Other LanguagesBy letter previously acknowledged you have requested the advice of this office on certain questions relating to proposed expenditures by counties and other municipalities for tourism under § 1, chapter 61, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess. In asking these questions you have explained that a certain county is putting together a tourist folder which is intended to publicize the general area in which the county is located; and that there is a proposal whereby the Chamber of Commerce, the county in question, all cities within the county, and a port district and public utility district within the county will each pay $2,000 toward the cost of the publication of the folder.
This is written in response to your request for our opinion on a question regarding the status of "holdover" state senators under the legislative redistricting order in Prince v. Kramer, et al., which was entered by the United States District Court, W.D., Wash., on April 21, 1972, and affirmed by the Supreme Court on October 10, 1972.
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1970, clarifying the issues raised by your earlier request for our opinion as to the authority of a fire protection district to enter into a contract with a city, or with a tax exempt retirement home located within a city, whereby, in return for a contractually stipulated consideration, the fire protection district would undertake to provide fire protection services for certain facilities owned by the city or for the said retirement home located therein.
This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows: Do the rights, privileges and benefits which chapter 292, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., extends to persons who are 18 years of age or older include that of participating in parimutuel wagering at licensed race tracks in this state?
We are in receipt of your letter dated June 1, 1972, in which you have posed the following request: "Will you please furnish me an opinion as to the constitutionality of an ordinance now on the books of Camas, Washington prohibiting signs being placed on private property even with the owner's consent." Although you have not supplied us with a copy of the city ordinance in question, we surmise that your request has reference to chapter 9.04 of the codified ordinances of the city of Camas, copy attached. As you will note from a review of this chapter its basic thrust is to establish a permit system for any "poster panel" except those the total display area of which does not exceed five square feet.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1970 Honorable Arlie U. DeJarnatt State Representative, 18th District 1215 23rd Avenue Longview, Washington 98632
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 4, 1971, requesting an opinion of this office with regard to the validity and effectiveness of a certain appropriation contained in chapter 288, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on two questions relative to the Federal Hatch Act, which regulates political activities by federal employees and those of state or local governmental units which are funded, in whole or in part, with federal moneys.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the salaries of prosecuting attorneys. We understand your inquiry to be whether the provisions of chapter 43, Laws of 1970, will provide for automatic salary increases for prosecuting attorneys without any necessity for any legislative amendment to RCW 36.17.020, under which the present salaries of all county officers are fixed.
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a number of questions relating to the authority of a community college in this state to provide scholarships, loans and grants, deferral of tuition, and certain designated awards to the students enrolled therein. We believe that the legal issues raised by your request may best be met and resolved through paraphrasing your questions as follows: (1) May a community college receive and disburse federal funds for the purpose of financing programs authorized by, and approved under, federal statutes without regard to the constitutional limitations which are set forth in Article VIII, § 5 of the Washington constitution? (2) May a community college receive and disburse, without constitutional limitation, funds contributed or donated by private individuals or other private sources? (3) Is the expenditure by a community college of funds derived from student activity fees, gate receipts from athletic events and school plays, concerts, etc., and television or radio broadcast receipts related to such events, governed by the provisions of Article VIII, § 5 of the Washington constitution which prohibits a loan or gift of the state's credit or its public funds?