Other LanguagesBy letter previously acknowledged you requested an opinion of this office on a question involving the distribution of certain public utility district privilege tax revenues under RCW 54.28.090. As we understand it, the factual situation giving rise to this question is as follows:
By letter dated October 21, 1971, you have directed our attention to the apparently conflicting provisions of RCW 10.04.080 and JCrR 4.02.
You have requested the opinion of this office on two questions which we paraphrase as follows:
(1) Should the five‑eighths of one cent per gallon of motor vehicle fuel tax revenues allocated by the legislature to the urban arterial trust account under RCW 82.36.020 be insufficient to pay debt service on the full two hundred million dollars of limited obligation bonds authorized by RCW 47.46.420, may the bonds still be legally issued in the full amount authorized, with the additional debt service to be paid from other motor vehicle fuel tax revenues?
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested our advice as to the present state of the law governing the possession of marijuana by members of the medical profession.
This is written in response to your request for our opinion regarding the procedures to be followed in computing the compensation of a retired superior court judge serving as a pro tempore judge of the Washington Supreme Court under Article IV, § 2 (a), Amendment 38, of the state constitution. We paraphrase your questions as follows:
This is written in response to your letter dated September 28, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to RCW 29.18.110, which provides, in pertinent part, that:
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to whether in an unlawful detainer action under chapter 59.12 RCW, the payment of a jury fee is required by RCW 4.44.100 if a jury trial is demanded by either party.
This is written in response to your letter dated September 23, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the validity of a certain county ordinance relating to platting and subdivisions.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:
"'Would there be a constitutional prohibition against the Legislature adopting a rule which stated that only committee chairmen or the respective party leadership could request title only legislation?'"
By letter dated September 25, 1970, you have requested the advice of this office concerning the realignment of boundaries of intermediate school districts.