Ronald Wastewater Dist. v. Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist.

• Decision Date: 15 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 97599-0,97599-0
• Citation: 196 Wash.2d 353,474 P.3d 547
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: RONALD WASTEWATER DISTRICT, a Washington municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, a Washington municipal corporation; Town of Woodway, a Washington municipal corporation; and Snohomish County, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondents, King County, a Washington municipal corporation, Petitioner, City of Shoreline, a Washington municipal corporation, Defendant.

196 Wash.2d 353

474 P.3d 547

RONALD WASTEWATER DISTRICT, a Washington municipal corporation, Petitioner,

v. OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, a Washington municipal corporation; Town of Woodway, a Washington municipal corporation; and Snohomish County, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondents,King County, a Washington municipal corporation, Petitioner,City of Shoreline, a Washington municipal corporation, Defendant.

No. 97599-0

Supreme Court of Washington.

Filed: October 15, 2020

Jennifer M. Stacy, Darren E. Carnell, King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 516 3rd Ave., Rm W400, Seattle, WA, 98104-2388, Verna P. Bromley, King County Prosecuting Attorneys Office, 500 4th Ave., Fl. 9, King County Administration Building, Seattle, WA, 98104-2316, Mark Gibson Stockdale, King County Courthouse, 500 4th Ave., Ste. 900, Seattle, WA, 98104-2316, Ann Marie Summers, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave., Ste. W554, Seattle, WA, 98104-2362, H. Ray Liaw, Duncan McGehee Greene, Sophia E. Amberson, Van Ness Feldman LLP, 719 2nd Ave., Ste. 1150, Seattle, WA, 98104-1700, for Petitioners.

Brian John Dorsey, Jessica Ann Kraft-Klehm, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 3000 Rockefeller Ave., Everett, WA, 98201-4046, Greg Alan Rubstello, Attorney at Law, 901 5th Ave., Ste. 3500, Seattle, WA, 98164-2059, Thomas M. Fitzpatrick, Philip Albert Talmadge, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick, 2775 Harbor Ave. Sw, Third Floor Ste. C, Seattle, WA, 98126-2138, for Respondents.

Terrence Ihor Danysh, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 701 5th Ave., Ste. 6100, Seattle, WA, 98104-7043, Margaret Jane King, Julie K Ainsworth-Taylor, City of Shoreline, 17500 Midvale Ave. N., Shoreline, WA, 98133-4905, Jeffrey Burton Taraday, Beth Ford, Sharon Elizabeth Cates, Lighthouse Law Group PLLC, 600 Stewart St., Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98101-1217, for Other Parties.

JOHNSON, J.

¶ 1 This case involves a dispute over control of sewerage service to Point Wells. Point Wells is located just north of the King County border, within the boundaries of Snohomish County and Olympic View Water and Sewer District (Olympic). We must determine the effect of a 1985 superior court order (1985 Order), which purports to annex the Point Wells service area from King County to Ronald Wastewater District (Ronald). Resolution of this issue entails interpretation of former Title 56 RCW (1985) and former RCW 36.94.410 -.440 (1985) to determine whether the 1985 court had authority to approve the transfer and annexation. The trial court held that the 1985 Order annexed Point Wells to Ronald. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that King County could not transfer annexation rights that it did not have. We affirm the Court of Appeals.

FACTS

¶ 2 This dispute focuses on two specific properties within Point Wells, the former Standard Oil petroleum plant and Daniel Briggs's residential property. Both are located within Snohomish County and Olympic. In addition, the Briggs property is located within the town of Woodway. For the purposes of this case, references to Point Wells include both properties, unless otherwise noted.

¶ 3 The sewer system subject to this dispute is known as the Richmond Beach sewer system (RBSS). Initially, RBSS was operated by King County Sewer District No. 3 (KCSD #3) and exclusively served King County. In 1970 and 1971, KCSD #3 contracted with Standard Oil to construct a lift station and provide sewer service to Standard's petroleum plant located within Point Wells. King County then requested permission from Olympic to provide water service to the Point Wells area. Olympic replied with "no objections to permitting the Department of Public Works, King County, to serve the lift station ... on Richmond Beach Drive, within our service area." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 912. In 1972, KCSD #3 also contracted with the property owners to provide sewer service to one lot on the Briggs property. Subsequently, Ronald contracted directly with the Briggs property owner to provide service to the additional lots.

¶ 4 In the 1980s, King County sought to divest its sewer operations and transfer them to local water and sewer districts. To facilitate its divestment plan, King County lobbied for the creation of the transfer annexation process, eventually codified as former RCW 36.94.410 -.440. LAWS OF 1984, ch. 147, § 1.

