus (usually done through a resolution), and then indicate that the items have de minimis or no monetary value (ideally with some description evidencing this, e.g., outdated, obsolete, broken, etc.). The property could then be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. If your town has adopted procedures for surplusing property, those should be followed. Here are some examples of resolutions that include items of de minimis or no monetary value:

(Link to this question)

Can a city require businesses to provide proof of insurance before issuing a business license?
Reviewed: September 2021

The State adopted legislation in 2017 imposing requirements on cities with respect to the issuance of general business licenses. Our City Business License and Fees webpage has an overview of the requirements. In particular, RCW 35.90.080 and 35.90.090 require that cities include certain mandatory provisions in their business license regulations. MRSC has the model ordinance language that addresses the state requirements here.

So the first thing to check is whether the City amended its business license regulations in response to these requirements. If not, then RCW 35.90.090 prevents enforcement of the business license regulations.

Cities that impose a general business license must adopt the mandatory provisions of the model ordinance as provided in RCW 35.90.080 by January 1, 2019. A city that has not complied with the requirements of this section by January 1, 2019, may not enforce its general business licensing requirements on any person until the date that the mandatory provisions of the model ordinance take effect within the city.

Even if the City did amend its business license regulations in response to RCW 35.90.080, we don’t think it can require all business license applicants to provide proof of insurance. The decision of whether to buy insurance, what type of insurance, and what policy limits, is generally a business decision. And it is a decision that will vary widely depending on the size and type of business.

Some cities require certain types of businesses to obtain additional regulatory licenses and in some cases may require proof of insurance from a certain type of business. But that is different from the general business license requirements imposed on all businesses doing business within the City. We have more information on that at the webpage linked above.

(Link to this question)

Who makes the decision that a member of a governing body cannot participate in a quasi-judicial matter; the member, or can the governing body disqualify them?
Reviewed: September 2021

MRSC has previously said that under RCW 42.36.080, the decision/responsibility to recuse under the appearance of fairness doctrine is the member’s. However, for first class and code cities and charter counties, state law may give the governing body the inherent authority to prohibit a member from participating. MRSC has also said that a governing body may be able to adopt a rule that would allow them to disqualify a member from participating, but we aren't aware of any agency that had done so. Such a rule (or other decision to disqualify) might be upheld since the remedy for a violation of Chapter 42.36 RCW is that the body has to conduct the hearing again without the participation of the disqualified member.

(Link to this question)

Is a child victim’s identity still protected once they reach adulthood?
Reviewed: July 2021

MRSC’s position is that the protections for juvenile identifying information in RCW 10.97.130, RCW 7.69A.030, and RCW 42.56.240(5) continue after the juvenile turns 18.

However, in all matters related to the release or withholding of public records (or information within public records), we recommend you consult with your agency attorney.

(Link to this question)

Is there a new law requiring disclosure of competitive bids received by a local government agency?
Reviewed: June 2021

In 2019 the legislature passed a law requiring copies of competitive bids to be provided promptly (within two days of competitive bid opening) upon request. This may be the recent change you mentioned. This legislation was not part of the Public Records Act (PRA), but is within the public works chapter:

RCW 39.04.105: A new provision is added requiring municipalities to, when requested by a bidder, provide copies of bids received within two days of a competitive bid opening. An award cannot occur until at least two full business days after such documents have been provided.

Under the PRA, bid proposals and contracts would be public records subject to disclosure, although there may be some redactions required if there is protected financial information such as bank account numbers or dates of birth, SSNs, etc.

We recommend consulting with your agency’s legal counsel regarding any specific request for records or information.

(Link to this question)

Do we need to keep the (stamped received/time) envelopes that bids and statements of qualifications come in? Do we need to keep a paper copy of all bids/qualifications received, or is an electronic record OK? Or is just a paper copy of the successful bid OK?
Reviewed: June 2021

Yes, you should keep the envelopes that bids and statements of qualifications come in. They reflect the postage date which may be important in case of a dispute. The retention schedule for bid documents (both successful and unsuccessful) are on page 110 of the local government records retention schedule, CORE. Unsuccessful bid documentation can be destroyed after 4 years. Successful bid documentation can be destroyed 6 years after completion of the contract.

If you convert all your documentation to digital form, you do NOT need to keep the original paper version. The Archivist has guidance here on how to Go Paperless ("Scan & Toss").

You should work with your public records officer before destroying and tossing any records that have a retention value.

(Link to this question)

Are preliminary site plans that are pending approval subject to public records disclosure? Does a site plan pending approval qualify as a deliberative process and draft under RCW 42.56.280?
Reviewed: May 2021

MRSC has consistently advised that for the exemption in RCW 42.56.280 to apply, the draft documents must discuss opinions or the formulation of policy. This exemption does not generally apply to documents submitted as part of the permitting process. We discuss the “draft” and “deliberative process” exemption in our FAQ: Are draft documents exempt from disclosure?, in this blog article, and our MRSC Public Records Act publication, pp. 22-23. To rely on this exemption, an agency must show:

  • that the records contain pre-decisional opinions or recommendations expressed as part of a deliberative process;
  • that disclosure would be injurious to the deliberative or consultative function of the process;
  • that disclosure would inhibit the flow of recommendations, observations, and opinions; and, finally,
  • that the materials covered by the exemption reflect policy recommendations and opinions and not the raw factual data on which a decision is based.

See PAWS v. Univ. of Washington (1994) and West v. Port of Olympia (2014).

This exemption is focused on the deliberative and policy-making process within an agency and the exemption disappears once the agency takes final action on the issue.

(Link to this question)

Can the chair of a council advisory board discuss ideas via e-mail between monthly meetings among the members without taking any action until we get to the meetings, without such discussions becoming prohibited serial meetings?
Reviewed: March 2021

A threshold question is whether the committee is subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). If the committee is purely advisory, not acting “on behalf of the council,” not taking public testimony, and their decision is not a required predicate to council action, then the committee is likely not subject to the OPMA. This is a very case-by-case, fact-based analysis that should be performed by your agency’s attorney. It also matters how the committee was formed – if the enabling legislation says it’s covered by the OPMA, then it is. If there is any question whether the OPMA applies or if the city chooses, the conservative approach is to go ahead and comply with the OPMA.

Assuming that the committee is subject to the OPMA, we would caution against email discussions among the members of the board between meetings. Discussions are considered “action” under the OPMA (“final action” is making a collective decision, i.e., voting). Actions must occur at meetings open to the public. Discussions among less than a quorum of members is OK, but be careful that these do not become a serial meeting. Here is a recent blog post about serial meetings.

(Link to this question)

How often are elected officials like council and board members required to do the OPMA training? Does the staff need to do the training too, or just the council and mayor?
Reviewed: March 2021

State law requires all members of the governing body to complete open government training no later than 90 days after taking the oath of office or assuming their duties, with a refresher course at least every four years. RCW 42.30.205. Additionally, all elected officials as well as the agency’s public records officer (PRO) are required to take training on the Public Records Act and records retention requirements. RCW 42.56.150 and 42.56.152. Other staff beyond the public records officer are not required to take the trainings pursuant to these provisions.

MRSC and AWC have an online e-training (select “Open Public Meetings Act eLearning” and “Public Records Act eLearning.”) for both the OPMA and PRA that meets the above requirements. For more information, see the Washington State Attorney General's webpage on Open Government Training. See also the “Training Opportunities” section on our Open Public Meetings Act page, as well as the blog article Explaining the Open Government Trainings Act.

(Link to this question)

Is a resignation letter disclosable as a public record?
Reviewed: January 2021

Yes, a resignation letter is a public record that is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. There is no general exemption that would allow the city to withhold the letter. It’s possible there would be personal information exempt based on RCW 42.56.250(4) or potentially a privacy exemption under RCW 42.56.230 if there are unsubstantiated allegations included in the letter. You will want to review the content of any requested letter to see if there is any information that might fall within such an exemption.

The city could also provide third party notice to the former employee who wrote the letter and/or anyone mentioned within the letter pursuant to RCW 42.56.540, if it felt such individuals would potentially want to seek an injunction preventing the letter’s release.

(Link to this question)

Who is required to comply with ADA regulations related to accessible facilities? Do the number of employees an agency has need to be over a certain amount?
Reviewed: November 2020

There is not a threshold number of employees for the ADA accessibility rules for public facilities to apply. Here are some resources you may find helpful:

Several ADA FAQs regarding State and Local Governments

Q. Does title II cover a public entity's employment policies and practices?
A. Yes. Title II prohibits all public entities, regardless of the size of their work force, from discriminating in employment against qualified individuals with disabilities. In addition to title II's employment coverage, title I of the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities by certain public entities.

Q. What changes must a public entity make to its existing facilities to make them accessible?
A. A public entity must ensure that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from services, programs, and activities because existing buildings are inaccessible. A State or local government's programs, when viewed in their entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This standard, known as "program accessibility," applies to facilities of a public entity that existed on January 26, 1992. Public entities do not necessarily have to make each of their existing facilities accessible. They may provide program accessibility by a number of methods including alteration of existing facilities, acquisition or construction of additional facilities, relocation of a service or program to an accessible facility, or provision of services at alternate accessible sites.

Q. What does title II require for new construction and alterations?
A. The ADA requires that all new buildings constructed by a State or local government be accessible. In addition, when a State or local government undertakes alterations to a building, it must make the altered portions accessible.

Q. How will a state or local government know that a new building is accessible?
A. A state or local government will be in compliance with the ADA for new construction and alterations if it follows either of two accessibility standards. It can choose either the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards or the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, which is the standard that must be used for public accommodations and commercial facilities under title III of the ADA. If the state or local government chooses the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, it is not entitled to the elevator exemption (which permits certain private buildings under three stories or under 3,000 square feet per floor to be constructed without an elevator).

Here is a link to MRSC’s Americans with Disabilities Act page.

For more specific questions, there is an ADA Hotline number staffed by Department of Justice accessibility experts (800-514-0301). The ADA has a website with Information and Technical Assistance at

(Link to this question)

If a staff member installs and uses a cloud-based communications tool like Microsoft Teams on their personal cell phone, is it possible that their phone would be subject to a search for information, in response to a public records request?
Reviewed: September 2020

Agencies are required to conduct a reasonable search of the likely locations for responsive records. If you are confident that nothing is stored on the local device, then the personal device would be an unlikely location to find responsive records.

Note that sometimes users will opt to download records to the local device. The PRO will still need to coordinate with the staffer and potentially have the staffer search their own device for responsive records. See the section on “Searching for Records on Personal Devices” our Searching and Producing Public Records topic page.

Also, you would want to confirm that the personal device was set up so that it is in fact fully synced with the remote server. For example, the Outlook app for iPhone can be configured so that changes made in the local view are not necessarily the same as the desktop view (like “mark as unread”, etc.).

It is possible that some sort of transitory/temporary file is stored on the local device, but this data is of a temporary nature and usually overwrites very quickly and is not generally accessible by reasonable means (but you will want to confirm this with Microsoft.) Keep in mind that metadata only needs to be produced if specifically requested, and only if technically feasible and financially reasonable for the agency to do so.

You will want to fully document your decision-making process, evidence that all records are actually stored on the remote server such that comprehensive searching of a personal devices by the staff member is probably not necessary, as well as any configuration requirements. Make sure the public records officer has a copy of that documentation.

As an aside, we here at MRSC have been looking into using Microsoft Teams (we are currently on the older Office 365 suite) precisely because the remote server captures all the communications and makes retention and search of such records much more centralized.

