Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoo, 387 P.3d 690

Woodland Park Zoo Society (WPZS), a private nonprofit formed in 1965, entered a 2002 Operations and Management Agreement with the City of Seattle to manage the Zoo, retaining substantial autonomy (pricing, hiring, exhibits) but with reporting, audit, and some oversight obligations to the City.
The Agreement gives the City limited board appointments, a nonvoting superintendent seat, required annual reports/plans, audit access to City funds, and obligations for public involvement on major projects.
Funding for zoo operations is mixed: roughly 30% of the Zoo’s direct funding came from public sources (City and other public funding); WPZS’s broader revenues were majority private.
Petitioner Fortgang requested elephant-related records from WPZS under the Public Records Act (PRA); WPZS produced limited records and denied most requests as not subject to PRA.
Fortgang sued; trial court and Court of Appeals held WPZS is not an “agency” under the PRA. The Washington Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PRA can apply to private nonprofits operating public services	Fortgang: PRA can reach private entities acting as functional equivalents of government; Telford factors should apply	WPZS: PRA applies only to government agencies; courts should not expand to private nonprofits	Court: PRA may reach private entities; adopt and apply the Telford functional-equivalency test
Whether this Court should repudiate, limit, or adopt the Telford test	Fortgang: Telford appropriate; focus on statutory authorization and public interest	WPZS: Repudiate Telford; PRA limited to public agencies; legislative history supports that	Court: Adopts Telford test; rejects repudiation and narrowing requests
Does WPZS perform an inherently governmental function (Telford factor 1)	Fortgang: Statute authorizes delegation of zoo management; function delegated by government	WPZS: Operating a zoo is not a uniquely governmental, nondelegable function	Held: WPZS does not perform an inherently governmental function; factor weighs against PRA coverage
On balance under Telford, is WPZS a functional equivalent of a public agency?	Fortgang: City funding, statutory authorization, and public involvement point to equivalency	WPZS: Majority private funding, private origin, and lack of day-to-day City control weigh against equivalency	Held: Three factors weigh against PRA coverage (function, control, origin); funding is inconclusive; overall WPZS is not an "agency" under the PRA

Rental Hous. Ass’n of Puget Sound v. City of Des Moines, 165 Wn.2d 525 (2009) (PRA construed liberally to promote open government)
Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775 (2011) (statutory construction of disclosure laws favors broad public access)
Telford v. Thurston County Bd. of Comm’rs, 95 Wn. App. 149 (1999) (adopted four-factor functional-equivalency test for PRA coverage)
Clarke v. Tri-Cities Animal Care & Control Shelter, 144 Wn. App. 185 (2008) (applied Telford factors; private entity treated as agency for some functions)
Cedar Grove Composting, Inc. v. City of Marysville, 188 Wn. App. 695 (2015) (applied Telford test; warned against contracting to evade PRA)
Worthington v. WestNET, 182 Wn.2d 500 (2015) (endorsed practical, Telford-like analysis for determining PRA coverage)
Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. West Central Community Dev. Ass’n, 133 Wn. App. 602 (2006) (declined PRA coverage; reasoning mirrors Telford considerations)