King County Water Dist. No. 54 v. King County Boundary Review Bd.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1976
• Docket Number: No. 44043,No. 54,54,44043
• Citation: 87 Wn.2d 536,554 P.2d 1060
• Parties: In the Matter of the Proposed Assumption of King County Water Districtby the City of Des Moines, Washington. KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 54, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD and City of Des Moines, Respondents. William H. BERNARD et al., Additional Appellants, v. KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD and City of Des Moines, Respondents.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 536

87 Wn.2d 536

554 P.2d 1060

In the Matter of the Proposed Assumption of King County

Water District No. 54 by the City of Des Moines,

Washington.

KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 54, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD and City of Des Moines,

Respondents.

William H. BERNARD et al., Additional Appellants, v. KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD and City of Des Moines, Respondents.

No. 44043.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Sept. 30, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1976.

Robert J. Hall, John H. Rayback, Seattle, for appellants.

Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Walter E. Webster, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, Robert J. Verzani, Federal Way, for respondents.

UTTER, Associate Justice.

Acting pursuant to RCW 35.13A, the City of Des Moines took steps to assume the jurisdiction, facilities and assets of King County Water District No. 54. The proposed assumption was submitted to the King County Boundary Review Board, as required by RCW 36.93, and the board approved the proposal. The board's decision was in turn appealed to the Superior Court by the water district and residents of the district. District No. 54 sought reversal on the grounds that the Boundary Review Board violated the appearance of fairness doctrine and failed to comply with certain provisions of RCW 36.93. Additional appellants claimed that, as applied to the circumstances of this case, RCW 35.13A was constitutionally deficient. The Superior Court upheld the action of the board and we affirm its judgment.

Property located within the boundaries of respondent City of Des Moines, with one minor exception, is served by water districts Nos. 54 and 75, the latter serving the largest area. Of the 400 acres encompassed by district No. 54, approximately 345 acres are within the City of Des Moines. In September 1972, the city council adopted ordinance No. 313 declaring its intention to acquire and operate a water system, a function authorized by RCW 35.92. This proposition was submitted to the voters at a city election and approved. Acting under RCW 35.13A, the city council, in ordinance No. 320, determined to assume the jurisdiction, facilities and assets of appellant water district No. 54, 'subject to all financial, statutory, or contractual obligations of the district for the security or performance of which such property may have been pledged.' The ordinance, paralleling the language of RCW 35.13A.020, made the city's power of management and collection of charges subject 'to any outstanding indebtedness . . . of the district payable from taxes, assessments or revenues of any kind or nature and to any other contractual obligations of the district.' As of December 31, 1971, the long-term indebtedness of the district consisted of general obligation bonds in the amount of $131,000 and revenue bonds in the amount of $119,000.

The city's proposed assumption of district No. 54 was then submitted to respondent King County Boundary Review Board. See RCW 36.93.090--.100. A public hearing was held on February 22, 1973, at which appellants and other persons commented on the proposal. The matter came before the board at its meeting of March 8 and was subsequently approved by the board in its Resolution and Hearing Decision adopted by a vote of 7 to 2 on March 29, 1973.

I

This case presents an example of the authority of the state legislature to alter the forms of local government by reducing the number of fragmented and overlapping jurisdictions, to make local government more efficient and more responsive. In recent decades the special district form of government has been widely used to solve some of the problems generated by rapid growth in metropolitan areas. See J. Bollens, Special District Governments in the United States 48--52 (1961). These limited function entities were created to provide needed services which local general government was unable to provide, and, in some instances, to circumvent state limitations on local government indebtedness. See, e.g., Makielski, The Special District Problem in Virginia, 55 Va.L.Rev. 1182, 1185--89 (1969); Rafalko, Overlapping Districts Versus Municipal Authorities in the Area of Urban Redevelopment, 3 San Diego L.Rev. 24 (1966). The proliferation of special districts, however, generated problems of overlapping boundaries, increased tax burdens and 'short-sighted and inefficient government' because their functions are often not coordinated with overlapping or adjoining government entities. R. LeGates, California Local Agency Formation Commissions 7 (1970); see Generally, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1 Substate Regionalism and the Federal System, Regional Decision Making: New Strategies for Substate Districts 19--47, 353--63 (1973).

