on point and when it's decided any day now we expect that it will fully dispose of all these issues from the washington state supreme court's perspective i indicate again the facts are are so compelling when similar to this case obviously you can look at the lower court opinion in jayne's you can look at other decisions of the washington supreme court an appellate court's if it will help you find how you think the washington supreme court is going to end up on this issue and we think that looking at all the case law it's a pretty safe that at least our contention that the washington state supreme court is going to affirm the result in james because the court can act based we think our right just as we think that the district court in our case got it honor we think that all the case law points to a certain result that obviously the supreme court of washington will do whatever it's going to do reasons my question is wouldn't you be the are leaving frankly your honor i think  mean i don't know what the supreme court is going to say but i do think that it's appropriate for the supreme court of washington to decide this issue still now obviously this point is also obliged to interpret state law you know the discretion to do that or not but both parties agree upon today is the newcastle case which both sides rely upon it has indicating how the washing supreme court is likely to come out on this issue ordinances what we do hold as they are that they are separate source of revenue that augments taxes so the court went out of its way to say we in fact these are not are with and what they are and we think the court should be taken at last word from the washington supreme court on this issue of their case for not for two thousand and two the wellington case said the same thing the parties implored the court to put a label of taxes on in fact they used the court said no protest never would have got in the courthouse door but the supreme court of washington said not only do they get in the courthouse door they win henderson homes disproves the contention that in fact these must be attacked and must be paid under disproved the bride contention relied upon the district court in advance by the apple is here for as a matter of statutory construction that impacts the statute does not require payment under p you need to pay property taxes under protest and if you don't it's a condition precedent you never get to the courthouse to work in judge laz you concluded that because the property tax statute made it an explicit condition he could read into that an explicit condition in the impact the payment of protest provision but you're mixing apples and oranges there particularly in view of columbia steel versus state which is in one nine hundred forty nine decision of the washington supreme but not everything having to do with real estate decision  whatsoever i'm sorry have any impact these that to make any decision whatsoever and in each of those cases the courts that this is not a land use decision this is not subject to loop you don't have a twenty one days casual imitations the appropriate extent that would move these very questions that are before the panel today i also would like to say at this point that it's certainly the position of the county and the and local governments that we believe that should rule in the case because we are under g m a we have to collect these fees and we have to expand these fees after certain periods of law and so of the longer that we wait the larger we have that   imposed so that the counties and the local governments then have notice about what they can or cannot do and so we would be very helpful to have a resolution but sustaining the district court will in fact put local government in be served by requiring them to the under protest before they're allowed to as it were protested later the notice up i noticed and i have to say that i think your honor your question goes to the change and zoning way up there by i know of by the cascades and so you won't be able to impact these down by edmonds and the shoreline and what we'll be saying in here is if they're paying under protest or they're raising those issues and the statute specifically provided that these things can be paid under protest and the case is whether or however you want to put a label on a site you have that reason the reason that it's there is so that tried to come up with a whole series i guess of and runs by talking about things such as original jurisdiction or some other way to create a collateral let's back up but if you really look at the authorities that we have there are some meaning there some reason here why when we went to this scheme the washington legislature and washington lives and man's both administrative and rapidly digital response and our duty is to an used it before they knew about the procedures they knew how to do this and let me assure you of hearing examiners don't always rule for the county and so the futility argument really does not pass the straight face petition it's also done under a payment of protest and it even vitiate sperber the argument of the developers because in that case they're standing as a fundamental authority because they weren't in place when you there wasn't a growth management act really suit seeking tens of millions of dollars by people out of apply for permits and i don't want to say they were laying in the weeds but i searched that this is an afterthought that came up in the problem we face if they're allowed to bring the claims on a class action basis without giving us any notice but i challenge them upfront for giving us any notice that it was going to be objected to then here we are having potentially being in a situation of payback tens of millions of dollars on after the fact claims  to get your permit you have to pay under protest i understand you can't control the licensing state supreme court but you might be able to give us some sense of what their how the how long they ordinarily take after they've had oral argument before they come out  well good morning your honors may have please the court my name is mike walter i'm here on behalf of the third of the group of pelleas the city of mill creek i will be trying to be true to my word also i'm here on a discreet issue for the city of mill creek and that concerns whether the city should even be a proper party to this action in light of the undisputed record that is before you and that record basically makes clear that the city's only action in based impact fees that are the subject of this lawsuit and i don't think you need to go much further than looking at the complaint the amended complaints or any of the pleadings in this case to see that the helen whole case hinges on fees are designed to help offset the cost of system improvements very discrete very limited sipa based litigation fees can be used for any environmental impact for all those reasons or orders and it's clear the city shouldn't be in this law united development case talk about methodology for computing an impact however if you're challenging the ability the legal authority of local government to impose any impact fee whatever not challenging the calculation the payment of the protest notice the local government has notice when they're out of compliance the growth management hearings board in washington tells them when their plan is out of compliance and so we don't need payment under protest from a taxpayer to tell them that there's