Other Languages(1) In the event that a county enters into an interlocal cooperation act agreement with cities of the second, third and fourth class within the county for the operation of a solid waste disposal system, whereby the county is given full authority to manage and operate such system on behalf of the county and the cities, the county would stand in the position of agent for the participating cities and, hence, would be required to comply with the bidding requirements of RCW 35.23.352 and 35.23.353 in making and entering into contracts and purchases for such solid waste disposal system. (2) The fact that a particular county is not subject to mandatory bidding requirements, generally, does not excuse it from compliance with RCW 36.58.050 which requires a county entering into contracts for the hauling of trailers of solid waste from transfer stations to disposal sites and return to do so either by (a) the normal bidding process or (b) negotiation with the qualified collection company servicing the area under the authority of chapter 81.77 RCW.
RCW 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.
1. RCW 84.56.023 authorizes counties to accept payment of property taxes by credit card. If the county utilizes this procedure, it must collect fully payment of taxes, interest and penalties without discount. 2. RCW 84.56.023 does not grant the county the authority to collect from the taxpayer a service fee on behalf of the bank issuing the credit card.
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.
1. When a local jurisdiction designates critical areas under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), it is not obligated to include, as designated critical areas, shorelines of statewide significance or other shorelines within the jurisdiction; however, the jurisdiction should designate those shorelines within the area, or portions of them, and meet the statutory criteria for designation (RCW 36.70A.030(5)). 2. If a local jurisdiction determines that some of the shorelines within its area should be designated as critical areas under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), that determination is subject to administrative and judicial review as provided in statute.
- Initiative 502, which establishes a licensing and regulatory system for marijuana producers, processors, and retailers, does not preempt counties, cities, and towns from banning such businesses within their jurisdictions.
- Local ordinances that do not expressly ban state-licensed marijuana licensees from operating within the jurisdiction but make such operation impractical are valid if they properly exercise the local jurisdiction’s police power.
While associations comprised of counties or local public officers are not “agencies” as defined in RCW 42.17.020, they could in certain circumstances be found to be “functional equivalents” of agencies for purposes of applying particular portions of the Public Disclosure Act; this would be greatly dependent on the facts of a particular case.
Retention or dissolution of existing municipal corporations upon formation of a city-county under Article XI, § 16 (Amendment 58) of state constitution; conditions applicable for the election of freeholders to frame a city-county charter; retention or nonretention of certain county elected officials; assumption of existing intergovernmental contracts by a newly formed city-county; ability of a city-county to make contracts under the interlocal cooperation act; power of a city-county to impose an income tax; eligibility of a city-county for state funds which are statutorily distributable to counties or cities; legality of a city-county two year zoning moratorium; retirement coverage for employees of a newly formed city-county.
he 106 percent limitation on property taxes imposed by RCW 84.55.010 applies to taxes levied by a county pursuant to RCW 84.68.040 for the county refund fund; and the limitation is to be applied to the levy for the year in which the refund is made and not the year for which it is made.