John R. Ferlin v. Chuckanut Community Forest Park District
75561-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- In 2011 the City of Bellingham bought 82 acres ("Hundred Acre Wood") using an interfund loan of $3.2 million from the Greenways Endowment Fund that needed repayment.
- Citizens proposed creating the Chuckanut Community Forest Park District under RCW 35.61 to levy property taxes (0.28/$1,000) to raise funds to repay that loan and preserve the forest.
- A ballot measure creating the district passed in February 2013; the district’s commissioners authorized a 2014 levy and the county included it in the tax ordinance.
- The city granted the district a perpetual conservation easement restricting future uses of the property; in exchange the district agreed to pay off the loan and dissolve when paid.
- Taxpayers owning property in the district paid the 2014 levy under protest and sued to enjoin collection, arguing (1) the district was voidly formed, (2) the levy was ultra vires because funds were passed to the city, (3) the levy violated uniformity, and (4) the levy violated constitutional requirements to state the tax object.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of district formation | District was created solely to raise revenue for the city and thus not formed for statutory park purposes | Creation complied with RCW 35.61 procedures; improper motives of voters/advocates do not void formation | District formation is valid; improper subjective motives do not render it void ab initio |
| Ultra vires challenge to levy | Levy is invalid because district did not acquire or operate a park; it only collects taxes to pay city debt | District obtained a perpetual conservation easement and retained enforcement/control rights; repaying loan is a means to preserve parkland—an authorized purpose | Levy not ultra vires; acquiring an easement and preserving the land falls within statutory park powers |
| Uniformity of taxation (Const. art. VII, §1) | District is a shell for the city and allows the city to tax only a portion of its residents indirectly, violating uniformity | Park district is an independent taxing authority under statute and levies uniformly within its boundaries | No uniformity violation; district is independent and constitutionally authorized to tax within its boundaries |
| Object of taxation (Const. art. VII, §5) | Levy resolution did not explicitly state the object of the tax | Statute authorizes the tax and sets the purposes; the district adopted a budget showing repayment of the loan as the object | No violation; levy is "in pursuance of law" and the statutory purposes satisfy the object requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahoney v. Shinpoch, 107 Wn.2d 679 (summary judgment standard in Washington)
- S. Tacoma Way, LLC v. State, 169 Wn.2d 118 (2010) (ultra vires acts are void if beyond legal authority)
- Granite Falls Library Capital Facility Area v. Taxpayers of Granite Falls Library Capital Facility Area, 134 Wn.2d 825 (1998) (special/local taxing district independence and uniformity analysis)
- Hogue v. Port of Seattle, 54 Wn.2d 799 (1959) (statutory authorization can satisfy constitutional requirement to state object of tax)
- Rider v. County of San Diego, 1 Cal.4th 1 (1991) (analyzing when a new taxing agency is essentially controlled by a city/county and thus subject to special constitutional rules)