Ask MRSC Archives

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

Here’s a summary of the applicable law:

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

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

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

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

• RCW 68.20.060:

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

• RCW 68.20.061:

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

• RCW 68.20.066:

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

• RCW 68.20.067:

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

• RCW 68.20.070:

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

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

Abandoned cemetery—Lawful entry purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The retention obligations for public records applies regardless of the original location of the record – whether on an agency-issued phone or a personal phone. The phone logs themselves would typically fall within Section 2.5 of the CORE retention schedule under “Audit Trails and System Usage Monitoring”, Disposition Authority Number GS2010-003, Rev. 2. The retention value is “retain until no longer needed for agency business, then destroy.” The retention values of the text messages, photos, and voicemail recordings/transcriptions would depend on the content of those messages and recordings/transcriptions.

The State Archivist provides technical guidance on how best to capture and retain Electronic Records. The guidance on Text Messages is particularly useful and provides different allowable options.

Photos should be eventually stored somewhere other than on the individual phone (like in the official files for the reason the photos were taken in the first place)—but perhaps an agency-controlled cloud/app on the individual phones will make control over the storage of the photos easier.

Call logs are a little harder to capture before you have a request. It is often easier to wait to capture that information until you have an actual pending request. There are third-party apps that do a better job of capturing all the data of a call. Screenshots are also an option. Often, the easiest way may be to reach out to the service provider and obtain a log from them—although it is likely limited to traditional phone calls and not calls that occur via other apps.

As for your question about after separation—for agency-provided phones, they should still be in your possession after the employee separates. You should work with IT staff to capture all public records that have a retention value in a separate location before it is wiped and re-issued to a new employee.

For personal phones or agency-issued phones that employees are allowed to keep after separation, the departing employee is required to turn over all public records at the time of separation. Again, work with your IT staff to capture a copy of all public records with a retention value before releasing the employee from any obligations. MRSC also recommends having them sign a declaration similar to a Nissen Affidavit about what actions they took to turn over all public records on their personal device.

For water-sewer districts, RCW 57.12.010 sets forth compensation for commissioners (initially $90 per day spent in actual attendance at official meetings or performing official business) with an annual cap on compensation. This statute also includes this provision about periodic adjustments for inflation:

The dollar thresholds established in this section must be adjusted for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning January 1, 2024, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period.

In 2024, this per diem rate was set by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) at $161.

This December 2023 blog post summarizes the increase effective in January 2024, Salary Increases Coming in 2024 for Many Special Purpose District Officials, including:

Water/Sewer Districts (RCW 57.12.010): Payment of compensation for each board member shall be at a rate of $161 per day, with compensation for each board member not to exceed $15,456 per year.

The OFM’s five-year Notice of Dollar Threshold Adjustment for all special purpose districts is in WSR 23-23-158. The next five-year adjustment is expected in 2028 for a January 1, 2029, effective date.

In general, either a resolution or motion should be sufficient for a city council to accept grant funds—with some caveats discussed below.

There is typically a contract associated with a grant that the city council would need to approve. RCW 35A.11.040 (applicable to code cities) generally allows city councils to accept grants. This statute specifies no particular acceptance method, and presumably city councils can accept grants by motion or resolution.

But also keep in mind that individual grants sometimes require acceptance through a particular method like a formal council resolution. In those instances, the city would need to follow the grant’s specific acceptance requirements to receive its funds. Likewise, sometimes a city’s code will specify how the council approves contracts or accepts donations. If there is a certain procedure set forth in code or local policy, that procedure should be followed.

The city attorney can provide legal advice regarding how the city may accept any specific grant.

There is no state law requirement for a city to be listed in a telephone book. Note that the Secretary of State does maintain an archive of historical telephone directories. See their City Directories & Telephone Books.

While it is common practice and good public policy for cities to make their contact information readily available to the public through various means (including voluntary directory listings and online resources), there is no legal mandate to do so outside of specific notice and public comment provisions related to certain actions and activities.

There is no state law requirement for public comments to be read aloud at a public meeting. There is also no state law that would prevent a public comment from being read aloud during a public meeting. Whether a comment is read aloud or not is a matter of local discretion.

The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), RCW 42.30.240, only requires governing bodies to provide an opportunity for public comment at or before every regular meeting at which final action will be taken. Public comment may be taken orally at the meeting or by providing an opportunity for written testimony to be submitted before or at the meeting. RCW 42.30.240(1) requires that “[i]f the governing body accepts written testimony, this testimony must be distributed to the governing body.”

