OFFICES AND OFFICERS ‑- STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ‑- AUTHORITY TO CONVEY PARK PROPERTY TO MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.
The state parks and recreation commission has the authority to convey park property to a municipal corporation or political subdivision of this state by following the procedure set forth in RCW 39.33.010 which provides for the intergovernmental disposition of property.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
February 23, 1962
Honorable Clayton Anderson
Director, State Parks and
522 South Franklin
Cite as: AGO 61-62 No. 98
By letter previously acknowledged, you requested an opinion from this office concerning a question which we paraphrase as follows:
May the state parks and recreation commission negotiate for the conveyance of park property to municipal corporations or political subdivisions of the state?
We answer your question in the affirmative as explained below.
We are of the opinion that your question may be answered in the affirmative provided that the commission negotiates such a conveyance under the provisions of RCW 39.33.010. The statute provides:
"Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the state or any municipality or any political subdivision thereof, may sell, transfer, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose of any property, real or personal, or property rights, including but not limited to the title to real property, to the state or any municipality or any political subdivision thereof on such terms and conditions as may be [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] mutually agreed upon by the proper authorities of the state and/or the subdivisions concerned: Provided, That such property is determined by decree of the superior court in the county where such property is located, after publication of notice of hearing is given as fixed and directed by such court, to be either necessary, or surplus or excess to the future foreseeable needs of the state or of such municipality or any political subdivision thereof concerned, which requests authority to transfer such property."
Our supreme court inIn re Bellingham, 52 Wn. (2d) 497, 498, 326 P. (2d) 741 (1958), commented that the statute provided for intergovernmental disposition of property following a determination by the superior court, in the alternative, that the property is (1) surplus or excess to the future foreseeable needs of the conveying agency, or (2) necessary to the needs of the acquiring agency.
We trust that the foregoing information will be of assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
JOHN J. O'CONNELL
JOSEPH S. MONTECUCCO
Assistant Attorney General