Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.32.240 (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) In any county the county legislative authority may by resolution establish a county purchasing department.
(2) In each county with a population of less than four hundred thousand which exercises this option, the purchasing department shall contract on a competitive basis for all public works, enter into leases of personal property on a competitive basis, and purchase all supplies, materials, and equipment, on a competitive basis, for all departments of the county, as provided in this chapter and chapter 39.04 RCW, except that the county purchasing department is not required to make purchases for the county hospital, or make purchases that are paid from the county road fund or equipment rental and revolving fund.
[ 2009 c 229 s 7; 1996 c 219 s 1; 1993 c 198 s 5; 1991 c 363 s 57; 1985 c 169 s 8; 1983 c 3 s 77; 1974 ex.s. c 52 s 1; 1967 ex.s. c 144 s 15; 1963 c 4 s 36.32.240. Prior: 1961 c 169 s 1; 1949 c 33 s 1; 1945 c 61 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 10322-15.]

Notes:

Purpose—Captions not law—1991 c 363: See notes following RCW 2.32.180.
Severability—1967 ex.s. c 144: See note following RCW 36.900.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1977–1994 · leading case: Associated Gen. Contractors of Washington v. KING CTY., 881 P.2d 996 (Wash. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Associated Gen. Contractors of Washington v. KING CTY., 881 P.2d 996 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 19× “AGC also asserts "RCW 36.32.240 provides that a county . . .”
Ronken v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 572 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1977). “This practice was enjoined by the Snohomish County Superior Court as violative of the statutory scheme under RCW 36.32.240, .250, and 36.77.060. From a detailed order of the trial court, the commissioners appeal to this court.”
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.