Other Languages1. The term "tourist expansion" as used in RCW 67.28.210 refers to activities designed to increase tourism and tourist activity in a given geographical area. 2. RCW 67.28.210 does not generally permit counties or cities to use tax revenues generated thereunder for the production or resale of shirts containing the logo of an annual community event; however, the proviso added to the statute by Laws of 1995, Ch. 290, section 1 does permit the proceeds to be used for advertising and promotional materials, which might include promotional shirts, where the conditions set forth in the proviso are met. 3. RCW 67.28.210 governs the expenditure of revenues authorized by its language; RCW 35.21.700 is a more general statute covering expenditure by cities of other available revenues.
RCW 17.10.240(1) authorizes the county legislative authority to levy a special assessment against land for the purpose of operating the county's weed program. This assessment may be levied on land located in incorporated areas within the county.
Those counties and cities that have “home rule” powers (that is, charter counties, first class cities, and cities operating under the Optional Municipal Code) have authority to provide telecommunications services to their residents; other cities, towns, and counties lack this authority.
The amendment to RCW 19.27.060 in § 10(1), chapter 360, Laws of 1985 applies prospectively to county or city amendments to the State Building Code involving single or multi-family residential housing and does not, therefore invalidate prior county or city amendments to the state code until and unless approved by the building code council.
1. The Growth Management Hearings Boards have no authority to remand a case back to a county or city for the purpose of amending their comprehensive plans or development regulations, except where the board has found the plan or regulations to be out of compliance with the Growth Management Act. 2. WAC 242-02-720 is consistent with the statutory authority granted to the Growth Management Hearings Boards.
1. When negotiating an agreement under RCW 39.34.180(2) for the allocation of the costs of conducting criminal investigations and prosecutions, a city and a county may include, as a “cost of services”, costs related to anticipated tort liability resulting from the agreement. 2. When negotiating an agreement under RCW 39.34.180(2), a city and a county may lawfully include a provision (if they so choose) in which the city agrees to hold the county harmless for tort liability arising out of the agreement.
Even though no portion of the local motor vehicle excise taxes provided for by RCW 35.58.273 is, itself, to be distributed to cities and towns under RCW 82.44.150(2) through (4), the state treasurer, in computing the amount of motor vehicle excise tax to be distributed thereunder, is to include that local tax in his calculations.
Since state law prohibits the erection or maintenance, without approval of the state highway commission, of any traffic control device on a city street which has been designated as a part of the state highway system, a city of the third class, operating under the commission form of government, may not construct "speed control bumps" (consisting of raised portions of asphaltic paving) on any of its streets which have been so designated without prior approval from the highway commission; in the case of city streets which are not a part of the state highway system, a third class city operating under the commission form of government may install such "speed control bumps" if, under all circumstances, they constitute a reasonable means of controlling the speed of traffic and do not pose an unreasonable danger or hazard to such traffic.
A group of cities which have formed individual public facilities districts levying sales and use taxes under RCW 82.14 may not also form a joint public facilities district with authority to levy additional taxes.
When, within an existing land subdivision established pursuant to either chapter 58.16 or chapter 58.17 RCW, the owner of an individual lot proposes to divide it into a number of smaller lots for the purpose of sale or lease, while such action constitutes a "resubdivision" as defined in RCW 58.17.020(6) and is, thereby, subject to the general provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW relating to subdivisions (AGO 1980 No. 5), the subdivider is not, in addition, required to vacate his existing lot or lots pursuant to chapter 58.11 RCW or alter the plat pursuant to chapter 58.12 RCW; if, however, the vacation of a plat or part thereof entails the vacation of a county road, one or the other of the procedures set forth in chapter 58.11 RCW and chapter 36.87 RCW, respectively, must be utilized.