Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/24/2020 Per the Governor's Proclamation 20-28.13, the Board of Equalization is temporarily restricted from holding in-person meetings. All meetings will be held virtually via the Zoom platform at this time. To listen to the meeting via your telephone, please contact Becky Rogers at 360-427-9670, ext. 268. DRAFT MASON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION VIRTUAL AGENDA Tuesday, November 24, 2020 10:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M. Regular Convened Session — Day of Administrative Discussion Adjourned Board Members in Attendance: ❑ Kevin Frankeberger,PhD,Vice-Chair ❑ Janice Loomis,Member ❑ Deborah Reis,Chair ❑ Carl Soper,Member ❑ Brenda Hirschi,Member Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations, please contact Becky Rogers at 360-427-9670, Ext 268 or BOEClerk(d)co.mason.Wa.us. Board of Equalization Administrative Items 11/24/2020 ❖ 2020 assessment year (AY) / 2021 tax year (TY) appeal period 30-day appeal periods. 30-Day Parcels NOV Mailed Deadline Mass 9/7�7�2-9 10/ ten 14-9 19/13/292-9 94 io/�20 29 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 79 10/28/2020 11/27/2020 40 11/5/2020 12/5/2020 445 TOTAL • 2020 AY/2021 TY Assessor's Certificate of Assessment Rolls to the County BoE - 10/30/2020 - See attached. • 2020 AY/2021 TY BoE formation meeting (RCW 84.48.010 (1) & (4) o Within 14 days of certification of the county assessment, BoE members take oath to fairly and impartially perform duties. o Remain in session not less than three days. (November 12, 24 & 25) • 28-Day Regular Convened Session (RCW 84.48.010) o Within 14 days of certification of the county assessment rolls, not to exceed four weeks 11/12/2020 - 12/9/2020 • BOCC approval for BoE to hear completed and timely filed appeals for 2020 AY - See attached 11/17/2020 consent agenda. ❖ Open/Active Petitions 2021 AY - 158 • Reconvene & Waiver Requests - 1 - See attached - Action • Pending - 6 • Withdrawn - 4 • Dismissed - 1 • Direct Appeals to State Board of Tax Appeals - See BTA Change to Direct Appeal Policy attached o Petition 19.2021 - McKibbin - Discussion/Action • Hearings Scheduled - 0 o Begin Date - 2/2/2021 (Tues & Thurs) ♦ Times — 10 am; 11 am; 1 pm & 2 pm o End Date - 6/17/2021 OR as needed ❖ Training ❖ Open Governments Training Act (OGTA) (RCW 42.30 & 42.56) • Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) RCW 42.30 - Electronic Communications - An email exchange can constitute a meeting - See MRSC Email and the OPMA: Key Tips attached. • Public Records Act (PRA) (RCW 42.56) Assessor ' s Certificate of Assessment Rolls to the County Board of Equalization State of Washington ) RECEIVED ss . j O C T 3 0 2020 MASON COUNTY ) Mason County Human Resources I, Patti McLean , Assessor - do solemnly swear that the assessment rolls and this certificate contain a correct and full list of all the real and personal property subject to taxation in this county for the assessment year 2020 , so far as I have been able to ascertain the same ; and that the assessed value set down in the proper column, opposite the several kinds and descriptions of property, is in such case, except as otherwise provided by law, one hundred percent of true and fair value of such property , to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that the assessment rolls and this certificate are correct, as I verily believe . The assessment valuation of locally assessed property upon the assessment rolls is Assessed Value I . Forest Land Assessed Value (chapter 84 . 33 RCW) $ 381 306 , 125 2 . Current Use Land Assessed Value (chapter 84 . 34 RCW) $ 9 , 2 62 , 9 7 9 3 . Improvement Value on Current Use Lands $ 8 3 , 84 5 , 5 0 0 4 . Taxable Senior Freeze Assessed Value $ 164 , 4 9 2 , 4 6 5 5 . Real Property Assessed Value (excluding Items 1 thru 4 ) $ 91 265 , 147 , 845 6 . Total Taxable Assessed Value of Real Property (Total of Items 1 thru 5) $ 9 , 5 61 , 054 , 914 7 . Personal Property Assessed Value $ 155 , 664 , 679 8 . Total County Locally Assessed Value (Total of items 64) $ 9 , 716 , 719 , 5 9 3 Custody of the assessment rolls is hereby officially delivered to the County B and of Equalization . Assessor Subscribed and rn f me this � L t� day ofL4 � b fir' , (yr) C) ; Auditor of Mason County • Original document to the clerk of the County Board of Equalization on or before July 15 for the purpose of equalization . (RCW 84 .40 . 320) • Copy to DOR on or before July 15 for ratio study purposes . (WAC 45&53 -135) SEND COPY TO , Department of Revenue Property Tax Division * * TerraScan was unable to remove New Construction from Senior Values . PO Box 47471 Olympia, WA 98504 -7471 REV 64 005le (6/25/ 12) See next page for instructions 204080 AssessorsCertificateOfAssessment www.terrascan .com Assessors Certificate Of Assessment Printed on 10/30/2020 2 : 53 :45 PM Page 1 of 2 Assessor ' s Certificate of New Construction Value to the County Board of Equalization State of Washington ) RECEIVED M ) O C T 3 0 2020 Mason County Mason County Human Resources Pursuant to RCW 36 .21 . 