Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
RESEARCH TOOLS › MRSC Inquiries › Licensing & Regulation
 

MRSC Inquiries

Licensing & Regulation

    Licensing & Regulation - Animal Control


    1. Request for sample ordinances that ban specific breeds of dogs

      Some cities have completely banned certain breeds of dogs. Cities that have banned pit bulls, include Yakima, Selah, Algona and Enumclaw. See, for example, Ch. 6.18, "Pit Bull Dogs," Yakima Municipal Code.

      Bainbridge Island prohibits wolves and wolf hybrids (See Sec. 6.04.115, Bainbridge Island Municipal Code).  Bellevue (see Ch. 8.08, Bellevue Municipal Code) prohibits wolves and coyote hybrids, with some exceptions. Some jurisdictions also regulate wolf hybrids under their dangerous dog regulations (including Blaine and SeaTac).

      In adopting local ordinances based upon state laws regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs (see Ch. 16.08 RCW), some cities have modified the definition of "potentially dangerous dog" and/or "dangerous dog" to include references to specific breeds such as pit bull terriers. See, for example:

      • Ch. 8.05, Kirkland Municipal Code - Dangerous Dogs - (defines dangerous dogs to include "American Pit Bull Terrier" or "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" or "American Staffordshire Terrier" breed of dog)

      • Auburn Ordinance No. 5996 (includes pit bull terriers and other breeds as "potentially dangerous dogs.")

      Other cities that define dangerous dogs to include pit bulls include Eatonville and Pasco.

      For more information on this subject, including case law references, an overview of state laws regarding dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs, and sample ordinances, see our Web page on "Dangerous Dogs." See also MRSC's Web pages on Breed-Specific Regulations and Regulation of Wolves and Wolf Hybrids.



    2. May an animal control officer enter private property without consent of the property owner and without a warrant where, in plain view, a dog is being abused?

      There appears to be only one situation where an animal control officer may enter private property without a warrant. RCW 16.52.085(1) provides: If a law enforcement officer or animal control officer has probable cause to believe that an owner of a domestic animal has violated this chapter and no responsible person can be found to assume the animal's care, the officer may authorize, with a warrant, the removal of the animal to a suitable place for feeding and care, or may place the animal under the custody of an animal care and control agency. In determining what is a suitable place, the officer shall consider the animal&s needs, including its size and behavioral characteristics. An officer may remove an animal under this subsection without a warrant only if the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition. See also, RCW 16.52.015(3)(d) (giving an animal control officer the "power to prepare affidavits in support of search warrants and to execute search warrants when accompanied by law enforcement officers to investigate violations of this chapter ").



    3. Request for information on procedures for granting a limited commission to an animal control officer to enforce and issue citations for violations of the town's animal control ordinance, and the form for the oath of office for this position.
      Various statutes authorize municipalities to give designated employment positions, other than law enforcement officers, the authority to enforce laws, such as local animal control laws, that carry civil penalties (civil infractions). For example, RCW 7.80.040, dealing with civil infractions, defines "enforcement officer" as "a person authorized to enforce the provisions of the title or ordinance in which the civil infraction is established." See also IRLJ 1.2(j), a court rule that defines "citing officer" as "a law enforcement officer or other official authorized by law to issue a notice of infraction."

      So, the town may give an animal control officer a "limited commission" to issue citations for civil infractions under the town's ordinances. A "commission" is, in the sense discussed here, merely formal evidence of an appointment. There are no statutorily-required procedures for granting a limited commission. The only requirements for an animal control officer would be those established by the town for the position.

      Here are a few example code provisions establishing limited commissions:

      Mount Vernon Municipal Code
      10.10.020(C ) . “Limited commission code enforcement officer” means that person who has been appointed by the mayor and whose work is directed by the director of development services for the purpose of administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter, including all persons granted such authority and responsibility by contract with the city. In addition, the director of development services shall be an ex officio code enforcement officer and have like enforcement authority.

      Bellevue Municipal Code

      3.33.060 Appointment of deputies and other officers – Administrative structure. The chief of police may appoint, with the consent of the city manager, subject to any applicable civil service provisions, deputies and other public officers from other city departments. Such officers shall have the power of citation as may be appropriate and necessary for the proper performance of the duties of their office. Upon such appointment being made, the chief of police shall issue to the appointee a limited commission card. The appointment shall continue until the appointee is permanently terminated from city employment, but may be revoked at any time by the chief of police or the city manager.

