Transportation

There is authority under state law that allows cities to restrict truck traffic on designated streets depending on the weight of the vehicle. MRSC’s Local Truck Routes and Weight Restrictions webpage contains more information on this. RCW 46.44.080 is the primary source of authority on this, and it does require a city to make a finding that use of the street by trucks over a certain weight will cause damage to the street.

A multi-code search of “truck routes” turns up many examples of city codes that designate local truck routes and prohibit vehicles over a certain weight from using streets that are not part of the truck route.

Another option is traffic calming devices, but that may not be consistent with the City’s street expansion project.

(Link to this question)

• Olympia Residential Parking Program and Olympia Municipal Code, Sec. 10.16.055, “Residential Parking Program Established – Penalty for violation”
• Seattle Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ) Program (See also Restricted Parking Zone Policy Review 2015 – 2017) and Seattle Municipal Code, Sec. 11.17.317, Establishing, expanding and reducing restricted parking zones
• Port Orchard Parking and Ch. 10.14, Port Orchard Municipal Code
• Tacoma – About Residential Parking Program and Tacoma Municipal Code, Title 11 (See Secs. 11.05.235 - .237, Residential parking zones)
• Bremerton Residential Parking Permits and Bremerton Municipal Code, Sec. 10.10 .040 - .050, Residential Restricted Parking Zones
• Puyallup Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program and Puyallup Municipal Code, Ch. 10.40, Restricted Parking Areas, Time Limits
• Pullman Restricted Residential Parking Permits and Pullman Municipal Code, Title 12, Traffic (See Ch. 12.50, Restricted Residential Parking Areas)
• Ellensburg Residential Parking Zones Frequently Asked Questions and Ellensburg Municipal Code, Ch. 8.54, Residential Parking Zones
• Ch. 19.08 Vancouver Municipal Code, “Residential Parking Permits”

A custom code search or “residential parking permits” turns up many more examples.

(Link to this question)

State law does not prohibit transit agencies or other similar public agencies from contracting with towing companies for towing services on transit properties and at transit facilities. MRSC has been asked several times in recent years about whether cities are required to use tow rotation lists and whether they are subject to RCW 46.55.115. By its terms, RCW 46.55.115 applies only to the State Patrol. Here is part of a recent MRSC response to a city that is equally applicable to transit agencies:

• MRSC has consistently taken the position that it [RCW 45.55.115] is not applicable to cities. Accordingly, we have indicated that a city may enter into an exclusive towing contract with a single towing company for police impounds. In so doing, we have noted that RCW 46.55.240, which relates to local ordinances on towing and impoundment, does not contain a “tow rotation” requirement, and includes the following (at subsection (4)):
• A registered disposer under contract to a city or county for the impounding of vehicles shall comply with any administrative regulations adopted by the city or county on the handling and disposing of vehicles.
• This provision suggests that cities may contract with one or more towing companies instead of using a rotational list. In addition, Citizens for Des Moines, Inc. v. Petersen, 125 Wn. App. 760, 106 P.3d 290 (2005), as corrected (Oct. 13, 2005) contains language that suggests cities have discretion in how they arrange for vehicle impounds [holding that “a city can enter into a contract with a towing company for the impounding of vehicles, and in that event, the towing company must comply with administrative regulations adopted by the city on the handling and disposing of vehicles. See RCW 46.55.240(4).
• Finally, I checked with Moses Garcia, who is another MRSC Legal Consultant who is also the State Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor. He worked at WSP for six years prior to coming to MRSC. He believes that the WSP would not have concerns about how cities arrange for tows, especially if they are switching to a system that makes the process more efficient.

So, even for impounds by law enforcement, local governments are not required to follow the state patrol procedures for rotational lists in chapter 46.55 RCW and may contract with one or more towing companies. Thus, I believe these statutes do not apply in your situation and your agency, like other public and private property owners, has the authority to contract with one or more towing companies for towing services.

Regarding limits on towing contracts, you indicated that a towing company representative referred you to RCW 46.55.200. I did not find a contractual limitation there. RCW 46.55.200(1) requires a registered tow truck operator to have in the operator’s possession before towing a vehicle “an impound authorization properly executed by the private person or public official having control over the property on which the unauthorized vehicle was found.” There are limitations to be aware of in RCW 46.55.035(1)(b) & (c) that a tow truck operator cannot be beneficially interested in a contract between a property owner and an agent authorized to sign impound authorizations or a contract with incentives based on authorizing impounds or the number of impounds. These provisions suggest the authority to enter contracts without these prohibited terms.

There is also a statute adopted in 2013 for private impounds. See RCW 46.55.118. This law appears to have been adopted to deal with a situation in Seattle that involved some citizens being charged very large amounts for tows (for example, for improper parking in a private lot). The statute deals with private impounds and sets maximum rates in relation to the contracted rates for “state patrol-originated calls”. It states in section (3)(b) that it does not apply to law enforcement impounds. If a tow company has entered into a contract with a public agency to provide tows at a set rate, a tow company may adhere to the contract rate so long as it does not exceed the maximum rate.

(Link to this question)

For sample policies governing: data, public records (retention, disposition, and production), email, mobile devices, and social media, please see the following MRSC topic pages:

• Public Records Act (Includes information regarding public records retention/management and sample policies and procedures)
• Internet, Email and Computer Usage Policies (Contains examples of local government policies that regulate the use of computing devices including desktop, mobile computing devices and smart phones, internet usage, and electronic communications by employees and elected officials)
• Text Messaging Policies (Provides an overview of various approaches to text messaging policies for local government staff and elected officials including sample policies)
• Social Media (Includes sample social media policies)

(Link to this question)

In contrast to cities and counties, state law does not specify the procedures by which public transportation benefit areas (PTBA) may dispose of surplus property. RCW 36.57A.080 grants PTBAs "all powers which are necessary to carry out the purposes of the public transportation benefit area." In addition, RCW 36.57A.090(2) specific authorizes PTBAs to construct, add to, improve, maintain, and repair transportation facilities and properties, and lands, properties and rights of way necessary for such facilities.

If the PTBA has a policy for disposal of surplus property, it should follow that policy with respect to selling the refrigerator unit. In the absence of a policy, the board should declare the property surplus, determine its value to the extent possible, set an "upset price" below which it will not be sold, and then determine how best to sell the property (through an agent, at an auction, a negotiated sale, etc.).

There is no requirement that it be sold through a "public process." The manner of the sale needs to be commercially reasonable and designed to obtain fair market value. The overriding concern is that the property not be sold for less than its apparent value, which could be considered a gift of public funds under the state constitution.

(Link to this question)

RCW 42.56.010(3) defines "public record" to include any writing containing information related to the conduct of governing. RCW 42.56.010(4) then defines "writing" broadly to include (emphasis added):

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.

So while a video is not "writing" in the colloquial sense, bus videos are still a public record subject to production under the PRA unless an exemption or prohibition on disclosure applies. The extent to which exemptions or prohibitions on disclosure could apply depends entirely on what is contained on the video recording.

(Link to this question)

If a transit agency contracts with an outside firm to provide agency services, then that firm’s records related to agency business may be subject to the PRA. The Washington Supreme Court held in Cedar Grove v. City of Marysville that records of a private third party contractor that provided professional services to a public agency were subject to the PRA since the firm was acting as the functional equivalent of a public employee. The court did note the following:

We are not articulating a new standard that makes every record a government contractor creates during its engagement with an agency a public record subject to the PRA. Nor do we create a new duty on the part of a public agency to search the records of all its third-party contractors each time it receives a PRA request.

So, whether the records of a firm that contracts with an agency are public records must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by applying the test to determine whether the firm is acting as the functional equivalent of an agency employee. For a more in-depth explanation, see MRSC’s blog posts on this issue: Court Clarifies How the PRA Can Apply to Contractor Records and When Must a Private Entity Comply with the PRA.

(Link to this question)

An advisory group may be subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) if it “acts on behalf of” the agency, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment. In Citizens Alliance v. San Juan County, the Washington Supreme Court found that the phrase "acts on behalf of" refers to situations when a committee “exercises actual or de facto decision-making authority for a governing body.” As such, the OPMA does not apply to “advisory committees and other entities that do nothing more than conduct internal discussions and provide advice or information to the governing body.”

Therefore, the applicability of the OPMA will depend on whether the advisory group “exercises actual or de facto decision-making authority for the governing body.” If it will be strictly advisory, then the OPMA will probably not apply. The Citizens Alliance case does a good job of defining the point at which the OPMA becomes applicable to advisory groups and subagencies. For more information, see MRSC’s blog post discussing Citizens Alliance.

(Link to this question)

There is a process for a city to change speed limits set forth in RCW 46.61.415. Note, that in order to reduce the speed limit, an engineering and traffic investigation must be done. In relevant part, RCW 46.61.415(1) states:

Whenever local authorities in their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the maximum speed permitted under RCW 46.61.400 or 46.61.440 is greater or less than is reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon a highway or part of a highway, the local authority may determine and declare a reasonable and safe maximum limit thereon which

1. Decreases the limit at intersections; or
2. Increases the limit but not to more than sixty miles per hour; or
3. Decreases the limit but not to less than twenty miles per hour.

But more to the point of the question, this statute also describes the process for changing a speed limit on a state highway that goes through a city. RCW 46.61.415(6) provides (emphasis added):

Any alteration of maximum limits on state highways within incorporated cities or towns by local authorities shall not be effective until such alteration has been approved by the secretary of transportation.

So, if a city council was to lower the speed limit on the portion of a state highway that runs through the city, the change could not go into effect unless and until the state Department of Transportation approves. This approval requirement is in addition to the traffic study described above.

(Link to this question)

The minimum time limit for a person parking a car with a disability placard or license plate is four (4) hours, and that applies to all nonreserved, on-street parking spaces, whether they are ADA spaces or not. RCW 46.19.050(5).

(Link to this question)

Not necessarily. To be paid for with TBD funds, a project within the district must be contained in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, or a city, county, port district, county transportation authority, or public transportation benefit area.

Under RCW 36.73.020(1), a TBD may only be established (emphasis added):

for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding a transportation improvement within the district that is consistent with any existing state, regional, or local transportation plans . . .

And RCW 36.73.015(6) similarly defines "transportation improvement" to mean:

A project contained in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, city, county, or eligible jurisdiction as identified in RCW 36.73.020(2) [i.e. port district, county transportation authority, and public transportation benefit area].

One such "transportation plan" would be the transportation plan element of a city, town, or county's comprehensive plan, given its predominance as the jurisdiction's "blueprint" for future transportation planning.

This analysis is the same even for a jurisdiction that has assumed its transportation benefit district pursuant to chapter 36.74 RCW.

(Link to this question)

Yes, in our opinion, a transportation benefit district (TBD) may use its revenues to fund a street sign improvement program, if that program is part of an appropriate transportation plan. RCW 36.73.020(1) allows TBD revenue to be used to fund transportation improvements included in a city, county, or eligible jurisdiction's transportation plan. RCW 36.73.015(6) defines "transportation improvement" as follows:

"Transportation improvement" means a project contained in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, city, county, or eligible jurisdiction as identified in RCW 36.73.020(2). A project may include investment in new or existing highways of statewide significance, principal arterials of regional significance, high capacity transportation, public transportation, and other transportation projects and programs of regional or statewide significance including transportation demand management. Projects may also include the operation, preservation, and maintenance of these facilities or programs.

This definition is broad enough, in our opinion, for a street sign improvement program contained within a transportation plan to be funded from TBD revenues. Note also that the criteria identified in RCW 36.73.0201) that a TBD should use "when selecting transportation improvements" include "improved safety" and "improved travel time" - matters that street sign improvements can address.

Further information regarding TBDs can be found on our Transportation Benefit Districts webpage.

(Link to this question)

MRSC does not have a template or a step-by-step process that a city can follow in establishing a transportation benefit district (TBD), though the resources on our TBD webpage should help in going through that process. The process goes roughly like this (for a TBD that consists of the same boundaries as the city):

1. The city council holds a hearing on the proposed TBD, in accordance with RCW 36.73.050.
2. The city council adopts an ordinance establishing the TBD, consistent with RCW 36.73.050(2). Our TBD webpage provides some examples of such ordinances. These ordinances are helpful in showing the process the respective jurisdictions went through in adopting the ordinances and regarding what is to be done after the ordinance is effective.
3. The city council thereafter acts as the TBD board.
4. The necessary fund(s) must be established to carry out the operation of the TBD.
5. The TBD board (the city council acting as the TBD board) adopts charter/bylaws/rules of procedure to govern its operation. See, e.g., Snohomish TBD board agenda, with attachments, 12/7/2010.

