Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 7
| Citation | 97 Wn.2d 804,650 P.2d 193 |
| Decision Date | 02 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | 48442-2,No. 7,A,48417-1,Nos. 47895-3,7,s. 47895-3 |
| Parties | HILLIS HOMES, INC., a Washington corporation, Respondent, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, and Snohomish County Fire Districtppellants, v. Jack W. CORY, David A. MacBryer, William H. Carlson; Carmac, a partnership; Carmac Company, Inc., a Washington corporation, Respondents, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY; William C. Riker, Jr., Chairman of the San Juan County Board of Commissioners; Eleanor Howard, San Juan County Commissioner; James Klauder, San Juan County Commissioner; and Colonel Sorenson, San Juan County Planning Director, Appellants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Russ Juckett, Snohomish County Prosecutor, Julia A. Gibb, Sue A. Tanner, Deputy Pros. Attys., Cogdill, Deno & Millikan, Brian C. Dale, Everett, E. H. Knapp, Jr., San Juan County Prosecutor, Friday Harbor, Buck & Gordon, P. S., Joel M. Gordon, Seattle, for appellants.
Edward Heavey, Everett, Carla J. Higginson, Friday Harbor, Diamond & Sylvester, John W. Hempelmann, Paul Sikora, Seattle, for respondents.
Consolidated appeals from Snohomish and San Juan Counties challenge the validity of county ordinances which impose fees on new residential subdivisions and housing proposals. We hold that such fees are taxes and that the Legislature has not granted to the counties authority to impose such taxes. Accordingly, the fees are invalid.
Both Snohomish and San Juan Counties imposed fees on new residential developments in response to financial difficulties precipitated by significant population increases within the Counties. We will outline the measures taken by each County before considering the facts which gave rise to the appeals before us.
At public hearings in late 1978 and early 1979, residents of Snohomish County voiced concern about the adequacy of county services such as parks, roads, fire protection, police services, and school facilities. New developments in the County and the concomitant population increase had strained existing services, and increased County expenditure was necessary to meet the new demand. In response to these concerns, the County adopted an "Interim Growth Management Policy," which authorized the imposition of fees on new subdivisions for parks, schools, roads, and fire protection. The ordinance adopting this policy was subsequently invalidated on procedural grounds. Thereafter, the County adopted Snohomish County Code Title 26A, which established park service areas and required a payment of $250 per lot for park fees as a condition of plat approval. The fees are required to be used for land acquisition or park development within the park service area in which the subdivision is located. The County adopted an informal procedure whereby it required, as a condition of plat approval, payment of similar fees for school facilities and fire protection. These fees are to be applied to the school and fire districts within which the subdivision is located.
In response to financial pressures caused by rapid residential growth in the County, the San Juan County Commissioners adopted a similar measure. In December 1979, the County adopted Resolution 274, which imposes "extended use fees" on all residential land division and housing proposals in the county. Fees are assessed against each lot to pay for the increased demand on solid waste disposal facilities, parks, roads, and sheriff's services, unless adequate capacity exists to service the proposed development. The resolution requires that all fees collected be deposited in special accounts, and use of the fees is restricted to capital improvements which will benefit the geographic area from which the payment is made. The resolution provides that the County will not issue permits or accept filings in respect of property until the fees are paid.
The plaintiffs in the consolidated cases before us have been required by the Counties to pay fees pursuant to these measures. Hillis Homes sought to subdivide 9.15 acres located near the Everett city limits into 44 single family lots. The property is within the Mukilteo School District and Snohomish County Fire District 11. As a condition of approval of its proposed plat, Hillis Homes was required to pay a $250 fee per lot for county park purposes and to reach an agreement with the Mukilteo School District and Snohomish County Fire District 11 for the payment of reasonable fees to offset increased costs attributable to the proposed development. Hillis Homes refused to pay the fees and this suit ensued.
Consolidated with the Snohomish County action are two actions from San Juan County. The first arose from an application by two developers, David A. MacBryer and William H. Carlson, for County approval of an 18-lot residential subdivision on Orcas Island. The county commissioners gave preliminary approval to the project. However, the County planning department refused to forward to the county commissioners its report recommending final approval until "expanded use fees" pursuant to Resolution 274 were paid.
The developers paid the fees so as to receive final approval of their project and subsequently brought an action challenging the validity of Resolution 274.
