HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 90-117-CCDONE Th
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION SETTING LAND
CLASSIFICATIONS AND ASSESS—
MENTS PROPOSED FOR FUNDING
THE 1991 BUDGET OF THE
GRANT COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED
CONTROL BOARD
RESOLUTION NUMBER 90 -117 -CC
WHEREAS, THE Grant County Noxious Weed Control Board has requested
the Board of County Commissioners to determine the assessments for funding
the 1991 budget of the Grant County Noxious Weed Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a public -hearing was held on October 23,1990 at 2:00 p.m.
in the County Commissioners Hearing Room at which time taxpayers were allowed
to appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, there was no opposition to the proposed land classifications
and proposed assessments which were:
IRRIGATED CROPLAND
DRYLAND CROPLAND
RANGE/SCABLAND
30G.per acre
l0c per acre
5G per acre
PLATTED PARCELS outside municipal incorporated areas: $5:00 per parcel
MINIMUM $5.00 assessment if the calculated rates do not totL1 at least
$5.00.
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the control of weeds is a special benefit
to the lands within the district and the special benefits provided by the weed
district and the weed district assessment above stated that they should be
levied.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, that the above assessments shall be
levied on the above classifications, and the Assessor shall spread the levy
on the rolls and collect the same.
Constituting the Board of County Commissioners
of Grant County, Washington
JERALD R. HAMLEY
ProsacuiN Attorney
KENNETH L.JORGENSEN
Chief Criminal Deputy
LUCY WOLFORD
Administrative Assistant
Deputies
MARY ANN BRADY
STEPHEN J. HALLSTROM
KATHERINE KENISON
Ephrata, Washington
OFFICE OF GRANT COUNTY p
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 37 • EPHRATA, WASHINGTOV 98823 9 754- 11
October 19, 1990
Board of County Commissioners
Grant County Courthouse
Ephrata, WA 98823 ._
Re: Attorney General-'Opinion,
Gentlemen: i' \�
Enclosed is a/,/copy of an attorney general opinion regarding
the Noxious We'ed''Control Board assessments. We had requested
the opinion some,mon'ths ago. A copy.%has been ;supp,l'ie��to the
Weed Control,'�Baard also. ,
Very truly yoursy� I
i� 'r
J ALD R. HAMLET,,. i
Prosecuting A�t\t0riney . "
JRH:1w
enclosure
RECEIVED
OCT 19 199(1
somov;
GW COIJIM WASHIMiTON
COUNTIES --WEED CONTROL HOARD --SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS --CITIES AND
TOWNS --APPLICABILITY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR COUNTY WEED
PROGRAM WITHIN INCORPORATED AREAS
RCW 17.10.240(1) authorizes thecounty legislative authority to
levy a special assessment against land for the pu:!pose of
operating the county's weed program. This assessment may be
levied on land located in incorporated areas within the I--ounty.
- - - - - - - - - - fill.---
?
;, E
October 17, 1990
The Honorable Paul Klasen
Prosecuting Attorney
Grant County
Post Office Box 39
Ephrata, Washington 98823
Dear Mr. Klasen:
Cite As:
AGO 1990 No. 11
By letter previously acknowledged you have asked ou:� opinion
on a question we paragraph as follows:
Can a county legislative authority levy an assessment
for operating the county weed control program pursuant
to RCW 17.10.240(1) on land located within the
boundaries of a city or town located within the county?
The answer to your question is yes, subject to the requirements
of RCW 17.10.240(1).
,ANALYSIS
The Legislature has provided for control of noxious weeds in
both unincorporated -and incorporated parts of a county. With
regard to the unincorporated parts of the county, RCW 17.04.010
empowers the county legislative authority to create a weed
district. The weed district "shall include only cultivated or
farming lands.ff ,_. In AGO 51-53 No. 241, we concluded that
this limitation prohibited the county legislative authority from
including a city or town within the boundaries oi: a weed
district.