In this state, the legislature has found rapid increase in the number of local government units 'affect(s) adversely the quality and quantity and cost of municipal services furnished, the financial integrity of certain municipalities, the consistency of local regulations, and many other incidents of local government.' RCW 36.93.010. The legislature also recognized that competition among local jurisdictins for unincorporated territory has a 'disorganizing effect . . . on land use' patterns. RCW 36.93.010. See also Cal. Gov't Code § 54774 (West Supp.1976). To remedy these and other problems, the legislature established a Boundary Review Board in most counties. RCW 36.93.030. It also provided mechanisms for the consolidation of government units, See RCW 35.10; the merger of limited function districts, See RCW 57.36, 57.40; and the assumption by a city of special purpose districts lying partially within the city, See RCW 35.13A.

The principles governing the legislature's authority to institute such reforms, including that sought to be accomplished in the present case, are well established. Respondent City of Des Moines, a third-class city at the time of events giving rise to this litigation occurred (See RCW 35.01.039; RCW 35.24), and appellant water district No. 54, a special purpose district formed and operated under RCW Title 57, are both municipal corporations. Each is 'a body politic established by law as an agency of the state . . . to regulate and administer the local and internal affairs of the incorporated city, town, or district.' Lauterbach v. Centralia, 49 Wash.2d 550, 554, 304 P.2d 656, 659 (1956). See also 1 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations §§ 2.13, 2.23 (3d rev. ed. 1971). As political subdivisions of the state, municipal corporations are subordinate to the legislature which, limited only by he constitution, has absolute control over the entities it has created, including the geographical extent of their jurisdiction and the powers they may exercise. Washington State Board Against Discrimination v. Board of Directors, 68 Wash.2d 262, 269, 412 P.2d 769 (1966); Kitsap County v. Bremerton, 46 Wash.2d 362, 368, 281 P.2d 841 (1955); State ex rel. Bd. of Comm'nrs v. Clausen, 95 Wash. 214, 222--23, 163 P. 744 (1917); See Massie v. Brown, 84 Wash.2d 490, 492, 527 P.2d 476 (1974).

The state legislature possesses this power because, unlike the federal constitution which is a grant of power to Congress, the state constitution is a limitation on legislative powers. Robb v. Tacoma, 175 Wash. 580, 586--87, 28 P.2d 327 (1933). The power of the legislature over political subdivisions of the state is plenary unless restrained by the constitution. State ex rel. Barlow v. Kinnear, 70 Wash.2d 482, 486, 423 P.2d 937 (1967); Board Against Discrimination v. Board of Directors, supra, 68 Wash.2d at 269, 412 P.2d 769; See 2 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 4.03 Et seq. (3d rev. ed. 1966).

II

The first group of questions presented by this appeal concerns the proceedings and decision of the King County Boundary Review Board. Appellant asserts alleged conversations between a member of the board and persons associated with other water systems violates the appearance of fairness doctrine. Under that principle, members of commissions having the role of conducting fair and impartial fact-finding hearings must, as far as practicable, be objective, be free of entangling influences, and execute their duties with the appearance, as well as the reality, of fairness. Buell v. Bremerton, 80 Wash.2d 518, 523, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972). See Swift v. Island County, 87 Wash.2d 348, 552 P.2d 175 (1976). The doctrine applies to invalidate decisions taken where an interest is shown which might have substantially influenced a member even though that interest did not actually affect his decision. Narrowsview Preservation Ass'n v. Tacoma, 84 Wash.2d 416, 420, 526 P.2d 897 (1974).

Assuming the doctrine applies in these circumstances, appellant's contention must be rejected for two reasons. First, the record contains no indication of the contents of the ex parte discussions and does not even show that such conversations took place. ¹ Second, even assuming appellant's factual allegations to be true, no violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine is established. At the March 8, 1973, meeting of the Boundary Review Board, Mr. Royal, a board member, is said to have mentioned his discussions about the proposed assumption with an employee of the Seattle Water Department and a commissioner of water district No. 75. Appellant does not know the contents of these conversations nor does it suggest any partiality or entangling influences on the part of Mr. Royal. There is no suggestion of any interest of the member which could be affected by assumption of the district's operation by the city. Thus, these circumstances reflect no more than a 'mere acquaintance with, or casual business dealings in a minimal sense' with the Seattle Water Department employee and the district No. 75 commissioner. See Narrowsview Preservation Ass'n v. Tacoma, supra at 421, 526 P.2d 897. Even under appellant's version of the facts, there is nothing from which we could conclude that...