(Link to this question)

What are the requirements for the retention of payroll records?
Reviewed: July 2020

The Washington State Archivist and the Local Records Committee are authorized and directed by statute (RCW 40.14.070) to issue retention schedules. The local government common records retention schedule (CORE) is the relevant guidance for local government records.

Payroll records are tricky because different retention requirements apply to different types of payroll information. In particular, information relating to eligibility for retirement benefits can have a very long retention period. The State Department of Retirement Services may need such records many years later to determine a former employee’s eligibility for retirement benefits.

Fortunately, in 2017, the Washington State Archivist issued a training video that addresses some of the retention issues regarding payroll records. The video explains what types of payroll information are necessary for verifying retirement eligibility.

The CORE items that relate to payroll include:

Some agencies may choose to retain all of their payroll records for a long period instead of just the records needed to verify eligibility for retirement benefits.

(Link to this question)

Is it a conflict of interest for a councilmember to be appointed to the planning commission?
Reviewed: July 2020

We do not think a councilmember should also serve on the planning commission because of the common law doctrine of Incompatible Offices. The doctrine provides that the same person cannot hold two public offices at the same time if the offices are incompatible. Although there is not a court opinion or Attorney General’s guidance evaluating the compatibility of these two particular offices, MRSC takes the position that these public offices are incompatible. This is in part because a planning commission makes recommendations to a city council, and a person serving on both bodies would be in a position to approve his or her own recommendations. Here is an excerpt from our Code City Handbook (p. 40) about this issue:

  • Elective officers of the city should not assume additional municipal duties that are incompatible with those of their elective office. One practical test of incompatibility is whether one position is subordinate to the other in some of its important and principal duties. Under common law, one person cannot be both master and servant or principal and subordinate.

In AGO 2016 No. 7, the Attorney General’s office looked at the offices of planning commissioner and school board member, and concluded the offices were likely incompatible, although the AG noted this would be “an extremely close call” and “a court could reasonably reach the opposite conclusion.” The opinion provides, in part:

  • We also considered that planning commissioners act in an advisory role, with final decisions regarding land use matters entrusted to the city council. RCW 35.63.100. The advisory nature of the body does not change our analysis because, as noted, the commission “may act as the research and fact-finding agency of the municipality.” RCW 35.63.060. Its role includes making inquiries, investigations, and surveys concerning land use resources in the county, assembling and analyzing data, and working with other agencies on land use planning. RCW 35.63.060. In some jurisdictions they also perform a quasi-judicial function. RCW 35.63.130.

In conclusion, we do not think a councilmember may also serve on your planning commission.

(Link to this question)

Must a city continue to compile records responsive to a request through the date of fulfillment of the request, or does the date of the submission of the records request constitute a definitive cut-off for the date range of the records that must be produced?
Reviewed: June 2020

The date the records request is received is controlling, not the date of fulfillment and/or closure of a records request. There is no requirement in the Public Records Act (PRA) to provide ongoing supplements to records requests that have already been received and are being completed. In general, the public agency complies with a public records request with responsive records that existed as of the date of the request.

The State Supreme Court in Gipson v. Snohomish County held that an agency “determines any applicable exemptions at the time the request is received,” and doesn’t have a duty to revisit records withheld or redacted in previous installments to determine whether an exemption no longer applies. This 2019 case confirmed that there is not an ongoing duty to review future records created after a public records request is received. A requester has the obligation to submit another request after more records might have been created. It does not matter that the records request under review has not yet been closed.

Here is a link to a recent MRSC blog article New Developments in PRA Land (Dec 09, 2019) which includes an overview of Gipson v. Snohomish County.

Additional resources include the Washington State Attorney General’s Office’s Open Government Resource Manual and Local Government Consultation Program.

(Link to this question)

We are hosting a parliamentary procedure training for our member cities’ newly elected officials (and current elected officials). If a city sends a quorum to attend the training, do they need to publish it as a special meeting?
Reviewed: May 2020

Not necessarily.

So long as the quorum of councilmembers does not conduct city business together while at the training, they may attend without violating the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). The OPMA provides, in relevant part, that it is not an OPMA violation “for a majority of the members of a governing body to travel together or gather for purposes other than a regular meeting or a special meeting as these terms are used in this chapter: PROVIDED, That they take no action as defined in this chapter.” RCW 42.30.070. The slightly tricky part is that the definition of “action” is so broad and includes “discussions.” See RCW 42.30.020(3).

To avoid an OPMA violation at the training, a quorum of the councilmembers should not discuss city business together. It is fine for the individual councilmembers to discuss city affairs with other attendees, but not with a quorum of their fellow city councilmembers. We also advise against a councilmember asking a city-business related question during any Q&A portion of the training when the other councilmembers are in attendance (because the other city councilmembers are now hearing about city business, which may qualify as a “discussion”).

A city can choose to mention the travel arrangements in the agenda or at a meeting prior to the training – just so the public knows that the councilmembers are travelling together and that they know of the restriction on discussing city business among themselves while traveling and at the training. There is no statutory requirement that the public be notified of the travel arrangements, but we think it is a good idea.

An attorney general opinion, AGO 2006 No. 6, provides similar advice.

(Link to this question)

Are local government agencies required to have a list of PRA exemptions on their website pertaining to public records?
Reviewed: May 2020

RCW 42.56.070(2) requires you to “publish and maintain a current list containing every law, other than those listed in this chapter, that the agency believes exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records of the agency. An agency's failure to list an exemption shall not affect the efficacy of any exemption.”

There is no requirement that you post that list on your website. You can just adopt the list as part of your public records policy. Many jurisdictions adopt exhibit C to MRSC’s Public Records Act publication – we update it at least once a year.

(Link to this question)

Do general staff meeting agendas and notes need to be saved for public disclosure? No board members are involved in these meetings, only staff and management.
Reviewed: April 2020

The general staff meeting agendas must be saved for public disclosure. Records documenting meetings of agency staff must be retained for two years after the end of the calendar year in which they are created. If the agendas are no longer needed for agency business at the end of this period, they may then be destroyed. See p. 42, Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE) Version 4.0 (May 2017), Sec. 1.10, GS50-01-43 Rev. 2.

These agendas are “public records” under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, as they contain information that relates to the conduct of government, or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function. See RCW 42.56.010(3). As public records, they must be disclosed upon request, unless they fall under an exemption in the PRA. Exemptions are narrowly construed by the courts. See our Public Records Act topic page for additional information. Note that if an agency (or agency employee) keeps a record past the required time set forth in the retention schedule, and the agency receives a request for that record, the agency must disclose it. See RCW 42.56.100

The notes from these meetings may be a different story. Without having more information on the notes, it’s not possible for me to tell you with certainty whether an exemption applies, but it sounds like what you’re describing may be informal personal notes created by staff members at the meetings. If they are informal personal notes, they are not considered public records and the PRA does not apply to them. They may also be destroyed at an employee’s discretion.

In order to qualify as informal personal notes, they must have been created solely for the government employee’s convenience or to refresh the employee’s memory; maintained in a way indicating a private purpose; not circulated or intended for distribution within agency channels; not under agency control; and can be discarded at the writer's sole discretion. See Yacobellis v. Bellingham. MRSC has a helpful blog post concerning personal notes and the PRA.

However, if these notes are more akin to the official minutes of the meeting, then they are considered public records to which the PRA applies and must be treated identically to the meeting agendas as discussed above.

(Link to this question)

I have a large Public Records Act (PRA) request for every internal investigation for our department for the last five years from a local attorney. Are there exemptions for investigations that are exonerated or not sustained? Is there any part of an internal investigation that is exempt or redactable? Or do they need to be given in their entirety without redaction?
Reviewed: April 2020

You will want to work closely with your city attorney to review this particular PRA request and the investigative documents requested. In general, the exemption status first depends on whether a criminal investigation is open or closed. Internal investigation files are not categorically exempt but certain records within these types of files may be exempt.

As explained on MRSC’s topic page Disclosure of Law Enforcement Investigative Records, the entire investigative file for an open criminal investigation is categorically exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.240(1), meaning that the entire file may be withheld. RCW 42.56.240(1) exempts “specific investigative records ... the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement ...” Nondisclosure of open criminal investigative records is always presumed to be essential to effective law enforcement. See Sargent v. Seattle Police Department. While the court in the Sargent case did hold that open criminal investigations are categorically exempt, it also held that the categorical exemption does not automatically apply to open internal investigations (at pages 13-14 of the slip opinion).

For closed investigations, review whether RCW 42.56.240(1) applies. This statute exempts “specific investigative records … the nondisclosure of which is essential ... for the protection of any person's right to privacy.” RCW 42.56.050 states that a person’s right to privacy is violated only if disclosure of the information:

  1. Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
  2. Is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Note also that internal investigations of higher-ranking officers are treated differently. There, even if the allegations are unsustained and highly offensive, the higher-ranking officer’s name must be provided since the legitimate public interest prevails – see City of Fife v. Hicks.

When determining what is highly offensive to a reasonable person, consider whether the person’s expectation of privacy is reasonable or whether there has been a clear, affirmative waiver of the right to privacy. See Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup.

RCW 42.56.240(1) also exempts “specific investigative records … the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement....” According to the Washington State Supreme Court, “This exemption is not limited in application to only when enforcement would cease to function were the documents in question disclosed.” See Koenig v. Thurston County (emphasis added). Rather, the legislature’s inclusion of the word “effective” in the exemption means that the focus is on whether disclosure would compromise the effectiveness of law enforcement.

If you have unsustained investigations, and if they appear likely to require disclosure, then there is also an option to provide third party notice to the officer involved who may then choose to seek a court order preventing disclosure.

For a summary of PRA laws relating to internal investigation files (and other police records), here are links to MRSC’s topic pages Disclosure of Law Enforcement Investigative Records, Common Prohibitions and Exemptions for Law Enforcement Records and Law Enforcement Records Tool Kit.

(Link to this question)

Is there a recommendation on whether to keep public disclosure request records in paper format or in electronic format?
Reviewed: March 2020

There are no legal requirements in this regard. The “path of least resistance” would be to retain such records in their existing format for the applicable retention period. However, many agencies are trying to minimize their paper records and store records electronically. Washington State Archives has a webpage with publications and advice sheets for local governments—for example:

  1. Factors Affecting the Cost of Digitizing Paper Records
  2. Keep Electronic Records in Electronic Format
  3. What are the Leading Practices for Records Management and Retention?

Although maintaining records electronically is not identified as a “leading practice” in the third item listed above, storing records electronically makes it easier to meet several leading practices, such as “Records are Inventoried,” “Records are Organized” and “Disaster Preparedness.” Ultimately, the question of whether to convert paper records to electronic format is a policy and budgetary decision for your agency.

If your agency does consider converting paper records to an electric format, see the State Archive’s Scanning and Tossing paper for guidelines.

Note that an agency does not need to retain a separate set of the records provided in response to a Public Records Act request, however it is recommended to do so. The AGO model rules say the following regarding retention of records provided:

WAC 44-14-04006 Closing request and documenting compliance. (3) Retain copy of records provided. In some cases, particularly for commonly requested records, it may be wise for the agency to keep a separate copy of the records it copied and provided in response to a request. A growing number of requests are for a copy of the records provided to another requestor, which can easily be fulfilled if the agency retains a copy of the records provided to the first requestor. The copy of the records provided should be retained for the period of time consistent with the agency's retention schedules for records related to disclosure of documents.

