Clarkston fires a shot across the county’s bow over jail site

The city of Clarkston ramped up its opposition to the site selected by Asotin County for a new jail when a unanimous consensus of city councilors approved a letter warning of possible consequences Monday night.

Penned by City Attorney Todd Richardson, the letter hits the county on three points:

The county’s plan to purchase property near the Port of Clarkston and then sell the portion it doesn’t need is unconstitutional.

The Jail Finance Committee composed of county, city of Asotin and city of Clarkston officials never approved the purchase of land as required by an interlocal agreement.

The zoning changes required at the proposed site would cause an undue delay in replacing the outdated existing jail.

Richardson said the city has several options available if it doesn’t receive a favorable response from the county, including litigation. But he said the main thrust of the letter was to caution the county that its plan is legally flawed and could potentially delay construction by months.

“It’s always better to have a strong legal position, rather than one that you’ve been warned is wrong,” he said.

Asotin County Commission Vice Chairman Brian Shinn said that he couldn’t comment on the letter since it is a legal document. He referred all questions to Asotin County Prosecutor Ben Nichols, who couldn’t immediately be reached Tuesday for comment.

On the constitutional issue, Richardson cited more than a century of legal precedent in Washington that may open up the county’s plans to legal challenges. The most recent case he cited was from 1978, when the city of Wenatchee purchased property with the intent of using some for its purposes and selling the rest, similar to what Asotin County is proposing. The state Supreme Court found the purchase to be unconstitutional.

“In this instance, the county has announced the intent of purchasing more land than is needed, and then sell a portion to a third party at a future date, which is prohibited by the state constitution,” Richardson wrote. “Thus, our position is that the County’s intended actions are unconstitutional and you must not proceed.”

Moving on to the interlocal agreement, Richardson noted that the agreement gives each party a voice in decisions regarding the jail and limits the ability of any party to act unilaterally. Specifically, the section on funding sources specified what the sales tax increase may be spent on, and none of them include a land purchase.

The city did recognize that the Asotin County Commission did pass a resolution regarding its use of the bonds, but asserted that the resolution did not supersede its contract with the city.

And the $1 million expected cost of the land is also an issue since the interlocal agreement requires that the Jail Finance Committee approve any significant financial decision, defined as any single financial obligation that exceeds 10 percent of the annual jail fund budget.

“The Jail Finance Committee has not considered or voted on any authorization to spend the money,” Richardson wrote. “The result is the county is not authorized to spend any of the Jail Fund (including monies raised by tax or bond) to purchase the land.”

Finally, he lays out the time that would be consumed by all the hoops the county would have to jump through to get the land zoned properly and ready for construction. A zone change would be required since the city doesn’t allow jails in the heavy industrial district where the proposed site sits, and the county hasn’t yet requested that change.

When and if it does, the Clarkston Planning and Zoning Commission and the city council will need four to six months to process the change. An additional two to three months would be required for the city to modify the appropriate ordinances. And there is no guarantee that a zone change would be granted in the first place, and the jail wouldn’t even conform with the city’s Comprehensive Plan, he noted.

“Our jail is in immediate need of replacement and we worry about the possible legal liabilities of extending the use of this outdated facility,” Richardson wrote. “Thus time is of the essence in fulfilling our obligations to our citizens and the voters who supported the tax increases and bonds to accomplish this needful project.”

The letter also suggests that the county led the city down a more agreeable path by claiming that it was looking at two other parcels for the jail, one already owned by the county and one in the Turning Pointe Business Park, only to make an abrupt about-face.

“These representations were made throughout the negotiations of the contract, throughout the campaign for the bond, and to help ensure the passage of the sales tax increase,” Richardson wrote. “Relying on these representations, the city did pass the sales tax increase, and did campaign for the passage of the bond. In other words, the city has changed their position in reliance on your representation.”

In other business, the council approved the city’s fiscal year 2021 budget on a 5-2 vote, with Councilors Melyssa Andrews and Belinda Larsen voting no over their concerns about increasing city utility fees during the coronavirus pandemic, Richardson said.

The council approved 5 percent utility fee increases earlier this month, and 2.5 percent salary increases for union employees Monday. It also approved 5 percent salary increases for city department heads.

The overall budget is about $14.3 million, according to Mayor Monika Lawrence’s budget letter to councilors and residents. Total general fund expenditures are estimated to be $4,353,364 for 2020, and $4,677,937 for 2021.

Mills may be contacted at jmills@lmtribune.com or at (208) 310-1901, ext. 2266.