Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 22 December 1960
• Docket Number: No. 35680,35680
• Citation: 57 Wn.2d 446,357 P.2d 863
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Respondent, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation; Gordon S. Clinton, as Mayor of the City of Seattle, C. G. Erlandson, as City Clerk of the City of Seattle; Melford E. Spiro, a resident ratepayer and taxpayer of the City of Seattle; Frank L. Gilbert, and Nicholas A. Maffeo, Appellants.

Page 446

57 Wn.2d 446

357 P.2d 863

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Respondent, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation; Gordon S. Clinton as Mayor of the City of Seattle, C. G. Erlandson, as City Clerk of the City of Seattle; Melford E. Spiro, a resident ratepayer and taxpayer of the City of Seattle; Frank L Gilbert, and Nicholas A. Maffeo, Appellants.

No. 35680.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Dec. 22, 1960.

A. C. Van Soelen, A. L. Newbould, Arthur Schramm, Sp. Asst. Corporation Counsel, Asst. Corporation Counsel, Seattle, for City of Seattle, Mayor and City Clerk.

Griffith Way, Seattle, for Spiro and Gilbert.

Nicholas A. Maffeo, Renton, for Nicholas A. Maffeo.

Preston, Thorgrimson & Horowitz, James R. Ellis, Edward Starin, and Eugene H. Sage, Seattle, for Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.

OTT, Judge.

The city councils of Kirkland and Bellevue, on April 21 and 22, 1958, respectively, adopted concurring resolutions for the creation of a metropolitan municipal corporation, as provided by Laws of 1957, chapter 213, p. 804, RCW 35.58. The function of the proposed corporation was limited to the establishment of a sewage disposal service in the city of Seattle and the areas surrounding Lake Washington, including the towns and cities of Bothell, Kirkland, Houghton, Yarrow Point, Hunts Point, Medina, Clyde Hill, Bellevue, Beaux Arts, Renton, and Mercer Island.

The board of commissioners of King county, upon receipt of the resolutions, in accordance with the provisions of the act, gave notice of the hearing to determine the boundaries which would be included in the election notice and referred to in the ballot title for the establishment of the metropolitan municipal corporation. June 10, 1958, the city of Renton, through its council, requested that it be excluded. June 16, 1958, the hearing to fix the proposed boundaries was held. June 23rd, the commissioners approved the boundaries of the corporation as proposed, which included the city of Renton. September 9, 1958, was set as the date for a special election for the approval or rejection by the electors residing in the area of the formation of the proposed regional metropolitan municipal corporation. 58,617 voters residing in the central city of Seattle voted for the formation and organization of the corporation; 41,703 voted against it. 15,693 voters residing outside of the central city voted in favor of the proposal, and 7,860 voted against it. Those voting in the city of Renton were 745 for and 1,204 against. The proposal having carried in both the central city and by combined vote of the outside precincts, as the act provides, the corporation was formed. The metropolitan municipal corporation will hereinafter be referred to as Metro.

April 23, 1959, Metro adopted a comprehensive sewage disposal plan for the region. In order for Metro to carry out the functions of sewage disposal, it was necessary to make arrangements with the central city for the joint use of some of its existing facilities, and to provide for terms upon which the service furnished by Metro would be paid. The comprehensive plan provided, inter alia, that the various municipal components of Metro would continue the collection of sewage; that Metro would process and dispose of the effluent after the components' collection service was accomplished; that Metro would pay the central city of Seattle $6,285,660 for the use of some of its existing disposal facilities; that the city would continue to own the facilities and continue to pay the principal and interest on outstanding bonded indebtedness therefor, and that the Metro disposal service charge would be paid by the central city, municipal components, and county residents, upon a certain formula.

When Metro presented the contract to the central city for the use of a part of its disposal facilities, the mayor and city clerk declined to execute it upon the ground that they questioned its validity.

Metro commenced this action against the city of Seattle, in which it sought an adjudication, under the declaratory judgments act, RCW 7.24.010 et seq., of the validity of the contract. Melford E. Spiro, a property owner and taxpayer residing within the corporate limits of the city of Seattle, Frank L. Gilbert, an owner of one of the city of Seattle's municipal sewerage revenue bonds 1959, Series 1, and Nicholas A. Maffeo, a property owner, resident, and taxpayer in the city of Renton, were granted leave to intervene as defendants.