080 and 84 . 40 . 040, I, Patti McLean, Assessor of MASON County, hereby certify that the value of new construction added to the 2020 assessment roll is $ 65059018 . Signatur ' of Assessor Subscribed and sworn before � f day of ��� fG � , (year) , this Auditor for Mason County. File a Copy on or Before September 15 with : Department of Revenue Property Tax Division PO Box 47471 Olympia, WA 98504-7471 To ask about the availability of this publication in an alternate format for the visually impaired, please call (360) 705-6715 . Teletype (TTY) users, please call (360) 705 -6718 . For tax assistance, call (360) 5344400 . REV 64 0059e (w) (2/ 16/ 12 ) 200250_CertificateOfNewConstructionValue www,terrascan .com Certificate Of New Construction Value Printed on 10/30/2020 12 :46: 03 PM Page 1 of 1 MASON COUNTY COMMISSION AGENDA ACTION SHEET NOVEMBER 17, 2020 ACTION 8.1 Approval to set a Public Hearing for December 8, 2020 at 9:15 a.m. to consider approval of budget supplemental appropriations and amendments to the 2020 budget. Total requests for adjustments to authorized expenditure appropriations in the General Fund Approved are$4,292,055. Total requests to authorized expenditure appropriations in funds other than the General Fund are$14,337,538. 8.2 Approval of Warrants &Treasure Electronic Remittances: Claims Clearing Fund Warrant # 8075514-8075630 $ 1,549,931.97 Direct Deposit Fund Warrant # 72679-73071 $ 719,807.73 Approved Salary Clearing Fund Warrant # 7005531-7005566 $ 993,788.49 Treasure Electronic Remittances $ 622,050.52 8.3 Approval for the Chair to sign the Non-Competing Continuation Attestation Letter for the Approved SAMHSA Grant # 19T181939A for Mason County Recovery Court Expansion. 8.4 Approval to sign the Interagency Agreement # IAA21575 for the Interpreter Approved Reimbursement Program through the Administrative Office of the Courts AOC . 8.5 Approval of two resolutions making a declaration of substantial need for purposes of setting the limit factor, one for the Current Expense and one for the County Road Approved property tax levy for the year 2021. 8.6 Approval for the Mason County Board of Equalization to hear completed and timely filed Approved appeals for the 2020 assessment year. 8.7 Approval for the Board to authorize the Public Works Director to execute the Service Level Agreement with Washington Technology Services (WaTech) for GIS imagery Approved services. 8.8 Approval for the Board to authorize the Chair to sign the following Title VI of the Civil Rights Act related requirements: (1) updated Title VI Non-Discrimination Agreement; (2) Approved Annual Report covering the reporting period from May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020; and (3) USDOT Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances. 8.9 Approval of the 2020-2021 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Approved project list as recommended by the Mason County Economic Development Council. 8.10 Approval to amend contract # 20-084 with additional CARES Act funding to Crossroads Approved Housing for the Eviction Rent Assistance Program Grant. 8.11 Approval to amend contract # 20-069 to accept an additional $852,048 from the Department of Commerce for the Emergency Solutions Grant—COVID 19. Approval to amend subcontracts with Crossroads Housing and Shelton Family Center to expand non- congregate shelter capacity, increase support staff and rental assistance to move Approved households into permanent housing from the temporary emergency shelters. Approval to enter into contract with Turning Pointe for increased shelter operations and case management in response to COVID-19. 8.12 Approval to set a Public Hearing for December 8, 2020 at 9:15 a.m. to consider approval of the Chehalis Basin Partnership Addendum in Response to the 2018 Streamflow Approved Restoration Act. 8.13 Approval of the adjusted Environmental Health Fee Schedule with an effective date of Approved January 1 2021. 8.14 Approval for a payment of$5,000 to the City of Bremerton for Mason Counties contribution to the Gorst Coalition in assisting them in Marketing and Lobbying costs to Approved the State of Washington Department of Transportation Corridor 208 SR16 to SR3 Gorst Interchange Transportation project. 8.15 Approval to sign the Subrecipient contract to assist with CARES Act funding to the Boys and Girls Club of South Puget Sound—North Mason Team for COVID-19 related costs Approved and miti ation efforts up to$40 000. 