Some governing bodies prohibit the reading aloud of public comment since this could take a significant amount of time and it is sufficient for the governing body to review the comments themselves. Either way, we highly suggest whatever policy your council adopts is equally afforded to all public comments received.

Below are some examples:

• Bothell City Council Protocol Manual (2023) – See Sec. 8.07, Order of Business- Regular Meetings. It states the following: “Written comments will be submitted into the record. A copy of the document will be provided to each Councilmember; the document will not be read aloud.”
• Poulsbo City Council Rules of Procedure (2011) – See Sec. 7.6, Written Communications. It establishes the following: “Interested parties, or their authorized representatives, may address the Council by written communication in regard to any matter concerning the city's business or over which the Council had control at any time. The written communication may be submitted by direct mail or by addressing the communication to the City Clerk who will distribute copies to the Council members. The communication will be entered into the record without the necessity for reading as long as sufficient copies are distributed to members of the audience/public.”
• Spokane Valley Governance Manual (2025) – See Ch. 1 Sec. C, Meeting Rules and Procedures, 1(b). It provides the following on written comments: “Citizens have the option of submitting written views, opinions, comments, data, and arguments to Council on any topic and at any time, not just prior to or during public Council meetings. Unless the Mayor asks the clerk to read written mailed or emailed comments, or the citizen reads their own prepared written comments, such comments shall not be read aloud during regular or special Council meetings although they shall be included as part of the public record on the topic and if appropriate, may be publicly acknowledged. Any written comments submitted to Council via the city clerk shall be distributed to Council by placing copies at each Councilmember's workstation or city desk; or in the case of emailed or other electronic comments, shall be forwarded to Council via email, unless such email has already been supplied to members of Council. If individual Councilmembers receive written (including electronic) public comments or materials for the purpose of reading/sharing those materials during Council meetings, those materials should be submitted to the city clerk prior to the Council meeting so the clerk can make copies for later distribution to members of Council.”

For additional resources regarding public comment, please see MRSC’s FAQs on Meeting Procedures, as well as Jurassic Parliament’s 50 Guidelines for Public Comment (2023).

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

A couple of legal provisions regulate political activity by city officials.

The first are provisions related to lobbying, as mentioned in the inquiry. RCW 42.17A.005(34) officially defines “lobbying” as efforts to influence decisions by the state legislature or a state agency about particular proposed legislation or enactments. RCW 42.17A.635(2) and (3) allow cities to engage in certain limited lobbying activities such as:

• Communicating with a legislator at their request;
• Communicating requests for legislative action or appropriations necessary for efficient city conduct to the legislature through “proper official channels”;
• Communicating with elected officials about official city business; or
• Advocating the city’s official positions or interests to elected officials.

Also important is RCW 42.17A.635(5)(d), which outlines certain acts that are not considered lobbying.

Further, employees and officials retain the right to engage with the legislature in their personal capacities. This is made clear in RCW 41.06.250(2), which provides that state and local government employees have “the right to vote and to express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates and to hold any political party office or participate in the management of a partisan, political campaign.” They also have the right to participate in non-partisan campaigns, initiatives, referenda, and issues of a similar character.

Beyond general lobbying activities, laws like RCW 29B.45.010 (formerly codified as RCW 42.17A.555) prohibit city employees and elected officials from using public facilities to campaign for specific ballot measures or political candidates. RCW 42.17A.635(4) similarly prohibits public facility use to campaign for legislative initiatives. These RCWs define “public facilities” broadly to include city machines, equipment, employee work time, etc.

Exceptions to the restrictions in RCW 29B.45.010 are made for city council actions at open meetings (such as passing resolutions that establish the city’s state legislative priorities), and activities that are part of the city’s normal and regular conduct. WAC 395-05-273 defines “normal and regular conduct” to mean lawful acts that are brought about in a usual way and not through extraordinary means or manner. The “normal and regular” RCW exception frequently generates questions, and MRSC often recommends reaching out to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) for additional guidance. This PDC page has additional information about lobbying regulations: Lobbying Activities. Specific requests for PDC guidance can be submitted at this page: Submit a ticket: Help and Support.

MRSC also has some additional resources on the subject that may be of assistance:

• Political Speech and Lobbying by Local Government Employees: What are the Rules of Engagement? (2017)
• Mayor and Councilmember Handbook (see chapter 7 in particular)
• Use of Public Facilities in Election Campaigns

MRSC’s guidance is only general, so specific questions about lobbying or campaigning statements or activities should be referred to the city attorney for a definitive opinion and advice.