The cause was tried to the court. From a judgment entered declaring the contract valid, the defendants have appealed.

The appellants' several assignments of error raise three major questions: (1) The validity of the election procedure for the formation of Metro, (2) the constitutionality of Laws of 1957, chapter 213, p. 804, authorizing the establishment of metropolitan municipal corporations, and (3) the validity of the contract between the city of Seattle and Metro, and the rights of the bondholders to whom certain sewage disposal revenues were previously pledged, in the event the contract should become effective.

(1) Was the election procedure for the formation of Metro valid?

The appellants' sole objection to the election procedure is that the special election ballot erroneously stated that the resolution establishing the boundaries of Metro had been adopted by the county commissioners on June 16, 1958, when, in fact, the resolution was adopted June 23, 1958.

Laws of 1957, chapter 213, § 9, p. 809, RCW 35.58.090, provides in part as follows:

'* * * The ballot proposition shall be in substantially the following form:

"Formation of Metropolitan Municipal Corporation

"Shall a metropolitan municipal corporation be established for the area described in a resolution of the board of commissioners of .......... county adopted on the ..... day of ....., 19 .., to perform the metropolitan functions of .......... (here insert the title of each of the functions to be authorized as set forth in the petition or initial resolution).

Yes ........ ()

No ........ ()" The suggested statutory form was followed precisely. The appellants do not assert that the boundaries were irregularly approved by the commissioners of King county, or that the description of the boundaries in the resolution and election notices was not identical. They contend that the voters were misled by the ballot title which stated that the boundaries were approved June 16th, when, in fact, they were not approved until June 23rd.

A ballot title must apprise a voter of the proposal being considered. In the ballot form quoted above, the legislature did not require that the proposed boundaries be set out by a metes and bounds description, but provided that the ballot title refer only to the commissioners' resolution which fixed the boundaries of the area for the purposes of the special election. A voter concerned only with the boundaries being considered is apprised of them by the election notice to which he responds in the exercise of his right of franchise. It is the resolution of the commissioners which fixes the boundaries to be voted upon. The date establishes only the day when the resolution was adopted. In the instant case, the irregularity in the ballot title as to the date when the boundaries were, in fact, approved by the commissioners was a minor one.

We have held that minor irregularities in the wording of a ballot title will not invalidate the election, if the electorate was not misled thereby. See State ex rel. Wright v. School Districts Nos. 45 and 13 of Kitsap County, 1931, 165 Wash. 440, 5 P.2d 1009, and cases cited therein; 3 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed.), 98, § 12.14. We do not believe that any voter was misled by this irregularity in the ballot title and, therefore, find no merit in this contention.

(2) Is Chapter 213, Laws of 1957, supra, an unconstitutional statute?

The appellants contend that the law creating Metro is a special, rather than a general, law because it is applicable only to the Lake Washington drainage basin, and, therefore, is in contravention of Art. II, § 28, and Art. XI, § 10, of our state constitution, which sections are directed against the enactment of legislation which favors one particular person, group or area to the exclusion of others. State ex rel. Collier v. Yelle, 1941, 9 Wash.2d 317, 115 P.2d 373; State ex rel. Hunt v. Tausick, 1911, 64 Wash. 69, 116 P. 651, 35 L.R.A.,N.S., 802.

The legislature declared its policy in regard to the passage of the act as follows:

'It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to provide for the people of the populous metropolitan areas in the state the means of obtaining essential services not adequately provided by existing agencies of local government. The growth of urban population and the movement of people into suburban areas has created problems of sewage and garbage disposal, water supply, transportation, planning, parks and parkways which extend beyond the boundaries of cities, counties and special districts. For reasons of topography, location and movement of population, and land conditions and development, one or more of these problems cannot be adequately met by the individual cities, counties and districts of many metropolitan areas.

'It is the purpose of this act to enable cities and counties to act jointly to meet these common problems in order that the proper growth and development of the metropolitan areas of the state may be assured and the health and welfare of the people residing therein may be secured.' Laws of 1957, chapter 213, § 1, p. 804, RCW 35.58.010.

Laws of 1957, chapter 213, § 3, p. 805, RCW 35.58.030, provides:

'Any area of the state containing two or more cities, at least one of which is a city of the first class, may organize as a metropolitan municipal corporation for the performance of certain functions, as provided in this act.'

...