Opinion ID: 4577342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Annexation under former RCW 36.94.410-.440

Text: The remaining inquiry is whether the unique transfer annexation process under former RCW 36.94.410-.440 would otherwise permit the unilateral annexation of another district’s territory. The meaning of a statute is also a question of law reviewed de novo. Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-12, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). Our ultimate objective is to ascertain and carry out the legislature’s intent. Plain meaning is discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language, the statute’s context, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole. If the plain meaning is unambiguous, we give it effect. State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007). Former RCW 36.94.410-.440 uniquely governs a sewer system transfer from a county to a sewer district. Former RCW 36.94.410 (1984) states: A system of sewerage, system of water or combined water and sewerage systems operated by a county under the authority of this chapter may be transferred from that county to a water or sewer district in the same manner as is provided for the transfer of those functions from a water or sewer district to a county in RCW 36.94.310 through RCW 36.94.340. (Emphasis added.) The procedure follows the process of former RCW 36.94.310- .340 (1975), which governs a transfer from a sewer district to a county. The process is initiated by the adoption of resolutions or ordinances authorizing the transfer. RCW 36.94.330. Then the district and county execute a written transfer agreement, outlining the terms of the transfer. Former RCW 36.94.340 (1975). Finally, a 11 No. 97599-0 petition is filed, asking the superior court to “approve and direct the proposed transfer of property.” Former RCW 36.94.340. Uniquely, the transfer from a county to a sewer district, under former RCW 36.94.410, goes a step further and may culminate in annexation. Upon the superior court’s approval and “[i]f so provided in the transfer agreement, the area served by the system shall, upon completion of the transfer, be deemed annexed to and become a part of the water or sewer district acquiring the system.” Former RCW 36.94.420 (emphasis added). The crux of the dispute is whether the subject of annexation, the “area served,” may include territory that is outside of the transferring county’s borders and within another district’s geographical area, where the original district did not consent. Ronald and King County argue that the statute allows a county to unilaterally transfer area outside its own territory. They rely on the ordinary meaning of “area served” as simply the areas receiving sewer service from the system. They contrast it with the language in former RCW 36.94.310, which contains an express boundary restriction: “a municipal corporation may transfer to the county within which all of its territory lies, . . . the property constituting its system of sewerage.” (Emphasis added.) Olympic, Snohomish, and Woodway argue that the “area served” does not include territory outside the county boundary, even if the county serves the area by contract. 12 No. 97599-0 The statutory context and related statutes support the conclusion that the “area served” is limited to territory within the transferring county’s geographic boundaries. A county cannot transfer the primary service right via annexation to an area outside of its borders where it provides service by contract.2 Related statutory provisions support this reasoning because (1) permission is needed whenever districts or counties provide service within another’s geographic boundary and (2) the statutes distinguish between full jurisdiction and contractual provisions of service. First, the statutes authorizing districts and counties to provide sewer service outside their boundaries require permission from the original entity. Sewer districts may serve areas within multiple counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions with approval from the original entity, as occurred in this case. Former RCW 56.04.020; former RCW 56.02.055. As already mentioned, sewer districts can also serve areas within other districts with consent. Former RCW 56.08.060. Similarly, counties are authorized to “individually or in conjunction with another county” operate sewer systems “within all or a portion of the county.” Former RCW 2 Our interpretation of the area subject to annexation under former RCW 36.94.410-.440 (1984) is limited to the statutory scheme as it existed in 1985. The statutes have been subsequently amended. Notably, chapter 36.93 RCW now defines “service area of a city, town, or special purpose district” as “all of the area within its corporate boundaries” and, for extensions of water and sewer service, “the area outside of the corporate boundaries which it is designated to serve pursuant to a coordinated water system plan approved in accordance with RCW 70A.100.050[] and . . . a comprehensive sewerage plan approved in accordance with chapter 36.94 RCW and RCW 90.48.110.” RCW 36.93.090(4). 13 No. 97599-0 36.94.020 (1981). Counties may also operate within the boundaries of an existing sewer district with the district’s written consent. Former RCW 36.94.170. In contrast, the annexation procedure of former RCW 36.94.410-.440 (1984) does not include a consent requirement. The annexation procedure involves two entities: the transferring county and the receiving sewer district. Former RCW 36.94.420. Notice is given only to the ratepayers and by publication. Where certain statutory language “is used in one instance, and different language in another, there is a difference in legislative intent.” Seeber v. Pub. Disclosure Comm’n, 96 Wn.2d 135, 139, 634 P.2d 303 (1981). The absence of a consent requirement under former RCW 36.94.410-.440 evinces that “area served” does not include territory outside the transferring county’s boundaries. This interpretation is also consistent with former Title 56 RCW and its limitation against the unilateral annexation of territory that is within a separate district. Second, the statutes draw a key distinction between temporary contractual service and full jurisdiction. As occurred here, sewer districts may contract with other entities for the provision of services. Former RCW 56.08.060; former RCW 36.94.170 (1971) (authorizing counties to serve within sewer districts under contract). The provision of services with permission or by contract are by nature revocable. Whereas, districts or counties otherwise retain full jurisdiction to operate a sewer system within their own territories. Former RCW 56.04.020; former RCW 14 No. 97599-0 56.08.060; former RCW 36.94.020. Annexation is a grant of full jurisdiction that includes the provision of services and the power to issue bonds and collect taxes; it is more than a contractual relationship. See former RCW 36.94.430 (1984); former RCW 56.36.060 (1981). No authority exists showing that this form of permissive service may be converted to full annexation authority Further, the identified subject of the underlying transfer under former RCW 36.94.410 is the sewer system “operated by a county under the authority of this chapter[, 36.94 RCW].” A county’s power to operate, maintain, and generate funds for its sewer system is limited to territory “within all or a portion of the county.” Former RCW 36.94.020. The plain meaning of the “area served” subject to transfer and annexation under former RCW 36.94.410-.440 is limited to areas within the transferring county’s geographic boundary. To be properly transferred and annexed under these statutes, the territory must be exclusively within the transferring county’s geographic service area and cannot be within another district’s service area, unless the existing district relinquishes its sewerage authority to the transferring county under former RCW 36.94.170. Here, King County could not transfer annexation authority of Point Wells to Ronald because Point Wells is not within King County, it is within Snohomish County. The annexation is further prohibited because Point Wells was within Olympic’s geographic boundary and Olympic did not relinquish 15 No. 97599-0 its sewerage authority to King County. The statutory authority does not permit a hostile takeover of another district’s service area without notice or permission, which is what happened here. However, under the transfer agreement, a county may transfer its existing contractual obligations, which may include the provision of services to areas within other districts. Former RCW 36.94.410; RCW 36.94.330. But service provided permissively as a contractual obligation is not subject to annexation. Ronald’s reliance on the “first in time” principle is misplaced. LAWS OF 1981, ch. 45, § 1. The statutory scheme does not permit the transfer annexation process to transform a contractual provision of services into annexation. Although Ronald has served the area since 1986, it has done so by contract under the obligation it inherited from King County. This provision of service was by nature permissive and revocable. The 1985 court lacked the statutory authority to annex the Point Wells area, which was being served by Ronald on a contract basis.