See the Secretary of State’s Archives Division Website for the Local Government Common Records Retention schedule (CORE) to determine applicable retention periods.

(Link to this question)

Are agency-related Facebook posts on a public employee's or official's personal Facebook account public records?
Reviewed: March 2020

An agency-related Facebook post by a public employee or official on their personal Facebook account can be a public record if the post was made within the employee’s or official’s scope of agency employment. Since an agency acts exclusively through their employees or officials, the location of a record (whether on a personal account or public account) does not matter; in other words, public records can reside on private accounts or devices. See Nissen v. Pierce County (2015). Rather, the critical question with regard to whether an agency-related post on a personal Facebook account is a public record is whether the post was made in the employee’s official public capacity or scope of employment. For a post to be "within the scope of employment," their job must require it, their employer must direct it, or it must further their employer's (i.e. the government’s) interests. A post that only minimally or incidentally furthers an interest of the government, without more, is not a public record. See West v. City of Puyallup (2018).

(Link to this question)

We currently have 3 standing council committees, two of the committees have 2 members and 1 committee has 3 members. Is there a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) if 2 members talk to each other outside their regular council committee meeting about committee business?
Reviewed: February 2020

Whether or not two councilmembers should talk to each other about their committee business outside of a public meeting depends on the purpose of the committee. The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), chapter 42.23 RCW, applies when a quorum of the governing body meets. So, unless there are enough councilmembers on the committee to make a quorum, the OPMA probably does not apply. There are times when a meeting of a committee or subcommittee of a governing body is subject to the OPMA, even when a quorum of the governing body is not present.

A “governing body” means “the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.” And “public agency” includes “[a]ny subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies.” So, even though there may not be a quorum, you must ask if the committee “acts on behalf of the governing body” or “takes testimony or public comment”?

In 2015, the Washington Supreme Court in Citizen’s Alliance v. San Juan County ruled that committees that serve a purely advisory function are not subject to the OPMA. Here is a link to a blog article MRSC published about the case if you want more information. I recommend you look carefully at the functions and actions of any council committee to see whether this may be considered a “governing body,” i.e., it acts on behalf of the governing body.

If it is not clear whether the OPMA applies, then two councilmembers should probably avoid discussing council committee business outside of the meetings. MRSC legal guidance tends to be conservative, especially on issues related to open government such as the OPMA. Our guidance is not meant to substitute for the legal advice of your city attorney.

(Link to this question)

We have a county owned 60 ft. wide right-of-way (ROW) contiguous to our city limits and we'd like to annex this ROW into our city for ownership, management, and maintenance purposes. The county agrees. What type of process is required?
Reviewed: February 2020

The easiest way to proceed would be through the use of RCW 35A.21.210:

(1) The governing bodies of a county and any code city located therein may by agreement revise any part of the corporate boundary of the city which coincides with the centerline, edge, or any portion of a public street, road or highway right-of-way by substituting therefor a right-of-way line of the same public street, road or highway so as fully to include or fully to exclude that segment of the public street, road or highway from the corporate limits of the city.
(2) The revision of a corporate boundary as authorized by this section shall become effective when approved by ordinance of the city council and by ordinance or resolution of the county legislative authority. Such a boundary revision is not subject to potential review by a boundary review board.

For non-code cities and towns, there is a comparable provision at RCW 35.21.790.

(Link to this question)

Can you direct me to where I would find information on Washington State records retention requirements for code enforcement files--both paper case files as well as electronic files?
Reviewed: January 2020

The applicable retention periods are set forth in the Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE). Records related to code enforcement action typically have a retention period of 6 years after the matter is resolved or closed. See DAN GS2012-026, CORE p. 31.

The six year retention period applies to the city’s primary copies of the records regardless of whether they are in electronic or paper format.

Records that are duplicate or secondary copies of the city’s primary copies may be destroyed when they are no longer needed for city business. See DAN GS50-02-04, Rev. 2 (CORE Schedule p. 163).

(Link to this question)

Can a city acquire property through adverse possession?
Reviewed: January 2020

If a city can establish all the elements of adverse possession, it can obtain property in that manner. We have consistently advised that a city may do so and we have also noted that cities may acquire prescriptive easements. The decision in Aylmore v. Seattle, 100 Wash. 515 (1918), supports our advice with respect to adverse possession. We have also cited McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, §§ 28.15 and 30.21 for the proposition that a city can acquire property by adverse possession.

We have provided the following advice as to acquisition of a prescriptive easement:

It is clear in this state that public highways over private property may be acquired by prescription. See the cases of Todd v. Sterling, 45 Wn.2d 40 (1960) and Northwest Cities Gas Co. v. Western Fuel Co., 13 Wn.2d 75 (1942).

(Link to this question)

Is there a conflict with Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) members voting to support their organization’s application?
Reviewed: January 2020

It's our opinion that LTAC members may participate in voting on funding of activities they are specifically involved with. Although that would appear to present a conflict of interest situation, that conflict is, in our opinion, impliedly authorized by the language in RCW 67.28.1817(1) providing that at least two members of the committee be "persons involved in activities authorized to be funded by revenue received under this chapter." Also, the committee is advisory only, and it is the council that makes the actual decision on the use of the funds.

So, although there is no specific legal authority (AGO or court decision) on this issue, we think it's okay for the members to vote in such circumstances.

(Link to this question)

Are LEOFF-1 Disability Boards subject to the Open Public Meetings Act?
Reviewed: December 2019

Yes, the LEOFF 1 Disability Board is created pursuant to RCW 41.26.110 and subject to the Open Public Meetings Act. RCW 42.30.030 provides in part: “All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public.” A public agency is defined as any city or county (among others) and includes:

(c) Any subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies;

RCW 42.30.020(1)(b) and (c). That would include a LEOFF Disability Board.

(Link to this question)

What are our requirements for turning over lost and found items to law enforcement? How long do we keep them?
Reviewed: November 2019

State law for public entities provides that there is a requirement to turn lost and found property over to law enforcement after ten (10) days but within thirty (30) days. RCW 63.21.060 sets forth the procedures to be followed by governmental entities when they acquire lost property. That statute indicates the agency should take the following steps:

  1. Attempt to notify the apparent owner of the property.
  2. If the owner does not collect the property, then within 30 days but not less than 10 days

As an alternative, the agency can choose to dispose of the property in the same manner that the police or sheriff departments dispose of property (see chapters 63.32 and 63.40 RCW – these statutes appear to be procedurally identical, so either one would be useful for your purposes).

The statutes are pretty lengthy; 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:
    1. Sell the property at a public auction to highest bidder
    2. Retain the property for agency use; except the owner has the right to reclaim the property within 1 year of receipt of notice
    3. Destroy the property if it has no commercial value or the cost of the sale exceeds its value and other factors are met
    4. Donate the property to nonprofit charitable organizations.

Your agency should ensure that its lost and found policy is consistent with these state law provisions.

(Link to this question)

Do local governments have to submit their regular meeting schedules to the state?
Reviewed: November 2019

We sometimes get asked whether the Open Public Meetings Act requires cities, counties, or special purpose districts to submit their regular meeting schedules to the state code reviser’s office or notify the state of changes to the regular meeting schedule. The answer is no.

RCW 42.30.075 requires state agencies to file their regular meeting schedules with the code reviser’s office by January of each year for publication in the Washington State Register and notify the office of any changes to the schedule at least 20 days before the rescheduled meeting.

However, this statute only applies to state agencies, and there is no similar requirement for local governments.

Local government agencies should still adopt a schedule for their regular meetings and publish notice as required by OPMA. RCW 42.30.070 provides in part, “The governing body of a public agency shall provide the time for holding regular meetings by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body.”

(Link to this question)

A former employee has requested to view all personnel records that pertain to him/her, specifically the personnel, payroll, and benefit files. Am I correct in assuming that this is a public records request and that since the content of all the requested files/documents are about the requestor, no exemptions and redactions are required?
Reviewed: October 2019

In our opinion, you can characterize this request as being a public records request. And, most---and likely all---of this information can be released since the responsive records are about the requestor. Members of the public have some access to information found in an employee’s personnel file, although there are exemptions (e.g., medical records, performance evaluations, Social Security numbers, employees’ addresses and phone numbers, among others). But the purpose of those exemptions is not present when the requestor is requesting his or her own personnel records.

There may be a few items in the file, that should not be released. Before releasing the file, we suggest you check to see if there is any information regarding a current investigation of a possible criminal offense or information compiled in preparation of an impending lawsuit. RCW 49.12.260 provides:

RCW 49.12.240 and 49.12.250 do not apply to the records of an employee relating to the investigation of a possible criminal offense. RCW 49.12.240 and 49.12.250 do not apply to information or records compiled in preparation for an impending lawsuit which would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts.

Your agency should review the file to determine if any redactions need to be made. An example of a redaction that might need to be made would be of personal information of another employee, such as that other employee’s address, telephone number, Social Security number, etc. We think that the file likely does not have such information, but if it does, it should be redacted.

(Link to this question)

Are there bid requirements if a town desires to lease real property to an individual or is a private transaction acceptable?
Reviewed: July 2019

The town has fairly broad authority to lease real property as long as such authority is exercised “for the common benefit” under RCW 35.27.010 and “for the benefit of the town” under RCW 35.27.370(2). Except for property originally acquired for public utility purposes under chapter 35.94 RCW, the state statutes merely indicate in general terms that the town council has the authority to control, dispose of, and convey real and personal property of the town. State law does not otherwise establish specific procedures which must be followed when leasing municipally-owned property; the ultimate authority with regard to determining whether property should be leased rests with the town council under RCW 35.27.370.

From a fiscal standpoint, the town should determine what will constitute fair market value for such a lease. The town should also give thought to whether a competitive process of some type will result in a better deal. But from a legal standpoint, there is not a required bidding process with respect to leasing real property.

(Link to this question)

What is the process for third party notification in the course of responding to a PRA request? Does the third party get the opportunity to review the public records?
Reviewed: June 2019

Yes, the third party involved in a PRA third party notification under RCW 42.56.540 does need the opportunity to review the records in question in order to decide whether to seek a court order preventing disclosure. When third party notification is provided, the reason is because the agency has determined the records will otherwise be disclosed to the PRA requester. Third party notice may be advisable because the PRA is to be construed in favor of disclosure, and the agency could otherwise be subject to penalties if a court finds that it improperly denied public disclosure of non-exempt information.

To provide third party notice, the agency would inform the PRA requester in writing that it will provide the requested records, subject to appropriate redactions, if any, but will delay release of the records (and so inform the requester) to give the affected parties the opportunity to seek court protection of possibly exempt information under RCW 42.56.540. See also, WAC 44-14-040(4), part of the PRA model rules, which states:

In the event that the requested records contain information that may affect rights of others and may be exempt from disclosure, the public records officer may, prior to providing the records, give notice to such others whose rights may be affected by the disclosure. Such notice should be given so as to make it possible for those other persons to contact the requestor and ask him or her to revise the request, or, if necessary, seek an order from a court to prevent or limit the disclosure. The notice to the affected persons will include a copy of the request.

This notice gives the third party an opportunity to obtain a court order to block release. For more information, see MRSC’s Public Records Act (PRA) webpage.>

(Link to this question)

What is the applicable statute of limitations for an OPMA violation?
Reviewed: June 2019

We think it’s two years. The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) does not specify a limitations period for bringing an action under the Act. So, we look to chapter 4.16 RCW, which deals with "limitations of actions.” However, no statute in chapter 4.16 RCW applies specifically to alleged OPMA violations. But, there is a catch-all two-year period in RCW 4.16.130 ("Action for relief not otherwise provided for") that seems to apply. That statute provides as follows: "An action for relief not herein before provided for, shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action shall have accrued."