The second San Juan County action was brought by Jack W. Cory. Cory purchased a piece of land on which he intended to build a new home for his family. He was informed by the San Juan planning department that no building permit or any other type of permit would be issued to him until he paid the expanded use fee claimed by the County under Resolution 274. Cory thereupon filed a lawsuit challenging the resolution. He subsequently purchased a second piece of property and was informed that the county would not accept recordation of this property until the expanded use fee was paid on his earlier purchase. Cory paid $390 in expanded use fees and the second sale was completed.
We hold that, although characterized by the Counties as fees, the payments demanded pursuant to the ordinances before us are taxes, rather than fees. No express grant of authority to impose such taxes has been made by the legislature. The "fees" imposed upon residential developments in Snohomish and San Juan Counties are therefore without authority and invalid.
The record is replete with evidence of the increased costs imposed on counties by new residential developments. We are sympathetic to the plight of counties faced with the obligation of providing services to a rapidly growing population and hampered by lack of revenue. However, no matter how desperate the needs of the counties, they remain creatures of the constitution and the legislature. Const. art. 11, § 4. Their powers are limited to those granted them by the constitution and legislature, expressly or by implication. Our review of the validity of counties' actions must therefore be an inquiry into whether those actions are authorized. If the legislature has not authorized the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. City of Seattle
...on new residential developments as offsets to increased service costs and for the construction of park land. Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cy., 97 Wash.2d 804, 650 P.2d 193 (1982). This court in Hillis Homes held the development fees were invalid taxes (because their primary purpose was t......
-
Harbour Village Apts. v. City of Mukilteo
...legislative pronouncement allowing for the tax in order for the tax to be valid." (citations omitted)); Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 97 Wash.2d 804, 808, 650 P.2d 193 (1982). The trial court is reversed, the RDU fee is invalidated, and this case is remanded to the trial court for......
-
City of Wenatchee, Corp. v. Chelan Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, Corp.
...¶ 40 To make clear the distinction, we examine two cases—Citizens, 99 Wash.2d 339, 662 P.2d 845, and Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 97 Wash.2d 804, 650 P.2d 193 (1982)—that are cited in Algona and concern the constitutional requirement of express authorization that applies to any g......
-
King Cnty. v. King Cnty. Water Districts Nos. 20, 45, 49, 90, 111, 119, 125
...the legislature. Ski Acres, Inc. v. Kittitas County, 118 Wash.2d 852, 855, 827 P.2d 1000 (1992) (citing Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 97 Wash.2d 804, 809, 650 P.2d 193 (1982) ). ¶15 Fourth, water-sewer districts, which are special purpose local governments, have only those powers ......
-
Making Room: Why Inclusionary Zoning Is Permissible Under Washington's Tax Preemption Statute and Takings Framework
...Mun. Code § 22.210.050 (1985)). 47. 108 Wash. 2d at 24, 735 P.2d at 675. 48. 113 Wash. 2d at 409, 780 P.2d at 842. 49. 97 Wash. 2d 804, 650 P.2d 193 (1982). 50. San Telmo Assocs., 108 Wash. 2d at 24, 735 P.2d at 674-75. 51. Hillis Homes, 97 Wash. 2d at 809, 650 P.2d at 195 (quoting Haugen v......
-
Takings Law, Lucas, and the Growth Management Act
...would be) the source of the social problem, it cannot be said that he has been singled out unfairly. Id. at 20. 311. 97 Wash. 2d 804, 650 P.2d 193 312. Id. at 806-07, 650 P.2d at 194. 313. Id. at 810. 650 P.2d at 196. 314. 108 Wash. 2d 20, 735 P.2d 673 (1987). 315. Id. at 24, 735 P.2d at 67......
-
The Growth Management Revolution in Washington: Past, Present, and Future
...San Telmo Assocs. v. Seattle, 108 Wash. 2d 20, 24, 735 P.2d 673, 675 (1987); Hillis Homes v. Snohomish County, 97 Wash. 2d 804, 809-10, 650 P.2d 193,195-96 83. See Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.020 (1992). See also R/L Assocs., Inc. v. Seattle, 113 Wash. 2d 402, 407, 780 P.2d 838, 841 (1989). 84.......
-
Chemical Bank v. Washington Public Power Supply System: an Aberration in Washington's Application of the Ultra Vires Doctrine
...143. Finch v. Matthews, 74 Wash. 2d 161, 176, 443 P.2d 833, 842 (1968). 144. See Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 97 Wash. 2d 804, 650 P.2d 193 (1982) (court invalidated fees on new residential developments to pay for services necessitated by population increases); In re Seattle, 96 ......