Background
- Auditor requested opinion on whether RCW 36.29.020 authorizes a county treasurer to credit investment interest on county funds to the county current expense fund.
- The opinion treats counties as municipal (or quasi-municipal) corporations for purposes of RCW 36.29.020.
- RCW 36.29.020 directs interest from certain funds to be deposited in the county current expense fund unless restricted by constitutional provisions or more specific statutes.
- Three statutes are identified as explicit restrictions: RCW 73.08.080(1), RCW 81.100.080(1), and RCW 41.16.050, which require interest to remain with specific funds.
- The analysis investigates whether other statutes (e.g., RCW 36.38.010(5), RCW 67.28.1815, RCW 82.46.010/82.46.070, RCW 36.33A.060) override RCW 36.29.020, and concludes they do not where they lack explicit restrictions on interest.
- The conclusion: general language in RCW 36.29.020 applies to county funds, but more specific statutes with express language control over interest disposition when there is irreconcilable conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RCW 36.29.020 authorize allocating county fund interest to the current expense fund? | Counties are municipal corporations; statute permits investment and allocation of earnings. | Statute generally allows allocation of interest to current expense fund unless restricted by other statutes. | Yes; RCW 36.29.020 generally allows it. |
| What language is needed for a statute to override RCW 36.29.020 to keep interest with a specific fund? | Specific statutes with express language are required to override general rule. | If a statute expressly restricts interest, it controls over the general provision. | Specific, express restrictions prevail over RCW 36.29.020. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broyles v. Thurston County, 147 Wash. App. 409 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (county as municipal corporation; has authority via agents)
- King County v. Tax Comm'n, 387 P.2d 756 (Wash. 1963) (county as municipal or quasi-municipal)
- Pierce County v. Thompson, 144 P.704 (Wash. 1914) (county as municipal corporation authority)
- Lincoln County v. Brock, 79 P.477 (Wash. 1905) (county municipal status recognized)
- State ex rel. Eastvold v. Yelle, 279 P.2d 645 (Wash. 1955) (county municipal status acknowledged)
- Tacoma School Dist. No. 10 v. Hedges, 42 P. 522 (Wash. 1895) (interest follows the taxes absent statutory direction)
- Peninsula Neighborhood Ass'n v. Dep't of Transp., 12 P.3d 134 (Wash. 2000) (statutes harmonized; explicit override required for irreconcilable conflict)
- Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 18 P.3d 540 (Wash. 2001) (more specific statute controls over general statute)
- City of Seattle v. King Cnty, 762 P.2d 1152 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988) (statutory context of municipal funds and interest allocation)