Ask MRSC Archives

Regardless of the title given, if the gathering meets the definition of a “meeting” under the Open Public Meetings Act (whether a regular or special meeting), then minutes are required to be taken.

The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) at RCW 42.30.035(1) provides:

The minutes of all regular and special meetings except executive sessions of such boards, commissions, agencies or authorities shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection.

Minutes need not be more than action minutes, but even simple action minutes indicate when discussion is had on certain topics or which reports were received from staff. For more on action minutes, see our blog post, Less Is More: Action Minutes Save Time, Serve the Agency Best. The blog post provides a list of items that would typically be included in action minutes:

• Name of governing body and meeting location
• Times at which the meeting started and ended
• Which members of the governing body were present, which were absent (and if a quorum of the body was present — suggested but not required)
• Which members of the agency staff were present
• Text of all main motions taken up by the body and their disposition (passed, failed, referred to committee, etc.)
• If amendments were made, final version of motion as amended
• Any Points of Order or Appeals & their resolution

For more on minutes, see MRSC’s Council/Commission Meeting page.

Whether there is a residency requirement for a particular city committee or commission will be a matter of local policy. RCW 35.21.200 (applicable to code cities) authorizes cities to establish residency requirements for appointed positions. It states:

Any city or town may by ordinance of its legislative authority determine whether there shall be any residential qualifications for any or all of its appointive officials or for preference in employment of its employees, but residence of an employee outside the limits of such city or town shall not be grounds for discharge of any regularly appointed civil service employee otherwise qualified: PROVIDED, That this section shall not authorize a city or town to change any residential qualifications prescribed in any city charter for any appointive official or employee: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That all employees appointed prior to the enactment of any ordinance establishing such residence qualifications as provided herein or who shall have been appointed or employed by such cities or towns having waived such residential requirements shall not be discharged by reason of such appointive officials or employees having established their residence outside the limits of such city or town: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That this section shall not authorize a city or town to change the residential requirements with respect to employees of private public utilities acquired by public utility districts or by the city or town.

We recommend looking at your city code or the ordinance or resolution establishing the committee to determine whether residency requirements have been established. MRSC also has a webpage you may find helpful on Advisory Boards and Commissions.

The town needs to consider both the constitutional prohibition against gifts of public funds and the requirement that utility funds only be used for utility purposes. As we note on our Gift of Public Funds page and related blog posts, there are two tests for determining whether an expenditure is an unconstitutional gift of public funds. First, is the expenditure for a fundamental purpose of government? If not, the court looks to see whether the government entity had a “donative intent,” and whether it received an adequate return for the transfer.

The first test is whether the use of town resources is for a fundamental purpose of government. Regardless of the nature of the entity that owns the pool (school district, YMCA, or other non-profit, park district), providing water for a pool that is not owned by the town may not be a fundamental purpose of the town’s government. Looking at the second test, the town would have to show that it did not intend to make a “gift,” and that it considered some kind of agreement to be “adequate return” for the cost of providing water for this purpose. If the town has a contract with the owner of the pool where the pool is providing a service that the town could provide but chooses not to, such as recreation or water safety, the town could provide water in lieu of other payment for those services. An additional consideration is the requirement in RCW 43.09.210(3) that:

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

Washington case law has interpreted this statute to mean that a city or town cannot use utility funds (which are provided by the ratepayers) to benefit a general fund (tax-supported) function. To avoid violating this requirement the town, in addition to determining that it was not a gift of public funds, would separately have to determine that the expenditure directly benefited the water utility, and not just the public as a whole. So, even if the town does have a contract with the pool for services, the town’s general fund would probably be required to pay the water utility for the water. Providing a more specific opinion about this particular request is outside the scope of the general consulting services MRSC provides. We defer to your town attorney to advise you regarding this request.

There is no requirement in the OPMA that you read public comments out loud or include them in your minutes. As we note in last year’s blog HB 1329: Answers to Your OPMA Questions, the OPMA only requires that you provide the opportunity for public comment. It does not require that you read public comments out loud.

Also, RCW 42.30.035 only requires the governing body to have minutes. It does not specify what those minutes must contain. MRSC (as well as the Washington Municipal Clerks Association) recommends “action minutes.” These reflect the agenda items, who moved (and seconded) any action, and what that action was. There is no state law requirement to include submitted comments in the minutes. Of course, the board/governing body can choose to require public comment be read into the record—this is a matter of local discretion. The agency does need to retain the comments in accordance with the state retention schedule. And as we note in a recent guest blog from parliamentarian Ann Mcfarlane:

Since meeting minutes are subject to disclosure under the PRA, if your agency chooses to include public comment in the minutes, we recommend a summary of the comment period that avoids providing personally identifiable information on individual commenters.