There are two main statutes to be aware of related to veterans’ preference in hiring. RCW 73.16.010 provides (with emphasis added):

In every public department, and upon all public works of the state, and of any county thereof, soldiers, sailors, guardians, marines and other members of the uniformed services who are veterans of any war of the United States, or of any military campaign for which a campaign ribbon shall have been awarded with a qualifying discharge as defined in RCW 73.04.005, and their widows or widowers, shall be preferred for appointment and employment. Age, loss of limb, or other physical impairment, which does not in fact incapacitate, shall not be deemed to disqualify them, provided they possess the capacity necessary to discharge the duties of the position involved: PROVIDED, That spouses of veterans with a qualifying discharge as defined in RCW 73.04.005 and who have a service connected permanent and total disability shall also be preferred for appointment and employment.

While the law is not completely clear, MRSC has opined that this statute applies to cities and special purpose districts, in addition to state and county agencies. RCW 73.16.010 applies the veteran’s preference in public employment “in every public department.” “Public department” is an undefined term that is not repeated elsewhere in this context, but RCW 73.16.031(4) defines “employer” to include “the state,” and RCW 73.16.031(13) defines “the state” to include “the agencies and political subdivisions thereof.” Further, RCW 73.16.005(4) expresses the legislature’s intent behind the law:

Therefore, the legislature intends that the governmental agencies of the state of Washington, and all the political subdivisions thereof, should be model employers in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

The requirements in Chapter 73.16 RCW include avoiding discrimination against veterans based on their armed forces service or membership. See RCW 73.16.032. And, as referenced above, the preference in RCW 73.16.010 applies when all other qualifications between two candidates are equal. Several public agencies in Washington have included reference to the general veteran’s preference in their employment applications and/or policies. Here is one from the City of Spokane Valley:

Veteran's Preference

The City complies with the statutory requirement in RCW 73.16.010 to prefer employing veterans and their widows, as well as spouses of veterans who have a service-connected permanent and total disability. If two or more candidates for the same position are equally qualified, the City will offer employment to the candidate who is preferred as defined by the RCW. If you believe you are eligible to be considered for preference under the RCW, please provide documents at the time of application to verify eligibility, such as a DD 214 or other appropriate service discharge record(s).

In addition to the above general employment preference, public agencies must also apply the veteran’s scoring preference status in any competitive tests for hiring. The veteran’s scoring criteria is required by RCW 41.04.010, which provides:

In all competitive examinations, unless otherwise provided in this section, to determine the qualifications of applicants for public offices, positions, or employment, either the state, and all of its political subdivisions and all municipal corporations, or private companies or agencies contracted with by the state to give the competitive examinations shall give a scoring criteria status to all veterans as defined in RCW 41.04.007 […]

The precise scoring preference to be given depends on the nature of the veteran’s service and other factors listed in that RCW section. Note also that the preference is only to be applied to a passing exam score—the preference does not increase a failing exam score to make it passing.

Our Civil Service webpage includes a section on the Veteran’s Scoring Criteria Status that has more information. Note, however, that RCW 41.01.010 applies the status to competitive examinations in all public employment positions, not just those that fall under civil service.

The district’s legal counsel can give definitive opinions and advice on whether and how the district should apply the above requirements in any specific situation, but MRSC hopes the above information is helpful.

The general requirements for official bonds are provided in Chapter 42.08 RCW. And RCW 35A.12.080 is the primary statute discussing bonding requirements for officers of a code city with a mayor-council form of government. It states the following:

Any officer before entering upon the performance of his or her duties may be required to take an oath or affirmation as prescribed by charter or by ordinance for the faithful performance of his or her duties. The oath or affirmation shall be filed with the county auditor. The clerk, treasurer, if any, chief of police, and such other officers or employees as may be designated by ordinance or by charter shall be required to furnish annually an official bond conditioned on the honest and faithful performance of their official duties. The terms and penalty of official bonds and the surety therefor shall be prescribed by ordinance or charter and the bond shall be approved by the chief administrative officer of the city. The premiums on such bonds shall be paid by the city. When the furnishing of an official bond is required of an officer or employee, compliance with such provisions shall be an essential part of qualification for office. [emphasis added]

MRSC recommends checking your local code and/or ordinances regarding any bonding requirements that may apply to the mayor. Additionally, any officer designated to sign the checks, warrants, or initiate an electronic payment must have an official bond. The amount should be determined by the city but cannot be less than $50,000. See RCW 42.24.180(1), which states:

The auditing officer and the officer designated to sign the checks or warrants shall each be required to furnish an official bond for the faithful discharge of his or her duties in an amount determined by the legislative body but not less than fifty thousand dollars[.] [emphasis added]

If the mayor signs checks or warrants, they should be bonded.