We are not aware of other legal authority (case law or attorney general opinion) on this issue.

(Link to this question)

Is it ok to sponsor a bingo game as an employee appreciation event?
Reviewed: May 2019

We think the bingo event as proposed is fine. First, we don’t think this falls within “gambling” as contemplated in state law. The definition of “gambling” at RCW 9.46.0237 states, in relevant part (emphasis added):

"Gambling," as used in this chapter, means staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person's control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.

Here, you do not intend to ask the employees to pay money or some other type of consideration to participate in the bingo game. Even if the city were collecting money for the opportunity to play bingo for prizes, cities are allowed to conduct bingo, raffles, and amusement games within the limitations set forth at RCW 9.46.0321. Note that although that section says it applies to “bona fide charitable or bona fide nonprofit organizations,” cities are considered to be bona fide nonprofit organizations under the state gambling laws. Per RCW 9.46.0209(3), the definition of a “bona fide charitable or nonprofit organization” includes:

[A] county, city, or town, provided that all revenue less prizes and expenses from raffles conducted by the county, city, or town must be used for community activities or tourism promotion activities

One additional thing to keep in mind is gifting of public funds. While this employee appreciation event is likely fine, any time you are providing gifts, prizes, food, or other items to employees outside the normal scope of employment, there is risk of running afoul of the constitutional prohibition on the gift of public funds. If the city has a policy that includes employee appreciation events, this could be considered compensation or a benefit of employment, which is permissible. Here is an old but still useful memo regarding Eating and Drinking at Public Expense that outlines some things to think about with regard to employee events/gifting of public funds.

(Link to this question)

Should a city request that all employees add a public records disclaimer at the bottom of their emails they send?
Reviewed: May 2019

There is not a state law requirement that a public records disclaimer be included on all city or other public agency emails. So, this is a policy decision for your city.

If you decide to add a disclaimer then it is, of course, important that the information be accurate. In our opinion, it is accurate to say all city emails are public records and may be subject to disclosure. This leaves open the possibility that exemptions or prohibitions in the PRA may apply to particular emails or portions of emails and/or their attachments. City employees’ emails likely all fit the broad definition of “public records” in RCW 42.56.010(3).

We found two examples of public records disclaimers in our database:

  1. Disclaimer: Public documents and records are available to the public as provided under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). This e-mail may be considered subject to the Public Records Act and may be disclosed to a third-party requestor.
  2. NOTE: This email is considered a public record and may be subject to public disclosure.

(Link to this question)

If a public records requester is seeking metadata, do they have to specifically request metadata?
Reviewed: December 2018

If a requester making a request under the Public Records Act (PRA) is seeking metadata, the requester needs to specifically state that he/she is requesting metadata. Our state supreme court has indicated that a request under the PRA for metadata is not made unless and until a requester specifically asks for metadata. See, e.g., O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138, 151-52 (2010). In O'Neill, the court explains and concludes:

While we agree that metadata is included within the PRA's definition of a "public record," this does not necessarily mean that a government agency must provide metadata every time a request for a public record is made. At the council meeting, O'Neill made an oral request to see the e-mail. The City responded at first by providing a paper copy of the e-mail, without metadata attached. The Court of Appeals ruled that "[t]he PRA requires providing a public record only when it is identifiable," and that the oral request at the Council meeting made no mention of the electronic version of the e-mail or of the associated metadata. O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 145 Wn. App. 913, 935 (2008)], 145 Wn. App. at 932-33. We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that the wording of the oral request did not clearly include metadata. Metadata is a new topic that has never before been dealt with in PRA litigation, and we conclude that a request for the metadata was not made until Ms. O'Neill specifically asked for it.

Id. at 151-52.

This issue was addressed more recently in a November 2012 court decision. Although the decision is unpublished, meaning that it cannot be relied upon as precedential authority, we think the court's analysis is nonetheless helpful and provides an example of how courts analyze such situations. The court concluded that the PRA request at issue was not a request for metadata, and in reaching its conclusion the court relied upon other court decisions that can be relied upon as precedential authority, including the above referenced decision in O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138 (2010).

In Nervik v. Dept of Licensing, 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 2642 (No. 41834-7-II) (November 13, 2012)(unpublished), the court explains and concludes:

Nervik argues that the Department's record production was incomplete because he requested e-mails in electronic format, which by his definition contains metadata. But this argument overlooks that government agencies have discretion regarding record formatting and are not required to provide records in electronic format. Mitchell v. Dep't of Corr., 164 Wn. App. 597, 606-07, 277 P.3d 670 (2011). Nervik's argument also overlooks his own experience demonstrating that electronic format does not necessarily convey metadata (for example, the Department provided Nervik with over 31,000 electronic records, which did not convey metadata). Our Supreme Court held that metadata must be specifically requested and that a request for e-mail is not sufficiently specific to automatically include metadata. O'Neill, 170 Wn.2d at 151-52. Because an agency may deny a request for electronic formatting but it may not deny a specific request for metadata, we decline to view a request for electronic formatting as inherently requesting metadata. Mitchell, 164 Wn. App. at 606-07. Instead, we conclude that a request for electronic format, like a request for e-mail, is not equivalent to a specific request for metadata.

Here, the Department never refused to produce records; it produced all the requested records in installments. Both Nervik's November 2008 requests asked for a "full and complete copy of each and every e[-]mail" and requested, "E[-]mails should be in Outlook .pst format only together with all attachments same as previously provided." CP at 660, 661. This is a mere format request, not a specific metadata request. The Department has discretion over the format of its responses, so the Department did not violate the PRA by producing records that did not convey metadata information. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment dismissal of Nervik's claim that the Department failed to disclose public records by not providing metadata.

Id. at *10-12.

More generally, keep in mind that the PRA requires agencies to provide the fullest assistance in responding to requesters who make PRA requests. See RCW 42.56.100. However, an agency "is not required to be a mind reader when responding to public records requests." Bonamy v. City of Seattle, 92 Wn. App. 403, 409 (1998). Consistent with these principles, and based upon O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138 (2010), a request under the PRA for metadata is not made unless and until a requester specifically asks for metadata.

(Link to this question)

Under RCW 70.48.100, are jail records held in confidence only while the person is actually confined in jail?
Reviewed: December 2018

The confidentiality requirements in RCW 70.48.100 regarding jail records apply to persons that were but are no longer confined in jail - in addition to those currently confined. In Cowles Publ'g Co. v. Spokane Police Dep't, 139 Wn.2d 472, 481 (1999); the state Supreme Court held:

Cowles' argument that the statute [RCW 70.48.100] does not apply because the defendant was not in jail at the time of the request is not persuasive. Nothing in the statute suggests that confidential jail records suddenly become open to public inspection when the jail term ends and the defendant is released.

(Link to this question)

Must a person file a claim via RCW 4.96.020 before filing a PRA lawsuit against the county?
Reviewed: December 2018

In brief, no. Our position at MRSC has been that the claim filing requirements in RCW 4.96.020 don’t apply to a lawsuit based on an alleged violation of the Public Records Act (PRA). RCW 4.96.020, and chapter 4.96 RCW more generally, addresses tort claims, tortious conduct, and claims for damages, but a PRA lawsuit isn’t a tort claim or a claim for damage.

If an agency is found by a court to have violated the PRA, the court may impose penalties as well as attorney fees and costs, but such remedies are different in kind than damages arising out of tortious conduct as provided for under RCW 4.96.020. See, e.g., Amren v. City of Kalama, 131 Wn.2d 25, 36 (1997) (“Since the award [for a PRA violation] has been treated as a penalty it is not necessary for a party to show actual damages to receive the statutory award.”)

The following excerpt from a more recent decision, Corey v. Pierce County, 154 Wn. App. 752 (2010), also indicates that a tort claim for damages is different in kind that a claim under the PRA. In part, the court explains and concludes (at pp. 765-766):

Case law does not support a tort cause of action for damages due to negligent disclosure of unsubstantiated information. Instead, the concern for privacy noted by the trial court stems from the Public Records Act (PRA). Ch. 42.56 RCW. Under the PRA, an invasion of privacy occurs “if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.” RCW 42.56.050. In Dawson v. Daly, a prosecutor sought an injunction to prevent the release of a deputy prosecutor’s personnel file. 120 Wn.2d 782, 788, 845 P.2d 995 (1993). The court determined that the disclosure of the prosecutor’s performance evaluations that did not discuss specific instances of misconduct was highly offensive and lacking in legitimate public interest. Id. at 800. The right to privacy was protected through injunction. Nowhere is there a discussion of a tort action for damages in the event of a violation of the right of privacy. Furthermore, the court did not address the proper standard to be applied if the personnel file did include allegations of misconduct.

Based on the legal principles articulated above, because a claim under the PRA wouldn’t be a claim for damages, the claim filing requirements in chapter 4.96 RCW wouldn’t apply to such a PRA claim.

(Link to this question)

How are the five business days calculated in RCW 42.56.520, which relates to responding to public record requests?
Reviewed: December 2018

RCW 42.56.520 provides that a response to public records request must be made by the agency within five business days. The question is whether the day the request is received counts as one of the five days.

This office has taken the position that the day the request is received does not count as one of the five days. As additional support for that conclusion, RCW 1.12.040 provides:

The time within which an act is to be done, as herein provided, shall be computed by excluding the first day, and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, and then it is also excluded.

This statute appears to be of general application throughout the state statutes.

Additional indirect support exists in the Attorney General Model Rules at WAC 44-14-040, footnote one, and the case of Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 98 Wn. App. 612 (1999). That case involved a public records request. The request was received on Tuesday, February 3, 1998 and the county responded on Friday, February 6, 1998. The court indicated that the response was made on the third day within the five day time period, which means the court was not counting the day the request was received.

(Link to this question)

What is the legal authority for saying that the city is under no obligation to create a record when responding to a PRA request?
Reviewed: December 2018

The RCW’s do not address this question directly, so we have to look to other sources for guidance. The Attorney General’s Public Records Act Model Rules—Ch. 44-14 WAC—are one source of guidance. Although not a binding authority for local governments, the model rules are persuasive authority and will often provide relevant case decisions.

WAC 44-14-04003(6) states that “[a]n agency is not obligated to create a new record to satisfy a records request” and cites Smith v. Okanogan County (2000) as support. Another case that supports this rule is Fisher Broadcasting v. Seattle, which the Washington Supreme Court decided in 2014. Fisher Broadcasting provides an excellent example that explains the complex question of whether an agency should “create” records to fulfill a response.

In Fisher, the court addressed a records request for “a list of any and all digital in-car video/audio recordings.” Fully answering this would have required the PRA Officer to mine data from two distinct systems and create a new document compiling the data. The court found that this is outside the requirement of the PRA and the agency was not obligated to create such a record. However, the agency at issue did have the capacity to produce a record that partially answered the request from one of the systems, and the court held that they should have done so. The court in Fisher explained as follows:

Given the way public records are now stored, there will not always be a simple dichotomy between producing an existing record and creating a new one. But "public record" is broadly defined and includes "existing data compilations from which information may be obtained . . . regardless of physical form or characteristics." This broad definition includes electronic information in a database. Merely because information is in a database designed for a different purpose does not exempt it from disclosure. Nor does it necessarily make the production of information a creation of a record.

