Municipal Court Contracting Update

Court Upholds Cities’ Authority

On November 4, 2004, King County Superior Court ruled “overwhelming constitutional and statutory authority exists to support the authority of cities to contract together by interlocal agreement for any service or function, including court services.”

The case, Medina v. Primm Consolidated RALJ No. 03-1-04812-3SEA, involves five separate appeals that were consolidated and decided together.

All of these cases challenged the contracting cities’ authority to have their cases heard within the boundaries of the city of Kirkland.

The basis of the challenge is competing interpretations of law.

Thirty-one cities in nine counties provide court services through an interlocal agreement with a neighboring city, such as Kirkland does with Medina, Clyde Hill, Yarrow Point, and Hunts Point.

Cities assert that we have the authority for these “Community Courts” under current law – Title 39.46 RCW, the interlocal agreement statute.
 
The defendants in the case disagreed, stating that Title 3 RCW defines an exclusive list of models for court structures. “Community Courts” is not among them.

This disagreement has been the subject of debate for many years. Legislation was proposed by the city of Bellevue in 2003, with the support of AWC, to clarify cities’ authority to contract for court services.

Though this court decision overwhelmingly supports cities’ position, it is expected to be appealed.

The defendants have 30 days from November 4 in which to file an appeal.

• Text of the Decision (pdf, 166 kb)
• Community Courts Factsheet (pdf, 42 kb)

For additional information, contact Tammy Fellin or Meagan Eliot at (360) 753-4137.

11/10/04