No. There are a number of options available to a PHD depending on the estimated cost of the public works project. MRSC’s Find Your Contracting Requirements is a good tool for understanding bid limits.

Although formal competitive bidding is typically used for larger and more complex projects, it can, in theory, be used for projects of any amount. The small works roster may be used for projects costing up to $350,000. For projects under $75,000, a district has the option (in addition to formal competitive bidding and the small works roster) of using a minimal competition process.

The small works roster statute (RCW 39.04.155) also refers to the limited public works process (LPWP) in subsection (3), which is a variation of the small works roster process. For more on that, see our Small Works Roster webpage (the LPWP section is near the bottom of the page). MRSC also has a Small Works Roster Manual for Local Governments with more detailed information.

PHDs are authorized to provide “other health care services” which, as defined in RCW 70.44.007, includes:

Providing mental health services to residents and employees of a district would fall within this broad definition. With respect to employees of a district, the board could consider making such services available as an employee benefit—which appears to be an increasingly common practice on the part of employers. A board would want to consider whether to offer such benefits temporarily for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency or permanently.

The next question is whether a district may offer mental health services to non-employee first responders and business employees at no charge. In normal times, this would raise concerns about violating the prohibition on gifts of public funds, at least to the extent such services are offered to individuals who are not low-income or infirm.

However, Washington state is in the midst of an emergency, and the Washington Attorney General’s Office has provided guidance on how the current emergency impacts the prohibition on gifts of public funds. If the funds expended (or services provided) constitute a “fundamental purpose of government,” then the prohibition on gifts of public funds does not apply. Making mental health resources available to first responders may constitute a “fundamental purpose” for a PHD, given the definition of “other health care services” quoted above. Such services are likely to help first responders cope with the stress and difficulty of providing care and services during a pandemic.

Whether mental health services can be provided at no cost to business employees is a closer question. The AGO guidance notes that supporting small businesses during a pandemic may be permissible in some cases to protect the health of the regional economy. However, that guidance is more applicable to general-purpose entities (cities and counties) rather than special purpose districts. A PHD would need to justify mental health expenditures for public health purposes and not economic reasons.

That may be possible under the current circumstances. An additional option a district could consider is making free mental health services available only to individuals who qualify as low-income (under a standard adopted by a district to make that determination).

There are a number of policy issues to consider. In addition, this is an issue on which a district should receive input from its legal counsel.

There is no requirement in state law to allow the use of the chat function when holding a remote public hearing through a meeting application such as Zoom. In fact, allowing chat creates additional issues that local governments need to take into account.

For remote meetings, it is a policy decision whether to turn off a “chat” feature during public meetings. If the feature is on and used, then the contents should be retained as public records and included as part of your official record of the meeting.

There are several potential problems with using a chat feature during a council meeting. First, not all participants and attendees have access to a chat feature. Those calling in via phone would be excluded from that part of the meeting. Second, chat notes are potentially disruptive because they are like passing notes or texting during the meeting.

Some remote meeting platforms have a “hand raising” feature that can be used instead of “chat” during a public comment period. Turning off the chat feature addresses these concerns provided individuals attending the public hearing can otherwise speak during the public comment period.

Regarding providing names, the OPMA (RCW 42.30.040) provides that an agency cannot require a meeting attendee to provide his or her name as a condition of attending. However, speaking during public comment or a public hearing is different. Agencies commonly ask individuals speaking at a public meeting to provide their names.

If the District decides to use the chat feature, from a legal standpoint, it can ask users of the chat feature to identify themselves, since by using the feature, they are essentially speaking at the meeting.

The Governor’s most recent Emergency Proclamation 20-28.8 extends the “no in-person meeting” requirement through at least September 1, 2020. It does, however, create an exception for local government entities in Phase 3 counties. PHDs in Phase 3 counties have the option of holding in-person meetings, but they are not required to. In addition, the Governor recently reduced the size limits on gatherings in Phase 3 counties from 50 to 10, which presents problems for holding in-person meetings if more than 10 people (including board members, staff and members of the public) are in attendance. If more than 10 people show up in-person, a PHD would need to adjourn or continue the meeting. For more on this, see MRSC’s FAQ on COVID-19 and in-person meetings.

I understand your concerns about limiting foot traffic in hospitals. Under the pre-COVID-19 OPMA rules, an agency can meet in locations other than its regular meeting place. So that would be one option for the District in the future if we get to a point where in-person meetings are required under the OPMA. Another option would be for the Board to change the regular meeting location to a site other than the hospital in accordance with the requirements of RCW 42.30.070. If the District resolution or bylaw provision that establishes the schedule for regular meetings also specifies the regular meeting location, a meeting at a different location would need to be noticed as a special meeting.

MRSC publishes a number of e-newsletters related to local government issues. You can also keep up with us on social media.