A county legislative authority may call a special county election by presenting a resolution to the county auditor prior to the proposed election date. The special election is then held on one of the following dates, determined by the governing body:

• 2nd Tuesday in February;
• 4th Tuesday in April;
• The day of the primary as specified by RCW 29A.04.311; or
• 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November.

See also RCW 29A.04.321; RCW 29A.04.330

Every city, town, and district is liable for its proportionate share of the costs when such elections are held in conjunction with other elections held under RCW 29A.04.321 and RCW 29A.04.330.

Whenever any city, town, or district holds any primary or election, general or special, on an isolated date, all costs of such elections must be borne by the city, town, or district concerned. See also RCW 29A.04.410

The expense of all such elections shall be paid for out of the funds of such district. See also RCW 57.24.050

There do not appear to be any specifics regarding what should be included in a petition. It is best to contact your County Elections Department and the County Prosecuting Attorney to determine the exact format they will accept.

A word to the wise: Be sure to confer with your County Prosecuting Attorney before printing any petitions!

Contact information for County Elections Departments in Washington State is available on the Secretary of State's Elections & Voting web page.
Contact information for County Prosecuting Attorneys is available at the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

When petitions must be submitted will depend upon the process at the county:

• For a spring election, the County Commissioners must submit a resolution to the County Auditor at least 46 days before the election. The County Commissioners' office needs to be informed as to the requirements and to determine how much lead time is needed;
• The time needed for checking the signatures will have to come from the Elections Division of the County Auditor's Office. The Elections Division should be able to determine how much time they will need to check the signatures once the petition is submitted. Some factors that could lengthen the signature check process would include:
• Redistricting of legislative and congressional boundaries;
• Holding of a statewide special election (e.g., statewide tax increase proposition).
• The County Commissioner's time frame plus the County Auditor's time frame will determine the amount of time before the deadline when petitions must be submitted.

For filing and election dates, see the Washington Secretary of State's Elections Calendar.

Only those voters in the area to be annexed would vote on the proposal.
RCW 57.24.040

AGO 1956 No. 295 states that "… where a city and a county rural library district have joined together to establish and maintain a regional library pursuant to RCW 27.12.080, the city may condemn land for a situs for the library building within the city limits."

AGO 1954 No. 233 states that, according to the powers granted to library boards by RCW 27.12.210, although the library board has the power to purchase or lease property, it is not given any power to sell property.

AGO 1954 No. 233 states, "Since the board is given no statutory power to transfer title from itself to another, it cannot be done. Where such a power has not been granted by statute, the only way that power can be obtained is by amendment to said statutes."

Note: Opinion modified by AGO Opinion AGLO 1974 No. 101.

AGO Opinion AGLO 1974 No. 101 states that although a library district does not have the general power to sell its property, that "… does not mean, however, that when property is no longer needed for public use by such a district, it cannot be disposed of in some appropriate manner. … Indeed it would appear to be quite 'necessary for the orderly and efficient management and control of the library' for its board of trustees to have some mechanism for disposing of property it no longer needs. The intergovernmental disposition of property act, chapter RCW 39.33 provides one such mechanism, but it is entirely possible for the trustees to devise other mechanisms which would comply with the law regarding disposition of surplus property. It is our opinion, therefore, that a library district does have the power to sell its surplus property…. To this extent, AGO 1954 No. 233 should be deemed modified."

An informal AGO Opinion issued 5/8/1962, signed by Jane Dowdle Smith and addressed to Maryan E. Reynolds, states:

“We think it is clear that if the legislature had intended that library districts be liable for the costs incurred by the county in the formation election, it would have expressly provided therefor… We conclude, therefore, that a newly formed intercounty rural library district is not liable for the costs incurred in the formation election but that such costs must be borne by each county within the district. However, once the library district has been formed, the provisions of RCW 29.04.020, supra, become applicable to all other elections held by the district.”

RCW 29.04.020 has since been disposed, and the portion of code that now determines liability for election costs incurred by existing districts, such as existing intercounty rural library districts, is RCW 29A.04.410.