      Burlington Municipal Code

      2.38.030(B) Members – Appointment and commissioning. ... [a] limited commission or deputation may be issued upon approval of the mayor and police chief to persons outside the department who have a need to have limited enforcement capabilities such as parking, parks, animal control, and arson. These limited commissions will specifically state the authority of the holder to enforce specific identified ordinances. These limited commissions shall be valid for a period of one year and shall automatically expire on December 31st of that year.

      As to the form for the oath of office, no state statute sets out the exact form for this. There are several variations used, although most are similar to the one set out below:

      I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all local ordinances, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of _____, according to law and the best of my ability.



    Licensing & Regulation - Business License


    1. Are counties allowed to issue business licenses?

      Counties are only allowed to impose business licenses for activities established by state statute, or by county charter. RCW 36.32.120, sets out the powers of county legislative authorities. The pertinent provision is as follows:

        The legislative authorities of the several counties shall:
        . . . (3) License and fix the rates of ferriage; grant grocery and other licenses authorized by law to be by them granted at fees set by the legislative authorities which shall not exceed the costs of administration and operation of such licensed activities. . . .

      There is specific statutory authority for noncharter counties to impose a license requirement for: dog or kennel licenses (RCW 36.49.020); private ferries (Ch. 36.53 RCW); peddlers and hawkers (Ch. 36.71 RCW); massage practitioners (RCW 36.32.122 RCW); retail liquor (RCW 67.14.040); trading stamp license (RCW 19.83.020). There may be others.



    2. May a city require a business license from a private business located on port property?

      Yes. We are not aware of any provision that would exempt a private business from obtaining a city business license just because they are located on port property. The requirement for a business license would seem to apply to all private businesses, even if located on governmental property.

    3. May a city deny a business license if the applicant is a convicted felon?

      It depends upon the circumstances. A city may deny a business license to a convicted felon if the felony relates to the type of business for which the license is sought. RCW 9.96A.020. For example, a city could refuse to issue a business license for a tax preparation business to a person convicted of tax fraud. On the other hand, a city could not deny that same person a license for a dry cleaning business.



    4. May cities require the purchaser of a business to obtain a new business license?

      Yes, although the city's business license ordinance should impose this requirement. From a regulatory standpoint, it makes sense for a city to require the purchaser of a business to apply for a new business license. This requirement will help ensure that new businesses comply with any conditions that the business license ordinance may impose.



    Licensing & Regulation - Gambling


    1. Will cities still be able to ban all gambling within their borders if Initiative 862 passes?

      Yes, if Intiative 862 passes, cities will still have the authority to ban all gambling within their borders.

      Initiative 862 allows for electronic slot machines where they are now prohibited. Electronic slot machines are partially regulated by Ch. 9.46 RCW relating to Gambling and partly the state lottery commission, in Ch. 67.70 RCW. Electronic slot machines will be allowed wherever a licensee already holds a valid license for another gambling activity.

      The initiative does not, however, explicitly preempt the authority of a city to prohibit gambling activities altogether. RCW 9.46.295 still authorizes cities to absolutely prohibit any or all gambling activities. Implied amendments or repeals are not favored in the law. See State v. Strauss, 119 Wn.2d 401 (1992) and Chao v. Bremerton Metal Trades Council, 294 F.3rd 1114 (2002).

      So cities can apparently still ban all gambling activities. If a city does this, then it would not be possible to license an electronic slot machine because such a licenses will be limited to those businesses or organizations which already are licensed for a gambling activity. However, it does not appear that a city could allow other types of gambling activities and ban only electronic slot machines.



    2. May a tavern that allows pulltabs continue such gambling if it is annexed by a city that prohibits pulltabs?

      The state gambling commission has taken the position that the tavern may continue with pulltabs until their state license for such activities expires. This issue has not been addressed by the state appellate courts.