The exact process varies from city to city. There is no particular timetable under which this process must occur. To fill in the blanks in the steps outlined above, you may want to contact one or more of the jurisdictions that have established a TBD. Here is a list of the jurisdictions that have established a TBD.

(Link to this question)

These types of vehicles are addressed in state law as "wheeled all-terrain vehicles" (WATV).  RCW 46.09.310(19) defines "Wheeled All-Terrain Vehicle" as:

(a) any motorized nonhighway vehicle with handlebars that is fifty inches or less in width, has a seat height of at least twenty inches, weighs less than one thousand five hundred pounds, and has four tires having a diameter of thirty inches or less, or (b) a utility-type vehicle designed for and capable of travel over designated roads that travels on four or more low-pressure tires of twenty psi or less, has a maximum width less than seventy-four inches, has a maximum weight less than two thousand pounds, has a wheelbase of one hundred ten inches or less, and satisfies at least one of the following: (i) Has a minimum width of fifty inches; (ii) has a minimum weight of at least nine hundred pounds; or (iii) has a wheelbase of over sixty-one inches.

With respect to their operation on city streets, RCW 46.09.455(1) provides, in relevant part:

A person may operate a wheeled all-terrain vehicle upon any public roadway of this state, not including nonhighway roads and trails, having a speed limit of thirty-five miles per hour or less subject to the following restrictions and requirements:

...

(d)(i) A person may not operate a wheeled all-terrain vehicle on a public roadway within the boundaries of a city or town, not including nonhighway roads and trails, unless the city or town by ordinance has approved the operation of wheeled all-terrain vehicles on city or town roadways, not including nonhighway roads and trails.

So, WATVs may not be operated on city streets unless the city has adopted an ordinance to specifically authorize their use and the streets on which they are allowed have a speed limit of 35 mph or less. RCW 46.09.455(1). If a city does authorize their use, it must on the main page of its website identify the public roadways on which WATVs are allowed. RCW 46.09.455(1)(d)(ii).

In addition, RCW 46.09.360, relating to regulation of WATVs by local governments, provides in part:

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this chapter, any city, town, county, or other political subdivision of this state, or any state agency, may regulate the operation of nonhighway vehicles on public lands, waters, and other properties under its jurisdiction, and on streets, roads, or highways within its boundaries by adopting regulations or ordinances of its governing body, provided such regulations are not less stringent than the provisions of this chapter.

This means the state has not entirely preempted the field and cities can enact additional regulations governing WATVs as long as the regulations are not less stringent than the state regulations.

For more information, see our July 23, 2013 MRSC Insight blog post, All-Terrain Vehicles Renamed and Rolling, and the Final Bill Report for ESHB 1632.

Although we have not surveyed cities on this topic, we are aware of a number that have adopted ordinances to allow and regulate wheeled all-terrain vehicles within their city limits. See, for example:

• Buckley Municipal Code, Ch. 11.50
• Chelan Municipal Code Ch. 10.76
• East Wenatchee Municipal Code Ch. 10.60
• Granite Falls Municipal Code Ch. 10.92
• Sultan Municipal Code Ch. 10.30

(Link to this question)

We don't think the city may pass a more restrictive distracted driver ordinance. The Washington courts have strictly interpreted the ability of cities and counties to enact regulatory provisions that are not uniform with the state statutory provisions on motor vehicles. In a prominent case regarding this issue of a city enacting a more stringent traffic ordinance, Seattle v. Williams, 128 Wn.2d 341 (1995), the state supreme court invalidated a city ordinance that defined the offense of driving while intoxicated using a lessor blood alcohol level (0.08) than used in state law (0.10). (The Legislature changed the level to 0.08 in 1998.) The court began its opinion, at 341-42, as follows:

The question presented by this appeal is whether the City of Seattle may enforce an ordinance that defines the offense of driving while intoxicated in a manner that is not in uniformity with a state statute defining the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We hold that it may not, because to allow it to do so would contravene RCW 46.08.020, a statute which requires traffic laws to be "applicable and uniform throughout this state," as well as RCW 46.08.030, a statute which requires traffic laws to be "applicable and uniform upon all persons operating vehicles upon the public highways of this state

A more restrictive distracted driver ordinance effective only in your city would also - by being "more restrictive" than state law - violate this uniformity requirement regarding traffic laws as set out in RCW 46.08.030.

(Link to this question)