Wash. Rev. Code » Title 43 · Chapter 43.09

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.09.210

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Separate accounts shall be kept for every appropriation or fund of a taxing or legislative body showing date and manner of each payment made therefrom, the name, address, and vocation of each person, organization, corporation, or association to whom paid, and for what purpose paid.
(2) Separate accounts shall be kept for each department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, and public service industry under the jurisdiction of every taxing body.
(3) All service rendered by, or property transferred from, one department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, or public service industry to another, shall be paid for at its true and full value by the department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, or public service industry receiving the same, and no department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, or public service industry shall benefit in any financial manner whatever by an appropriation or fund made for the support of another.
(4) All unexpended balances of appropriations shall be transferred to the fund from which appropriated, whenever the account with an appropriation is closed.
(5) This section does not apply to:
(a) Agency surplus personal property handled under RCW 43.19.1919(1)(e); or
(b) The transfer, lease, or other disposal of surplus property for public benefit purposes, as provided under RCW 39.33.015.
[ 2018 c 217 s 5; 2000 c 183 s 2; 1965 c 8 s 43.09.210. Prior: 1909 c 76 s 3; RRS s 9953.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases, 1977–2019 · leading case: Okeson v. City of Seattle
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Okeson v. City of Seattle (2003) wash · cites it 4× “Noting that there was no statute calling for payment from another fund, the informal memorandum concluded that the costs of streetlights should be paid out of the general fund, and that shifting streetlight costs to customers violated RCW 43.09.210, the local government…”
Okeson v. City of Seattle (2003) wash · cites it 4× “Noting that there was no statute calling for payment from another fund, the informal memorandum concluded that the costs of streetlights should be paid out of the general fund, and that shifting streetlight costs to customers violated RCW 43.09.210, the local government…”
City of Tacoma v. City of Bonney Lake (2012) wash · cites it 8× “This determines the proper level of deference we must accord its actions in contracting with the Municipalities. Then we must determine if the franchise agreements require Tacoma to provide and maintain the hydrants.”
State v. Grays Harbor County (1983) wash · cites it 10× “Based upon the language in and the legislative history of RCW 43.09.210, we reverse. That portion of RCW 43.”
Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King County (2013) wash · cites it 5× “Judge Felnagle also awarded “12% prejudgment and postjudgment interest” and deferred the question of attorney fees until the case was resolved on appeal. Id 3 We accepted direct review.”
Lane v. City of Seattle (2008) wash · cites it 4× “Lake Forest Park Is Liable for Hydrant Payments ¶ 36 If Seattle must pay for hydrants located in Seattle, it asks Lake Forest Park to pay for those hydrants located in Lake Forest Park.”
Lane v. City of Seattle (2008) wash · cites it 4× “Seattle argues, and the trial court held, that RCW 43.09.210 makes the cities liable. The statute reads, “All service rendered by .”
Burns v. City of Seattle (2007) wash “NOTES [1] The petitioners further alleged that the payments violate the local government accounting statute, RCW 43.09.210, and constitute an unconstitutional tax.”
Burns v. City of Seattle (2007) wash “The petitioners further alleged that the payments violate the local government accounting statute, RCW 43.09.210, and constitute an unconstitutional tax.”
Eugster v. City of Spokane (2007) washctapp · cites it 2× “Eugster contends on appeal that the court-ordered transfer of parking meter funds and the court-ordered title pass-through transaction violated the state auditor statute, RCW 43.09.210. This statute requires cities to apply generally accepted accounting principles to…”
Larson v. Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (2006) wash “The authority is required to establish necessary and appropriate funds and accounts consistent with the uniform system of accounts developed pursuant to RCW 43.09.210. RCW 35-.95A.060. Before utilization of any excise tax money collected, the legislature requires the authority…”
Eugster v. City of Spokane (2007) washctapp · cites it 2× “Eugster contends on appeal that the court-ordered transfer of parking meter funds and the court-ordered title pass-through transaction violated the state auditor statute, RCW 43.09.210. This statute requires cities to apply generally accepted accounting principles to…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.09.210(2) — 1 case
Edward Coates v. City Of Tacoma (2019) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.09.210(3) — 1 case
Edward Coates v. City Of Tacoma (2019) washctapp
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.