8.16 Approval to appoint April Pruitt-Pooler, Allan Emmons Jr., and George Blush as Commissioners of the Mason County Housing Authority Board to fill the open positions Approved for terms ending November 17 2025 Mason County Board of Equalization Request to Reconvene Request for Waiver of Filing Deadline 2020 AY / 2021 TY o M yL+ OJ G Q C a) Vf Q Purchase N Owner/Taxpayer v 7/ 1/19-- Y *' v E c `^ o` 3 # Name First Name Parcel Number AY LL 12/31/ 19 * >90% a m t`- 3: NOTES (These are abbreviated text - for actual text go to WAC) APPROVE DENY 4 1 Roof Isusan 1 12219-50-00010 2020 Yes I n/a I W WAC458-14-056 (3) (c ) Incorrect, ambiguous or misleading written advice SIGNATURE FOR APPROVAL DATE PRINTED NAME From: IdaMae Jensen To: Becky Roaers Date: Wednesday,November 18,2020 3:25:01 PM Attachments: Susan Roof Westlake Ltr of Appeal.pdf Becky, Just to go over the timeline on this property: Initial call was 10/1 w/Tom Gibbons; Called back on 10/8 w/more concerns about her house condition; Tom applied a reduction for condition issues. We received letter from Susan Roof on 10/19/2020, referencing "Appeal". Called back on 11/13. Tom G was out of office, so I took the call. I set an appt to inspect your home on 11/20/2020. 1 was unaware of the letter at this time. Called again on 11/17 cancelling our appt due to Covid restrictions. T/P sent interior photos that I received on 11/18. 1 also was given the original copy of the letter dated 10/19/20. At this point, we have the home classified correctly, based on interior photos provided by T/P. I will develop sales grid if Board formally accepts the letter as timely. I appreciate your help. Sincerely, IdaMae Senior Appraiser 1,Tensen@co.rnason.wa.us 360-427-9670 x 499 BEHR OCT 19 2020 MASON CQU21 f ASSESSOR -774� iaa i 9- �- ova/o 76Y , 1-1-On 0 02l Presorted First Class Reai Md"'In U.S.Postage masola Cotiiily PAID L Assessoa° The Master's Touch,LLC Rl l N.5d,,P.O.B-I _ slieim,.\G'aluupron 995t;1 2020 Assessed Value for 2021 Taxes for Parcel Number 12219-50-00010 10 E us Addre Ps 100%of True&Fair Market Value Previous New ALLYN Buildings/Improvements 361,225 446,175 Assessed Year Sr Frozen Value 0 0 2020 Market Land 64,075 67,920 Tax Year Current Use Land 0 0 2021 Last Date toAppeal 10/23/2020 Total Market Value 425,300 514,095 Notice pate 09/23/2020 This is not a Tax Statement. lill�ll�ln.1,loll,lul„Lilllurllnll�nlul,l,llrllll,l,l„ w ipc ` 'Ine RQOF,SUSAN**0.1**1/1***-****AUT05-DIGIT 98524 Go Paperle 10 E WESTLAKE PL WWW ' tice�Onllne.cojn ALLYN WA 98524-8755 MAS=NCG7LM98 MASON COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ASSESSOR'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF VALUE 411 N 5TH ST PATTI MCLEAN,ASSESSOR Shelton,WA 98584 360-427-9670 x491 PARCEL NUMBER ACREAGE NOTICE OF PROPERTY TAX OWNERS OF CHANGE OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE,AND OPEN SPACE VALUE DATE 12 219-5 0-0 0 010 0.39 IF APPLICABLE,OF THE REAL PROPERTY HEREON DESCRIBED.THE ASSESSED VALUE SUBJECT TO 10/13/2 02 0 10 E WESTLAKE PL ALLYN TAXES PAYABLE IN 2021 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LAND IMPROVEMENTS CROP TOTAL LAKELAND VILLAGE 7 OLD MARKET VALUE 64,075 361,225 0 425,300 INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS LOT: 10 '"""- VALUE SHOULD BE NEW MARKET VALUE 67,920 436,920 0 504,840 OBTAINED AT THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE This notice may refer to your total property,or only a portion of,your property. The description given will correspond to your tax statement for this parcel. NOTICE:The reverse side of this form contains information that may be important to you ROOF, SUSAN FOR INFORMATION ON FILING A PETITION FOR APPEALING THE 10 E WESTLAKE PL SASSESSED VALUE IDE OF THIS NOTI EYOUR PROPERTY,PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE ALLYN WA 98524 1111111 11�11 1EI 11111 1111 III 111 1�1 11111111111111111111111111 III 1111 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 1 3 Direct Appeal Taxpayers may request a direct appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals when the taxpayer, Assessor, and the County Board of Equalization agree that a direct appeal is appropriate. The State Board may accept or reject the request. A direct appeal may be appropriate when a property valuation matter involves complex issues or requires expertise beyond the County Board of Equalization's proficiency. To request a direct appeal, taxpayers must obtain the agreement of both the County Assessor's Office and County Board of Equalization. The completed direct appeal request form and a completed notice of appeal (or the pleading if the matter is to be a formal appeal) must be filed with WSBTA. Please note that this policy regarding direct appeals is new as of February, 2020. For additional information, see RCW 84.40.038(3) and WAC 458-14-171 . Chanqe to Direct Appeal Policy January 31, 2020 Kate Adams 0 comment The WSBTA will no longer accept appeals based on conflict of interest or to consolidate with matters already on file with the agency. The agency will continue to accept appeals that involve complex issues, or those requiring expertise beyond that of a board of equalization. However, the