MRSC’s position is that elected officials may be appointed to serve on ballot committees. RCW 29A.32.280 does not place any restrictions or impose any requirements with respect to who serves on a “for” or “against” ballot measure committee. In response to previous inquiries, MRSC has taken the position that appointing individuals to such committees is part of the normal and regular conduct of government pursuant to RCW 42.17A.555(3). That would be the case even if the individual appointed is a member of the governing body.

Once appointed, under RCW 42.17A.555, the members must avoid using any facilities of a public office or agency in connection with their work on the committee. For further guidance, we recommend contacting the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC).

The responses to the poll MRSC conducted asking if cities use chip seal on arterials are presented in these Poll Results Tables. They are organized by “yes” and “no” with comments included, as well.

Below are some code examples of processes for waiving sewer and/or water connection fees. Some jurisdictions use system development charges and connection fees interchangeably, so you’ll see a few instances of that below (e.g., Concrete and Yelm). You’ll also see this reflected in the examples on MRSC's Affordable Housing Techniques and Incentives page section on Reduction/Waiver of Fees.

• Concrete Municipal Code Sec. 13.10.035 – Low-income water and sewer system development charge waiver.
• Ephrata Municipal Code Sec. 13.04.112(g) – Water connection fee waiver for low-income housing.
• Langley Municipal Code Sec. 13.50.040 – Connection and permit issuance.
• Yelm Municipal Code Sec. 13.08.107 – System development charge and inspection fee waiver and deferral.

The statutes that authorize loans or waivers related to assisting low-income persons with utility charges and housing development include RCW 35.92.380, RCW 35.21.685, and RCW 35.21.305. And per this recent MRSC blog post, New Bills Address Utility Connection Charges, Service Disconnection for Non-Payment, a new bill allows city and town utilities to waive connection fees for certain organizations that provide affordable and emergency housing. All have low-income criteria because of the state constitution’s prohibition on gifts of public funds except for necessary assistance for the poor or infirm. If the low-income criteria are not met, then the connection charges need to be sufficient to cover the actual work performed by the utility.

State law does not address the use of metal detectors in city parks. However, there are state statutes and regulations related to the use of metal detectors in state parks. For example, the State Parks and Recreation Commission must allow the use of recreational metal detectors within a certain minimum acreage of state parks. See, e.g., RCW 79A.05.190 and RCW 79A.05.195. And WAC 352-32-235 provides administrative rules regarding the use of metal detectors in state parks.

Whether and how metal detectors may be used in city parks/public property will be a matter of local policy. The city is not required to allow use of metal detectors on city property. Conversely, if the city wanted to allow use of metal detectors in such areas, the city could do so but should establish clear guidelines regarding their use.

Below are some examples of local regulations related to use of metal detectors on city property:

• Buckley Municipal Code Sec. 10.84.195 – Metal detectors are limited to daylight hours and with registration.
• Burien Municipal Code Sec. 7.30.010 – A permit is required, unless the device is used on unimproved park lands.
• Jefferson County Municipal Code Sec. 12.25.210 – Allowed in certain parks with a permit.
• Port Angeles Municipal Code Sec. 12.04.140 – Coin recovery allowed with a permit.

Below are a few resources for both the residential and commercial energy codes:

• Washington State University Energy Program: Building Efficiency (residential provisions only) – Includes web resources, training opportunities, and their energy code team provides direct support to those who use the residential sections of the Washington State Energy Code (WSEC-R).
• King County: Energy Codes – Includes fact sheets showing key changes that were made during the latest update to the residential code (WSEC-R).
• Washington State Energy Code Commercial Technical Support Website (commercial provisions only) – This site, which is offered by Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (and links to the State Building Code Council and WSU Energy Extension at the bottom of its site), offers trainings and other technical support.

RCW 42.56.520 requires prompt responses after receiving a public records request. If an agency isn’t providing the records within five-days, it can write a letter within that timeframe providing “a reasonable estimate of the time the agency […] will require to respond to the request.” RCW 42.56.520(1)(c).

Assuming the PRO is not on an extended vacation, the reasonable time estimate for response could factor in the PRO’s upcoming (or ongoing) leave/absence, and the 5-day letter could include this in the explanation for the time estimate. If the PRO is gone for an extended leave, then the agency should assign another staff member the responsibility of gathering records and responding to the requests, because an agency’s response time must be reasonable. Note that an agency must designate a staff member to provide the initial 5-day initial response letter, as that is a firm timeline established in the statute with no exceptions.

