Opinion ID: 2613343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: kcc 19.38

Text: Trimen challenges the legality of KCC 19.38, arguing that the ordinance conditions the approval of a plat on the payment of a fee. Trimen urges this court to declare KCC 19.38 an unauthorized tax, invalid on its face under RCW 82.02.020. We decline to do so. [1] KCC 19.38 permits no more than RCW 82.02.020 authorizes. A local ordinance conflicts with the general law when the ordinance permits that which the statute forbids, or forbids that which the statute allows. Southwick, Inc. v. Lacey, 58 Wn. App. 886, 891, 795 P.2d 712 (1990) (citing Bellingham v. Schampera, 57 Wn.2d 106, 111, 356 P.2d 292, 92 A.L.R.2d 192 (1960)). KCC 19.38 was enacted pursuant to RCW 58.17. KCC 19.38.010(A)(3). RCW 58.17.110 requires local governments to insure that proposed plats make appropriate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare, and for such open spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and sites for schools. RCW 58.17.110 provides that dedication of land to any public body may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. While RCW 58.17.110 does not itself authorize development fees, RCW 82.02.020 authorizes the County to impose development fees in lieu of dedication pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, provided that such agreements comply with the provisions of the statute. [5] RCW 82.02.020; Henderson Homes, Inc. v. Bothell, 124 Wn.2d 240, 242, 877 P.2d 176 (1994). See Martha Lester, Comment, Subdivision Exactions in Washington: The Controversy Over Imposing Fees on Developers, 59 Wash. L. Rev. 289, 298 (1984). Contrary to Trimen's premise, the condition KCC 19.38 imposes upon plat approval is satisfaction of the ordinance  which requires either dedication of land or payment of a fee in lieu of dedication  not merely payment of a fee. KCC 19.38.020. [2, 3] Moreover, the ordinance on its face is not a tax. We have previously stated that `if the primary purpose of the legislation is regulation rather than raising revenue, the legislation cannot be classified as a tax even if a burden or charge is imposed.' Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cy., 97 Wn.2d 804, 809, 650 P.2d 193 (1982) (quoting Spokane v. Spokane Police Guild, 87 Wn.2d 457, 461, 553 P.2d 1316 (1976)). We will not interpret a statute to deprive a municipality of the power to legislate on a particular subject unless that clearly is the legislative intent. State ex rel. Schillberg v. Everett Dist. Justice Court, 92 Wn.2d 106, 108, 594 P.2d 448 (1979). Read in its entirety, we conclude that the thrust of KCC 19.38 is regulatory. We hold that the imposition of park development fees is authorized by statute. See RCW 58.17.110; RCW 82.02.020. We therefore reject Trimen's facial characterization of KCC 19.38 as an invalid tax. Trimen also contends that King County's ordinance, as applied by the County, is invalid under RCW 82.02.020. Trimen alleges three specific violations of the statute: (1) Trimen's payment of the fees was not voluntary; (2) there was no agreement to fund a particular capital improvement; and (3) the County failed to identify a direct impact or result of Trimen's development which required mitigation. We disagree. [4] We interpret RCW 82.02.020 to require strict compliance with its terms. R/L Assocs. v. Seattle, 113 Wn.2d 402, 409, 780 P.2d 838 (1989). At the time King County approved Trimen's developments, RCW 82.02.020 specifically authorized: (1) dedications of land or easements pursuant to RCW 58.17.110 within the proposed development or plat which the county ... can demonstrate are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat to which the dedication of land or easement is to apply; (2) voluntary agreements allowing payment in lieu of a dedication of land which the municipal corporation can establish are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat; and (3) voluntary agreements allowing payment ... to mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development, subdivision, or plat which the municipal corporation can establish are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat. Laws of 1982, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 49, § 5; see View Ridge Park Assocs. v. Mountlake Terrace, 67 Wn. App. 588, 596, 839 P.2d 343 (1992), review denied, 121 Wn.2d 1016 (1993). Under RCW 82.02.020, King County's park development fees are lawful if the fees are imposed pursuant to a voluntary agreement and are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development, or are required to mitigate the direct impact of the development.