Edmonds School Dist. No. 15 v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 40120

Decision Date11 February 1970
Docket NumberNo. 40120,40120
Citation77 Wn.2d 609,465 P.2d 177
PartiesEDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, a municipal corporation, Respondent.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Williams, Strong, Thomson & Cole, Curtis P. Thomson, Edmonds, for appellant.

Jordan, Adair, Kasperson & Hennessey, William F. Hennessey, Seattle, for respondent.

Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Thomas C. McKinnon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, amicus curiae.

HALE, Judge.

A kind of sibling rivalry in governmental affairs brings the Edmonds School District and the City of Mountlake Terrace here on a declaratory judgment suit. The school district's claim of sovereign immunity from the city's building code is met by the city's equally vehement claim of sovereign authority to enforce the code. Failing to obtain in the superior court a declaratory judgment that it need not comply with the building code, the district now appeals from a judgment favoring its intergovernmental rival.

Edmonds School District No. 15, a district of the first class, has several incorporated municipalities within its boundaries. It intends to enlarge its high school in Mountlake Terrace, a city of the third class in Snohomish County, by constructing an addition to the building. Acting according to its regular procedures, the school district retained architects who in turn prepared plans and specifications for the addition to Mountlake Terrace High School. These plans, insofar as existing law requires, were duly approved as complying with state requirements. Contracts were awarded on competitive bids and on August 16, 1966, the district gave the successful contractor a 'Statement of Intent' that he could begin construction.

The defendant city, through its police chief, then notified the district and the building contractor that no building permit had been issued by the city; that to construct an addition to a building within the city's corporate limits without a permit constituted a misdemeanor violation of the city's building code and would result in the arrest and prosecution of the contractor; and that the proposed addition would violate the minimum setback requirements prescribed by the City of Mountlake Terrace's building code. This warning brought the building project to a halt.

The school district brings this suit for a declaratory judgment asking that ordinance No. 391, the building code of the City of Mountlake Terrace, be held inapplicable to and not binding upon the school district in the construction of its high school addition. From a summary judgment denying this relief and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the district appeals.

Each party claims superior rights over the other deriving from their common source of governmental power, the sovereign state. They present two main questions: Has the state designated which of the two agencies should exercise its sovereign authority with respect to building permits and minimum setback requirements? Is there an irreconcilable dichotomy between the delegation to the school district of the sovereign's constitutional duty to educate the children of the state and the city's exercise of the police power in adopting and enforcing a building code?

Are the two sets of delegated powers in conflict? The school district says that the city, in forcing compliance with its building code, is transgressing and trespassing upon its powers and duties as an agency of the sovereign state, to build, operate and maintain public high schools. The district's function of providing the land, materials and designs for school buildings cannot, it contends, be lawfully preempted nor frustrated in any way by a municipality any more than a city could enforce its standards upon the sovereign state against its will.

Education is one of the paramount duties of the state. The duty and power to educate the people are not only inherent qualities of sovereignty but are expressly made an attribute of sovereignty in the State of Washington by the state constitution. Const. art. 9, §§ 1, 2. The state exercises its sovereign powers and fulfills its duties of providing education largely by means of a public school system under the direction and administration of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education, school districts and county school boards.

School districts are, in law, municipal corporations with direct authority to establish, maintain and operate public schools and to erect and maintain buildings for that and allied purposes. RCW 28.58. In essence, a school district is a corporate arm of the state established as a means of carrying out the state's constitutional duties (RCW 28.57.135) and exercising the sovereign's powers in providing education. The state has thus made the local school district its corporate agency for the administration of a constitutionally required system of free public education. State ex rel. Dupont-Fort Lewis School Dist. No. 7, Pierce County v. Bruno, 62 Wash.2d 790, 384 P.2d 608 (1963); Briscoe v. School Dist. No. 123, Grays Harbor County, 32 Wash.2d 353, 201 P.2d 697 (1949); School Dist. No. 37, Clark County, Wash., v. Isackson, 92 F.2d 768 (9th Cir.1937). The state now requires school districts to have the plans and specifications, including those features pertaining to heating, lighting, ventilating and safety, approved by the county superintendent of schools before entering into any school building construction contracts. RCW 28.58.301.

But in other spheres of governmental activity, the state has allocated some of its sovereign powers and responsibilities to cities, too. Under Const. art. 11, § 11, a city may make and enforce all police and sanitary regulations within its limits which do not conflict with general laws. By statute, cities are charged with the sovereign exercise of the police power to maintain peace and good government and to provide for the general welfare of their inhabitants through law not inconsistent with the constitution and statutes of the state. RCW 35.24.290(18). A city and other kinds of municipal corporations, too, are agencies of the state to accomplish these ends. Columbia Irrigation Dist. v. Benton County, 149 Wash. 234, 270 P. 813 (1928). Among these police powers, of course, is the capability of adopting and enforcing building codes. Just as the state has vested in the state superintendent, state board, and the school districts many of its attributes of sovereignty pertaining to education, it has done the same to incorporated cities with respect to the general police powers, among which are zoning and building regulations.

The City of Mountlake Terrace cannot, under existing statutes, supersede, set aside, invalidate or impair the educational processes of or limit the standards prescribed by the state for the operation of the public schools (State ex rel. School Dist. No. 37 of Clark County v. Clark County, 177 Wash. 314, 31 P.2d 897 (1934)), for that would be an infringement upon state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Wood v. Battle Ground School Dist.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • July 27, 2001
    ...law. See RCW 28A.315.005(2) (local school districts are political subdivisions of the state); Edmonds Sch. Dist. No. 15 v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 77 Wash.2d 609, 611-12, 465 P.2d 177 (1970). A qualified privilege may be lost if abused, and the defamation plaintiff must show abuse by cle......
  • Tunstall ex rel. Tunstall v. Bergeson
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • July 27, 2000
    ...of Public Instruction, State Board of Education, school districts and county school boards." Edmonds Sch. Dist. No. 15 v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 77 Wash.2d 609, 611, 465 P.2d 177 (1970). Our case law clearly confirms the broad power of the Legislature to define educational opportunity f......
  • Bellevue School Dist. No. 405 v. Brazier Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1984
    ...71 (1978); State ex rel. Dupont-Fort Lewis Sch. Dist. 7 v. Bruno, 62 Wash.2d 790, 384 P.2d 608 (1963); Edmonds Sch. Dist. 15 v. Mountlake Terrace, 77 Wash.2d 609, 465 P.2d 177 (1970). Accord, Unified Sch. Dist. 490 v. Celotex Corp., 6 Kan.App.2d 346, 629 P.2d 196 (1981); Dunn v. W.F. Jameso......
  • DeFunis v. Odegaard
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1973
    ...186, 155 P. 783 (1916), but is addressed only to the 'common schools.' (Article 9, § 2). See, e.g., Edmonds School Dist. 15 v. Mountlake Terrace, 77 Wash.2d 609, 611, 465 P.2d 177 (1970); Newman v. Schlarb, 184 Wash. 147, 152--154, 50 P.2d 36 (1935); State ex rel. School Dist. 37 v. Clark C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT