Ask MRSC - Public Safety

Yes, as a general matter it is legal for a city to repeal any civil service regulations it has enacted and to instead operate in accordance with chapter 41.12 RCW. The Vahle v. City of Lakewood (2020) case includes a good discussion of this issue (with emphasis added):

Chapter 41.12 RCW serves as model civil service system that cities may follow to fill the requirement of providing a civil service system. Cities run the spectrum from adopting all the procedures and policies set forth in chapter 41.12 RCW or forgoing the model entirely by enacting a system unique to the city pursuant to RCW 41.12.010.

RCW 41.12.010 states, in relevant part: “The provisions of this chapter shall have no application to cities and towns which at the present time have provided for civil service in the police department ... by local charter or other regulations which ... substantially accomplish the purpose of this chapter.” However, if any city repeals the local charter or local acts providing for civil service, the model system applies. RCW 41.12.020.

However, repealing enacted civil service regulations could impact a city’s police department (or its collective bargaining agreements, if any) in specific ways that should be reviewed with the city attorney for a definitive opinion and advice on whether this otherwise lawful practice is advisable for the city in this instance.

Here are some examples of local governments in Washington State that provide free gun locks or lockboxes:

• Auburn - Free gun lockbox giveaway coming to Auburn City Hall on Friday, June 6 (2025) – According to the King County website, the county partnered with several communities, including Auburn to host these events.
• Bellevue Lock up your guns, be safe (2020) – Provides free gun locks.
• Everett - Lock It Everett – Provides free gun locks.
• Federal Way - Two gun safe giveaways this week (2025)
• King County Lock It Up: Promoting the safe storage of firearms – Includes sources for discounts on locking devices.
• Mukilteo Crime Prevention & Public Safety – Partners with Project ChildSafe to provide free gun locks.
• Puyallup Gun Safety Brochure – Notes that cable locks are available for free at the police department.

See also the Department of Commerce Safe Storage Program webpage for more information.

MRSC last wrote about drone regulation in detail in a blog article, What Can Local Governments Do about Drones? (2017). As the article explains, there are certain types of regulations that fall under the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) jurisdiction. However, a municipality generally has authority to prosecute drone operators for violating laws protecting privacy or nuisance laws. The FAA takes the position that municipalities may also adopt the following types of police power regulations:

• Requirement for police to obtain a warrant prior to using a drone for surveillance.
• Prohibitions on using drones for voyeurism.
• Prohibitions on using drones for hunting or fishing, or to interfere with or harass an individual who is hunting or fishing.
• Prohibitions on attaching firearms or similar weapons to drones.

In addition, one of your concerns is that an individual could invade a person’s privacy by flying a drone over private property. For example, a drone equipped with a camera could hover outside a window of a private residence. It’s important to note that there are already laws on the books criminalizing much of such activity – imagine, instead of a drone, that an individual perched in a tree was looking through that same window. These laws – such as RCW 9A.44.115 (Voyeurism) and perhaps RCW 9A.52.080 (Criminal Trespass II) – could apply if a drone was used in the criminal conduct.

Below are some examples of local codes (not related to agency use):

• Clallam County Code Sec. 23.03.080 – Prohibits drone operation “from within or above park lands.”
• Battleground Municipal Code Sec. 8.18.040(B)(2)(c) – Allows drone operation only in designated park areas.
• Centralia Municipal Code Sec. 10.33.199(A) – Prohibits operation of drones in parks except as permitted for public or private events permitted by the city.
• Bothell Municipal Code Sec. 8.60.320(A) – Prohibits drones from landing on or taking off from a body of water or land area in a park not specifically designated for that use (note that “aircraft” is defined to include drones).
• Des Moines Municipal Code Sec. 19.08.030(25) – Prohibits drones from parks except in places and times set apart for such purposes (and also prohibits competitions involving drones in a park without first obtaining written permission).
• Enumclaw Municipal Code Sec. 9.86.130 – Generally, protects the public from drones in parks. It is unlawful to propel any missile over any park, except at places set apart for such purposes. The operation of any remotely controlled flying device, aircraft, helicopters and drones shall be operated in compliance with Federal Aviation Agency rules and regulations and operated in such a manner as to not endanger persons or property, nor in violation of a person’s privacy.

You can also search multiple codes at the same time by following the instructions on our Washington City & Town Codes page. Searching for “drone” or “unmanned aerial vehicle” may turn up some additional examples.

MRSC also recommends that you discuss your options regarding the regulation of drones with your agency’s attorney.

RCW 35.21.955 (first and second class cities and towns) and RCW 35A.21.405 (code cities) authorize cities and towns that exercise their authority to abate nuisances to levy a special assessment against property for the expense of abatement. The special assessment constitutes a lien against the property and is binding on successors in title from the date the lien is recorded with the county.

