328 P.3d 1008
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Diking District No. 1 of Island County imposes annual drainage and diking assessments on benefited property within the district.
- Raymond and Laurie Gabelein challenged the 2012 drainage benefit assessment roll and its calculation against their property.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Gabeleins, ruling the district misapplied RCW ch. 85.18 in adopting the 2012 roll and awarded attorney fees for prelitigation misconduct.
- Historically, the district’s diking assessments were tied to true and fair value, while drainage assessments were based on acreage; a 1986 resolution attempted to apply a unified approach under ch. 85.18.
- In 2012 the Board defined continuous base benefits using acreage below five feet elevation and allocated costs by percentage of benefited acreage, resulting in a substantial drainage assessment for the Gabeleins.
- The court now affirms the trial court’s judgment, including the reduction of the Gabeleins’ drainage assessment and the attorney fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district misconstrue RCW 85.18 in adopting the 2012 roll? | Gabeleins contend 85.18 requires a benefits-based calculation, not arbitrary cost allocation. | District argues broad Board discretion under 85.18 and compatibility with 85.38. | Yes; 85.18 misapplied. |
| Is continuous base benefit calculated by before-and-after value or other permissible methods under 85.18? | Before-and-after valuation is required or at least a method reflecting actual benefits. | Board has discretion; value-based allocation plus 85.38 may be used. | Court requires benefit-based calculation; before-and-after or equivalent methodologies are permissible under constitutional limits. |
| May the Board rely on 85.38 to determine continuous base benefits for drainage? | No; 85.38 is for hypothetical notices and not for setting actual benefits. | Board can be inspired by 85.38 to structure assessments. | No; using 85.38 as the actual methodology is improper. |
| Did the trial court err in awarding attorney fees for prelitigation misconduct? | Fees justified by disregard of prior rulings and prelitigation misconduct. | Fees should follow Greenbank and not be awarded for this case. | No error; fee award affirmed. |
| Is the record on review properly limited to the administrative record or includes outside materials? | Record should include all materials; constitutional questions allow extra-record review. | Review should be limited to the administrative record. | Record includes entire materials due to constitutional questions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Shilshole Ave., 85 Wash. 522 (1915) (special assessments must reflect actual benefit to land)
- Heavens v. King County Rural Library Dist., 66 Wn.2d 558 (1965) (benefit must be distributed with substantial equality)
- Hargreaves v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 43 Wn.2d 326 (1953) (special assessments cannot exceed benefits; equal treatment)
- In re Eighth Ave. Nw., 77 Wash. 570 (1914) (principles of proportional benefits for local improvements)
- Doolittle v. City of Everett, 114 Wn.2d 88 (1990) (before-and-after valuation method for special benefits)
- Abbenhaus v. City of Yakima, 89 Wn.2d 855 (1978) (record on review limitations under certain zoning-like challenges)