Other Languages(1) The Washington State Liquor Control Board does not have the authority, under existing law, to restrict the on-premise sale of liquor by state licensees ". . . to customers who are seated at a table and also consuming food . . ." based upon a finding that a cocktail lounge or bar-type atmosphere would be compatible or disruptive to adjacent land uses. (2) A city may not, in the exercise of its police power, impose conditions or restrictions upon restaurant liquor licensees limiting the service of liquor for on-premise consumption to seated customers consuming food because such an ordinance would conflict with certain provisions of the state liquor code.
Under existing law a county and a city located therein lacks the authority to enter into a contract whereby the sheriff will provide law enforcement services to the city on a contractual basis under the terms of which the city would reimburse the county for the men and services utilized.
(1) Under the provisions of chapter 19.28 RCW, regulating the installation of electrical wiring and equipment, cities and towns are authorized to enact electrical code ordinances establishing equal, higher or better standards than set forth in the state law; and, where a city or town has, in fact, done so the inspection functions and responsibilities then pass from the state to the city or town itself.(2) A local, municipal, electrical code so adopted by a city or town is applicable to the installation of electrical wiring and equipment involved in the construction of new buildings by state agencies within the particular city; and the city may impose its prescribed electrical inspection and permit fees in connection with the construction of such state facilities.
RCW 70.116.020 establishes the procedure for adopting coordinated water system plans in areas designated as critical water supply service areas. RCW 36.93.090(5) provides that a boundary review board may review extension of water service by a city or town outside existing corporate boundaries. A boundary review board does not have authority under RCW 36.93.050(5) to review extension of water service beyond corporate city or town limits if it is consistent with the coordinated water system plan adopted pursuant to RCW 70.116.020.
1. RCW 36.70A.040 provides that if a county is required or chooses to adopt comprehensive land use plans and development regulations under the Growth Management Act, each city located within the county must also adopt comprehensive land use plans and development regulations under the Act. This requirement applies to cities located partially within a county planning under the Act and partially within another county.2. A city that adopts comprehensive land use plans and development regulations because it is partially located in a planning county must adopt plans and regulations for the entire city, even that part of the city located within a county that is not planning under the Act.
(1) The legislature can require those cities which desire not to have their employees covered by a state pension system to establish and maintain a local, municipal pension system for all of their law enforcement officers and fire fighters who are currently members of the state law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system (LEOFF), as codified in chapter 41.26 RCW. (2) In the event a city determines to stay out of a proposed state pension system, the city may, in the event that it is currently operating a pension system of its own for its general, municipal employees, include within the coverage of that system any new fire fighters or law enforcement officers employed by it after the effective date of a state law which disqualifies all such newly employed fire fighters or law enforcement officers from coverage under the LEOFF system.
If a board of freeholders is elected by the voters of a first class city under RCW 35.22.140 to prepare and propose a new or revised city charter for submission to the vote of the people, the freeholders may submit a charter which is complete except for one section and call upon the voters to select between two alternatives as to that section.
1. RCW 66.04.030 permits a local option election unit to conduct an election in the question of whether the sale of liquor under a class H license should be permitted within the election unit. The boundaries of the local option election unit are the city or town or unincorporated portion of the county in which the unit is located. If the voters approve the proposition, it is unlawful to sell spirituous liquor by the drink within the local option election unit. 2. When a city annexes new territory, the general rule is that the authority of the city extends over the new territory. However, cities are not granted the power to restrict the sale of liquor. That power is granted to the voters of a local option election unit. Annexation does not make the new territory a part of the local option election unit. The prohibition on liquor sale is limited to the corporate limits of the city as it existed at the time of the local option election. Thus, when "wet" territory is annexed into a city that contains a "dry" local option election unit, it does not become "dry" by reason of the annexation.
A third class city in the state of Washington is not authorized to enact an ordinance granting a perpetual (irrevocable) franchise to a railroad company to permit the railroad to lay its tracks and spur lines across city streets and rights-of-way and to operate its trains across said tracks and spur lines.
Where a city operating its own electric utility within the boundaries of a county-wide public utility district, annexes territory presently served by the public utility district, the public utility district may continue to serve the territory notwithstanding the right of the city to provide the same service in the same territory.