Interlocal Agreement

The Washington Intercouncy Cooperation Act, Chap. 39.34 RCW, empowering public bodies to enter into contracts with other public bodies on inter-local agreements allowing cooperation between authorities in the implementation of State activities and the provision of public services. The law also allows the creation of non-profit enterprises to achieve these objectives. The Commun Municipal Utility Services Act (Cap. 39.106 RCW), passed by the legislature in 2011, created a new type of intergovernmental communal body to improve the capacity of local public services to plan, finance, operate and deliver public services. Under the law, local governments may enter into joint agreements on municipal supply services to establish independent local authorities that provide some or all of the supply services that their participating members can provide, including water, sanitation, rainwater and flood protection services. The Chief Electoral Officer prepares inter-municipal election agreements. It seems to me that the city is intrusive and insists on having the choice to be legal or not. On the SARM web pages mentioned below, you will find example agreements in specific areas. The posted inter-premises are those that have been accepted since 2005.

The inter-premises agreements presented below are published here in response to RCW 39.34.040 and they have not been registered with the King County Auditor`s Office (the initial inter-premises agreements are registered with Kirkland City Clerk and can be viewed by a publicity request.) This page provides a fundamental overview of interlocal cooperation for local governments in Washington State, including examples of interlocal agreements. An interlocal agreement is a written contract between local authorities such as a city, county, school authority or constitutional office. Whenever a public service includes the common operations and budgets of two or more local government authorities, an interlocal agreement must be developed and approved from all sides, with the governing body of each government – a school board, a municipal council, a district commission – applying the agreement by vote. Inter-municipal agreements may involve a sheriff`s police service providing policing services to a city, as is the case under the contractual agreement between the Sheriff of Flagler County and Palm Coast, or a school authority that has joint operations with a city or county to operate certain parks, or a municipality and an electoral officer who enter into contracts for election day services. All inter-premises agreements entered into in accordance with Cap. 39.34 RCW must either be submitted to the District Auditor or published on the website of a public body or other public source (RCW 39.34.040). While there is no penalty for failure to file or publish agreements, an appeals court decides that the state against Plaggemeier (1999) held that an agreement can be deemed void if it has not been filed or published in accordance with rcW 39.34.040. Plaggemeier was decided under an earlier version of RCW 39.34.040, which required the filing of an interlocal agreement with the district auditor and the Secretary of State. However, this status has been amended twice and now only requires the filing of the agreement with the county auditor or the list on the Agency`s website. Plaggemeir is also important with the change in the language of the law, as it indicates that an interlocal agreement could be invalidated by a court if it is not duly filed or listed.

RCW 39.34 allows a local government to enter into inter-local agreements with other public bodies in the interest of cooperating resources for their mutual benefit. In accordance with RCW 39.34, the City of Kirkland has over the years entered into inter-local agreements with other public bodies for various purposes. . . .