What is a reasonable amount of time to respond to a PRA request will vary from agency to agency and request to request, so there is no bright-line rule for reasonableness (e.g., 30 days). If the agency cannot fulfill the request within the time that the agency has estimated in its initial letter, the agency should communicate with the requester that additional time is required to fulfill the request based on specified criteria. See the Attorney General’s PRA Model Rules at WAC 44-14-04003(11). As also stated in the Model Rules at WAC 44-14-04003(7):

An agency should roughly calculate the time it will take to respond to the request and send estimates of varying lengths, as appropriate. Some very large requests can legitimately take months or longer to fully provide. There is no standard amount of time for fulfilling a request so reasonable estimates should vary.

The time it will take for an agency to fulfill a request will depend upon many factors, including the size and complexity of the request and the agency’s resources. See WAC 44-14-04001. It is a good idea for an agency to document how and why it came up with its time estimate. If staffing resources are low or unavailable, the agency could communicate that with the requestor and if challenged, it could at least show a basis for its time estimate. The Model Rules at WAC 44-14-04003(7) states:

While not required, in order to avoid unnecessary litigation over the reasonableness of an estimate, an agency could briefly explain to the requestor the basis for the estimate in the initial response. The explanation need not be elaborate but should allow the requestor to make a threshold determination of whether he or she should question that estimate further or has a basis to seek judicial review of the reasonableness of the estimate.

Public agencies are required by law to adopt their own local public records policies (RCW 42.56.040). The agency’s policy should ideally address what happens when the PRO is on leave (e.g., assigning alternate staff members to process and fulfill requests). We recommend that an agency maintain a separate email for PRA requests that is accessible by multiple people in case the PRO or person charged with responding to requests is out of the office. For more information, you may also want to review our Public Records Act page, particularly the pages on Basic Procedural Requirements, Responding to Public Records Requests, Searching and Producing Public Records, Managing Electronic Records, and Examples of PRA Policies.

State law does not require that minutes or resolutions be signed. Title 57 RCW (pertaining to water-sewer districts) does not include a signature requirement for minutes or resolutions. The Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) at RCW 42.30.035 only requires that minutes “shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection.”

Most agencies have a lot of discretion in this regard, including not signing the minutes or resolutions at all. Local rules of procedure will usually designate who, if anyone, should sign minutes or resolutions—it could be the chair, the entire membership of the governing body, or the secretary. The board should follow the local rules re signatures (or waive this requirement, if needed).

Note, there is an informal opinion from our State Attorney General’s Office, AGLO 1972 No. 19, indicating that only after proposed minutes of a meeting have been reviewed by a body and “signed by its officers” in the manner provided for in its procedures do they constitute the “official” record of the previous meeting described therein. Although the AGLO offers this advice, it doesn’t support the advice with any legal authority. Thus, our office has taken the position that the chair’s signature or the board’s signature isn’t statutorily required in minutes.

Yes. A councilmember does not cease being a councilmember by virtue of undertaking the additional duties of pro tempore (pro tem) to conduct a meeting in the absence of the mayor. The mayor pro tem continues to vote as a councilmember and is counted for the purpose of establishing a quorum of the governing body.

RCW 35.27.160 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] mayor pro tempore may be chosen by the council for a specified period of time, not to exceed six months, to act as the mayor in the absence of the mayor.”

RCW 35.27.280 provides that “[a] majority of the councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business”. This statute also references the authority for the council to appoint a “president pro tempore” (mayor pro tem) to run a council meeting in the absence of the mayor.

MRSC has the following webpages that should be a good starting off point for your research:

• Surplus Property for Special Purpose Districts
• Asset Management Policies

We ran a custom City & County Websites Search using the search term “community yard sale” and found these search results for city examples and these search results for county examples. We did an additional search using the phrase “community garage sale” and found these additional search results.

The Marysville Junk in the Trunk event webpage provides a lot of information, including an online registration option and a downloadable Vendor Registration Form (PDF file download). There is a disclaimer included on the form as well as a list of vendor guidelines that may be helpful. Both pages must be signed by the applicant.

If you have questions specifically about liability disclaimer language, we recommend talking to your city attorney as well as your risk pool/insurer. They will be in the best position to advise the city.

It depends on whether the agency converted a hard copy record into a PDF for the requestor, or whether it is a pre-existing 100-page PDF record already in electronic format. In general, if the agency scans a paper document into a PDF electronic document, the agency can charge 10 cents per page for scanning the document. However, if this is a pre-existing 100-page electronic PDF file, then the agency can charge 5 cents per four electronic files/attachments (that PDF would be considered one electronic file). See RCW 42.56.120(2)(b).

