Other Languages(1) The provisions of RCW 47.56.220 barring the construction of other bridges within ten miles of an existing span, would be applicable to the proposed government island bridge if the bonds for such project were issued by the Washington toll bridge authority, but would not be applicable to toll bridge bonds issued by class A and first class counties, by port districts, or by the state of Oregon, or any of its subdivisions. (2) If the government island toll bridge bonds are issued under the toll bridge authority, making RCW 47.56.220 applicable, a waiver by the bondholders to permit the construction of other bridges under certain conditions could be incorporated in the toll bridge authority's bond resolution. If the proposed bridge be of a federal character the waiver by the bondholders should be included in the bond resolution.
Applicants for registration under the escrow agent registration act, chapter 153, Laws of 1965, who are individuals or partnerships not having any officers or employees are not required to obtain a "primary commercial blanket bond" since coverage under such bond only protects the employers from the acts of his employees and officers.
The public notice and hearing provisions of chapter 42.32 RCW are not applicable when changes in insurance rates are filed with and reviewed by the insurance commissioner; however, any member of the public affected by an increase or a threatened increase in his insurance rates may demand a full hearing before the commissioner.
A county planning commission has no authority to control the use of Indian allotment lands which are leased to a non-Indian.
A county sheriff may not refuse to issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon under RCW 9.41.070 solely on the ground that the person applying for such permit is not a resident of his particular county.
There is no provision under the planning enabling act (chapter 36.70 RCW) for holding an election on the acceptance or rejection of a zoning resolution and land use map.
The Washington Supreme Court's decision in Weiss v. Bruno, 82 Wn.2d 199 (1973), renders action by the state board in implementation of chapter 81, Laws of 1973 (providing for state financial assistance to students attending private and public schools) unconstitutional.
(1) and (2) The board of county commissioners does not have the authority to prohibit the use of motorboats upon nonnavigable lakes but may enact ordinances which reasonably regulates the speed and other activities of such motorboats so long as such ordinances are consistent with state regulations embodied in RCW 88.12.010. (3) The board of county commissioners should follow the provisions of RCW 36.32.120 (7) in establishing such regulations. (4) The ownership by the state or a county of property abutting a nonnavigable lake does not affect the authority of the board of county commissioners to regulate the use of motor-powered watercraft on such waters.
The state harbor line commission has the authority to relocate either the inner or outer harbor lines in front of so much of the city of Seattle as borders upon Elliott Bay but it may only do so in accordance with the limitations contained in Article XV, § 1 of the state constitution and for a public purpose.
(1) In those instances in which the highway lands (including air space) purchased with motor vehicle fund moneys are to be leased or sold to a county or city for nonhighway purposes, the purchaser or lessee, even though it is also a governmental agency, will be required to provide such monetary or other consideration as is necessary, under the particular factual circumstances involved, to avoid an unlawful diversion of motor vehicle funds. (2) On the other hand, if the lands and/or air space are required to be used by the acquiring county or city for such "highway" purposes as could, constitutionally, be the direct object of motor vehicle fund expenditures themselves, no other consideration will constitutionally be necessary in order to justify the transaction under the provisions of Article II, § 40 (Amendment 18).