A Washington state appellate court panel here has reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that Spokane County commissioners improperly authorized the construction of a road through dedicated parkland in the Wandermere area north of Spokane to serve an adjoining residential development.

In a published opinion, the three-member panel held unanimously that Spokane County Superior Court Judge Ellen Kalama Clark erred by ruling that nonprofit plaintiff Friends of North Spokane County Parks lacked taxpayer standing and didn’t state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Based on its ruling, the panel of judges remanded the case back to Superior Court for further proceedings.

The legal dispute involves a natural, unimproved four-acre strip of land known as “Freddy Park” that’s located behind the Fred Meyer store at 12120 N. Division, just south of Hastings Road. The wooded parkland serves as a natural buffer between the big Fred Meyer store and a residential area to the east.

Along with the county, defendants in the case included Fred Meyer Stores Inc., which through affiliates had originally conveyed the parkland to the county, and Star Saylor LLC, a private real estate developer that owns property directly south of Freddy Park and had applied for the road extension through the park.

Roundup Co., a Fred Meyer affiliate, offered the land to the county for use as a park in 2001, in connection with its development of property near the corner of U.S. Highway 395 and Hastings Road for the planned Fred Meyer store, court documents say.

The county was receptive, so in August 2001, the Wilmington Trust Co., which held title to the property as security, conveyed the land to the county. The deed required that the land be held “only as a natural, community, or regional park” and prohibited “vehicular ingress or egress from the property” except from Standard Drive, the documents say. Standard Drive stretches south from Hastings a short distance to the edge of the parkland. The county accepted the donation by resolution, subject to those conditions.

In 2007, Star Saylor applied to the county for a preliminary plat for its nearby land, but one of the conditions imposed by the county hearing examiner was that “the applicant shall secure and construct a second ingress/egress roadway to serve the proposed development.” The condition also stated that the proposed second access “must be dedicated through the park land owned by Spokane County north of the (proposed development) site.”

County commissioners favored allowing construction of the road through the park, court documents say. However, out of concern that its authority to approve the road might be questioned in light of the 2001 deed and restrictions, the county asked that Roundup and affiliates Fred Meyer Inc. and Fred Meyer Stores execute an amendment to the 2001 deed allowing for the road’s construction.

They agreed to do so, but only if the county would represent and defend them in the event of litigation resulting from the amendment, and the county agreed to that stipulation. All of the parts then executed the amendment.

 Friends of North Spokane County Parks filed the suit last year, seeking a declaratory judgment that the commisioners lacked the authority to approve construction of a road through the park, based on the conditions it agreed to when it accepted the land.

The organization asserted legal standing based on the fact that its members were county taxpayers and that its members lived nearby and were interested in preserving and protecting the park. It also said that the state attorney general’s office had declined to take action to block construction.

Standing, in legal terms, refers to a party’s right to make a legal claim.  

The appellate court panel affirmed the trial court on a couple of points, including its dismissal of the nonprofit’s claim of breach of trust and its allegation that the commissioners’ action was an unconstitutional gift of public property. However, it rejected what it said was the trial court’s “overly-narrow characterization of taxpayer standing.”

The opinion, authored by Chief Judge Laurel Siddoway, said, “Washington courts have long recognized the right of an individual or entity ‘to challenge government acts based solely upon the litigant’s status as a taxpayer.’”

It also said that the state’s courts have held that “municipal taxpayers have standing to challenge not only the disposition of municipal funds, but also municipal property.”

Star Saylor had cited a ruling in a previous case suggesting that the plaintiff in a taxpayer suit must show it pays the type of taxes funding the project.

The appellate panel rejected that argument, though, saying, “No other Washington decision requires as a condition of taxpayer standing that the plaintiff trace the source of funding for a challenged expenditure to the type of taxes he or she pays.”