Other LanguagesBy letter previously acknowledged you requested our opinion as to the time when an election must be held to fill an existing vacancy on the board of commissioners of the Port of Tacoma. We paraphrase your question as follows:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 12, 1971, requesting our opinion as to whether dormatories or housing for students or faculty at a private institution of higher education are presently exempt from property taxation under the provisions of RCW 84.36.050.
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on two questions relating to the imposition of business license taxes by cities and towns. We paraphrase these questions as follows: (1) May a city or town for purposes of revenue impose a license tax upon business activities which are classified according to the amount of gross income so that each class encompasses all businesses whose gross incomes range between a certain minimum and maximum amount, with each class paying a different flat rate of tax? (2) In view of §§ 6 and 7, chapter 134, Laws of 1972, 2nd Ex. Sess., may a city or town for purposes of revenue impose a single rate business license tax measured by gross income upon the activity of making retail sales of tangible personal property, but specify a dollar ceiling of gross income above which the tax would not apply?
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 13, 1970, requesting our opinion as to the monetary jurisdiction of a district justice court judge operating under the provisions of the 1961 justice court act.
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on several questions relating to disability benefits payable under the laws governing the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system. We paraphrase your questions as follows: (1) May a disability leave or disability retirement allowance granted under RCW 41.26.120 be reduced by such amounts as the member is entitled to receive from workmen's compensation on account of the same disability? (2) May a disability leave or retirement allowance granted under RCW 41.26.120 be reduced or denied pursuant to a finding by the disability board having jurisdiction that the disability in question was occasioned by "dissipation or abuse" on the part of the member applying for these benefits?
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on three questions relating to workmen's compensation coverage under the state industrial insurance act for employees of the city of Tacoma. Your questions read as follows: "1. Are the City of Tacoma General Government and the City of Tacoma Utilities Board or Department of Public Utilities one legal entity under the provisions of RCW 51.08.070, which defines an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act? "2. If the General Government and Public Utilities are one employer under the purview of the Act, may the City of Tacoma self insure as to its General Government section and leave the Public Utilities in the State Workmen's Compensation Fund? "3. Is an employer who self insures under the provisions of RCW 51.16.140 required to pay 100% of the medical aid assessment? Or may he pay 50% of the assessment and deduct the other 50% from his employees' earnings?"
We acknowledge receipt of your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the date for an election to fill certain vacancies on the school board of the Arlington School District ‑ which positions are presently held by appointees of the intermediate school board having jurisdiction as specified in RCW 28.63.020.
This is written in partial response to your letters of March 30 and April 1, 1971, requesting our opinion on a number of questions relating to the duties and functions of the prosecuting attorney in a 7th class county. You have subsequently indicated a desire to have us answer immediately those questions which we believe can be readily answered on the basis of previous office opinions, decided cases, etc., and then to have us take under consideration the remaining questions which cannot thus be readily answered.
By recent letter you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows: Does RCW 28A.58.135, the competitive bidding requirement which is found in the RCW chapter containing provisions applicable to all school districts, apply to intermediate school districts?