The State Auditor’s Office (SAO) website has a page on Bond Coverage for Public Officials and Employees that states that:

[a] reasonable amount of bond coverage will vary with the size and financial activities of each local government. In determining the amount of coverage needed the insurance broker, legal counsel and other municipalities should be consulted when determining the amount of coverage needed.

In some cases, the fidelity coverage provided by a city’s risk pool membership or insurance policy should be sufficient to serve as the “bond” required by statute. MRSC recommends checking with them to see what is covered under the city’s policy.

For more information, see our page on Official Bonds and Oaths of Office.

MRSC also recommends discussing this matter with your agency attorney who will be in the best position to advise further. Our guidance is general and not a substitute for the advice of legal counsel.

Here are some examples:

• Snohomish County PUD Community Solar – This is a community solar program at the Arlington Microgrid.
• Snohomish County PUD South Everett Solar Project – The PUD partnered with Everett to build this solar project.
• Mercer Island considered a community solar installation at one time (the proposal is still included on their website. See Community Solar Proposal – 2015-2018). They also installed city-owned solar in 2013.
• Seattle Solar Power – See Community Solar section.
• Tri-Cities Area Journal of Business: State offers roadmap to guide large-scale clean energy projects (2025) – Includes links to some existing and proposed solar projects in the mid-Columbia region.

And here are some county code examples regulating solar energy facilities:

• Adams County Ch. 17.72 – Solar Energy Facilities.
• Klickitat County Ch. 19.39 – Energy Overlay Zone.

Finally, here are a couple of additional resources that may be helpful:

• Solar Washington
• MRSC: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies for Local Governments

You asked about public hearing and ordinance requirements for establishing and assuming the duties of a Transportation Benefit District (TBD).

Our take is that two separate public hearings and two separate ordinances are required for: (1) the creation of a TBD; and (2) the assumption of the powers of the TBD. The statutes related to public hearings and ordinances are in separate chapters and they are distinct actions, so our take is that they cannot be combined. The requirements for establishing and assuming the powers of a TBD are as follows:

1. Hold a public hearing to form a TBD. See RCW 36.73.050
2. Establish the TBD by ordinance. See RCW 36.73.050.
3. Hold a public hearing to assume the powers of the TBD. See RCW 36.74.020
4. Pass an ordinance assuming the powers. See RCW 36.74.020

For more information, see our webpage on Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs).

I recommend consulting with your city attorney on this as well. Our guidance at MRSC is general and not a substitute for the advice of the city’s legal counsel.

MRSC has a webpage called Credit Card Use Policies which covers the statutory authority, types of cards (merchant, fuel, bank, etc.), key components of a policy, authorized expenses, and more. That page also includes sample policies from cities, counties, and special purpose districts and recommended resources from the State Auditor’s Office and Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).

Yes, the outgoing mayor can swear in/administer the oath of office to the newly elected mayor in a code city (or any type of city or town). See the section “Who Can Administer the Oath of Office?” on our Official Bonds and Oaths of Office page. Among those officials who are authorized to administer the oath is a mayor:

Mayor or clerk of a code city: RCW 35A.21.030. This authority applies to all code cities regardless of structure, so the ceremonial mayor of a council-manager code city can administer official oaths just like the separately elected mayor of a mayor-council city.

See also our blog post, The Oath of Office for Local Elected Officials (2025).

MRSC has the following on-demand webinars (see under the “leadership” category). They are available for a fee except for those marked “FREE” below:

• Successfully Managing Change in the Workplace
• Building and Repairing Trust at Work
• Embracing Conflict at Work
• Building a Great Workplace Culture in a Time of Change
• Building the Foundations of a Great Workplace Culture
• Coaching your Staff to Reach their Potential
• FREE: Better Management Through Values-Based Leadership
• FREE: Using Lean Visual Management to Improve Team Engagement

We also have blog articles in the following categories:

• Leadership and Management
• Administrative and Elected Officials

The Department of Enterprise Services (DES) has several trainings under Leadership, Personal & Professional Development, and Program & Project Management.

Finally, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC), the Washington City Managers Association (WCMA), and various other local government/special district organizations also offer trainings relevant to local government leadership development.