Sikma, district get day in court

Published 2:00 pm Wednesday, January 29, 2003

Two attorneys gave Island County Superior Court Judge Alan Hancock a tough decision to make Monday.

On one hand, attorney Elaine Spencer was asking Hancock to rule that stand-by sewer charges paid by her client, Jack Sikma, on vacant lots he owns to the Holmes Harbor Sewer District, were unconstitutional and should be refunded.

On the other, sewer district attorney Michael Ruark argued that the payments, made to support the operation of the district’s sewer plant, were fair in light of the fact that Sikma’s land has little value without sewer service.

As predicted by both sides, Hancock did not make a ruling at the Monday hearing in Coupeville. His decision will come two weeks from now, a decision that will determine whether or not homeowners in the sewer district see their monthly charges almost double.

The suit, which comes as the sewer district begins foreclosure proceedings on several of Sikma’s properties, is the latest complication for a municipal organization that has seen more than its share of trouble over the past two years. In the midst of litigation surrounding an allegedly illegal $20 million bond sale, the district is faced with the possibility in this suit of losing one of its major sources of income. A loss in court also carries the prospect of a payout to landowners that would likely run more than $100,000.

Arguing her client’s case based on case law established by the state’s Supreme Court in 2001, a case in which the city of Soap Lake was required to pay back stand-by fees for water service to a land holding company, Spencer said the $45 a month Sikma is required to pay for each of his dozens of lots in the district gives him no benefit. She also said the district’s claim that it uses the money to regulate properties in the district has no bearing on her client, because there is nothing to regulate on bare land.

The money, she said, is being used to provide a service to others, but not to Sikma.

“What the fee really does is provide the revenue to operate the district,” she said.

Countering Spencer, Ruark argued that it is the district’s existence that gives Sikma’s land its value. Since many of the building lots in the district are not suitable for septic systems, they cannot be used for residential development without the sewer system.

He also said the fees paid on vacant land are used for regulation. The district, he said, can place liens against property, foreclose on property, and can approve or deny sewer hookups to property.

“If that’s not regulation, then the word has no meaning,” Ruark said.

If the court allows landowners an out from the district’s stand-by fees, the result would be “disconcerting.”

“They shouldn’t be allowed to make that kind of choice in a legal system that makes any sense,” he said.

After a round of counter arguments, Hancock said he would make his decision by telephone or in writing within two weeks.

Hancock is already involved in several other suits involving the sewer district. He is expected to rule on Feb. 16 whether or not the legal system sees the district’s $20 million bond sale — which was intended to fund a planned office development in Everett — as illegal. He will also preside over a class action lawsuit bond holders brought against the district, several attorneys and securities companies.