Groups appealing smelter ruling

NEWPORT — Foes of the proposed silicon smelter are appealing an adverse ruling regarding the sale and acquisition of public property used to site the facility, court records show.

Counsel for Responsible Growth*NE Washington, Citizens Against the Newport Silicon Smelter and aggrieved landowners filed the appeal in the state of Washington’s Division III Court of Appeals on Wednesday.

The smelter opposition groups in 2018 sued the Pend Oreille Public Utility District, Pend Oreille County and HiTest Sands, which is now known as PacWest Silicon, to void the real estate transactions that supplied the land south of town for the proposed smelter. They argued that public officials acted beyond their authority in selling the parcels to PacWest because they were not surplussed and the sale of PUD property was never put before the district’s voters.

Moreover, land purchases involving PUD taxpayer funds must be used for PUD purposes, the groups argued.

The PUD sold three parcels to PacWest and the county sold a fourth to the PUD so it could be sold to PacWest, according to court documents.

Spokane Superior Court Judge Julie McKay, however, ruled last April that the transactions were “unusual or irregular,” but not illegal.

On appeal, the groups question whether a PUD can buy and sell land inconsistent with its statutory authority and seek to overturn McKay’s ruling.

County commissioners passed a resolution in 2017 to sell a parcel to the PUD, which passed a resolution to negotiate a sale of all four parcels to PacWest even though the PUD did not yet own the parcel being sold by the county, court documents indicate.

The PUD declared the parcel surplus in 2018, eight months after the district sold it to PacWest.

Rick Eichstaedt of Gonzaga University Legal Assistance further argues that there is no law granting the PUD the authority for the purpose of conveying it to a third party.

“The PUD is not a real estate agency or a real estate holding company,” Eichstaedt said in the 31-page appeal.

Eichstaedt argues the superior court erred in that even if the sale was not outside the PUD’s authority, the sale contravened the underlying purpose of the law.

Eichstaedt also contends that correspondence between the PUD and PacWest are not good faith communications between a buyer and a seller.

“Rather, the letters portray a government body and a private corporation seeking to expedite a land transaction by avoiding public auction, and by avoiding the public accountability by having the sale approved via a three-fifths vote,” Eichstaedt wrote.

Keith Kinnaird can be reached by email at kkinnaird@bonnercountydailybee.com and follow him on Twitter @KeithDailyBee.