Wash. Rev. Code » Title 3 · Chapter 3.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.50.800 (2026)

Repeal of municipal criminal code—Agreement covering costs of handling resulting criminal cases—Arbitration—Renewal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) If a municipality has, prior to July 1, 1984, repealed in its entirety that portion of its municipal code defining crimes but continues to hear and determine traffic infraction cases under chapter 46.63 RCW in a municipal court, the municipality and the appropriate county shall, prior to January 1, 1985, enter into an agreement under chapter 39.34 RCW under which the county is to be paid a reasonable amount for costs incurred after January 1, 1985, associated with prosecution, adjudication, and sentencing in criminal cases filed in district court as a result of the repeal. If the municipality and the county cannot come to an agreement within the time prescribed by this section, they shall be deemed to have entered into an agreement to submit the issue to arbitration pursuant to chapter 7.04A RCW. The municipality and the county have the same rights and are subject to the same duties as other parties who have agreed to submit to arbitration under chapter 7.04A RCW.
(2) The agreement between the municipality and the county shall include provisions for periodic review and renewal of the terms of the agreement. If the municipality and the county are unable to agree on the terms for renewal of the agreement, they shall be deemed to have entered into an agreement to submit the issue to arbitration under chapter 7.04A RCW. Pending conclusion of the arbitration proceeding, the terms of the agreement shall remain in effect. The municipality and the county have the same rights as other parties who have agreed to submit to arbitration under chapter 7.04A RCW.
[ 2005 c 433 s 34; 1984 c 258 s 202.]

Notes:

Application—Captions not law—Savings—Effective date—2005 c 433: See RCW 7.04A.290 through 7.04A.310 and 7.04A.900.
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1996–2012 · leading case: Whatcom Cnty. v. City of Bellingham, 909 P.2d 1303 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Whatcom Cnty. v. City of Bellingham, 909 P.2d 1303 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 32× “RCW 3.50.800 forbids cities which have enacted a municipal criminal code and enforced such a criminal code in their municipal courts from repealing such code "in its entirety” prior to July 1, 1984, so as to impose additional criminal justice system costs on county government.”
City of Spokane v. Cnty. of Spokane, 146 P.3d 893 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 3.50.800(1) (repeal of municipal code); RCW 3.”
City of Spokane v. Spokane Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 661 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 3.50.800(1) (repeal of municipal code); RCW 3.”
City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 274 P.3d 1033 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 4× “258, codified in part as former RCW 3.50.800 (1984). 4 See 2000 Op. Att’y Gen.”
In re the Det. of Capello, 60 P.3d 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “City of Bellingham, the court applied the rule to provisions in just one statute, RCW 3.50.800. 36 And in Stone v. Chelan County Sheriff’s Department, the court applied the rule to two statutes within the same chapter, chapter 41.”
Capello v. State, 60 P.3d 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Bellingham, the Court applied the rule to provisions in just one statute, RCW 3.50.800. [36] And, in Stone v. Chelan County Sheriff's Dep't, the Court applied the rule to two statutes within the same chapter, RCW 41.”
City of East Wenatchee v. Douglas Cnty., 156 Wash. App. 523 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “We affirm summary judgment in favor of Douglas County. Sweeney and Brown, JJ.”
City of East Wenatchee v. Douglas Cnty., 233 P.3d 910 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] RCW 3.50.800(1) states, "If a municipality has, prior to July 1, 1984, repealed in its entirety that portion of its municipal code defining crimes but continues to hear and determine traffic infraction cases under chapter 46.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 3.50.800(1) — 5 cases
City of Spokane v. Cnty. of Spokane, 146 P.3d 893 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 3.50.800(1) (repeal of municipal code); RCW 3.”
City of Spokane v. Spokane Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 661 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 3.50.800(1) (repeal of municipal code); RCW 3.”
City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 274 P.3d 1033 (Wash. 2012). “258, codified in part as former RCW 3.50.800 (1984). 4 See 2000 Op. Att’y Gen.”
City of East Wenatchee v. Douglas Cnty., 156 Wash. App. 523 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “We affirm summary judgment in favor of Douglas County. Sweeney and Brown, JJ.”
City of East Wenatchee v. Douglas Cnty., 233 P.3d 910 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “NOTES [1] RCW 3.50.800(1) states, "If a municipality has, prior to July 1, 1984, repealed in its entirety that portion of its municipal code defining crimes but continues to hear and determine traffic infraction cases under chapter 46.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.