¶ 5 King County initiated the transfer of RBSS to Ronald per the newly established method under former RCW 36.94.410 -.440. In doing so, first, KCSD #3 properly transferred RBSS to King County. This transfer is not in dispute. Second, King County proceeded to transfer RBSS to Ronald. King County obtained permission from Chevron, the new property owner of the Point Wells petroleum plant. King County mailed notices and held public hearings for its ratepayers concerning the transfer to Ronald. Ronald and King County also adopted formal plans to provide service to the Point Wells area. King County also passed an ordinance authorizing the transfer.

¶ 6 King County and Ronald then executed a transfer agreement transferring RBSS and the "area served," which it defined as "those parcels of property within the boundaries described in Addendum A." CP at 8029. The addendum contained a legal description of Point Wells and expressly recognized that the area was within Snohomish County. The agreement also identified the transfer of contractual obligations. It stated, "The County has certain contractual rights and obligations in connection with the system. These rights and obligations arise under the agreements which are attached as Addenda C and D, and incorporated herein by this reference." CP at 1092. Attached as addenda were Chevron's consent to the transfer and KCSD #3's contractual agreement with Standard regarding ownership of the lift station and service over the petroleum plant area. The parties then filed a petition seeking the superior court's approval of the transfer.

¶ 7 After holding a hearing, the superior court issued the 1985 Order, which is the subject of our review. The order approved the transfer of the RBSS from King County to Ronald. The court found that the "transfer agreement is legally correct and that there are no owners of related indebtedness to be protected." CP at 1082. It also stated:

2. The transfer of the System is to be accomplished in accordance with the transfer agreement effective as of January 1, 1986.

3. As provided in the transfer agreement, the area served by the System shall be annexed to and become a part of the District on the effective date of the transfer.

CP at 1083. Ronald has exclusively served the Point Wells area since the transfer became effective in January 1986.

¶ 8 In 2009, the Snohomish County Council redesignated Point Wells as an urban center. The current property owner, BSRE Point Wells LP, began planning a large mixed-use urban development for the area. In 2010, Ronald incorporated the proposed development in its sewer plan. Snohomish County approved Ronald's 2010 sewer plan and incorporated it into its Growth Management Act (GMA), ch. 36.70A RCW, land use plan. In 2014, the city of Shoreline, located within King County, sought to assume Ronald and its service area. Snohomish County and Olympic raised questions over Ronald's service of Point Wells in proceedings with the Boundary Review Board (BRB). Olympic then proposed a sewer plan amendment to build new infrastructure and provide service to Point Wells. In 2016, the Snohomish County Council approved Olympic's amendment.

¶ 9 Ronald then filed this current action, in part, seeking a declaratory judgment to confirm its corporate boundary. Ronald claims that its corporate boundary includes Point Wells, based on the 1985 Order's valid annexation of the Point Wells service area to Ronald's district.¹ Olympic, Woodway, and Snohomish argued that the 1985 Order was erroneous and invalid. Both sets of parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The superior court granted Ronald's partial motion for summary judgment and declared that the 1985 Order lawfully transferred and annexed the area to Ronald. The court also determined that the 1985 Order was valid and binding as a judgment in rem.

¶ 10 Olympic and Woodway appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, determining that the 1985 Order was erroneous and void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals interpreted former RCW 36.94.420 (1985) and determined that the "area served" subject to transfer and annexation does not include areas beyond the transferring county's geographic boundary.

ANALYSIS

¶ 11 We review summary judgment orders de novo. Keck v. Collins , 184 Wash.2d 358, 370, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015). It is undisputed that the service territory within King County's boundary was validly transferred and annexed to Ronald. The issue is whether the Point Wells area was properly annexed; that is, who—Ronald or Olympic—has the right to provide sewer service to the Point Wells area. Point Wells has received sewer service from King County and Ronald but lies within the corporate boundaries of Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway. Olympic, Snohomish, and Woodway argue that to the extent that the order purports to annex Point Wells to Ronald, it is erroneous because King County could not transfer what it did not have. Ronald and King County ask us to uphold the 1985 Order based on the "first in time" principle and the authorization of sewer districts to operate across jurisdictions. We hold that to the extent that the 1985 Order annexed Point Wells to Ronald it is void because under the limited authority of former Title 56 RCW and former RCW 36.94.410 -.440, the court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction to adjudicate such an annexation.

I. Sewer district authority–former Title 56 RCW

¶ 12 First, we analyze the provisions within former Title 56 RCW to determine whether and when districts generally can annex territory within another jurisdiction. Sewer districts like Ronald and Olympic are governed by former ...