direct appeal application must include sufficient information by which the WSBTA may make that determination. Request for Direct Appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals The following taxpayer requests the attached appeal be heard by the State Board of Tax Appeals without first having a hearing before the County Board of Equalization. Parcel No: Property Type: Owner: Mailing Address For All Correspondence Relating To Appeal: Street Address: City, State,Zip Code: Daytime Phone No: Name of Petitioner or Authorized Agent: Main Issue: Reason this should be heard by the Board of Tax Appeals: Amount of value in dispute: $ All parties must agree to this request or the appeal shall be considered first by the County Board of Equalization. I Agree To This Request: Date: Taxpayer or Agent ❑ Yes ❑ No Date: Assessor The signature below represents a majority of the Board of Equalization;the minutes of the Board reflect the vote. ❑ Yes ❑ No Date: Board of Equalization Chair THIS REQUEST MUST BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. To ask about the availability of this publication in an alternate format for the visually impaired,please call(360)705-6715. Teletype(TTY)users,please call(360)705-6718. For tax assistance,call(360)534-1400. REV 64 0079e(w)(2/16/12) RCW 84.48.150 Valuation criteria including comparative sales to be made available to taxpayer— Change. (1) The assessor must, upon the request of any taxpayer who petitions the board of equalization for review of a tax claim or valuation dispute, make available to said taxpayer a compilation of comparable sales utilized by the assessor in establishing such taxpayer's property valuation. If valuation criteria other than comparable sales were used, the assessor must furnish the taxpayer with such other factors and the addresses of such other property used in making the determination of value. (2) The assessor must within sixty days of such request but at least twenty-one business days, excluding legal holidays, prior to such taxpayer's appearance before the board of equalization make available to the taxpayer the valuation criteria and/or comparable sales that may not be subsequently changed by the assessor unless the assessor has found new evidence supporting the assessor's valuation, in which situation the assessor must provide such additional evidence to the taxpayer and the board of equalization at least twenty-one business days prior to the hearing at the board of equalization. A taxpayer who lists comparable sales on a notice of appeal may not subsequently change such sales unless the taxpayer has found new evidence supporting the taxpayer's proposed valuation in which case the taxpayer must provide such additional evidence to the assessor and board of equalization at least twenty-one business days, excluding legal holidays, prior to the hearing. If either the assessor or taxpayer does not meet the requirements of this section the board of equalization may continue the hearing to provide the parties an opportunity to review all evidence or, upon objection, refuse to consider sales not submitted in a timely manner. [ 2018 c 24 § 1; 1994 c 301 § 46; 1973 1st ex.s. c 30 § 1.] WAC 458-14-066 Requests for valuation information—Duty to ex- change documentary information—Time limits . (1) Introduction. This rule explains the access to valuation and other documentary informa- tion provided to both parties prior to the hearing on a petition so that time-consuming and costly discovery procedures are unnecessary. (2) Valuation information provided by assessor. Requests by a taxpayer for valuation information from the assessor may be made on the petition form filed with the board, or may be made at any reasona- ble time prior to the hearing. Upon request by the taxpayer, the as- sessor must make available to the taxpayer the comparable sales used in establishing the taxpayer ' s property valuation. If valuation crite- ria other than comparable sales were used, the assessor must provide the taxpayer with the information. All valuation information, including comparable sales, must be provided to the taxpayer and the board within sixty calendar days of the request but at least twenty-one business days, excluding legal holidays, prior to the taxpayer' s appearance before the board of equalization. The valuation information provided by the assessor to the taxpayer must not be subsequently changed by the assessor unless the new evidence supports the assessor' s valuation. If the assessor has found new evidence, he or she must provide the additional evidence to the taxpayer and the board at least twenty-one business days, ex- cluding legal holidays, prior to the board hearing. The postmark date is used to determine whether the information is timely provided. (3) Valuation information provided by taxpayer. A taxpayer who lists comparable sales on the petition, or who provides the board and the assessor