Opinion ID: 2570667
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lake Forest Park Is Liable for Hydrant Payments

Text: ¶ 36 If Seattle must pay for hydrants located in Seattle, it asks Lake Forest Park to pay for those hydrants located in Lake Forest Park. Seattle argues, and the trial court held, that RCW 43.09.210 makes the cities liable. The statute reads: All service rendered by . . . one department . . . to another, shall be paid for at its true and full value by the department . . . receiving the same, . . . . RCW 43.09.210. This law applies to services that one government body provides for another, including when one city provides another city with services. [2] Cf. State v. Grays Harbor County, 98 Wash.2d 606, 608, 656 P.2d 1084 (1983) (The word `department' plainly refers to an administrative division or branch of government, . . . .). Since SPU provided a service to Lake Forest Park, Lake Forest Park is liable for SPU's cost. ¶ 37 Moreover, SPU provided the hydrants because Lake Forest Park required it to do so by ordinance. LAKE FOREST PARK MUN.CODE 15.04.015(A)(3). Since providing hydrants is governmental, see above, Lake Forest Park also consented to pay for the hydrants when it passed this requirement. True, Lake Forest Park passed the ordinance before Okeson, but this does not avoid its liability. ¶ 38 Lake Forest Park would apply the three-part test from Covell to argue that Seattle would be imposing a tax on another city, which it cannot do. The Covell factors are the purpose of the cost: where the money raised is allocated and whether the cities pay the cost because they use the service. 127 Wash.2d at 879, 905 P.2d 324. ¶ 39 The purpose of charging Lake Forest Park for hydrants is clearly to raise money, indicating a tax. There is no evidence that the funds are segregated, also leaning toward a tax. But, most importantly, here there is a direct relationship between the costs charged and the service provided. Lake Forest Park requires SPU to provide hydrants, and SPU is charging just for the costs of the hydrants required by Lake Forest Park. We hold that the hydrant charge to Lake Forest Park is not a tax, but rather a cost of providing a government service, which Lake Forest Park must pay. ¶ 40 Lake Forest Park argues that if we require it to pay for hydrants, cities may extend their utility services to other jurisdictions without consent and then charge the cost. This possibility is speculative (and improbable). SPU will not likely install fire hydrants where uninvited. Right-of-way problems alone would block this eventuality. SPU operates in Lake Forest Park only with that city's permission, and it is providing a service only Lake Forest Park required. ¶ 41 Lake Forest Park also argues that even if it has to pay for hydrants, it should have to pay only for costs before January 1, 2005. On that day, Seattle's tax on SPU started. Under Lake Forest Park's theory, since Seattle already recovered the costs of hydrants starting in 2005, it would get a windfall if Lake Forest Park also had to pay. We reject this argument. RCW 43.09.210 draws no distinction that would exempt pre-2005 charges. ¶ 42 RCW 43.09.210 requires Lake Forest Park to pay for the hydrants within its boundary.