Other LanguagesThis is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on several questions pertaining to the potential tort liability of the officers and employees of an irrigation district, together with the authority of such a district to indemnify these personnel, either directly or through the purchase of liability insurance, against the possibility of such liability.
This is in answer to your letter previously acknowledged requesting our opinion on certain questions which we paraphrase as follows: (1) When a county elects under RCW 77.12.201 to relinquish to the state all fines and bail forfeitures collected for game law violations and instead to receive payments in lieu of taxes on game lands located therein ‑ (a) Do the provisions of chapter 3.62 RCW apply so as to cause a portion of such fines and forfeitures nevertheless to remain with the county to pay the expenses of its district justice court? (b) Are such payments in lieu of taxes to be made on any buildings or facilities not situated on game lands? (c) Are such payments in lieu of taxes to be made on buildings or facilities situated on public fishing areas of less than 100 acres in size? (2) In determining whether a public fishing area is less than 100 acres in size, so as to be excluded from payments in lieu of taxes under RCW 77.12.203, are water areas adjacent to a designated launching area to be included?
You recently requested the advice of this office relative to the eligibility of candidates for elective positions in noncharter code cities. In response to that request, an informal memorandum was issued from this office which construed RCW 35A.12.030. Upon reviewing this memorandum, and with additional time for reflection, we regret that we must inform you that the answer therein given appears to have been in error.
We are in receipt of your letter dated June 10, 1970, by which you have raised a question pertaining to the investment of certain municipal retirement funds in the shares of a certain open-end investment company pursuant to the authority granted by § 1, chapter 211, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess. (House Bill No. 425).
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting an opinion of this office on several questions pertaining to the permissible uses of the "services and activities fees" to be levied by our state colleges and universities (including community colleges) under chapter 279, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess. We paraphrase your questions as follows: (1) May any revenues derived from such "services and activities fees" be used to pay the salaries of college employees who are involved in the administration of financial aid programs, athletics, libraries and instructional resource centers, or counseling and testing? (2) May any such revenues be used to fund the operational and administrative costs of special tutorial programs or curriculum development activities? (3) May any such revenues be used to fund the maintenance and operation costs of the college, or university, including general administrative costs, instructional salaries, supplies and equipment? (4) Where does the legal authority for the allocation of the "services and activities fees" reside, and what are the legal guidelines for the exercise of that authority?
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested our opinion on several questions pertaining to the computation of "general state revenues" under the provisions of the recently adopted constitutional amendment contained in H.J.R. No. 52. In essence, you have asked whether this term includes or excludes monies derived from each of the following revenue sources: (1) Such revenues of the state liquor control board as are distributable to the state general fund under RCW 66.08.190; (2) Property taxes collected by the state for the support of local school districts under the two mill school levy provided for in RCW 84.52.050; (3) Public utility district privilege tax revenues collected by the state under RCW 54.28.020; (4) Revenues payable into each of some fifty-six "dedicated" accounts within the state general fund; and (5) Monies paid into state bond redemption funds.
This is in response to your recent inquiry concerning the power of a prosecuting attorney to delegate the responsibility of accepting service of summons and complaints in divorce actions to a county clerk. As you point out, such service is required under the provisions of RCW 26.08.080, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
By letter previously acknowledged you have asked for an opinion of this office on a question which we divide and paraphrase as follows: In a case covered by the provisions of RCW 38.52.110, as amended by § 1, chapter 8, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., where a requisition is made by the appropriate civil defense authority to a school district for the use of its school buses: (a) May the school district refuse to allow the use of the buses thus requisitioned? (b) If not, may the school district nevertheless collect a reasonable rental charge for the use of the buses in question? (c) To what extent will the school district be indemnified with respect to damages to its buses when used in a civil defense situation under RCW 38.52.110, as amended?
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows: Does RCW 84.34.210 empower counties, cities, towns and metropolitan municipal corporations to accept by gift from the lessee‑operator of a privately owned airport such lessee's development rights in runways, clear zones, and adjacent buffer areas situated on the leased premises, assuming that the land in question is definable as "open space land" under RCW 84.34.020, but is not presently classified and taxed as such?
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to a certain appropriation made to the state superintendent of public instruction by the 1969 legislature under the provisions of § 1, chapter 282, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess. The particular appropriation item to which you have referred was made for the purpose of providing funds to the state superintendent for distribution to local school districts in order to fund salary improvements for school district employees. The appropriation reads, in material part, as follows: