Kittitas Cnty. v. Wash. State Dep't of Transp.
| Decision Date | 21 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 52329-9-II,52329-9-II |
| Citation | 461 P.3d 1218,13 Wash.App.2d 79 |
| Parties | KITTITAS COUNTY, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Neil Alan Caulkins, Christopher Elliott Horner, Kittitas County Prosecutor, 205 W 5th Ave. Ste. 213, Ellensburg, WA, for Appellant.
Albert Henry Wang, Attorney at Law, Po Box 40113, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.
Kymberly Kathryn Evanson, Pacifica Law Group LLP, 1191 2nd Ave. Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Wa State Association of Counties (WSAC)
PUBLISHED OPINION
Worswick, J. ¶1 Kittitas County brought a declaratory judgment action to require the Department of Transportation (Department) to pay an assessment for noxious weed control efforts in the county. Both parties moved for summary judgment, disputing, among other things, the type of fee this assessment is. The superior court granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment dismissal and denied the County’s motion. The County appeals.1
¶2 We hold that a weed assessment is a special assessment and that the County lacks the explicit authority to impose the weed assessments against the Department under chapters 17.04 RCW2 and 17.10 RCW.3 Consequently, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3 Noxious weeds4 interfere with native biodiversity, threaten agriculture, impede industry, and endanger human health. To combat these evils, chapter 17.10 RCW, created a state noxious weed control board. RCW 17.10.030. This board maintains a state list of noxious weeds. WAC 16-750-005, - 011, - 015. Legislation also authorizes the creation of county noxious weed districts and county noxious weed control boards. RCW 17.04.010 ; RCW 17.10.020.
¶4 Weed districts were created to prevent, destroy, or exterminate noxious weeds. RCW 17.04.010. Weed districts hire inspectors who are empowered to adopt rules to this effect, to carry out these rules, and to inspect lands for noxious weeds. RCW 17.04.150. To fund weed districts, district directors annually determine the district’s budget and "classify the property therein in proportion to the benefits to be derived from the operations of the district ... and shall levy assessments to be collected with the general taxes of the county." RCW 17.04.240.
¶5 The County has five weed districts. Each district is responsible for noxious weed control within its boundaries. However, all five districts entered into a contract with the County such that the Kittitas County Noxious Weed Control Board actually carries out the districts’ duties as well as its own duties.
¶6 County noxious weed control boards exist to limit the economic loss and adverse effects of noxious weeds on Washington’s resources. RCW 17.10.007. Chapter 17.10 RCW provides two ways to fund county noxious weed control boards. First, a county can "appropriate money from the county general fund." RCW 17.10.240(1)(b). Second, a "county legislative authority may, in lieu of a tax, levy an assessment against the land." RCW 17.10.240(1)(a). To levy this assessment against land, a county noxious weed control board categorizes lands into classes based on the benefit received, and then assesses an amount based on the land’s classification. RCW 17.10.240(1)(a).5 However, if a class of land does not receive any benefits from noxious weed control, then the board cannot levy an assessment. RCW 17.10.240(1)(a).
¶7 Here, the Board administers the County’s noxious weed control program. The Board maintains the County-specific noxious weed list and weed control regulations. The Board also oversees staff who inspect lands, offers technical assistance and education to landowners, and develops programs to assist landowners in achieving compliance with noxious weed statutes.6 These statutes impose three duties upon property owners to control the spread of noxious weeds:
(1) eliminate all class A noxious weeds, (2) control and prevent the spread of all class B noxious weeds listed for control in that region, and (3) control and prevent the spread of all class B and C noxious weeds listed on the county weed list as local priorities. RCW 17.10.140.
¶8 Depending on the location of a parcel of land, that land is subject to either a district or a Board weed assessment. Here, each weed district levies a flat amount per landowner or per parcel.7 The assessments for weed districts 1 through 5 range between $10.50 and $35.00 per year.
¶9 The Board also imposes weed assessments. Regarding Board weed assessments, the county commissioners adopt land classifications and assessment amounts under RCW 17.10.240. The County classifies land as forestland, incorporated lands, and all other lands. These three classifications are assessed at either a per parcel minimum amount or a per acre amount, whichever amount was higher.
¶10 The County treasurer collects the weed assessments on behalf of the weed districts and the Board. Land owners receive property tax statements that include the weed assessment. In the past, the County levied, and the Department paid, the weed assessment on Department-owned lands.
¶11 As owners of state land, state agencies are specifically required (1) to control noxious weeds on their lands and cooperate with the county noxious weed boards, (2) comply with chapter 17.10, regardless of noxious weed control efforts on adjacent lands, and (3) replace noxious weeds with native forage plants when conducting a planned project. RCW 17.10.145.
¶12 In Kittitas County, the Department’s employees operate its weed removal program. Every year, the Department works with the County to set priorities and to plan the treatment of noxious weeds. In 2017, the Department recorded approximately 1,400 hours of labor treating 940 acres for weed control in Kittitas County. In 2017, the Department’s noxious weed efforts in Kittitas County totaled $115,780.
¶13 Not every county levies weed assessments against the Department. In 2017, Kittitas County levied $388.72 in weed assessments against the Department. In 2018, this amount was $375.60. In an effort to be consistent across the state, the Department stopped paying all weed assessments in 2017, claiming that the weed assessments could not be levied against it.
¶14 The County filed a declaratory judgment action in Kittitas County Superior Court to compel the Department to pay the assessment. Venue was transferred to Thurston County, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.
¶15 At summary judgment, the County argued that the plain language of chapters 17.04 and 17.10 RCW created a funding mechanism of rates and charges, exercised through the police powers. The Department argued that it did not have to pay the weed assessments because they are special assessments. It argued that special assessments must be explicitly authorized and can only be levied against land that receives a special benefit. It claimed that neither exists here. The County argued in reply that RCW 17.04.240 and RCW 17.10.240 create a payment in lieu of taxes (PILT).
¶16 The trial court granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment dismissal and denied the County’s motion for summary judgment. The County appeals.
ANALYSIS
¶17 We review motions for summary judgment de novo. Okeson v. City of Seattle , 150 Wash.2d 540, 548-49, 78 P.3d 1279 (2003). Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). Here, there are no issues of material fact. Instead, the parties disagree on the statutory scheme and funding mechanism of chapters 17.04 and 17.10 RCW, which are issues of statutory construction.
¶18 We review issues of statutory construction de novo. Cent. Puget Sound Reg’l Transit Auth. v. WR-SRI 120th N. LLC , 191 Wash.2d 223, 233, 422 P.3d 891 (2018). We interpret statutes to give effect to the legislature’s intent. Cherry v. Municipality of Metro. Seattle , 116 Wash.2d 794, 799, 808 P.2d 746 (1991). In construing a statute, we may look to the statute’s legislative history, context, related provisions, amendments, and the statutory scheme as a whole. State v. Evergreen Freedom Found. , 192 Wash.2d 782, 789, 432 P.3d 805 (2019) ; Cent. Puget Sound Reg’l Transit Auth. , 191 Wash.2d at 234, 422 P.3d 891. Each word in a statute is to be given meaning. HomeStreet, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue , 166 Wash.2d 444, 452, 210 P.3d 297 (2009). Whenever possible, we do not interpret a statute to render portions meaningless or superfluous. HomeStreet , 166 Wash.2d at 452, 210 P.3d 297.
¶19 The purpose of noxious weed control is to limit economic loss and other adverse effects of noxious weeds on this state’s resources. RCW 17.10.007. The legislature intended this chapter to be liberally construed, and that the statute be limited only by specific provisions of the chapter, or other state or federal law. RCW 17.10.007. ¶20 Originally enacted in 1969, the legislature substantially amended chapter 17.10 RCW in 1997. LAWS OF 1997, ch.353, §§ 1-36. The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board requested a legislative update to the chapter that was ultimately enacted. Regarding the county board funding provisions in RCW 17.10.240(1), the 1997 update removed the word "special" from two provisions in the following manner: (1) "Control of weeds is a special benefit to the lands within any such section," and (2) "PROVIDED, That if no special benefits should be are found to accrue to a class of land, a zero assessment may be levied." LAWS OF 1997, ch.353, § 27.
¶21 The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board explained this change in a memorandum accompanying its requested legislative update. It states:
The state weed law requires that...
To continue reading
Request your trial