For more information, section 1.6 (D) of the Attorney General’s Open Government Resource Manual provides a robust discussion on this topic.

(Link to this question)

Can an individual simultaneously hold office in the state legislature and serve as an elected county official?
Reviewed: November 2018

Yes, simultaneously holding such offices is permissible. In AGLO 1970 No. 82, the Attorney General’s Office noted that “it has long been the position of this office that there is no incompatibility between the various local county or other municipal offices, generally, and a position in the state legislature.” To the same general effect, see AGO 1962 No.177.

Note, however, that under RCW 29A.36.201, no candidate’s name may appear twice on a single ballot, with the exception of a precinct committee officer or a temporary elected position such as a charter review board member or freeholder. So the same person cannot be elected to two public offices if those offices are up for election at the same election.

(Link to this question)

Is a public records officer required to maintain a log of all requests? If so, how detailed must the entries be?
Reviewed: November 2018

Yes. All agencies must maintain a log of records requests, tincluding the requestor identity (if provided), the date and text of the request, the description of records produced, redacted or withheld (and the statute authorizing withholding) and the date of final disposition of the request. RCW 40.14.026(4). In addition to the general log, all agencies with actual staff and legal costs associated with fulfilling PRA requests of at least $100,000 during the prior fiscal year must report a series of metrics to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC). RCW 40.14.026(5). For more information on the JLARC reporting, see the MRSC Blog JLARC Unveils Public Records Reporting System.

(Link to this question)

What statute allows a city to exempt its B&O tax records from public disclosure? 
Reviewed: November 2018

RCW 35.102.145 allows cities to adopt an ordinance specifically exempting their B&O tax returns and tax information from public disclosure, "in the manner provided by RCW 82.32.330." (RCW 82.32.330 is the primary statute that exempts state tax records from disclosure.) RCW 35.102.145 is incorporated into the PRA through RCW 42.56.230(4).

Note that, if a city fails to adopt a statute specifically exempting their B&O tax records from disclosure, there is no other exemption that can be cited to exempt such records.

(Link to this question)

 What are the records retention schedules?
Reviewed: November 2018

Records retention schedules are issued by the Local Records Committee to serve as the retention schedules and disposition authority for records held by local government agencies. The Local Records Committee is a committee which includes the state archivist, a representative appointed by the state auditor, and a representative appointed by the attorney general.

The records retention schedules may be applied directly by agencies as authority to destroy the records listed after the expiration of their approved retention periods. It requires no further authorization or approval.

The most recent versions of the Local Government Records Retention Schedules are available on the Washington State Archives website. Those documents are updated periodically.

In addition to the general records retention schedule applicable to local government agencies, there are retention schedules for some specific departments of local government agencies. Review the Records Management - Local Government page for further information.

(Link to this question)

How soon must a city respond to a request for public records?
Reviewed: November 2018

State law requires that responses to requests for public records be made "promptly." Specifically, cities and other governmental agencies must respond in writing within five business days of receiving a request by either: (1) providing the record; (2) providing an internet address and link on the agency's web site to the specific records requested; (3) acknowledging receipt of the record and providing a reasonable estimate of the time in which a response will be made; or (4) acknowledging receipt of the request and asking the requestor to provide clarification for a request that is unclear and providing a reasonable estimate of time the agency will require to respond to the request if it is not clarified; (5) denying the request. Additional response time beyond five days may be based upon a need to clarify the request, to locate and assemble the records requested, to notify people and agencies affected by the request, or to determine whether any of the requested records are exempt from disclosure (RCW 42.56.520). WAC 44-14-04003 discusses the required timely response and provides some commentary on providing a "reasonable estimate" of the time necessary to respond and on asking for a clarification of the request.

(Link to this question)

For a public records request: can the agency charge for the cost of a flash drive or other storage media to produce the records?
Reviewed: November 2018

For a public records request, an agency  may charge for the actual cost of the flash drive or other storage media used to produce the electronic public records requested. This is true whether the agency has adopted the statutory default fee schedule or has adopted a fee schedule with their actual costs (RCW 42.56.120).

In charging its actual costs, the agency needs to have a statement of factors and manner it used to determine actual costs. For examples of fee schedules adopted by agencies, see our webpage on the Public Records Act (Scroll down page to section on "Charges for Copying and Producing Electronic Records").

(Link to this question)

Which RCWs or WACs provide that an e-mail, text, or social media post is a public record?
Reviewed: November 2018

The Public Records Act defines the term "public record" very broadly to include:

any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any . . . local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.

See RCW 42.56.010(2).

RCW 42.56.010(3) contains an equally broad definition of a "writing":

"Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.

Case law has concluded that emails, text messages and social media posts are public records. O’Neill v. Shoreline (emails); Nissen v. Pierce County (text messages); West v. City of Puyallup (social media posts). When an email, text message or social media post is sent or posted from a personal account, the email, text or post is a public records only if it was prepared within employee’s or official’s scope of employment or official capacity. For more on records located on personal accounts, please see the following:

For more information on this topic, see MRSC’s Public Records Act webpage.

(Link to this question)

What is the law regarding overbroad public disclosure requests?
Reviewed: November 2018

An agency can deny a request for “all or substantially all” agency records; this is not a valid request for identifiable records and can be denied by the agency (RCW 42.56.080, WAC 44-14-04002(2)). However, if a requestor asks for “all or substantially all” of the agency’s record on a particular topic or to/from a particular person, the agency cannot deny the request (although it can, of course, work with the requestor to clarify or narrow the request). See RCW 42.56.520(1)(d); WAC 44-14-040(4)(c); WAC 44-14-04002(2).

(Link to this question)

May a local government direct a requestor to another local government's website where interlocal agreements are posted to satisfy a public record request?
Reviewed: November 2018

RCW 42.56.520 allows a public agency, as a valid response to a public records request, to provide an Internet address and link on the agency’s web site to the records requested.  In this case, the link is to another local government’s webpage, so there could be some quality control issues (e.g., if the link is moved and no longer provides the record requested). However, if the agency ensures the link is functioning and provides the records requested, this should comply with RCW 42.56.520, even though the record is located on another agency’s website. Alternatively, the agency could download the interlocal and provide the record directly, rather than sending the requestor to a different agency’s website.

(Link to this question)

May cities and counties impose their regular photocopy charges when responding to a public disclosure request for copies of their civil service rules?
Reviewed: November 2018

No. State law requires that cities and counties provide copies of police or fire civil service rules to the public for free. See RCW 41.08.040(1) and RCW 41.12.040(1), pertaining to fire and police civil service in cities, and RCW 41.14.060(1), pertaining to civil service for the sheriff's office in counties, which provide that the civil service rules and regulations "shall be printed, mimeographed or multigraphed for free public distribution."

(Link to this question)

Must copies of public records be provided at no cost if requestor says he/she/they cannot afford the cost?
Reviewed: November 2018

There is no provision in the Public Records Act that exempts indigent persons from having to pay for copies of public records pursuant to a PRA request. The PRA allows a public agency to adopt a policy allowing waiver of PRA charges (RCW 42.56.120(4)); however, unless it puts an upper limit on that number, it would be opening itself up to providing to indigent persons any number of copies at no charge. Also, any such policy should require proof of indigent status, as that may be defined in the policy.

For more information on this topic, see the Public Records Act webpage.

(Link to this question)

How long must a city or county retain the minutes of advisory boards, committees or commissions?
Reviewed: November 2018

The Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE), version 4.0 (May 2017), provides in section 1.10 that such records shall be retained for six years, and have potential archival value, so your regional archivist should be contacted before disposing of the records.

For more information on this topic, see the following:

(Link to this question)

Can a PRA requestor remain anonymous?
Reviewed: November 2018

An individual can use a pseudonym or remain anonymous in making a PRA request, except under certain limited circumstances where state law limits who may receive certain records.

The Attorney General’s Office has published an Open Government Resource Manual that includes a discussion about the identity of a requestor. At Chapter 1.6B it states:

RCW 42.56.080 provides that agencies may not distinguish between requesters and must make records available to “any person.” However, the PRA recognizes that other statutes may limit which persons may receive records. RCW 42.56.080. For example, an agency may need to determine whether a particular requester is authorized to receive requested health care records pursuant to RCW 70.02.030. Also, a court order (including an injunction under RCW 42.56.565 or < a href="">RCW 71.09.120(3) barring an inmate or sexually violent predator from receiving a record) may restrict an agency from releasing records to particular persons. RCW 42.56.080; WAC 44-14-04003(1). Or, an agency may need to know the identity of a requester asking for a list of individuals to verify the lack of a prohibited commercial purpose. RCW 42.56.070(9); RCW 42.56.080; SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. State (2016). For requests falling within the 2016 law, an agency may need to know the identity of a person requesting a body worn camera recording. RCW 42.56.080 (as amended in 2016); RCW 42.56.240 (as amended in 2016). Therefore, depending upon the records requested and the laws that govern those records, sometimes an agency may consider the identity of a requester or need more information from a requester

So, unless one of these circumstances applies, the agency cannot require the requestor provide their legal name in order for the agency to respond to a PRA request. Again, see RCW 42.56.080.

(Link to this question)

Can an agency hire an outside firm to assist in going through the agency's records to meet a PRA request?  If yes, can the agency charge the requestor for the actual cost for this service?
Reviewed: November 2018

Yes, the agency may hire an outside firm to help it meet the request, but the agency may not pass onto the requestor the cost of hiring the outside firm. The PRA, at RCW 42.56.120, states: "No fee shall be charged for the inspection of public records or locating public documents and making them available for copying," unless the request involves a customized service charge or is a request for a body camera recording.

If the agency has limited staff to devote to the request and has other important time commitments, that should be taken into account in providing the requestor with the reasonable estimate of the time it will take to respond to her request. Although records should be provided within a reasonable time period, besides the five-day initial response required under RCW 42.56.520, there is no required time period in which the agency is required to provide the records for inspection or copying.

(Link to this question)

May an agency charge more than 15 cents per page for color copies?
Reviewed: November 2018

The statutory default amount for all hard copies is 15 cents a page; if the agency has adopted the statutory default amount, it can only charge 15 cents a page for a color copy. However, if an agency has adopted a fee schedule with its actual costs, and has determined that the   cost of a color copy is, say, 20 cents, it may charge that amount for color copies. RCW 42.56.120 provides in part as follows:

(2)(a) Agency charges for actual costs may only be imposed in accordance with the costs established and published by the agency pursuant to RCW 42.56.070(7) and in accordance with the statement of factors and manner used to determine the actual costs. In no event may an agency charge a per page cost greater than the actual cost as established and published by the agency.

(b) An agency need not calculate the actual costs it charges for providing records if it has rules or regulations declaring the reasons doing so would be unduly burdensome. To the extent the agency has not determined the actual costs of copying public records, the agency may not charge in excess of:

(i) Fifteen cents per page for photocopies of public records….

For information on establishing per page charges, see WAC 44-14-07001 ("General rules for charging for copies"), one of the Attorney General's "Model Rules" for public records disclosure.

(Link to this question)

How long does an office have to keep a Public Records Request (from outside individuals) and the documents produced for the Request?
Reviewed: October 2018

As an initial matter, the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, does not require an agency to make an extra copy of a record the agency provides in response to a PRA request. For example, if a PRA request is made for a document that exists as a hardcopy record and the agency makes a photocopy of the record and provides it to the PRA requester, the agency is not required to make an extra copy of that record to keep for agency purposes.

