HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.sag/sagwa2017 and id is 1 raw text is:
Washington State ()
Office of the Attorney General
Attorney General Bob Ferguson
ELIGIBILITY OF COUNTIES TO RECEIVE STATE FUEL TAX REVENUES UNDER
THE RURAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
AGO 2017 No. 1 - Mar 13 2017
Attorney General Bob Ferguson
TAXATION-ROADS AND STREETS-HIGHWAYS-COUNTIES-Eligibility Of Counties To Receive State Fuel Tax Revenues Under The Rural Arterial Program
Counties lose eligibility to participate in the rural arterial program if the county chooses to divert revenues from the county road levy to pay for (1) civil or criminal traffic prosecutions, (2)
court costs of adjudication, (3) indigent defense, (4) incarceration, and/or (5) coroner activities.
March 13, 2017
Jay W. Weber
Executive Director, County Road Administration Board
2404 Chandler Court SW Suite 240 Cite As:
Olympia, WA 98504-0913 AGO 2017 No. 1
Dear Director. Weber:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on the following paraphrased question:
May any county retain its eligibility to participate in the rural arterial program under the limitations imposed by RCW 36.79.140 and article II, section 40 of the Washington
Constitution if the county chooses to divert county road levy property tax for general government purposes, under RCW 36.33.220, to fund (1) civil or criminal traffic prosecutions,
(2) court costs of adjudication (3) indigent defense (4) incarceration, and/or (5) coroner activities?
BRIEF ANSWER
No. Incarceration and coroner activities are not road purposes under article II, section 40. Costs related to prosecution, adjudication, and indigent defense of traffic offenses present a closer
question, but it is most likely that these would also not be considered road purposes under the Washington Constitution and RCW 36.79.140.
BACKGROUND
In 1983, the legislature enacted the rural arterial program to improve county roads in rural areas. Laws of 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 49. The legislature also created a rural arterial trust account
within the motor vehicle fund. Laws of 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 49, § 2. The rural arterial trust account is funded with a specified portion of fuel tax revenues. See RCW 46.68.090(2)(j). The
legislature entrusted oversight and administration of the rural arterial trust account to the County Road Administration Board. See, e.g., RCW 36.79.040-.050 (requiring Board to
[original page 2]
apportion funds to five regions); RCW 36.79.060 (requiring Board to adopt rules and design standards); RCW 36.79.070 (allowing Board to contract with Department of Transportation to
administer program).
At regular intervals, the Board prepares a recommended budget for expenditures from the trust account. RCW 36.79.130-140. By statute, only those counties that use funds for specified
purposes are permitted to receive funds from the trust account:
Only those counties that during the preceding twelve months have spent all revenues collected for road purposes only for such purposes ... including traffic law enforcement, as are
allowed to the state by [a]rticle II, section 40 of the state Constitution or RCW 36.82.070(2) are eligible to receive funds from the rural arterial trust account ....
RCW 36.79.140.
There are three exceptions to the road purposes requirement for rural arterial funds eligibility. First, [c]ounties with a population of less than eight thousand are exempt from this
eligibility restriction[.] RCW 36.79.140. Second, counties may expend revenues collected for road purposes on other governmental services afterthe voters authorize such expenditures under
RCW 84.55.050. RCW 36.79.140. Third, the restriction does not apply to moneys diverted from the road district levy under RCW 39.89, which pertains to community revitalization financing. RCW
36.79.140. Your question does not turn on these exceptions because they do not encompass the five activities you ask about.
A separate statute permits counties to establish a county road fund. RCW 36.82.010. RCW 36.82.040 authorizes a county property tax to raise revenue related to county roads for deposit
into this county road fund. In addition, funds accruing to the credit of a county from the state's motor vehicle fund are to be paid to the county treasurer and deposited in the county road fund.
RCW 36.82.050. As a result, a county road fund may have both property tax revenues collected by the county itself, as well as fuel tax revenues distributed to the county by the state.
Other statutes layout the permissible purposes for the county road fund. In general, the permissible uses of the fund include the construction, alteration, repair, improvement, or
maintenance of county roads and bridges[.] RCW 36.82.070(1). Another statute permits the legislative authority of a county to expend county road property tax revenues for any service to be
provided in the unincorporated area of the county .... RCW 36.33.220. That statute also permits county road property tax revenues diverted under RCW 39.89 to be expended for county
revitalization purposes as described in that chapter. RCW 36.33.220.
At issue in this opinion is whether counties' use of funds is consistent with rural arterial program eligibility. According to your letter, at least one county has used money from its county road
fund to pay for (1) civil or criminal traffic prosecutions, (2) court costs of adjudication, (3) indigent defense, (4) incarceration, and (5) coroner activities.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.sag/sagwa2017&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)