Suit Examines Propriety Of County Sewer Fee Should City Residents Help Pay For Sewers Outside City Limits?

A judge has added 69,000 city of Spokane taxpayers to a class action lawsuit that could cost Spokane County $3 million in sewer money.

The suit, brought by city resident Sandy Smith, claims it’s illegal for the county to collect a $15 annual fee from city landowners to help pay for sewer construction outside the city limits.

Superior Court Judge Michael Donohue last week ruled the lawsuit should be expanded to all city water customers, each of whom is required to pay the fee.

If Smith wins, the county would have to refund payments to her and anyone else who has been a city water customer during the last three years. The fee has been collected since 1985, but attorneys for Smith, the city and the county agree that three years is the statute of limitations.

The judge would decide whether the county also should pay interest. Plaintiffs would pay a share of the fees charged by attorney Steve Eugster, who represents Smith.

Refunding $45 to all 69,000 city water customers would cost more than $3.1 million, not including interest. County officials have said the loss would slow down sewer construction significantly.

“There is a possibility that if the county is left holding the bag, there could be a special levy made against all the taxpayers of the county in order to make up the loss,” said attorney Tom Kingen, who represents the county.

Designed to help pay for sewers to protect Spokane’s underground water supply, the Aquifer Protection Area was approved by voters in the city and suburban Spokane County in 1985. It passed by a 3-1 margin.

The fee is $15 for any landowner who gets water from the aquifer and another $15 for anyone whose building is served by a septic tank, rather than public sewers. The lawsuit deals only with the first $15, since that is the only fee Smith pays.

“When people voted, they thought it was going to be used for eliminating septic tanks,” said Eugster.

Eugster said the money has been misused because city residents are paying more than is spent inside the city limits. Also, much of the money goes toward reducing the connection fee charged to individual sewer customers, not for pipes that serve the entire community, Eugster said.

In effect, Eugster argued, city residents are subsidizing residents in the more affluent suburbs. And by helping build sewers in outlying areas, they’re encouraging sprawl that contributes to urban decay.

“We’re financing our own destruction,” he said.

Kingen and city attorney Stanley Schwartz argued Smith should be the sole plaintiff in the case. If she wins, city water customers who asked for refunds would get them.

As a class-action lawsuit, all the plaintiffs get a settlement unless they ask to be excluded.

No one other than Smith and Eugster seem concerned about the issue, Kingen told the judge.

“This lawsuit was filed in December of 1995. There has been nobody (else) who’s filed a lawsuit and we’re already to June of ‘96,” he said. “There doesn’t seem to be a large portion of the population out there - or any portion of the population - who appears to believe that this case is meritorious.”

Donohue is scheduled to hear the lawsuit in late July. In the meantime, county officials must notify city water customers about the lawsuit. Donohue has not yet decided whether notification should be sent with water bills, announced in newspaper advertisements or both.

, DataTimes