Sec. GS2010-014 Rev. 2 of the Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE) applies to public records requests. It provides for a two year retention period for records “relating to requests from the general public” under the PRA. The types of records listed in this category include internal and external correspondence relating to a PRA request and other records “documenting” the PRA request. This retention period applies but is not limited to:

  • Internal and external correspondence relating to the request;
  • Legal advice/opinions;
  • Records documenting the public records provided to the requestor (copies or lists of the records provided, etc.);
  • Records documenting the public records (or portions) withheld (exemption logs, copies of portions redacted, etc.);
  • Records documenting administrative reviews relating to the request
  • Tracking logs.

(Link to this question)

May a city impose business license requirements on businesses that don't have a physical location within the city but that do business within the city?
Reviewed: July 2018

Yes. Many Washington cities have passed ordinances requiring out-of-city businesses “engaging in business” within the city to obtain a city business license and/or to pay the city B&O tax. Some cities have created separate “in-city” and “out-of-city” licensing requirements and application forms.

However, in an attempt to provide some statewide standardization for businesses, note that chapter 35.90 RCW (adopted in 2017) requires all cities and towns with general business licensing requirements to adopt two “model ordinance” provisions impacting licensing for out-of-town businesses:

(1) Cities and towns must adopt a uniform definition of “engaging in business” as established by the model ordinance. This definition mirrors the definition of “engaging in business” for business and occupation (B&O) taxes.

(2) For businesses that engage in business within the city but are not physically located within the city, the ordinance establishes a minimum dollar threshold below which the businesses are partially or fully exempted from licensing requirements. The minimum threshold of business activity in the ordinance is $2,000. Cities may adopt a higher threshold if desired, but not a lower threshold.

Below the minimum threshold, cities must either:

  • Exempt these businesses from the licensing requirements entirely, or
  • Require licensing, but at no cost to the businesses.

Cities and towns must update their business licensing requirements to include these model provisions no later than October 17, 2018 (for current BLS partner cities) and January 1, 2019 for all other cities and towns. Any city or town that does not adopt the model ordinance by the deadline is prohibited from enforcing its general business licensing requirements until it adopts the model ordinance provisions.

For the exact language that must be used, see the complete model ordinance text. For further details, see our City Business Licensing and Fees topic page.

(Link to this question)

Do you have any information on how other cities are dealing with vacant and foreclosed homes?
Reviewed: May 2018

Please see the following:

  • Ch. 6.10, Bremerton Municipal Code, “Abandoned Property Registration and Maintenance (see also “Abandoned Property Registration”)
  • Ch. 16.16, Everett Municipal Code, “Maintenance of Vacant Commercial Space in the Central Business District”
  • Ch. 15.20, Auburn Municipal Code, “Property Maintenance Code” (see Sec. 15.20.080, Vacant property registration)

You may also be interested in reviewing the following related resources:

(Link to this question)

Does the OPMA apply to elected officials before they are sworn in?
Reviewed: October 2017

In Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 107 Wn. App. 550 (2001), the Washington Court of Appeals reasoned that the OPMA does not apply to elected officials before they are sworn in:

Washington's OPMA is, at most, ambiguous as to its application to members-elect. Although the OPMA defines “action” broadly, nothing suggests that members-elect have the power to transact a governing body's official business before they are sworn in. Thus, they are not “members” of a governing body with authority to take “action.”

Therefore, under the Wood case, members-elect do not become members of a governing body for the purpose of the OPMA until they are sworn in.

(Link to this question)

Within Washington State, does the authority to transfer surplus property to other government agencies include Indian tribes?
Reviewed: May 2017

Yes, tribes are considered government agencies. RCW 39.33.010(1) governs transfers of both real and personal property between government agencies. That provision specifically mentions tribes. It states:

The state or any municipality or any political subdivision thereof, may sell, transfer, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose of any property, real or personal, or property rights, including but not limited to the title to real property, to the state or any municipality or any political subdivision thereof, or the federal government, or a federally recognized Indian tribe, on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the proper authorities of the state and/or the subdivisions concerned. In addition, the state, or any municipality or any political subdivision thereof, may sell, transfer, exchange, lease, or otherwise dispose of personal property, except weapons, to a foreign entity.

MRSC has a topic page on the Surplus City or Town Property that includes a section on intergovernmental transfers of property.

(Link to this question)

Are real estate appraisals and market analyses done for purposes of leasing property exempt from production under the Public Records Act (PRA)?
Reviewed: May 2017

Yes, RCW 42.56.260 generally exempts a market analysis or appraisal of property for rent or lease, in addition to property for purchase. RCW 42.56.260 states:

(1) Subject to the time limitations in subsection (2) of this section, the following documents relating to an agency's real estate transactions are exempt from public inspection and copying under this chapter:

(a) Except as provided by chapter 8.26 RCW, the contents of real estate appraisals, made for or by any agency relative to the acquisition or sale of property;

(b) Documents prepared for the purpose of considering the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price, including records prepared for executive session pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(b); and

(c) Documents prepared for the purpose of considering the minimum price of real estate that will be offered for sale or lease when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price, including records prepared for executive session pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(c).

(2) The exemptions in this section do not apply when disclosure is mandated by another statute or after the project or prospective project is abandoned or all properties that are part of the project have been purchased, sold, or leased. No appraisal may be withheld for more than three years.

While for some reason subsection (1)(a) does not list leases, it mentions “acquisitions,” which based on the rest of RCW 42.56.260 should be interpreted to include leases. Specifically, subsection (1)(b) more generally exempts documents prepared for the “purpose of considering . . . the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase . . . .” So again, presumably the reference to acquisition in subsection (1)(a) includes acquisition by lease. Moreover, subsection (2) mentions properties that have been “purchased, sold, or leased.”

(Link to this question)

Please provide some examples of good food cart/food truck regulations.
Reviewed: May 2017

The following are some sample food cart/food truck regulations adopted by jurisdictions here in Washington State:

(Link to this question)

Must a fireworks ordinance that is more restrictive than state law actually be in effect on June 28 to be effective the
following 4th of July fireworks season, or would it be enough if it is merely adopted before June 28?

Reviewed: February 2017

RCW 70.77.250(4), relating to local regulations more strict than the state's, says:

Any ordinances adopted by a county or city that are more restrictive than state law shall have an effective date no sooner than one year after their adoption.

(Emphasis added.) Given this, the ordinance could not go into effect until one year after the council votes on the ordinance. So, to be in effect as of the beginning of the 2018 4th of July fireworks season (which begins on June 28), the council must adopt (vote to approve) the ordinance no later than June 27, 2017.

(Link to this question)

Can the city surplus and sell an old city vehicle as a “direct sale,” or does it legally have to go to bid?
Reviewed: December 2016

A “direct sale” is permissible provided that the city council declares the property to be surplus and authorizes the manner of sale. There is no requirement that surplus city property be offered to all, or put up at auction, or that bids be requested. Cities do not have required procedures for the disposal of surplus property as do counties in chapter 36.34 RCW. The property can be sold to a specific individual, if that is what council wishes to do. However, the council should still declare the property surplus to the city's needs and set a price below which it will not be sold. Obviously, if the council has adopted a policy regarding sale of surplus property, that policy should be followed.

For more information, please see our page Surplus City or Town Property, which includes general information and sample policies.

(Link to this question)

Do newspaper publishers or distributors have any legal rights to place newsracks or newspaper pay boxes in the public right-of-way? Can the city have them moved or at least placed on private property?
Reviewed: October 2016

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the placement of newsracks (newspaper pay boxes) on sidewalks is “speech” subject to First Amendment protections. City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. , 507 U.S. 410 (1993); Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988). But, the Supreme Court has not squarely addressed whether a complete prohibition on the placement of newsracks on city sidewalks would be constitutional. See International Caucus of Labor Comms. v.City of Montgomery , 111 F.3d 1548 (1997) (“there is no Supreme Court holding that deals with the constitutional implications of a complete ban of newsracks one way or the other.”). The Washington Supreme Court has also not addressed that question, though in one case it refers to the Cincinnati case as “invalidating city ordinance prohibiting newsracks on public property.” Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. , 131 Wn.2d 523, 537 n. 11 (1997). (The Cincinnati case invalidated a city ordinance that banned only those newsracks that contained certain commercial publications.) That being said, we think it would be constitutionally risky to adopt a complete prohibition on news racks on city sidewalks.

What is clear is that a city may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the placement of newsracks on public sidewalks, as long as those restrictions are “content neutral” and are “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication." Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. City of Lakewood, 794 F. 2d 1139, 1143 (6th Cir. 1986), aff’d, 486 U.S. 750 (1988). The city may, for example require permits for news racks, as long as the permitting authority is guided by objective and definite standards. Licensing fees are permissible if they cover only administrative costs. For more information on permissible requirements, see the IMLA [International Municipal Lawyers Association] Model Newsrack Ordinance (1997), starting at page 11.

Here are some examples of city code provisions regulating newsracks on public sidewalks:

(Link to this question)

Do you have any examples of city code updates to allow for small cell or distributed antenna systems (DAS)?
Reviewed: October 2016

We have several examples of code provisions adopted pursuant to the new FCC rules stemming from federal legislation requiring local governments to allow for small cell or distributed antenna systems:

A quick look at these examples seems to indicate that they’ve largely followed either the National League of Cities (NLC) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) model ordinance, or the Kenyon Disend PLLC law firm model ordinance.

(Link to this question)

Can a city require fencing to limit access to an individual's medical cannabis grow?
Reviewed: October 2016

Cities can require that outdoor medical marijuana grows be fenced or screened in some way if that is necessary to keep the plants from being readily visible. Review RCW 69.51A.260(2), which reads as follows:

Neither the production nor processing of marijuana or marijuana-infused products pursuant to this section nor the storage or growing of plants may occur if any portion of such activity can be readily seen by normal unaided vision or readily smelled from a public place or the private property of another housing unit.

Most medical marijuana patients or designated providers have a natural incentive to screen plants from view so the plants do not become the targets of thieves.

In addition, WAC 314-55-410(1)(k) requires that outdoor medical marijuana production “be enclosed by a sight obscure wall or fence at least eight feet high.” Note, however, that WAC 314-55-410(1)(k) only applies to cooperatives, not to medical marijuana being grown by a sole medical marijuana patient or designated provider.

(Link to this question)

Since labor negotiations are exempt from the Open Public Meetings Act, may approval of a collective bargaining agreement occur in a closed meeting?
Reviewed: July 2016

No. It is true that collective bargaining and developing a strategy for the bargaining can occur in a closed meeting; meetings to consider such matters are exempt from the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30.140(4)). However, actual approval of the contract must occur in a meeting open to the public. The approval of the contract would need to be listed on the board's agenda for consideration at either at a regular or special meeting.

(Link to this question)

How should sessions to discuss labor negotiations be handled for Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) purposes?
Reviewed: July 2016

RCW 42.30.140(4) provides that the OPMA "shall not apply to":

(4)(a) Collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations, including contract negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions relating to the interpretation or application of a labor agreement; or (b) that portion of a meeting during which the governing body is planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the governing body during the course of any collective bargaining, professional negotiations, or grievance or mediation proceedings, or reviewing the proposals made in the negotiations or proceedings while in progress.