    Licensing & Regulation - Home Occupations


    1. Can a city require that a home day care facility for less than 12 children obtain a home occupation permit?

      Probably not - see RCW 35A.63.215 (for code cities) and RCW 35.63.185 (for other cities and towns). The city cannot impose any requirements on such home day care facilities which are also not imposed on all other residences in that zone. For example, if an adjoining neighbor wants screening from a home day care facility, the neighbor will have to build a fence; the city cannot require a person operating a home day care to construct a fence as a condition for issuance of a home occupation permit. A city's authority to regulate small, in-home day care is limited to regulation of sign placement at the residence.



    Licensing & Regulation - Liquor


    1. Who has authority in a mayor-council city to respond to the liquor control board concerning a new or renewal liquor license application?

      This is covered in RCW 66.24.010, which was amended at the 2007 legislative session See Chapter 473, Laws of 2007( 29 KB). This statute provides at subsection (8) that, before the state liquor control board issues a liquor license or renews a liquor license, it is to give notice to the “chief executive officer” of the city. The city has the right to object to the application through the officer or employee selected by it. So, the council could designate the mayor to be the responsible official with authority to respond.

      Note that the 2007 amendments require the liquor control board to give greater weight to objections of the city than was previously the case.



    2. What if a church locates across the street from a tavern?

      "State law prohibits a tavern from locating within a certain distance of a church or a school. Does this law apply if the tavern was there first?"

      No. RCW 66.24.010(9), which contains the restriction, does not apply to taverns already licensed. Also, RCW 66.24.010(10) allows the Liquor Control Board to authorize the transfer of an existing license if it already is in the restricted area so the owner may sell an established business.



    3. May alcohol be served in a city-owned community hall when it is rented to a private group?

      Yes, if the private group obtains the proper license from the Washington State Liquor Control Board. See RCW 66.24.481, and the definition of "public place" in RCW 66.04.010(23). However, a city does have the authority to adopt a policy prohibiting the serving of any alcohol in the community hall.



    Licensing & Regulation - Peddlers and Solicitors


    1. Can a city or town enact a "Green River ordinance" banning all door to door solicitation?

      The term "Green River Ordinance" refers to ordinances that prohibit door-to-door peddling or solicitation without distinguishing between commercial and noncommercial endeavors. The name comes from Ordinance No. 175, adopted by the Town of Green River, Wyoming, in 1931. These types of ordinances have been ruled unconstitutional when they prohibit religious or noncommercial door-to-door solicitation. The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 17, 2002, invalidated a Stratton, Ohio, ordinance that required canvassers to register and obtain a permit from the mayor's office before going door-to-door promoting any cause (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 00-1737). The Court held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment as it applied to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.

      In 2000, the ACLU filed a federal suit and successfully challenged an overbroad Medina ordinance regulating solicitors - see "Medina To Repeal "Get a License to Talk" Law, Court Approves Final Settlement of ACLU Lawsuit."

      In Washington State, the general regulations for charitable solicitations are covered by Chapter 19.09 RCW. We suggest you review those statutes.



    2. Can a city or county enforce an ordinance that makes all uninvited commercial solicitation a public nuisance?

      Ordinances that broadly prohibit door-to-door soliciting, sometimes called "Green River" ordinances (after a city in Colorado whose anti-soliciting ordinance had been challenged and upheld), were at one time very common. However, more recent court decisions have raised doubts as to whether such ordinances would be similarly upheld today.

      A federal court decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a city ordinance that prohibited door-to-door solicitation unless the homeowner placed a "solicitor's welcome" sign on their door was an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights. The court held that the ordinance did not provide the least restrictive alternative available to accomplish the legitimate governmental interests of protecting residential privacy and preventing crime.

      Some jurisdictions still have these types of broad prohibitions in their ordinances and may therefore be subject to similar court challenges. This does not mean that cities and counties cannot regulate peddlers or solicitors at all. Cities and counties may still require commercial solicitors to register and obtain a license. These ordinances can also contain more limited prohibitions, such as prohibiting solicitors from contacting residences that have posted "no soliciting" signs.

      For more information and some sample ordinances, see MRSC's Web page on "Regulation of Peddlers, Solicitors, Temporary Merchants and Mobile Vendors."



