Other LanguagesThose 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.
A county must levy a tax under RCW 36.62.090, for hospital purposes, but in doing so may not exceed the eight mill limitation imposed under RCW 84.52.050.
(1) Under § 3, chapter 58, Laws of 1975-76, 2nd Ex.Sess., when a comprehensive solid waste plan adopted under RCW 70.95.080 incorporates the use of transfer stations, the transportation of solid waste between disposal sites in transfer trailers, but not in "drop box" detachable containers, is thereby exempt from regulation by the Washington utilities and transportation commission. (2) Under § 3, chapter 58, Laws of 1975-76, 2nd Ex. Sess., a county in which a comprehensive solid waste plan has been adopted may contract for the hauling of solid waste between disposal sites in transfer trailers, but not in detachable containers, either by the normal bidding process or by negotiation with the qualified collection agency serving the area under the authority of chapter 81.77 RCW; contracts utilizing the use of detachable containers, however, must follow the normal bidding process where applicable.
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.
Where a county sells municipal bonds to an underwriter to finance a public works project, and subsequent sales of the bonds are made with the identities of the bondholders known only to a registrar appointed pursuant to RCW 43.80.125(1), and the registrar is not a public agency but a bank or trust company as required by statute, and the county has never prepared, possessed, used, or retained any list of bondholders, the records identifying such bondholders are not obtainable from the county through a public records request made pursuant to chapter 42.17 RCW.
Counties have the authority to define certain local offenses and to prescribe penalties for their commission including the imposition of specific costs. Subject to certain limitations, a county may include as a cost a multiple booking fee imposed on persons convicted of such county offenses and sentenced to serve time in the county jail on intermittent days. Such a multiple booking fee could offset the cost to the county of processing the individual in and out of jail.2. A county does not have the authority to impose a multiple booking fee on individuals serving time in the county jail on intermittent days who have been convicted of violating a state statute. The Legislature, rather than the county, specifies the punishment for state crimes including costs.
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.
The various county boards of equalization and the state board of tax appeals are excluded from the open meetings act when dealing with property tax exemption cases; however, county boards of equalization must conduct open sessions in such cases under RCW 84.48.010.
1. The specific campaign finance limitations set forth in RCW 42.17 do not apply to the office of prosecuting attorney, although the related reporting and disclosure requirements do apply to that office. 2. A county prosecuting attorney is subject to campaign finance limitations adopted by a county and generally covering county officers and employees, except to the extent directly in conflict with a state statute. 3. The state ethics law, RCW 42.52, does not apply to the office of prosecuting attorney.