Navigation Top
AGO Logo Graphic
AGO Header Image
File a Complaint
Contact the AGO
AGO 1953 No. 95 - July 17, 1953
AGO Opinion Header Image
Don Eastvold | 1953-1956 | Attorney General of Washington


Statute does not require that parking facility authorized for new building be adjacent thereto; only that result of construction is to make parking space available for the building.

                                                                   - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                                    July 17, 1953

Honorable H. D. Van Eaton
Department of Public Institutions
Olympia, Washington                                                                                                                Cite as:  AGO 53-55 No. 95

Dear Sir:

            By your letter of July 7, 1953, you requested our opinion in regard to the interpretation of the following language:

            "Provision shall be made for adequate garage and parking facilities,"

            as such language appears in section 7, chapter 22, Laws of 1951, as amended by section 3, chapter 187, Laws of 1953.

            In our opinion the above referenced statute authorizes the construction of parking areas which will directly serve the proposed office building.  There is also ample authority for the construction of parking facilities which would, by substitution, release parking facilities already constructed foruse of the new building occupants.


            Section 3, chapter 187, Laws of 1953, provides for the construction of a modern office building and the furnishing of same.  The provision in regard to parking facilities does not require the construction of parking facilities on, near, or  [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] within reasonable distance of the new structure.  On the contrary this provision by its wording "provision shall be made for adequate parking facilities" makes the method of providing the adequate parking facilities discretionary with the State Capitol Committee.  By reading the entire chapter, the only limitation which is evident is that the expenditure of funds provided for by the bond issue must be a reasonable provision of parking facilities for the new building.  That is to say, in our opinion the construction of substitute facilities thereby releasing parking facilities already constructed would be a legal expenditure of the bond money.


            From that analysis, our conclusion is that the construction of proposed parking lot No. 1 is without question authorized by the statute herein involved.  In addition, the proposed parking lot No. 2 would be authorized, if the construction thereof is determined by the Capitol Committee to be necessary in order to make adequate parking facilities available to the new building.  Such a solution would be proper even though the use of proposed lot No. 2 is partly for the service of other buildings in the capitol group.

Very truly yours,

Attorney General

Assistant Attorney General

Content Bottom Graphic
AGO Logo