Other LanguagesThe 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.
A bill permitting the voters of noncharter counties with populations of 210,000 or more to increase the number of county commissioners from three to five is more likely than not unconstitutional.
A county has the authority to enact a zoning ordinance to govern "fee patent land" located within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation in the state of Washington.
Under the provisions of RCW 2.24.010, as amended by chapter 87, Laws of 1967, Ex. Sess., the superior court judge or judges of a multicounty judicial district may, in his or their discretion, continue to appoint a court commissioner for each county situated within the judicial district or, in the alternative, appoint a single court commissioner to serve the entire judicial district.
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.
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.