Attorney General of Washington
7th Floor, Highways / Licenses Building M5. PB -71
Olympia, WA 98504
Phone: (206) 753-6220
t
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Hon..Paul Klasen 2 AGO 1990 No. 11
Although cities and towns are not part of the weed district,
they are responsible for controlling noxious weeds within their
boundaries. RCW 17.04.160 provides:
Any city or town contiguous to or surrounded by a weed
district formed under this chapter shall provide for
the destruction, prevention and extermination o}. all
weeds specified in the petition which are within the
boundaries of such city or town, in the same manner and
to the same extent as is provided for in such
surrounding or contiguous weed district; and it shall
be the duty of those in charge of school grounds,
playgrounds, cemeteries, parks, or any lands of a
public or quasi public nature when such lands shall be
contiguous to, or within any weed district, to see that
all weeds specified in the petition for the creation of
such district -are destroyed, prevented and exterminated
in accordance with the rules and requirements of such
district.
The Legislature has also assigned noxious weed responsibilities
to the county as a whole. RCW 17.10.020 provides:
(1) In each county of the state there is hareby
created a noxious weed control board, which shall bear
the name of the county within which it is located. The
jurisdictional boundaries of each board shall be
coextensive with the boundaries of the county within
which it is located.
(2) Each noxious weed control board shall be inactive
until activated pursuant to the provisions of RCW
17.10.040.
(Emphasis added.)
The boundaries of the county noxious weed control board are
coextensive with the boundaries of the county. rhe board
consists of five voting members. The members are appointed by
the county legislative authority. Each member of -the board
represents a section of the county. The five secticns must be
approximately the same size and do not overlap. RCW
17.10.050(1).
RCW 17.10.060(1) provides that the county noxious weed board
may employ a weed coordinator whose duties shall include
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Hon. Paul Klasen 3 AGO 1990 No. 11
inspecting land to determine the presence of noxious weeds. The
board may also obtain equipment and hire additional personnel to
administer the county's noxious weed control program. The board
is empowered to adopt rules necessary for effective county weed
control and eradication. RCW 17.10.060(2). The county noxious
weed control board is also responsible for adopting, from the
state noxious weed list, a list of noxious weeds to be =ontrolled
in the county. RCW 17.10.090.
The Legislature has provided two ways to fund the activities
of the county noxious weed control board. First, the county
legislative authority may appropriate money from the county
general fund. RCW 17.10.240(2). Second, the county legislative
authority may levy an assessment for this purpose. The levy is
authorized by RCW 17.10.240(1) which in pertinent part.provides:
The county legislative authority may, in lieu of a tax,
levy an assessment against the land for this purl2ose.
Prior to the levying of an assessment the county
noxious weed control board shall hold a public hearing
at which it shall gather information to serve as a
basis for classification and shall then classify the
lands into suitable classifications, including but: not
limited to dry lands, ranc;e lands, irrictated lands,
nonuse lands, forest lands, or federal lands, The
board shall develop and forward to the county
legislative authority, as a proposed level of
assessment for each class, such an amount as shall seem
Just. The assessment rate shall be either uniform per
acre in its respective class or a flat rate per parcel
rate plus a uniform rate per acre: PROVIDED, That if
no special benefits should be found to accrue to a
class of land, a zero assessment may be levied. The
legislative authority, upon receipt of the proposed
levels of assessment from the board, after a hearing,
shall accept, modify, or refer back to the board for
its reconsideration all or any portion of the proposed
levels of assessment. The findings by the county
legislative authority of such special benefits, when so
declared by resolution and spread upon the minutes of
said authority shall be conclusive as to whether or not
the same constitutes a special benefit to the lands
within the section. The amount of such assessment
shall constitute a lien against the property. . . .
(Emphasis added.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Han. Paul Klasen 4 AGO 1990 No. 11
In our opinion RCW 17.10.240(1) empowers the county
legislative authority to assess land located in cities and towns
within the county. We reach this conclusion for three reasons.
First, we note the legislative command that chapter 17.10
RCW be liberally construed. RCW 17.10.905 provides:
The purpose of [chapter 17.10 RCW] is to limit economic
loss due to the presence and spread of noxious weeds on
or near agricultural land.
The intent of the legislature is that
powers. and duties granted to the county noxious w e
control boards by this chapter are limited on,•v by
specific provisions of this chapter or other state and
federal --la .
(Emphasis added.) Thus, the powers and jurisdiction of the
boards are to be liberally construed and are deemed to be limited
only by other laws which are specifically limiting.