MRSC has a webpage on Copying Charges for Public Records that includes a link to this one-page summary of the fee charges allowed by the PRA prepared by the Attorney General’s Office. If you have questions about charges for a particular request, we recommend asking the agency attorney who will be in the best position to review your local policies and the records related to the specific request.

Yes. Nothing in the Open Public Meetings Act prohibits having more than one public hearing during the same meeting. Make sure you’ve complied with the notice and publication requirements for both of the hearings based on the statute that requires those hearings. (A non-exhaustive list of statutory requirements for public hearings is in Appendix C of our Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties publication). Also consider a script for your presiding officer that clearly has them open and close (or continue/keep the record open for) each of the public hearings.

There are two ways in which funds can be created. They can either be created through a separate ordinance, or they can be created as part of a budget ordinance or budget amendment ordinance. Below are examples that you might find helpful:

• Bainbridge Island Ordinance No. 2015-05 (2015) – Provides for the establishment of a new “Tree Fund” creating a new code chapter
• Bothell Ordinance No. 2013 (2009) – Establishment of a 1% for public art program
• Lakewood Ordinance No.763 (2021) – Establishes ARPA fund
• Maple Valley Ordinance No. O-21-728 (2021) – Establishes a special revenue fund “ARPA Fund” in the city’s budget

The Lakewood and Maple Valley examples are likely the best examples for establishing a fund for grant monies because they are related to use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds which is similar to a grant.

Below are some city code examples related to special event venues (i.e., events occurring outside private residences):

• Grandview Municipal Code Sec. 5.25.050 – Special event permit applications are required for a variety of event types (including some private events) and must include provisions for parking. Events conducted in event centers, churches, schools, and wineries are exempt from permit requirements (see Section 5.25.030).
• Normandy Park Municipal Code Sec. 4.12.110 – Special event permits may be denied if parking or shuttle accommodations are not adequate to prevent impacts on general parking and traffic near the event venue.

Below are some county code examples:

• Clark County Code Sec. 40.240.290 – Regulations for commercial events including weddings, receptions, farm dinners, or similar events. Includes event parking requirements.
• Pierce County Code Sec. 18J.15.190.D.8 – Outdoor receptions or parties are not permitted at public outdoor event facilities, with the exception of wedding ceremonies that comply with amplified noise restrictions.

Also, the City of Pasadena in California has a helpful webpage on Special Events FAQs ( see If an event is on private property, what type of permits do I need?). The city defines “party, gathering, or events” in the Municipal Code Section 9.43.010, but doesn’t include it as a use in its zoning tables in Section 17.20.020). Rather, it includes clubs, lodges, private meeting halls – this might be a place where parties, gatherings, or events are held, but they could also potentially be held in other private property settings.

The statutes governing public hospital districts are silent as to frequency or number of meetings. Instead, the board of commissioners establishes its own schedule for meetings.

RCW 70.44.050 provides, in relevant part:

The commission shall organize by election of its own members of a president and secretary, shall by resolution adopt rules governing the transaction of its business and shall adopt an official seal. All proceedings of the commission shall be by motion or resolution recorded in a book or books kept for such purpose, which shall be public records.

And the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), applicable to all governing bodies of public agencies in the state, includes the following regarding regular meetings in RCW 42.30.070

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.

Likewise, the AWPHD Legal Manual does not reference any requirements related to meeting frequency or timing. For a discussion on this, see Meetings and Agendas of PHD commissioners (p. 19/p. 30 of the PDF).

Therefore, one should look at adopted rules or bylaws for the particular public hospital district. Those rules will dictate the PHD Board of Commissioner’s meeting schedule.

The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) specifically addresses notices of special meetings but makes no mention of agendas for special meetings. For special meetings, a notice must be posted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting and must “specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.” Final action may only be taken on items listed in the notice. See RCW 42.30.080.

There is a relatively new requirement in the OPMA that agendas of regular meetings be available online 24 hours in advance, however there is not a similar requirement for special meetings. But even for regular meetings, the statute allows those posted agendas to be subsequently amended. See RCW 42.30.077.

While a governing body is limited to taking final action only on items listed in the special meeting notice, it can certainly take up other items for discussion as reflected in an amended agenda, since this is merely “action”. However, we recommend this be done infrequently in light of the intent of the OPMA.

Additionally, note that in a 2023 Washington Supreme Court decision, In the Matter of the Recall of Bird, the court found (in the context of sufficiency of a recall petition) that the notice for the special meeting did not adequately describe the action to be taken at the meeting and therefore, the vote on a motion at that meeting violated the OPMA.

For additional information on special meetings, see our 2013 blog post: What Can You Do at a Special Meeting?