Court rules against city

Twice-kicked Spokane Valley officials must decide whether to keep looking a gift horse in the mouth.

A second court ruled Tuesday that Spokane County isn’t required to hand over land for Appleway Boulevard without strings, as the city demanded.

In fact, the county doesn’t have to give the land at all.

While county commissioners weigh their options, the Spokane Valley City Council will decide whether to ask the Washington Supreme Court to overturn Superior Court Judge Maryann Moreno and the state Court of Appeals.

City Attorney Mike Connelly said he plans to present the question to the council in the next week or two.

The dispute focuses on an abandoned railroad right of way the county purchased for $3.25 million in 1980.

The former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co. right of way extends from Argonne Road in Spokane Valley to Liberty Lake Drive in Liberty Lake.

County commissioners want to preserve a 28-foot-wide portion as the backbone of a future light-rail line.

That wasn’t a problem in the mostly 100-foot-wide section between Argonne and University roads, where the county built Appleway Boulevard before Spokane Valley became a city five years ago.

Nor would there be much problem for the planned eastward extension of Appleway from University to Evergreen road, where the city envisions a 100-foot-wide landscaped boulevard with a bicycle path that could be converted to light rail.

But the right of way width ranges from 40 to 80 feet in the section between Evergreen and Tschirley Road, where plans call for Appleway Boulevard eventually to connect with Sprague Avenue, according to senior city engineer Steve Worley.

Even a standard two-lane road with a center turn lane typically is 60 feet wide, Worley said.

As required by state law, the county gave the new city all the streets within its boundaries – including the developed portion of Appleway Boulevard.

County commissioners offered to give the rest of the Appleway right of way to the city if it would help pay for extra land needed to preserve a light rail corridor. Commissioners said they would pay, too.

City officials rejected the proposal and sued in December 2006 to get the land without conditions.

State law required the county to give the city undeveloped rights of way as well as paved streets, city officials argued unsuccessfully.

Now County Commission Chairwoman Bonnie Mager hints the county may wish to offer the disputed land to the Spokane Transit Authority instead.

“There is still the option that the STA might buy it from us as well, so that is a possibility,” Mager said.

She said commissioners briefly considered that possibility Tuesday, but “we have not discussed whether we are going to change our strategy or not.”

Mager said there also has been no discussion about asking Spokane Valley to pay for the land it wants instead of getting it free.

“We’re really just waiting to see where they’re going with it,” Mager said.

Commissioners have not approached the transit authority on the issue, she said.

“It’s just really too premature to discuss what might happen,” STA spokeswoman Molly Myers said. “As far as talking about what we would buy, or cost or anything, we’d just have to start having those conversations.”

That hasn’t happened yet, “But, yes, there certainly will be follow-up conversations,” Myers said.

Public officials have little solid information on how much extra land is needed and how much it might cost.

Mayor Rich Munson said he’s heard estimates that the costs might range from $10 million to $30 million. But he believes the dispute is less about money than principle.

It’s a question of sovereignty, he said: “Who is in charge of Spokane Valley?”

Facilitating a light rail corridor through Spokane Valley “is no longer the county commissioners’ job,” Munson said. “It’s the city’s job. We feel that the county has no role in this, not anymore.”

He said the city is committed, through its comprehensive land-use plan and development code, to preserving a mass-transit corridor.

“It’s very specific that we will do that, and I think that’s enough,” Munson said.

Still, he said there is “no acrimony,” and he hopes for a quick resolution.

“We need to move on and get this thing resolved,” he said.

One reason is that the city can’t apply for $4.2 million in federal money to extend Appleway Boulevard from University to Evergreen Road until it owns the right of way.

That extension is an integral part of the city’s Sprague-Appleway Revitalization Plan.

A rough analysis several years ago by county engineers showed the cost of fattening the skinny sections of the right of way could be substantial.

Without allowing for legal fees, relocation costs or damages to residents with diminished property values, the study estimated costs ranging from $6.7 million to nearly $12.1 million dollars.

The estimates assumed purchase prices for unimproved property ranging from $3.75 per square foot for single-family residential land, $6 per square foot for multifamily and $8 per square foot for commercial land.

Prices could be as high as $10 to $15 per square foot in more densely developed areas, the study noted. Estimates for buildings and other improvements were based on photographs and casual observations, not formal inspections.

The study considered three options for widening the right of way to 100 feet and splitting the cost. As proposed, the city would buy land needed for Appleway Boulevard while the county or the STA would buy land for light rail.

The “best fit” approach would let the corridor meander around houses and other expensive property wherever possible. That would cost an estimated $8 million.

Two other options would use an existing county sewer interceptor line to divide Appleway Boulevard from the light rail easement.

With a 15-sewer easement and a 28-foot rail easement, totaling 43 feet, on the south side of the sewer line, the cost of extra land was estimated at nearly $12.1 million.

With the sewer and light rail easements on the north side of the sewer, the estimated cost was $6.7 million.