Up to $2,000 of the recorded lien is of equal rank with state, county, and municipal taxes. Cities and towns levying the special assessment may contract with the county treasurer to collect the special assessment through the property tax collection process in accordance with RCW 84.56.035.

In cases where the nuisance threatens health and safety, the city or county must provide prior notice to the property owner that an abatement is pending and that a special assessment may be levied on the property for the expense of abatement. In all other cases, the city or town must notify both the property owner and any identifiable mortgage holder.

While there is no applicable state law on this, the widespread practice is to have your governing body adopt a new resolution rescinding the previous one. This will provide a clear audit/timing trail for the board’s actions. As always, check with your agency attorney for specific drafting advice.

If the original resolution was worded in a way that the local declaration terminates when the state terminates its declaration of emergency, then there is no need to adopt a rescinding resolution. But if that is not the case, the best practice is to adopt a resolution rescinding the emergency. Otherwise, the manager/mayor/executive arguably continues to have the extra powers granted to them in the original resolution.

Seattle and King County’s comprehensive plans specifically identify gun safety, while other jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans more broadly address violence, crime, and/or public safety (see examples below). Additionally, community health needs assessments and community health improvement plans are often either referenced or adopted by reference in comprehensive plans. For example, the King County Comprehensive Plan references the community health indicators (see violence & injury prevention) that are part of the King County Community Health Needs Assessment, 2021-2022 (see discussion of firearm-related deaths).

Here are some examples of goals and policies from Washington comprehensive plans:

• King County Comprehensive Plan – In Chapter 4 of the “Regional Health and Human Services” section, see H-102.e and H-209, which include references to firearms.
• Kirkland Human Services Goals and Policies – See Policy HS-5.3 in the Human Services chapter. It includes as a goal area “A safe haven from all forms of violence and abuse.”
• Redmond Comprehensive Plan – In the Chapter “Shoreline Master Program,” see SL-46 “Incorporate crime prevention principles in the design of public access to make facilities safe and easy to patrol and supervise.”
• Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2020) – In the Chapter “Community Well-Being,” see public safety policy CW 5.7 “Work in partnership with state, county, and community agencies to prevent violence, including that associated with substance abuse, and firearms injuries.” Other examples include GS 3.27, CW G5, BL-G15, and NN-P18.
• Spokane Social Health Chapter – See SH 6 on Safety, and related policies (CPTED, natural access control, natural surveillance, community oriented policing services, etc.).
• Vancouver Comprehensive Plan – See the Police section in the Public Facilities and Services Chapter, which includes data and strategies around crime and violence.
• Yakima Comprehensive Plan – See policy 7.4.7 “Encourage community policing, CPTED principles, and community watch programs to improve public safety for both businesses and residences.

Here are a few examples from other states:

• Oakland Safety Element - Public Safety – Includes policies and actions related to violent crime.
• Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan – See Goal 5 and related action steps, which include “Follow a public health approach to ending violence by reducing the factors that put people at risk for being involved with violence” and “Expand the use of non-enforcement, community-driven public safety strategies and responses such as restorative practices that can address and repair the harm caused by a crime.”
• Stockton General Plan – See Goal SAF-1, Safe Community (public safety is a top community priority). Policies SAF-1.1 and SAF-1.2 address violence and crime.

Special purpose districts (SPDs) like ports and fire and hospital districts are defined as "municipalities" or "municipal corporations" in their enabling legislation. HB 1630, codified at RCW 9.41.305, prohibits open carry in:

City, town, county, or other municipality buildings used in connection with meetings of the governing body of the city, town, county, or other municipality, or any location of a public meeting or hearing of the governing body of a city, town, county, or other municipality during the hearing or meeting.

Therefore, SPDs that are defined as municipalities are subject to the statutory language. For more on this new law, see the section on “Open Carry of Firearms” in the MRSC blog Regulating Firearms in Washington State.

Sections 70A.15.5000 through 70A.15.5220 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Chapter 173-425 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) regulate outdoor burning. Both generally forbid outdoor burning unless specifically authorized. WAC 173-425-050(4) says that:

It is unlawful for any person to cause or allow outdoor burning that causes an emission of smoke or any other air contaminant that is detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of any person, that causes damage to property or business, or that causes a nuisance

WAC 173-425-060(2)(i) requires a permit for any:

Recreational fires with a total fuel area that is greater than three feet in diameter and/or two feet in height (except in the nonurban areas of counties with an unincorporated population of less than fifty thousand; […]

WAC 173-425-060(5) establishes minimum recreational fire conditions. Those include whether a permit is required or just notification. Even for recreational fires, there are conditions. The regulations limit the materials that can be burned and the days and times burning is permitted. They require fifty-foot s eparation from structures and a maximum burn pile of four feet by four feet by three feet.

Because enforcement differs depending on each agency with overlapping jurisdictions (city police, fire department or fire district, and regional clean air agency) I recommend you consult with your fire marshal, your local clean air agency, and your attorney for specific requirements in your city.

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.