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

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.50.805 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A municipality operating a municipal court under this chapter shall not terminate that court unless a notice of intent to terminate is sent to the administrative office of the courts six months in advance of the termination and the municipality has reached an agreement with the appropriate county or another municipality under chapter 39.34 RCW under which the county or municipality is to be paid a reasonable amount for costs associated with prosecution, adjudication, and sentencing in criminal cases filed in district or municipal court as a result of the termination. The agreement shall provide for periodic review and renewal of the terms of the agreement. If the municipality and the county or municipality 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 or municipality 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. A municipality that has entered into agreements with other municipalities that have terminated their municipal courts may not thereafter terminate its court unless each municipality has reached an agreement with the appropriate county in accordance with this section.
(2) A municipality operating a municipal court under this chapter may not repeal in its entirety that portion of its municipal code defining crimes while retaining the court's authority to hear and determine traffic infractions under chapter 46.63 RCW unless the municipality has reached an agreement with the county under chapter 39.34 RCW under which the county is to be paid a reasonable amount for costs associated with prosecution, adjudication, and sentencing in criminal cases filed in district court as a result of the repeal. The agreement shall provide 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 and are subject to the same duties as other parties who have agreed to submit to arbitration under chapter 7.04A RCW.
(3) A municipality operating a municipal court under this chapter may not repeal a provision of its municipal code which defines a crime equivalent to an offense listed in RCW 46.63.020 unless the municipality has reached an agreement with the county under chapter 39.34 RCW under which the county is to be paid a reasonable amount for costs associated with prosecution, adjudication, and sentencing in criminal cases filed in district court as a result of the repeal. The agreement shall provide 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 and are subject to the same duties as other parties who have agreed to submit to arbitration under chapter 7.04A RCW.
[ 2024 c 61 s 3; 2005 c 433 s 35; 1984 c 258 s 203.]

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 6 cases, 1988–2012 · leading case: City of Medina v. Primm, 157 P.3d 379 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Medina v. Primm, 157 P.3d 379 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 6× “180, as apparent in RCW 3.50.805 (governing termination of municipal court services performed by one municipality on behalf of another) and RCW 3.”
City of Spokane v. Cnty. of Spokane, 146 P.3d 893 (Wash. 2006). “800(1) (repeal of municipal code); RCW 3.50.805 (termination of municipal court).”
City of Spokane v. Spokane Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 661 (Wash. 2006). “800(1) (repeal of municipal code); RCW 3.50.805 (termination of municipal court).”
Whatcom Cnty. v. City of Bellingham, 909 P.2d 1303 (Wash. 1996). “595, repealed by Laws of 1994, ch. 81, § 89; RCW 35.”
City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 274 P.3d 1033 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 3.50.805 outlines termination of such agreements.”
Twigg v. Aberdeen Mun. Court, 749 P.2d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “However no municipal court may be terminated unless the municipality has complied with RCW 3.50.805, 35.22.425, 35.23.595, 35.24.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 3.50.805(1) — 1 case
City of Medina v. Primm, 157 P.3d 379 (Wash. 2007). “180, as apparent in RCW 3.50.805 (governing termination of municipal court services performed by one municipality on behalf of another) and RCW 3.”
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.