Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 53.57.030 (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) The affairs, operations, and funds of a port development authority must be governed by the port district or districts that created the port development authority. Each port district governing the port development authority must oversee the affairs, operations, and funds of the port development authority exclusively through the elected port commission of the port district. If the port development authority is jointly created by more than one port district under RCW 53.57.020, then the port development authority must be managed by each port district as a member of the port development authority, in accordance with the terms of this section and the charter for the port development authority. Each port district member shall act in such capacity through its own elected commissioners.
(2) Any port district that creates a port development authority under RCW 53.57.020 must provide for the organization and operation of the port development authority, oversee the affairs, operations, and funds of the port development authority in order to correct any deficiency, and ensure that the purposes of each program undertaken are reasonably accomplished.
(3) A port development authority, in managing maritime activities of a port district or districts under this chapter, may:
(a) Own and sell real and personal property;
(b) Contract with individuals, associations, corporations, the state, and the United States;
(c) Sue and be sued;
(d) Loan and borrow funds;
(e) Issue bonds, notes, and other evidences of indebtedness;
(f) Transfer funds, real or personal property, property interests, or services; and
(g) Perform community services related to maritime activities managed by the port development authority.
(4) Port development authorities do not have the power of eminent domain or the power to levy taxes or special assessments.
[ 2015 c 35 s 4.]

Notes:

FindingsIntent2015 c 35: See note following RCW 53.57.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2019–2019 · leading case: State v. Econ. Dev. Bd. for Tacoma-Pierce Cnty., 441 P.3d 1269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Econ. Dev. Bd. for Tacoma-Pierce Cnty., 441 P.3d 1269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “¶51 The Port also cites to cases where municipalities have challenged the scope of ballot propositions or sought a declaratory judgment to determine the legality of some governmental action.”
State Of Washington, V Econ. Dev. Bd. Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “047; RCW 53.57.030; see generally chapter 53.08 RCW.”
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.