    3. May a city impose a total ban on peddlers?

      The question is whether the city can enforce an ordinance that makes uninvited solicitation a nuisance in the city – in other words, a total ban on peddler sales. This type of ordinance at one time was very common and is often called a “Green River Ordinance,” after a city in Wyoming where a court case upheld their validity. However, more recent court cases have called into question whether such a broad prohibition would survive a legal challenge today.

      A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case (Project 80's Inc. v. City of Pocatello, 942 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1991)), held that a city ordinance that prohibited door-to-door solicitation unless the resident places a "solicitor's welcome" sign on the door was ruled an unconstitutional infringement of free commercial speech. The court held that the ordinance did not provide the least restrictive alternative available to accomplish the legitimate governmental interests of protecting residential privacy and preventing crime. For a more detailed discussion of case law related to this issue, see our web on Regulation of Peddlers and Solicitors.

      We are aware that some cities still have these broad prohibitions in their ordinances, but, in our opinion, they likely are unenforceable and would not withstand a court challenge. This does not mean that a city cannot regulate peddlers or solicitors at all. Many cities have ordinances with licensing or registration requirement for solicitors. These ordinances can also contain more limited prohibitions, such as prohibiting solicitors from contacting any residence that is posted by signage indicating such contacts are not desired by the residents, and should contain exceptions for political and religious speech.



    Licensing & Regulation - Signs


    1. Can a city or county adopt post-election durational restrictions for political campaign signs?

      Yes. In Collier v. Tacoma, 121 Wn.2d 737 (1993), the Washington Supreme Court addressed both pre- and post-election restrictions on political campaign signs. While holding that "Tacoma's durational limitation on the preelection posting of political campaign signs violates the free speech provisions of both the Washington and the United States Constitutions," the court addressed post-election requirements as follows:

      [O]ur holding does not compel a change to postevent removal requirements as long as such requirements are reasonable and apply to all temporary events, such as political campaigns, home sales and residential renting. While preelection political speech interests may outweigh a municipality's regulatory interests in a given case, those same interests are not present postevent and may be outweighed by a municipality's demonstrated interests in aesthetics or traffic safety. See Baldwin v. Redwood City, supra (10-day postelection removal requirement upheld).

      So, assuming that reasonable post-election requirements apply to all temporary events, they would be valid under Collier v. Tacoma.



    Licensing & Regulation - Street Vendors/Temporary Stands


    1. Request for sample performance standards and development regulations for sidewalk vendors including espresso stands.

      Please see the MRSC web page on Sidewalk Use Policies for sample business licensing and land use regulations for street merchants, mobile vendors, and espresso stands.  Also see:

       



    2. Can the city require that vendors at the local farmers' market who prepare and sell hot food obtain a local business license, or are those vendors covered by the statutory exemption that applies to people who market their produce directly?

      RCW 36.71.090 exempts farmers who sell their produce (fruits, vegetables, berries, eggs or other farm produce) directly to consumers from the requirement of obtaining a local business license. That exemption would not apply to food vendors with stalls at a farmers' market who cook and sell meats, or other products grown or produced by other people. Just because a person has a food cart or stand at a farmers' market does not automatically exempt them from the requirement of obtaining a local license. The statute should be read carefully to see if it applies in a particular situation.



    Licensing & Regulation - Temporary Uses


    1. Request for temporary use permits for farmers markets, holiday sales, tent cities, etc.

      See the following links to temporary use provisions from several Washington cities:

      • Auburn Municipal Code, Ch. 18.46 - Temporary Uses
      • Bellevue Land Use Code, Part 20.30M - Temporary Use Permit
      • Woodinville Municipal Code, Ch. 21.32 - General Provisions - Nonconformance, Temporary Uses and Re-Use of Facilities
      • Newcastle Municipal Code, Ch. 18.32 - General Provisions - Nonconformance, Temporary Uses and Re-Use of Facilities
      • Kirkland Zoning Code, Ch. 127 - Temporary Use

      ·         Oak Harbor Municipal Code, Ch. 19.35 - Temporary Use Permits (includes produce stands)

      In addition to the general temporary use permit information, you may be interested in specific information regarding permits for tent cities:

      You may also be interested in specific information on farmers markets. Take a look at MRSC's Web page on Farmers Markets. Also see the codes noted above that address produce stands as part of the temporary use provisions.