with comparable sales or valuation evidence after filing the petition, must not subsequently change the evidence unless the new evidence supports the taxpayer' s valuation. If the taxpayer has found new evidence, he or she must provide the additional evidence by mail- ing or submitting it to the assessor and the board at least twenty-one business days, excluding legal holidays, prior to the board hearing. The postmark date is used to determine whether the information is timely provided. (4) Failure to comply. If either the assessor or taxpayer does not comply with the requirements of this rule, the board may take any of the following actions : (a) If there is no objection by either party, consider the new evidence provided by either party and proceed with the hearing; (b) If there is an objection by either party to the failure of the other party to comply with the requirements of this rule, the board may: (i) Refuse to consider evidence that was not timely submitted; (ii) Postpone the hearing for a definitive time period designated by the board, to provide the parties an opportunity to review all evi- dence; or (iii) Proceed with the hearing but allow the parties to submit new evidence to the board and to the other party after the hearing is concluded. The new evidence must be submitted within a definitive time period designated by the board, and must be provided to each party with an adequate opportunity to rebut or comment on the new evidence prior to the board' s decision. [Statutory Authority: RCW 84 . 08 . 010, 84 . 08 . 070, and 84 . 48 .200 . WSR 18-24-109, § 458-14-066, filed 12/4/18, effective 1/4/19; WSR 06-13-034, § 458-14-066, filed 6/14/06, effective 7/15/06; WSR Certified on 10/25/2019 WAC 458-14-066 Page 1 95-17-099, § 458-14-066, filed 8/23/95, effective 9/23/95; WSR 90-23-097, § 458-14-066, filed 11/21/90, effective 12/22/90 . ] Certified on 10/25/2019 WAC 458-14-066 Page 2 ;75MRSC Local Govemment Success Email and the OPMA: Key Tips for Local Government Elected Officials March 22,2013 by Joe Levan Category:Open Public Meetings Act At the outset, I recognize that some issues under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) (chapter 42.30 RCW) can be especially challenging for local government elected officials who serve on a three-member governing body, since communications between any two such members can constitute a meeting under the OPMA. But what specific types of communications are we talking about here? Fortunately, there is some court guidance on this issue. In Wood v. Battle Ground School District, 107 Wn. App. 550 (2001), the state court of appeals addressed a situation involving emails that were sent between members of a school board.Although the decision dates back to 2001, it continues to be relevant. Particularly helpful is the court's analysis regarding how the OPMA applies to situations that many local elected officials will find familiar, including email communications and, by extension, phone conversations, text messaging, blogging, and discussions conducted on social media sites. As an initial matter, note that consequences for OPMA violations can be serious, including possible civil penalties against individual members of the governing body, an award of costs and fees against the local government itself, and an invalidation of any"action"taken at an illegal meeting. See RCW 42.30.120 and RCW 42.30.060. Of particular interest regarding the Wood decision, I think, is the court's analysis related to email exchanges and when such exchanges can constitute a meeting under the OPMA. In concluding that an email exchange can constitute a meeting, the court also recognizes: the need for balance between the right of the public to have its business conducted in the open and the need for members of governing bodies to obtain information and communicate in order to function effectively.Thus, we emphasize that the mere use or passive receipt of email does not automatically constitute a "meeting" Id. at 564 (internal footnote omitted). The court makes several practical points applicable to email exchanges—as well as to communications more generally between members of a governing body—that I think are worth highlighting. Absent other applicable facts, the OPMA is not violated if: • Less than a majority of the governing body meet (unless a committee of less than a majority of the governing body is acting on behalf of that body, holding a hearing, or taking testimony or public comment). • Members of the governing body are merely receiving information about upcoming issues or communicating among themselves about matters unrelated to the governing body's business. A governing body, for example, can travel or gather together for purposes other than a regular or special meeting. • There is only passive receipt of information via email without discussion between members of the governing body. A key point, particularly in this