An informal AGO Opinion issued 8/9/1960, signed by Assistant Attorney General Jane Dowdle Smith and addressed to Maryan E. Reynolds, states:

“A primary election is not a special election… A primary election is not a general election… Accordingly, unless there is to be held a special election which is authorized by statute… the proposition must be placed upon the ballot at the general election.”

This conclusion is supported by AGO 59-60 No. 133, which finds that primary elections are neither general elections nor special elections for the purpose of setting school district levies.

See RCW 29A.36.071

“If the local governmental unit is a city or a town, or if the ballot title is for a referendum under RCW 35.13A.115, the concise statement must be prepared by the city or town attorney. If the local governmental unit is a county, the concise statement must be prepared by the prosecuting attorney of the county. If the unit is a unit of local government other than a city, town, or county, the concise statement must be prepared by the prosecuting attorney of the county within which the majority area of the unit is located.“

An informal AGO Opinion issued 9/1/1960, signed by Assistant Attorney General Herbert H. Fuller and addressed to Prosecuting Attorney Byron E. McClanahan, states:

“The statute does not require that the petition be signed by ten percent of voters of each county comprising the district but merely ten percent or more of the voters within the entire district. Thus, it is possible that the number of signatures necessary to place the proposition on the ballot could be secured within either one of the two counties concerned, and the requirements of the statute would be met.”

The statute in question is RCW 27.12.320.

An informal AGO Opinion issued 5/5/1987, signed by Assistant Attorney General Jerri Thomas and addressed to Mary Y. Moore, states:

“You have also asked whether the original district would automatically dissolve if the voters, using the petition/election method, turned down the proposal for an expanded district… In my opinion, the original district would not dissolve even if the expanded district vote was negative. The existing district would remain intact following a negative vote on expanding the district.”

An informal AGO Opinion issued 12/15/1994, signed by Assistant Attorney General Jean M. Wilkinson and addressed to Mary Y. Moore, states:

“Because neither RCW 27.12.470 (relating to rural partial-county libraries) nor RCW 27.12.355 – .395 (relating to annexation by rural county libraries) state that the municipal library assets transfer to the annexing rural county or partial-county library district, the common law rule… dictates that the annexation does not trigger a change in ownership of municipal library assets.”

An informal AGO Opinion issued 12/15/1994, signed by Assistant Attorney General Jean M. Wilkinson and addressed to Mary Y. Moore, states:

“When a rural county library district annexes a municipal library, the municipal library becomes ‘a part’ of the rural county library district. By operation of RCW 27.12.470, annexation by a rural partial-county library district has the same effect: the municipal library becomes ‘a part’ of the rural partial-county library district. In other words the municipal library ceases to exist as an independent entity. There is therefore no independent municipal library to be governed by the city or town board of library trustees… I know of no statutory reason for the city/town board of trustees to remain in existence. However, there is nothing to preclude a former municipal library trustee from appointment to the rural partial-county library district's board of trustees at such time as a vacancy exists.”

An informal AGO Opinion issued 12/14/2009, signed by Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey T. Even and addressed to State Senator Mike Hewitt, states:

“A code city may contract with a library district for a different range of library services than the library district provides within its own boundaries.…A code city and a library district may negotiate a mutually agreeable contract under which the library district would operate a library within the code city, that provides a range of library services that is less than the range of services that the district provides within its own boundaries. The negotiated cost of the services would not have to be based on the library district's current property tax levy rate.”

An informal AGO Opinion issued 12/14/2009, signed by Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey T. Even and addressed to State Senator Mike Hewitt, states:

“The library district may impose a nonresident fee on city residents who use library district facilities that are not provided under contract with the code city.”

An informal AGO Opinion issued 4/2/1952, signed by Assistant Attorney General Lyle L. Iversen and addressed to Maryan E. Reynolds, Washington State Librarian, states:

“It is our conclusion that property purchased by a rural county library district or an intercounty rural library district should be held in the name of the district and not that of the county… Rural county library districts and intercounty rural library districts are municipal corporations in their own right. As such they are authorized to acquire property and hold it in their own names. It is our opinion that such districts in acquiring property should take title in their own names and not in the names of the counties in which they lie.”