Second, the taxation and assessment authority of the county
legislative authority is not limited to unincorporated areas.
Under RCW 17.10.240 the county may choose to fund noxious weed
control through either its general fund or through land
assessments. If funding is to take place through the latter
mechanism, the county noxious weed control board is required to
classify lands into various classification such as dry lands,
range lands, nonuse lands, forest lands or federal lands, and to
recommend to the county legislative authority the level of
assessment for each class. RCW 17.10.240(1). The assessments,
then, are based on a uniform land classification systa-m, rather
than whether land happens to be located within a city, town or
unincorporated area.
Our conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the county
noxious weed board may also be funded by an appropriation from
the county general fund, which is now called the county current
expense fund. AGO 63-64 No. 76, at 3. The county current
expense fund includes all taxes levied for the purpose of current
expenses. These taxes are collected from both incorporated and
unincorporated parts of the county. Thus, if the county noxious
weed board is funded from the county current expense fiend, it is
funded from both incorporated and unincorporated pairts of the
county. It is logical that the Legislature continued this
pattern by enacting RCW 17.10.240(1) and giving the county
legislative authority the power to assess land within the county.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Hon. Paul Klasen 5 AGO 1990 No. 11
.Third, the county noxious weed board operates throughout the
county. Its jurisdictional boundaries are coextensive with the
boundaries of the county. RCW 17.10.020. The voting members of
the board are appointed from five equal sections of the county.
RCW 17.10.050(1). The board is empowered to adopt rules
necessary for an effective county weed control or eradication
program. RCW 17.10.060(2). The board establishes; a county
noxious weed list of weeds it finds necessary to be controlled in
the county. RCW 17.10.090.
All of these provisions lead to the conclusion that cities
and towns located in the county are within the jurisdiction of
the county noxious weed board. This is in contrast to weed
districts established pursuant to RCW 17.04.010 which exclude
cities and towns. Since cities and towns are within the
jurisdiction of the county noxious weed board, we believe the
Legislature intended to empower the county legislative authority
to assess lands within incorporated areas to help fray for the
program.
It is fundamental that a county can exercise only those
powers expressly granted to it by the Legislature, or those
necessarily implied from granted powers. Pacific First Fed.
Say. & Loan Assn v. Pierce County, 27 Wn.2d 347, 353, 178 P.2d
351 (1947). With respect to the power of a county to assess land
located within a city or town for noxious weed control, it is
necessarily implied from the jurisdictional boundaries of the
board and county and from the specific assessment classification
system set forth by statute. This system is based on type of
land and does not limit the county to assessments in the
unincorporated area. Also, such county -wide jurisdiction over
assessments is consistent with the express intent of the
Legislature in RCW 17.10.905 to "'limit economic loss due to the
presence and spread of noxious weeds on or near agricultural
land."
Of course, any assessment of land within the ino:orporated
(and unincorporated) parts of a county must meet the requirements
of RCW 17.10.240. With regard to assessing land in incorporated
areas of a county, there are two requirements we would bring to
your attention.
First, RCW 17.10.240(1) provides that "the assessment rate
shall be either uniform per acre in its respective :lass or a
flat rate per parcel rate plus a uniform rate per acne . . . .0
Assessment by the county legislative authority must meet this
standard.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Hon. Paul Klasen
0
Second, RCW 17.10.240 provides
special benefit to lands within
17.10.240(1) further states;
AGO 3.990 No. 11
that "control of weeds is a
any . . . section." RCW
PROVIDED, That if no special benefits should be found
to accrue to a class of land, a zero assessment may be
levied. The legislative authority, upon receipt of the
proposed levels of assessment from the board, after a
hearing, shall accept, modify, or refer back to the
board for -its reconsideration all or any portion of the
proposed levels of assessment. The findings by the
county legislative authority of such special benefits,
when so declared by resolution and spread upon the
minutes of said authority shall be conclusive as to
whether or not the same constitutes a special benefit
to the lands within the section. . . .
Thus, the county legislative authority may levy a zero assessment
if there is no special benefit to land located within
incorporated areas.
We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
42
SHIRLEY ALL BATTAN
Assistant Attorney General
(206) 753-6215