Opinion ID: 215584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Source Control Budget Cap

Text: -3- Paragraph 4.5 of the Settlement Agreement caps the City’s expenditures for source control projects at $3,075,000—the amount listed on Exhibit C. Paragraph 3.1 requires King County to pay $2,150,000, minus a credit for work in the Cinder Mine area, to the City for the County’s portion of the costs for the Coal Creek Stabilization Project. “Portion” means “a part of a whole.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1768 (2002). The County’s payment to the City represented its share of the costs listed on Exhibit C, not some amount in addition to those listed costs. Extrinsic evidence cannot be relied upon to read a nonexistent term into the Agreement, such as a provision placing the risk of cost overruns on the City. See Hearst Commc’ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 115 P.3d 262, 267 (Wash. 2005). Under the only reasonable interpretation of the budget cap provision, the City was required to spend a maximum of $3,075,000, inclusive of the County’s payment, on source control projects. Because the Weinsteins and NYC do not dispute that the City has spent this much, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on this claim.