Other Languages1. County treasurers are authorized to collect a service fee for collecting "special assessments, fees, rates, or charges" as defined in RCW 36.29.180, but not for general taxes. 2. Mosquito control district assessments authorized under RCW 17.28.255 are "special assessments, fees, rates, or charges" and a county treasurer may charge the district a service fee for collecting such assessments. 3. Assessments levied by a county legislative authority for noxious weed control under RCW 17.10.240 do not constitute "special assessments, fees, rates, or charges" under RCW 36.29.180, because they are levied by the county itself and not by a special district; therefore, the county treasurer has no authority to charge a service fee for collecting such assessments. 4. RCW 43.09.210, which generally requires that one local or state agency or fund be compensated for services performed for another, is superseded by more specific statutes for purposes of determining a county treasurer's authority to charge service fees for tax and assessment collection and related services.
A county does not have authority, either under chapter 36.70 RCW or under article 11, section 11 of the state constitution, to impose greater restrictions on aquaculture developments located in areas designated as shorelines of statewide significance, than those standards adopted by the state and relevant local governments pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shorelines Management Act of 1971.
(1) A county transportation authority organized under chapter 36.57 RCW may entirely eliminate fares for all transit users if the system it operates can be sustained from taxes or other available revenues. (2) A county transportation authority may, likewise, reduce or eliminate fares for all classes of users during non-peak hours only, for the purpose of achieving a more balanced and economical operation.(3) Both because of a lack of statutory authority and possible constitutional objections under Washington Constitution, Article VIII, section 7, however, a county transportation authority may not, instead, directly reduce or eliminate fares only for (a) senior citizens, a category being created only on the basis of age, or (b) students attending public schools except (in the latter case) through an interlocal cooperation act agreement with participating school districts.(4) Likewise, although such action would not be constitutionally objectionable in the case of low income citizens or the handicapped, a county transportation authority presently lacks the requisite statutory authority to reduce or to entirely eliminate fares for those individuals.
Under existing law, a noncharter county may not expend federal revenue sharing moneys to fund a portion of the operation of a day care center for children of working mothers which is operated by a nonprofit corporation; however, to the extent permitted by Article VIII, § 7 of the state constitution such authority would be granted by the passage of House Bill No. 384 or Senate Bill No. 2151, currently pending before the 1975 legislature.
The supervisor of community mental health services for a county may be removed from office by the county commissioners without the concurrence or approval of the county's community mental health program administrative board.
1. RCW 87.06.100(4) provides that when an irrigation district sells property acquired in a foreclosure proceeding, it shall not provide a deed to the purchaser until various outstanding taxes and assessments are paid. These various taxes and assessments must be paid even if they exceed the market value of the property. 2. If a county sells property acquired at a foreclosure proceeding, the distribution of the proceeds of sale is governed by RCW 84.64.230. An irrigation district is entitled to a share of the proceeds of sale under RCW 84.64.230 because the irrigation district lien established by RCW 87.03.265 is of equal rank with the lien for general taxes established by RCW 84.60.010. 3. RCW 84.64.230 provides that no claim shall be allowed against the county on property acquired by the county by tax deed in a foreclosure proceeding. Thus, an irrigation district cannot foreclose its lien on tax deed property held by the county.
1.When RCW 39.59.020(4) authorizes municipal treasurers to invest in " . . . any investments authorized by law for the treasurer of the state of Washington ..." and the state treasurer is authorized by law to invest in commercial paper by RCW 43.84.080(7) but only to the extent consistent with the policy of the State Investment Board, the legal limitations on the state and on municipal treasurers are confined to formally adopted policies of the State Investment Board, and neither the state nor municipal treasurers are bound by State Investment Board policies which are informal or unwritten.2.A municipal treasurer may not lawfully delegate authority to redeem warrants to a banking institution or other party outside the treasurer's office.3.A municipal treasurer may lawfully secure a line of credit for warrant redemption with a bank, to the extent permitted by RCW 39.58.170.4.A municipal treasurer may in certain circumstances secure a letter of credit from a bank for warrant redemption purposes, but only to guarantee payment of warrants the treasurer is statutorily authorized to pay.5.A letter or line of credit is a contingent liability and does not constitute a borrowing by a municipal corporation for purposes of applying constitutional or statutory debt or borrowing limitations; the borrowing occurs if the letter of line of credit is actually drawn down.
(1) Where a county has entered into a contract with a contractor for the performance of work by employees of the contractor which comes within the provisions of the industrial insurance (workmen's compensation) laws, the county is liable to the state of Washington for collection and remittance of monies due to both the industrial insurance accident fund and the industrial insurance medical aid fund on account of such work. (2) Where a county issues a construction building permit in violation of the provisions of chapter 20, Laws of 1965, Ex. Sess., (RCW 51.12.070) the county itself is not subject to a criminal penalty; however, if the violation is wilful, the county employee issuing the permit may be prosecuted for commission of a misdemeanor under RCW 42.20.100; in addition, the county may be liable to the state for resulting unpaid industrial insurance premiums depending upon the facts of a particular case.
(1) Section 7, chapter 185, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess. (RCW 36.87.130) limiting the power of a county to vacate a county road which abuts on a body of salt or fresh water, applies to a county road, a lateral edge of which touches or encroaches upon a body of salt or fresh water, as well as to one whose terminal end touches upon such a body of water.(2) A county road abuts on a body of salt or fresh water if it touches or encroaches upon the line of ordinary high tide or high water as marked by the line of vegetation.
In determining whether a particular county road construction or improvement project may be accomplished by day labor under RCW 36.77.060 (in a case where the construction or improvement is not the installation of electrical control devices or the like) prior to the effective date of the repeal thereof on January 1, 1981, the costs of related construction materials need not be taken into consideration irrespective of (a) whether the construction materials were purchased in connection with the particular project rather than being acquired as a part of a general inventory or (b) whether those construction materials were purchased by competitive bidding or not.