Other LanguagesRCW 39.34.180 does not obligate a county to enter into a contract with a city or town to handle, through the county’s court system, misdemeanor cases referred from the city or town’s law enforcement officers; however, once a county has agreed to enter into such an agreement, the county must submit to binding arbitration if no agreement is reached concerning the payments to be made under the agreement.
Cities, counties, and special districts cannot contract directly with another agency for architectural and engineering services without first complying with the procurement procedures set forth in RCW 39.80, except where the legislature has granted specific statutory authority to do so.
A housing authority may perform such administrative services such as “Section 8” contract administration for housing agencies located in other states, if (1) such services are covered in an interlocal cooperation agreement meeting the requirements of RCW 39.34, (2) each party to the agreement has authority to perform the services in question; and (3) each party has authority to enter into the interlocal agreement.
1. The county sheriff's duty to enforce state law applies equally in incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county. 2. If a city is unable to provide for adequate police protection, the county sheriff must take this factor into account in allocating the resources of the sheriff's office. However, the statutes do not obligate the sheriff to provide a city with a specific number of police officers or a specific level of police services. 3. If a city wants to obtain a specific number of county police officers or level of police services, the Interlocal Cooperation Act empowers the city to contract with the county to provide those services.
1. Where a combination of cities and fire protection districts enters into an interlocal agreement under RCW 39.34 and forms a nonprofit corporation under the authority of that act to carry out cooperative activities, the corporation would qualify as an “employer” for purposes of the LEOFF Retirement System Plans 1 and 2, to the same extent as the government entities responsible for creating the corporation. 2. Where a combination of cities and fire protection districts enters into an interlocal agreement under RCW 39.34 and forms a nonprofit corporation under the authority of that act to carry out cooperative activities, the corporation would qualify as an “employer” for purposes of the PERS Retirement System Plans 1, 2, and 3, to the same extent as the government entities responsible for creating the corporation.
A city, county, and university have the authority to enter into an interlocal agreement under which the city would contract to use the services of the university’s extension program with the county to provide educational programs and other services concerning the potential effects of climate change.
1. The statutory exemption from the permitting requirement for use in watering lawns and noncommercial gardens is not included within the exemption for domestic use. 2. The Department of Ecology lacks the authority to impose lower or different limits on exempt withdrawals of groundwater than are provided in statute by “partially withdrawing” the waters from additional appropriation. 3. The authority of the Department of Ecology to withdraw waters from new appropriations applies to both permitted and permit-exempt uses of groundwater. 4. The Interlocal Cooperation Act is not an independent source of agency authority.
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.
1. Federally-owned roads which are closed to the general public are not "county roads" and a non-charter county therefore lacks authority to maintain such roads with state and county funds. 2. A county has authority, if it chooses, to set and enforce traffic signals on federally-owned roads within the county, except where superseded by federal law; however, the county has no obligation to set and enforce traffic signals on such roads because they are not "county roads" as defined in state law. 3. A county may contract with an agency of the United States to maintain federally-owned roads within the county, or to set and enforce traffic controls for such roads, in return for payment by the federal agency of the costs incurred by the county in performing such services. 4. A county may use "county road property tax revenues" as defined in statute, after diverting them to the current expense fund pursuant to law, for setting and enforcing traffic controls on federally-owned roads within the county. 5. For purposes of allocating the state motor vehicle fuel tax under RCW 46.68.120, .122, and .124, federally-owned roads in a county which are closed to the general public are not "county roads" and should not be considered in making the allocation. 6. A county which deposited revenues from the county road property tax levy into its current expense fund to pay the expenses related to setting and enforcing traffic controls on federally-owned roads within the county would not thereby lose its eligibility to receive state funding under such statutes as RCW 36.79.140.
A county may not, through an interlocal cooperation agreement with a city or other municipal corporation, use county revenue generated under the tax imposed pursuant to RCW 82.46.010(1) to fund capital improvements on property owned by the city or municipal corporation, unless the county can show that the improvements relate to a county function or serve a county purpose.