Other LanguagesThe deduction from the measure of the business and occupation tax authorized by RCW 82.04.430(1) is applicable to a county which provides data processing services to other counties and cities in the manner discussed in AGLO 1975 No. 97 [[to Robert E. Schillberg, Prosecuting Attorney, Snohomish County on December 22, 1975, an Informal Opinion, AIR-75597]].
RCW 69.50.505(f)(1) provides that forfeited property may be retained for use by a law enforcement agency of the state. A coroner does not act as a law enforcement agency of the state. Therefore, a coroner is not entitled to use a motor vehicle forfeited pursuant to RCW 69.50.505(f)(1).
Where state forest land revenues are distributed to a county by the department of natural resources under the provisions of RCW 76.12.030 and 76.12.120, they are to be prorated and paid to the various taxing unit funds which would receive real property taxes from the state forest land producing the revenues if those lands were in private ownership, in the same manner that general taxes, including excess tax levies, are paid and distributed by the county, as tax collector, during the year of payment.
1. The term "tourist expansion" as used in RCW 67.28.210 refers to activities designed to increase tourism and tourist activity in a given geographical area. 2. RCW 67.28.210 does not generally permit counties or cities to use tax revenues generated thereunder for the production or resale of shirts containing the logo of an annual community event; however, the proviso added to the statute by Laws of 1995, Ch. 290, section 1 does permit the proceeds to be used for advertising and promotional materials, which might include promotional shirts, where the conditions set forth in the proviso are met. 3. RCW 67.28.210 governs the expenditure of revenues authorized by its language; RCW 35.21.700 is a more general statute covering expenditure by cities of other available revenues.
The amendment to RCW 19.27.060 in § 10(1), chapter 360, Laws of 1985 applies prospectively to county or city amendments to the State Building Code involving single or multi-family residential housing and does not, therefore invalidate prior county or city amendments to the state code until and unless approved by the building code council.
1. The Growth Management Hearings Boards have no authority to remand a case back to a county or city for the purpose of amending their comprehensive plans or development regulations, except where the board has found the plan or regulations to be out of compliance with the Growth Management Act. 2. WAC 242-02-720 is consistent with the statutory authority granted to the Growth Management Hearings Boards.
Where a county sells municipal bonds to an underwriter to finance a public works project, and subsequent sales of the bonds are made with the identities of the bondholders known only to a registrar appointed pursuant to RCW 43.80.125(1), and the registrar is not a public agency but a bank or trust company as required by statute, and the county has never prepared, possessed, used, or retained any list of bondholders, the records identifying such bondholders are not obtainable from the county through a public records request made pursuant to chapter 42.17 RCW.
Counties have the authority to define certain local offenses and to prescribe penalties for their commission including the imposition of specific costs. Subject to certain limitations, a county may include as a cost a multiple booking fee imposed on persons convicted of such county offenses and sentenced to serve time in the county jail on intermittent days. Such a multiple booking fee could offset the cost to the county of processing the individual in and out of jail.2. A county does not have the authority to impose a multiple booking fee on individuals serving time in the county jail on intermittent days who have been convicted of violating a state statute. The Legislature, rather than the county, specifies the punishment for state crimes including costs.
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.
A bill permitting the voters of noncharter counties with populations of 210,000 or more to increase the number of county commissioners from three to five is more likely than not unconstitutional.