<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I don’t think that was the intent. A quasi-municipal corp has one or more elements of the force and power of government, such as the police power or taxation. See chapter 35.58 RCW. See also Columbia Irrigation Dist. V. Benton County, 149 Wash. 234 (1928) (Irrigation district is not a municipal corporation, but at most is a “quasi-municipal” corporation.) The legislature has been unclear over time with regard to categorization of government entities, and so there are some 60 different types of general purpose and special purpose municipalities in Washington, from cities and counties to mosquito control districts, to public corporations such as the Pike Place Market PDA.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeff@bellanddavispllc.com<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:27 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com><br><b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] Homeowner's Associations - Does RCW 42.56 Apply<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Listmates,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>HOA’s record retention and disclosures are governed by RCW 64.38.045. A question was raised whether RCW 42.56.001 et.al., the Public Records Act, also applies. RCW 42.56.010(10 defines “Agency” to include “quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district . . . board, . . . or other local public agency.” I can’t imagine the legislature intended to capture private HOA’s, or even condo associations, under this law with its onerous provisions, but I don’t know. Have any of you run into this problem?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Jeff Davis<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>