Wash. Rev. Code » Title 39 · Chapter 39.34
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 39.34.080 (2026)

Contracts to perform governmental activities which each contracting agency is authorized to perform

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any one or more public agencies may contract with any one or more other public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking which each public agency entering into the contract is authorized by law to perform: PROVIDED, That such contract shall be authorized by the governing body of each party to the contract. Such contract shall set forth fully the purposes, powers, rights, objectives, and responsibilities of the contracting parties.
[ 1967 c 239 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1994–2011 · 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 9× “RCW 39.34.080 (emphasis added). The authority granted by the broad, unqualified language of the Interlocal Cooperation Act is “in addition and supplemental to powers or authority conferred by any other law.”
Greater Harbor 2000 v. City of Seattle, 937 P.2d 1082 (Wash. 1997). “"Any one or more public agencies may contract with any one or more other public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking which each public agency entering into the contract is authorized by law to perform...." [38] RCW 35.79.”
Greater Harbor 2000 v. City of Seattle, 132 Wash. 2d 267 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 39.34.080. "Any one or more public agencies may contract with any one or more other public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking which each public agency entering into the contract is authorized by law to perform.”
Schreiner v. City of Spokane, 874 P.2d 883 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “) RCW 39.34.080. Since the PFD is not authorized to acquire property by condemnation, the Schreiners argue, it may not contract with another public agency (the City) to perform such an undertaking.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Skagit Cnty., 158 P.3d 1179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 39.34.080. RCW 39.34.020. RCW 90.54.010.”
City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 160 Wash. App. 567 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “f mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best with geographic, economic, population and other factors [14] Additionally, the Interlocal Cooperation Act contemplates contracts…”
City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 249 P.3d 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “" [14] Additionally, the Interlocal Cooperation Act contemplates contracts among local entities for only those services they are already authorized to perform, as provided in RCW 39.34.080: Any one or more public agencies may contract with any one or more other public agencies…”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. SKAGIT CTY., 158 P.3d 1179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “[25] RCW 39.34.080. [26] RCW 39.34.020. [27] RCW 90.”
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.