(Emphasis added.) The above section lists exemptions from the Open Public Meetings Act, including sessions to discuss or plan the district's plans for collective bargaining sessions. Since this is an exemption, it takes such sessions out of the Open Public Meetings Act altogether. There is no requirement that the public be allowed to attend, and there is no requirement that notice be given of the session. A session to discuss labor negotiations is similar to an executive session in that the public does not have the right to attend, but it is different than an executive session because none of the other provisions of the OPMA apply.

So, the district may conduct these sessions in private. The sessions could occur over the telephone (for example, if negotiations are continuing and your negotiator needs to know whether the commissioners would be willing to increase the salary X percent in order to finish the negotiations). The session could take place at the district's regular meeting place, but it could be held elsewhere, if it is more convenient. If the session occurs before or after a regular or special meeting, we suggest that the meeting agenda indicate that there will be a "closed session" to discuss collective bargaining strategy - so that the public knows what is going on.

(Link to this question)

Could I send an email of relevance to water-sewer district business to the other commissioners for information purposes only? I had the first line of the email clearly state: "For informational purposes only, please do not reply."
Reviewed: July 2016

It is not a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) for you to send this email for informational purposes only to the other commissioners. If they only passively receive the information, there is no violation. See, e.g., Wood v. Battle Ground School District, 107 Wn. App. 550 (2001). However, if just one of the other two commissioners responds to the email, then it could be deemed a violation of the OPMA because there would have been action taken (a discussion of district business) by a quorum of the board of commissioners outside of a meeting open to the public. We recommend just what you are doing - clearly state that the other commissioners should not reply to your email.

MRSC developed a handy tip sheet on how to avoid OPMA violations when sending email. One other thing we recommend is having a staff member send the email on your behalf so if a commissioner responds, it would not constitute a meeting because none of the other commissioners would be a recipient of the response (assuming the staff member doesn't forward the response!).

(Link to this question)

What reasonable accommodations must be made for persons with a disability (hearing impaired in this case) who want to attend a public meeting?
Reviewed: June 2016

ADA regulations, specifically 28 CFR § 35.160(b), provide:

(1) A public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities, including applicants, participants, companions, and members of the public, an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity.
(2) The type of auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication will vary in accordance with the method of communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place. In determining what types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of individuals with disabilities. In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability.

According to the Department of Justice's Title II Technical Assistance Manual, at II-7.1100:

It is important to consult with the individual to determine the most appropriate auxiliary aid or service, because the individual with a disability is most familiar with his or her disability and is in the best position to determine what type of aid or service will be effective.

See, also, General Effective Communication Requirements Under Title II of the ADA, Chapter 3 of the ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments (2009).

So, a public agency should be prepared to accommodate a hearing impaired person attending its meetings. The best practice is to consult with the individual to determine how best to provide the accommodation. For example, it may be that providing a sign language interpreter would be a reasonable accommodation in this situation.

Jurisdictions should provide notice about ADA accommodation availability. 28 CFR § 35.163(a) states:

A public entity shall ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.

For public meetings, such notice could be provided in published notices/agendas of upcoming meetings. For example, see this notice on the agenda for a City of Bellevue council meeting (bottom of first page) and a similar notice on the agenda for a City of Battle Ground council meeting (bottom of second page).

(Link to this question)

Does the city have to pay for the cost of indigent defense for an appeal to the superior court of a municipal court's conviction?
Reviewed: May 2016

The city is not responsible for public defense for criminal appeals to the court of appeals or the Supreme Court; the state is responsible for those costs. RCW 4.88.330. Unfortunately for local governments, this statute does not apply to appeals from municipal court to superior court. The Washington State Supreme Court made this point clear in Kitsap County v. Moore, 144 Wn.2d 292 (2001). In Moore, Kitsap County and Bremerton contended that the cost of indigent misdemeanant appeals, including attorney fees and costs, for appeals from municipal/district court to superior court was the state's responsibility to pay under RCW 4.88.330. After construing the statute, court rules and legislative history, the court rejected this argument and concluded that the local jurisdiction (cities or counties) is responsible for the costs of indigent misdemeanant appeals to superior courts.

(Link to this question)

Request for information about dealing with blighted/poor maintained/abandoned properties
Reviewed: May 2016

The procedures in RCW 35.80.030 are available to deal with situations in which "one or more conditions of the character described in RCW 35.80.010 exist"; those conditions are:

dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, and buildings, structures, and premises or portions thereof which are unfit for other uses due to dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, defects increasing the hazards of fire, accidents, or other calamities, inadequate ventilation and uncleanliness, inadequate light or sanitary facilities, inadequate drainage, overcrowding, or due to other conditions which are inimical to the health and welfare of the residents of such municipalities and counties.

One advantage of using the procedures in RCW 35.80.030 is the method of cost recovery provided in subsection (h) that statute where the property owner does not abate a dangerous structure and the city must do so, the assessment for which can be entered upon the tax rolls against the property for the current year and the same shall become a part of the general taxes for that year to be collected at the same time and with interest at such rates and in such manner as provided for in RCW 84.56.020 for delinquent taxes, and when collected to be deposited to the credit of the general fund of the municipality.

Another available tool that some cities have adopted is the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (1997), the stated purpose of which is to address "buildings or structures which from any cause endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety or welfare of the general public or their occupants may be required to be repaired, vacated or demolished." See Sec. 102.1.

Then there is also the International Property Maintenance Code (2012), adopted by some jurisdictions (e.g., Longview), to provide:

minimum requirements and standards for premises, structures, equipment and facilities for light, ventilation, space, heating, sanitation, protection from the elements, life safety, safety from fire and other hazards, and for safe and sanitary maintenance; the responsibility of owners, operators and occupants; the occupancy of existing structures and premises and for administration, enforcement and penalties.

Sec. 101.2.

Our Building and Property Nuisances webpage has examples of ordinances adopting one or the other of these provisions or establishing their own procedures for addressing these issues of blighted/poor maintained/abandoned properties.

(Link to this question)

Do you have guidelines for a majority of city councilmembers traveling together?
Reviewed: April 2016

First, there is a specific statutory provision that allows a majority (or more) of the city council to travel together so long as there is no discussion of city business amongst them. RCW 42.30.070 states in part:

(It shall not be a violation of the requirements of this chapter for a majority of the members of a governing body to travel together or gather for purposes other than a regular meeting or a special meeting as these terms are used in this chapter: PROVIDED, That they take no action as defined in this chapter.

Note that "action" is defined in RCW 42.30.020(3) to include discussion of city business:

(3) "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions.

The above restrictions apply when a quorum of the council travels together, such as, for example, to Washington D.C. to meet with Congressional representatives, or to a meeting held by another agency. For a seven-member city council, four councilmembers constitutes a quorum, so two or three councilmembers can travel together and discuss city affairs without any OPMA implications.

Councilmembers should avoid during their trip any conversation regarding city business that is done when a quorum is present (even if only two members are speaking), and the council should avoid any serial conversations on a city issue that would result in the participation in that conversation of a quorum of the council.

At the last meeting prior to the council trip, it might be wise to have the city attorney (if present at the meeting) or the mayor remind the councilmembers of the OPMA restrictions on discussions of city business by a quorum outside of an open public meeting. That lets the public know that the council is aware of the OPMA restrictions. Keep in mind, however, that some members of the public may nevertheless be distrustful of council compliance with the OPMA when a majority of more of the council travel together.

(Link to this question)

May the city impose any local taxes (in addition to the regular sales tax) on marijuana sales
Reviewed: March 2016

There is no statutory authority for the city to impose additional sales taxes on licensed marijuana retail businesses.The relevant statutes for the state excise taxes for marijuana sales are RCW 69.50.535 and RCW 69.50.540

(Link to this question)

May a city regulate, through zoning, where in the city medical marijuana patients may grow marijuana plants in their own housing units?
Reviewed: March 2016

In our opinion, a city may not restrict the growing of marijuana plants by qualifying patients in their own housing units in compliance with state law. RCW 69.51A.210, enacted as part of the 2015 medical marijuana legislation, allows a "qualifying patient" (defined in RCW 69.51A.010(19)) to grow "in his or her domicile" up to either four, six, or fifteen plants, the number depending on factors identified in that statute. The growing of such plants may not, however, "be readily seen by normal unaided vision or readily smelled from a public place or the private property of another housing unit." RCW 69.51A.260(2).

While, under RCW 69.51A.250(3)(c), a city or county may prohibit the newly-authorized (as of 7/1/2016) marijuana cooperatives in certain zones or, presumably, even entirely, no such authorization is provided to cities and counties with respect to the growing of plants by individual, qualifying patients in their housing units. Any such prohibition of qualifying patients growing marijuana plants in their housing units in a particular zone or citywide would be in conflict with state law that permits such growing by qualifying patients in their housing units.

As such, it is our opinion that the right given by statute to qualifying patients to grow marijuana plants in their housing units cannot be restricted or prohibited by local zoning.

Note, however, that the city "may create and enforce civil penalties, including abatement procedures, for the growing or processing of marijuana and for keeping marijuana plants beyond or otherwise not in compliance with" RCW 69.51A.260.

(Link to this question)

Who is covered by new Human Rights Commission regulations against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity?
Reviewed: March 2016

The terms "covered entity" or "covered entities" are not used in Human Rights Commission regulations other than in the new chapter 162-32 WAC, established in WSR 15-24-071, and they are not defined anywhere in the Human Rights Commission regulations. But, because the Human Rights Commission regulations regarding sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity implement state legislation, specifically in chapter 49.60 RCW, reference must be made to that RCW chapter to determine the entities covered by these new regulations regarding sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity. And, note that the new WAC 162-32-010 (General purpose and scope) states:

This chapter interprets and implements the sexual orientation and gender expression and gender identity discrimination protections of RCW 49.60.030, 49.60.180, and 49.60.215 and provides guidance regarding certain specific forms of sexual orientation and gender expression and gender identity discrimination.

RCW 49.60.030, referred to above, is the general declaration of freedom from discrimination, while RCW 49.60.180 addresses discrimination by employers and RCW 49.60.215 addresses discrimination by places of "public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement," which are defined in RCW 49.60.040.

Local governments are covered both as employers and, to some extent, as places of public assemblage. However, non-public restrooms of a local government with less than eight employees are not subject to the new rules. The law against discrimination applies only to employers with eight employees or more. RCW 49.60.040(11). A local government with less than eight employees still needs to comply with the new rules for restrooms available for public use.

(Link to this question)

Does MRSC have a guide that outlines a local government's obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Reviewed: December 2015

MRSC has not published "guide" per se, but we do have an Americans with Disabilities Act webpage that has a wide range of information about local government responsibilities in dealing with the requirements of the ADA. It includes a very useful link to the ADA Document Portal, which provides comprehensive access to statutes, regulations, opinions, and guides regarding the ADA.

The U.S. Department of Justice has just published a new technical assistance guide, ADA Update: A Primer for State and Local Governments, to assist state and local governments in understanding and complying with the ADA's requirements, which you might find useful.

