Other LanguagesYou have requested this office's opinion concerning the application of RCW 46.16.090 to the following factual situation: A local farmer raises turkeys on a large scale. When the turkeys are ready for market, he transports them in his own truck to a killing plant, where the turkeys are killed, defeathered and placed in the farmer's plastic bags. The farmer then transports the prepared turkeys to his cold storage warehouse on his farm. In doing so, he uses the same truck that he used to transport the turkeys from his farm to the killing plant.
This is written in response to your request for our opinion with respect to the eligibility of various local governmental elected officials to serve as members of a board of freeholders convened under Article XI, § 4 (Amendment 21) of the state Constitution to prepare and propose a county "home rule" charter. You have specifically identified the following local officials as being within the ambit of your question: ". . . mayors and councilmen of cities, county commissioners, port district commissioners, and commissioners of sewer, water and fire districts."
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the opinion of this office upon a question which we paraphrase as follows: Upon the dissolution of the township form of government in a county (following an election held pursuant to RCW 45.82.010 (2)) what disposition is to be made of those properties of the dissolved townships which pertained to their cemetery operations?
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the advice of this office on two questions relating to the contractor's registration act, chapter 18.27 RCW. We have paraphrased your questions as follows: (1) May a "specialty contractor," who is licensed as such with the state under the provisions of the contractor's registration act submit a bid for a general contract which will require him to perform or use more than two unrelated building trades or crafts? (2) May a county enter into such a general contract with a contractor who, at the time of bidding, was licensed only as a "specialty contractor" but who, prior to the execution of the contract, has posted the additional bond required of a "general contractor" and thereby has become registered as such?
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to whether ". . . RCW 84.36.020 is restricted in application to cemeteries owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation or whether it applies to all cemetery corporations complying with the nondiscrimination requirement of the section." You have indicated as the basis for your request ". . . that counties are interpreting the provisions of RCW 84.36.020 in inconsistent manners. . . ." We wonder, however, whether the explanation for this may not be the relationship between RCW 84.36.020 and another statute dealing, specifically, with nonprofit cemeteries ‑ rather than any differing interpretations of RCW 84.36.020, itself.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on three questions pertaining to the computation of pension benefits under the provisions of chapter 37, Laws of 1970 (Senate Bill No. 145).
This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office ". . . as to whether or not the Washington State International Trade Fair, Inc. can qualify for state matching funds in the amount of $40,000 for participation in a foreign fair, and state matching funds not to exceed $30,000 for participation in a domestic fair in the same year."
You have asked for the advice of this office on two questions regarding payment of certain benefits under the Viet Nam veterans' bonus act (chapter 154, Laws of 1972, Ex. Sess.). We have paraphrased your questions as follows: (1) Does § 12, chapter 154, supra, which provides for payment of the sum of $250 "to aid in defraying funeral and other burial costs" of qualified veterans who have died, contemplate the payment of a separate award in addition to the "survivorship" benefit provided for in § 2 (3) of chapter 154? (2) If question one is answered affirmatively, under what circumstances may this additional benefit be paid?
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the various state and local law enforcement agencies with respect to activities occurring within the area of the Peace Arch State Park ‑ located immediately on the United States side of the Canadian border at Blaine, in Whatcom county. We understand that your request is prompted by a recent occurrence at this state park during which a number of individuals crossed the international border from Canada and engaged in violent activities in the park and in the town of Blaine.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the applicability of the cumulative voting provisions of RCW 23A.08.300 to a state bank or trust company which is subject to the provisions of RCW 30.12.010. As you have noted, RCW 30.12.010, in dealing with meetings of the stockholders of a bank or trust company which is subject to this statute, provides that: