Johnson v. City of Spokane, 2428-III

• Decision Date: 13 April 1978
• Docket Number: No. 2428-III,2428-III
• Citation: 19 Wn.App. 722,577 P.2d 164
• Parties: Carl E. JOHNSON et ux., Appellants, v. CITY OF SPOKANE, Washington, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 722

19 Wn.App. 722

577 P.2d 164

Carl E. JOHNSON et ux., Appellants, v. CITY OF SPOKANE, Washington, Respondent.

No. 2428-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel One.

April 13, 1978.

David D. Kilpatrick, Spokane, for appellants.

Martin G. Weber, Lukins, Annis, Bastine, McKay & Van Marter, P. S., Richard Wrenn, City Counsel, Larry Winner, Asst. City Counsel, Spokane, for respondent.

MUNSON, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action for an order restraining the city from considering the petition for annexation of the land around Beacon Hill until the requirements of RCW 35.13.130 had been met and for a determination of whether the city's property could be included within the valuation determination to meet the 75 percent requirement of the statute, thus determining if the petition had been signed by the necessary 75 percent of the owners under RCW 35.13.130.

This case was submitted to the trial court on stipulated facts; those facts essential to this appeal are set out below.

Pursuant to RCW 35.13.125-.160, on February 17, 1977, a petition for annexation of land near Beacon Hill was filed with the Spokane City Clerk. The petition for annexation was signed by the five legal or equitable owners of 19 parcels of land (five additional parcels are not pertinent to this appeal). One of these owners is the City of Spokane. These 19 parcels comprise 95.3 percent of the land valuation ($69,670) and 76.6 percent of the total valuation of both land and improvements ($102,470). That portion of the 19 parcels owned by the City of Spokane is exempt from payment of general ad valorem property taxes under Washington Constitution Article 7, § 1 and RCW 84.36.010. If the value of the city-owned property subject to the petition were to be excluded from the computations, those persons signing the petition for annexation would represent 94.9 percent of the land valuation, but only 69.5 percent of the total valuation of land and improvements.

RCW 35.13.010 provides that property not already incorporated as part of a city or town may be annexed to the city or town to which it lies contiguous. Such annexation can be commenced by petitioning the city or town. RCW 35.13.125-.160. RCW 35.13.130 specifically provides in pertinent part:

(T)he petition must be signed by the owners of not less than seventy-five percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned.

The trial court concluded that the City of Spokane was an "owner," that the City of Spokane has a right to petition the city for annexation of property owned by it, and that the phrase "assessed valuation for general taxation of the property" contained within RCW 35.13.130 was merely the standard by which to determine the value of the property, but did not limit the property to be included in the calculations necessary for annexation. Plaintiff now appeals the trial court's determination. We conclude that for purposes of allowing the City of Spokane to petition for annexation, the City of Spokane is an "owner" under RCW 35.13.130.

In Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wash.2d 409, 357 P.2d 873 (1960), the court primarily dealt with the issue of which of two statutes on incorporation and annexation were applicable. After determining that the original statute was the applicable statute, because the later-enacted statute had been improperly enacted, the court briefly considered the question whether the Port of Tacoma had the authority to petition for annexation. The court stated:

Appellant's argument that the Port of Tacoma has no authority to petition the city for annexation of its own property is without merit. RCW chapter 53.08 endows such districts with power to own land, one of the attributes of which is the right to petition for annexation by a city. RCW 35.13.130.

Parosa v. Tacoma, supra at 417, 357 P.2d at 879. The version of that statute in effect at the time of the Parosa decision stated in pertinent part:

The petition shall be in writing, signed by the owners of not less than seventy-five percent (75%) in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned, . . .

(Italics ours.) Laws of 1945, ch. 128, § 3, p. 328. For purposes of this appeal, the version of that statute in effect at the time of Parosa is identical to that in effect now. RCW 35.21.010 gives the City of Spokane the power to own land; therefore, the City of Spokane, as an owner of land situated outside an incorporated city, has the right to petition for the annexation of that property under RCW 35.13.130. Parosa v. Tacoma, supra.

The phrase "value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned" in RCW 35.13.130 is the legislature's designation of the standard for determining if the owners of 75 percent of the land by value have signed the petition. It was necessary for the legislature to designate the criteria for determining value (here "the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property") in order to avoid disputes as to the applicable standard for valuation and to have fair and consistent valuations of all property readily available whenever there is a petition for annexation.

In addition, the phrase "value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property" does not require that the property actually be taxed. Cf. Fry v. Mayor and City Council of Sierra Vista, 11 Ariz.App. 490, 466 P.2d 41, 46 (1970). Although the property is exempt from taxation (RCW 84.36.010), RCW 84.40.175 requires the county assessor to list tax exempt property. The city's property, although tax exempt, is considered and dealt with as part of the general legislative scheme for real property taxation. The fact that the City of Spokane does not pay taxes is insufficient to exclude the City of Spokane as an owner under RCW 35.13.130. Cf. Fry v. Mayor & City Council of Sierra Vista, supra.

Plaintiff contended the legislation requiring the assessor to value the land is not applicable to property exclusively in the possession of the city. Before it was amended in...