(Link to this question)

Request for information on the regulation of food trucks.
Reviewed: November 2015

MRSC's webpage, Regulation of Peddlers, Solicitors, Temporary Merchants, and Mobile Vendors, includes information about how various jurisdictions deal with mobile vending such as food trucks, including legal issues and examples of regulations. In addition, here are links to regulations from several jurisdictions to show how they've dealt with food trucks:

  • Des Moines Municipal Code Ch. 5.57 - Mobile and Itinerant Vendor Code
  • Edmonds Municipal Code Ch. 4.12 - Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors
  • Enumclaw Municipal Code Ch. 5.60 - Solicitors and Mobile Vendors
  • Everett Municipal Code Ch. 5.84 - Mobile Food Units
  • Lacey Municipal Code Ch. 16.70 - Street Merchants
  • Mount Vernon Municipal Code Ch. 17.92 - Development and Permit Requirements for Mobile Food Vans and Espresso Stands
  • Pierce County Code Ch. 5.10 - Peddlers and Solicitors

Here are examples of information from Seattle and King County made available to businesses considering establishing a mobile food business:

Finally, an easily overlooked issue is the leasehold excise tax. If a food truck proposes to locate on public property, such as a park or public space other than a street right-of-way, you may also need to consider the leasehold excise tax. Most leases of publicly owned real and personal property in the state are subject to a leasehold excise tax in lieu of a property tax. See chapter 82.29A RCW. An easy way to determine whether leasehold excise tax must be paid, is to ask the following question: "If the lessee owned the property, would the party have to pay property tax?" If the answer is "yes," then leasehold excise tax must be paid. If the answer is "no," then no tax is due. When the food truck/vendor is leasing space from the city, they are subject to the leasehold excise tax.

(Link to this question)

Can local governments regulate religious, political, or charitable solicitation?
Reviewed: September 2015

Cities may not impose licensing, permitting, or registration requirements on religious solicitations (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)), or on political and charitable solicitations (Peace Action Coalition v. City of Medina, Case No. C00-1811C (W.D. WA, 2000), but it may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on them. The First Amendment allows such restrictions on protected speech provided the restrictions "are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989).

We were unable to find a current link to the Peace Action Coalition decision, cited above, which was an unpublished order by the federal district court, but here is how we describe that decision on our Regulation of Peddlers, Solicitors, Temporary Merchants and Mobile Vendors webpage:

While there are no reported Washington court decisions on the validity of "Green River" ordinances, on November 3, 2000, U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour issued an order (Peace Action Coalition v. City of Medina, Case No. C00-1811C) enjoining the city of Medina from enforcing its municipal ordinance regulating peddlers and solicitors.

The city of Medina had a requirement that all solicitors and peddlers must register with the police department and submit to a criminal background check. The lawsuit did not challenge the portion of the ordinance that regulated the conduct of commercial activities, defined as peddling. However, the judge did enjoin the portion of the ordinance that applied the registration/background checks to political, religious and charitable organizations. (A number of cities still do require a criminal background check to commercial solicitors.)

In the words of the court, "the relevant portions of the Medina Municipal Code constitute an improper prior restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment, and are impermissibly overbroad and vague, chilling constitutionally protected speech."

(Link to this question)

Is the county required to allow in the courthouse all animals claimed to be service animals? Can the county ask for some sort of certification regarding the service animal?
Reviewed: June 2015

See the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division ADA publication entitled ADA 2010 Revised Requirements - Service Animals (July 2011). This publication discusses general protections for service animals under both Title II (State and local government services) and Title III (Public accommodations and commercial facilities). It provides an overview of the issues you are asking about, including how service animals are defined, where service animals are allowed, what inquiries can be made concerning the status of service animals, and conditions that warrant removal of a service animal from the premises.

In regard to your specific questions, note the following relevant discussion from this DOJ publication:

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person's disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

The work or task a service animal has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability. Animals whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

The DOJ publication goes on to identify two circumstances under which the local government can ask a person with a disability to remove his service animal from the premises:

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal's presence.

(Link to this question)

Can the question of whether marijuana businesses should be allowed in the city be decided by a voter initiative?
Reviewed: June 2015

It's our opinion that the question of whether marijuana businesses can be located within the city is not subject to voter initiative. This issue is, basically, a zoning/land use planning question, and the courts have been clear that zoning/land use planning issues are not proper subjects for initiative or referendum. See, e.g., Leonard v. Bothell, 87 Wn.2d 847 (1976); Lince v. Bremerton, 25 Wn. App. 309 (1980). The reasoning of the courts is that the legislature has delegated the zoning power in a city to the city council and not to the city as a corporate entity; if a power has been delegated to the city council, it is not subject to voter initiative.

So, the voters may not, in our opinion, repeal this ordinance through the initiative process.

(Link to this question)

Are Airbnb (and the like) rentals subject to the lodging tax?
Reviewed: June 2015

Yes, though it's a roundabout way that we get to that result, because the lodging tax statutes do not actually define "lodging." RCW 67.28.180(1) provides that the lodging tax is imposed on "the furnishing of lodging that is subject to tax under chapter 82.08 RCW," the RCW chapter dealing with the retail sales tax. RCW 82.08.010(6) states that "The meaning attributed in chapter 82.04 RCW to the terms . . . 'sale' . . . applies equally to the provisions of this chapter." RCW 82.04.040(1) defines "sale" to include "any transfer of the ownership of, title to, or possession of property for a valuable consideration and includes any activity classified as a 'sale at retail' or 'retail sale' under RCW 82.04.050." RCW 82.04.050(2)(f) then defines "sale at retail" or "retail sale" to include:

The furnishing of lodging and all other services by a hotel, rooming house, tourist court, motel, trailer camp, and the granting of any similar license to use real property, as distinguished from the renting or leasing of real property, and it is presumed that the occupancy of real property for a continuous period of one month or more constitutes a rental or lease of real property and not a mere license to use or enjoy the same.

(Emphasis added.) The rental of a room or an apartment or a house, etc., through an organization like Airbnb or VRBO qualifies as the "furnishing of lodging" under this definition, because it represents a "license to use real property." That furnishing of lodging through Airbnb and the like is thus subject to a local lodging tax.

Airbnb, on its website, even acknowledges this:

Your state or locality may impose a tax on the rental of rooms. In many places this is known as a occupancy tax, but may also be known as a lodging tax, a room tax, a use tax, a tourist tax, or hotel tax. We expect all hosts to familiarize themselves with and follow their local laws and regulations.

Of course, unless your jurisdiction knows, though a licensing or registration scheme, what property owners act as Airbnb "hosts," it will be unable to collect its lodging tax from those hosts. We are not aware of any local governments in this state that yet regulate businesses like Airbnb through a licensing or registration scheme, though some may.

(Link to this question)

May candidates for mayor have a "meet and greet your candidates night" at city hall, and, if not, can it be held at the school gym since it is not a school board election?
Reviewed: May 2015

First we want to note that the answer to your question is the same regardless if the event would be held in the city hall or in the school gym, since both the city and the school district are public agencies within the meaning of RCW 42.17A.555, which contains the prohibition on using public office or public agency facilities to support or oppose a candidate or ballot proposition. See definition of "agency" in RCW 42.17A.005(2). It does not matter that this does not involve a school board election.

The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), the agency that enforces RCW 42.17A.555, has concluded that the "Use of agency meeting facilities is permitted when the facility is merely a 'neutral forum' where the activity is taking place, and the public agency in charge of the facility is not actively endorsing or supporting the activity that is occurring." See Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns, PDC Interpretation 04-02 (amended May 2013). Often such neutral forums involve the candidates taking turns giving speeches to the attendees, but it could also encompass a "meet and greet" as is contemplated here.

So, yes, the "meet and greet" could take place at the city hall.

(Link to this question)

May the city sell surplus property to a specific individual (without offering it to all)?            
Reviewed: April 2015

Yes. There is no requirement that surplus city property be offered to all, or put up at auction, or that bids be requested. Cities do not have required procedures for the disposal of surplus property as do counties in chapter 36.34 RCW. The property can be sold to a specific individual, if that is what council wishes to do.  Though, council should still declare the property surplus to the city's needs and set a price below which it will not be sold. Obviously, if the council has adopted a policy regarding sale of surplus property, that policy should be followed (or changed, if need be).

(Link to this question)

What limits are there on city officials lobbying on proposed legislation at the state legislature?
Reviewed: March 2015

Lobbying by local governments on proposed legislation in the state legislature is governed by RCW 42.17A.635, which at subsection (3) provides in part:

Any agency, not otherwise expressly authorized by law, may expend public funds for lobbying, but such lobbying activity shall be limited to (a) providing information or communicating on matters pertaining to official agency business to any elected official or officer or employee of any agency or (b) advocating the official position or interests of the agency to any elected official or officer or employee of any agency. Public funds may not be expended as a direct or indirect gift or campaign contribution to any elected official or officer or employee of any agency. For the purposes of this subsection, "gift" means a voluntary transfer of any thing of value without consideration of equal or greater value, but does not include informational material transferred for the sole purpose of informing the recipient about matters pertaining to official agency business.  

Note the definition of "lobbying" in RCW 42.17A.005(30):

Each mean attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by the legislature of the state of Washington, or the adoption or rejection of any rule, standard, rate, or other legislative enactment of any state agency under the state administrative procedure act, chapter 34.05 RCW.

The expenditure of public funds for lobbying authorized by RCW 42.17A.635(3) must be reported to the PDC, per RCW 42.17A.635(5), which states in part:

Each state agency, county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district that expends public funds for lobbying shall file with the commission, except as exempted by (d) of this subsection, quarterly statements providing the following information for the quarter just completed . . . .

The expenditure of public funds for lobbying is to be reported on PDC Form L-5. Note that "lobbying" for purposes of reporting the expenditure of public funds to the PDC does not include, among other things:

(A) Telephone conversations or preparation of written correspondence;
(B) In-person lobbying on behalf of an agency of no more than four days or parts thereof during any three-month period by officers or employees of that agency and in-person lobbying by any elected official of such agency on behalf of such agency or in connection with the powers, duties, or compensation of such official. The total expenditures of nonpublic funds made in connection with such lobbying for or on behalf of any one or more members of the legislature or state elected officials or public officers or employees of the state of Washington may not exceed fifteen dollars for any three-month period. The exemption under this subsection (5)(d)(v)(B) is in addition to the exemption provided in (d)(v)(A) of this subsection;
(C) Preparation or adoption of policy positions.

RCW 42.17A.635(5)(d)(v). Note that the above subsection also addresses the expenditure of nonpublic funds for lobbying. Expenditures of nonpublic funds over $15 in any three-month period is also to be reported on Form L-5.
We are not aware of any monetary limit on the expenditure of public funds for lobbying. 

(Link to this question)

Request for sample electronic records management policies.
Reviewed: January 2014

Most Washington local government electronic records management policies are based on the Washington State Archives requirements and records retention schedules for local governments. The State Archives has issued several useful publications, including the guidelines for electronic mail policies and records management (see links below). While an electronic records management policy generally addresses the retention of all electronic records, in practice many of these policies deal primarily with E-mail. Sometimes local government network use and Internet use are covered as well.

The following are issues that are appropriately addressed in an electronic records management policy:

  • Creation of records
  • Proper and improper uses (especially related to E-mail and Internet use)
  • Public disclosure, privacy/confidentiality, and other legal issues
  • Records retention requirements
  • Maintenance and management of records
  • Retrieval of electronic records
  • Monitoring of records and enforcement of policy (including city's right to access)
  • Security.

Such policies typically include a purpose and definitions sections. Other specific topics may include use of electronic signatures, geographic information systems, and copyright.

Rules have been adopted regarding the preservation of electronic records - see Ch. 434-662 WAC.  The State Archivist Office has prepared a list of "Frequently Asked Questions for Digital WAC 434-662"; that document also answers questions regarding archiving of local government electronic records at the state digital archives. 

Washington State and Local Government Information

Policies from Other States

(Link to this question)