context, is an understanding of how broadly"action" is defined under the OPMA.This is important because it is "action" that determines whether a "meeting" has taken place. Under RCW 42.30.020(4), a "meeting" under the OPMA occurs whenever the governing body of a public agency takes "action:' RCW 42.30.020(3) defines"action"as: the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. As discussed by the court in the Wood decision, it's possible for a governing body to take "action" as defined by the OPMA if,for example, a majority of the governing body engage merely in an email discussion about an issue that may come before the body for a vote. In Wood, the court, applying the OPMA to the facts at issue, took particular notice of the following facts which, if true, would mean that the board held an illegal meeting via email under the OPMA, because: • The email discussions involved a majority of the school board, including emails sent by individual members to all members of the board with messages attached that included discussion between members about the matter. • The email discussions related to the business of the governing body (e.g., regarding a possible declaratory judgment action, evaluation of an employee's performance, and board duties). • The email discussions were not the mere passive receipt of information but instead constituted an active exchange of information and opinions among board members, which suggests that the board was deliberating and/or discussing board business. What about "serial" or"rolling" meetings?That kind of a meeting happens when a series of communications about agency business occurs involving, singly, less than a majority of the body, but involving, cumulatively, a majority or more of the body. So, for example, in the context of a five-member city council, a meeting would occur when Councilmember Adams and Councilmember Jefferson discuss a matter of council business via email and then Adams sends an email to Councilmember Lincoln indicating that he has discussed the issue with Jefferson, and then Lincoln responds to Adams, discussing that same matter in the email.A "meeting" under the OPMA doesn't require the contemporaneous physical- or electronic - presence of the members. See, e.g., Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wn. App. 212, 224 (2002). Practical Tips Regarding communications that occur outside of a public meeting between members of a local government governing body, I recommend consideration of the following to avoid potential OPMA violations: • Keep in mind that, although passive receipt of information via email is permissible, discussion of issues via email by the governing body can constitute a meeting. • If you want to provide via email information to other members of the governing body, especially regarding a matter that may come before the body for a vote, have the "Re:" or"Subject" line and the first line of the email itself clearly state: "For informational purposes only. Do not reply" • Don't send an email to all or a majority of the governing body or use "reply all" when the recipients are the rest of the members or a majority of the governing body, except when the message is only to provide documents or factual information, such as emailing a document to all members for their review prior to the next meeting. • Alternatively, rather than emailing materials to your colleagues on the governing body in preparation for a meeting, have a designated staff member email or otherwise provide the materials to the rest of the governing body. • Be mindful of Public Records Act (chapter 42.56 RCW) and records retention requirements (e.g., chapter 40.14 RCW) that apply to public records, including public disclosure requirements applicable to emails and other records that relate to the conduct of government. As a final note, my recommendation for local government officials is to be well versed in the legal requirements and principles above described and, if in doubt, don't hit the "send" button on an email if you think the communication could potentially violate the OPMA. Email and other types of electronic communications can be effective tools, but those tools must be used wisely. MRSC is a private nonprofit organization serving local governments in Washington State. Eligible government agencies in Washington State may use our free, one-on-one Ask MRSC service to get answers to legal,policy, or financial questions. About Joe Levan Joe served as an MRSC Legal Consultant and Legal Manager. He has been a municipal attorney for many years, including as an in-house city attorney, in private practice for two municipal law firms through which he provided litigation and a range of other services to several Washington municipalities, and as part of the in-house legal team for Sound Transit. He no longer works for MRSC. VIEW ALL POSTS BY IOE LEVAN / ©2020 MRSC of Washington.All rights reserved.Privacy&Terms.