## Facts

- New Castle Investments (NCI) submitted a fully completed preliminary plat application to the City of LaCenter on April 7, 1996.
- LaCenter adopted a transportation impact fee (TIF) ordinance on April 9, 1996, effective April 16, 1996.
- A city hearings examiner approved the preliminary plat and concluded the TIF did not apply because NCI’s rights vested when its complete application was filed.
- The City Council affirmed approval of the plat but ruled the TIF applied, concluding the vesting statute did not cover transportation impact fees.
- NCI sought judicial review; the superior court reinstated the hearings examiner’s determination that the TIF did not apply.
- LaCenter appealed the superior court’s ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 58.17.033(1) vests a developer against a transportation impact fee ordinance adopted after a fully completed preliminary plat application is submitted.
2. Whether transportation impact fees are “land use control ordinances” within the meaning of RCW 58.17.033(1).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court and reinstated the City Council’s decision.
- The court held transportation impact fees are not “land use control ordinances” under RCW 58.17.033(1).
- Because the vesting statute did not apply, LaCenter could assess the TIF against NCI’s development despite NCI filing its complete plat application before the ordinance’s effective date.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo; courts retain final authority to interpret statutes.
- RCW 58.17.033(1) vests plat applications only as to “land use control ordinances” in effect when a fully completed application is submitted.
- “Land use control ordinances,” read in context and in light of legislative intent, refers to substantive regulatory controls governing land development (such as zoning and subdivision regulations), not later-imposed monetary exactions.
- A charge’s classification as a regulatory fee versus a tax generally turns on: (1) primary purpose (revenue-raising vs. regulation), (2) earmarking of funds, and (3) relationship between the charge and the burdens of development; even if a TIF is a regulatory fee, it is not thereby a vested “land use control ordinance” under RCW 58.17.033(1).

## Conclusion

The court held that Washington’s plat vesting statute does not freeze transportation impact fees, so a municipality may apply a TIF ordinance enacted after a developer submits a fully completed preliminary plat application.


New Castle Invs. v. City of LaCenter, 98 Wash. App. 224 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)