Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.340 (2026)

Noncompliance and sanctions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Upon receipt from the board of a finding that a state agency, county, or city is in noncompliance under RCW 36.70A.330, or as a result of failure to meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A.210, the governor may either:
(1) Notify and direct the director of the office of financial management to revise allotments in appropriation levels;
(2) Notify and direct the state treasurer to withhold the portion of revenues to which the county or city is entitled under one or more of the following: The motor vehicle fuel tax, as provided in chapter 82.38 RCW; the transportation improvement account, as provided in RCW 47.26.084; the rural arterial trust account, as provided in RCW 36.79.150; the sales and use tax, as provided in chapter 82.14 RCW; the liquor profit tax, as provided in RCW 66.08.190; and the liquor excise tax, as provided in RCW 82.08.170; or
(3) File a notice of noncompliance with the secretary of state and the county or city, which temporarily rescinds the county or city's authority to collect the real estate excise tax under RCW 82.46.030 until the governor files a notice rescinding the notice of noncompliance.
[ 2013 c 225 s 604; 2011 c 120 s 2; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 26.]

Notes:

Effective date2013 c 225: See note following RCW 82.38.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1996–2000 · leading case: Assoc. of Rural Residents v. Kitsap Cnty., 4 P.3d 115 (Wash. 2000).
Assoc. of Rural Residents v. Kitsap Cnty., 4 P.3d 115 (Wash. 2000). “The GMHBs' enforcement authority consists only of being able to declare plans invalid and send them back for compliance. RCW 36.”
Postema v. Snohomish Cnty., 922 P.2d 176 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “He further argued that RCW 36.70A.340 is an unconstitu *579 tional delegation of sanctions authority to the governor.”
Ass'n of Rural Residents v. Kitsap Cnty., 141 Wash. 2d 185 (Wash. 2000). “The GMHBs’ enforcement authority consists only of being able to declare plans invalid and send them back for compliance. RCW 36.”
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.