Other LanguagesIn an appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals from a county board of equalization, the presumption of correctness established by RCW 84.40.0301 in valuation of property for taxation applies to the determination of the assessor, not that of the board of equalization.
(1) Neither the state public disclosure law (chapter 42.17 RCW) nor any other statute prohibits or restricts a municipal corporation or political subdivision from employing a lobbyist to be registered as such in accordance with RCW 42.17.150; however, such a person may only be employed pursuant to specific legal authority to expend municipal funds for lobbying purposes ‑ either in the form of a state statute or, in the case of a first class or other charter city, code city or charter county, appropriate local legislation. (2) Only a municipal corporation or political subdivision which is thus authorized to expend its funds for lobbying purposes may, in turn, authorize its officers or employees to appear and testify at municipal expense before a committee of the legislature in support of or opposition to proposed or pending legislation. (3) Nothing in the state public disclosure law (chapter 42.17 RCW) purports to restrict the ability of any committee or member of the state legislature to seek information or opinions from officers or employees of a municipal corporation or political subdivision.
A Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA) may contract with a city, town, or county whose jurisdiction includes territory served by the PTBA for the use of PTBA funds to pay for, or contribute toward the cost of , construction projects in public rights of way which will provide a tangible and accountable benefit for improving, enhancing or extending or extending the PTBA's public transportation services.
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.
1. A district court judge lacks authority to engage a judge pro tempore to assist in handling an excess court workload.2. When a judge pro tempore serves a district court for more than 30 days in a year because of the absence of the regular judge owing to disqualification from hearing one or more cases, the salary of the regular judge must be reduced as specified in RCW 3.34.130(1), unless the judge's absence meets one of the exceptions specified in the statute.3. RCW 3.34.130, which generally requires a reduction in a district court judge's salary when a judge pro tempore serves in the judge's place for more than 30 days in a year, does not apply when a visiting judge from another court serves pursuant to RCW 3.34.140.
1. For purposes of RCW 42.17.130, which generally prohibits the use of public resources on election campaigns but contains an exception for certain acts of “elected legislative bodies,” the term is limited to bodies composed entirely of persons elected by the people to serve on that body, and it does not include “mixed” bodies of partly elected and partly appointed members or bodies composed of officers serving “ex officio” by virtue of their election to some other position. 2. The term “legislative” for purposes of RCW 42.17.130 is restricted to governing bodies with the power to enact general laws within a defined geographic area, such as the legislative bodies of counties, cities, and towns, and it does not include the governing bodies of districts created for special purposes.
The Growth Management Act does not obligate a county to require the replatting or resubdivision of lands in the county which are outside any urban growth area and which were platted before 1937, but allows local flexibility in applying GMA standards to such lands.
1. A county sheriff, as supervisor of the county jail, is required to accept arrestees presented at the jail for booking and housing pending disposition of charges, whether the arrestees are presented by county officers, by state patrol officers, or by other state employees with criminal law enforcement responsibilities. 2. The county sheriff does not have authority to (1) limit the hours during which the county jail will accept arrestees presented for booking by state officers, or (2) limit the number of arrestees that can be presented during a stated time period. 3. RCW 43.135.060 does not require the state to reimburse counties for the cost of booking or housing arrestees presented at the county jail by state patrol officers or other state employees, since this practice is neither a “new program” nor an “expansion of an existing program.”
The state constitution vests authority in the legislature to direct the number of judges of the superior court. A county legislative authority wishing to reduce the number of existing judgeships may work with the legislature to accomplish that result.
1. A municipality lacks authority to allocate lodging tax revenue to operate a tourism-related facility in which the municipality has no ownership interest. 2. A municipality may not spend lodging tax revenue on operating expenses of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists where such events and festivals are operated by non-governmental entities. 3. A municipality may not provide advance payment to private organizations for tourism promotion; payment must occur after the services have been performed.