Ekelmann v. City of Poulsbo

• Decision Date: 19 July 2022
• Docket Number: 55767-3-II
• Citation: 513 P.3d 840
• Parties: Robert T. EKELMANN as Personal Representative for the Estate of Vickie Arness, Appellant, v. CITY OF POULSBO, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

513 P.3d 840

Robert T. EKELMANN as Personal Representative for the Estate of Vickie Arness, Appellant,

v.CITY OF POULSBO, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent.

No. 55767-3-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

Filed July 19, 2022

David P. Horton, Kitsap Law Group, 3212 Nw Byron St. Ste. 104, Silverdale, WA, 98383-9154, Andrew Michael Reeves, Peregrin Kumara Sorter, Sound Law Center, 4500 9th Ave., Ne Ste. 300, Seattle, WA, 98105-4762, for Appellant.

Kari Ingrid Lester, Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC, 901 5th Ave., Ste. 3500, Seattle, WA, 98164-2059, for Respondent.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Maxa, J.

¶ 1 Robert Ekelmann, as personal representative for the Estate of Vickie Arness, appeals the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the City of Poulsbo and denial of his summary judgment motion regarding a request for documents under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW. The trial court ruled that the City did not violate the PRA in redacting some of the requested documents under the exemptions for certain real estate transaction documents in RCW 42.56.260(1).

¶ 2 RCW 42.56.260(1) provides PRA exemptions for the following documents "relating to an agency's real estate transactions":

(a) Except as provided by chapter 8.26 RCW, the contents of real estate appraisals, made for or by any agency relative to the acquisition or sale of property;

(b) Documents prepared for the purpose of considering the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price.

¶ 3 Ekelmann's attorney sent the City a PRA request asking for all settlement and/or purchase and sale agreements and all purchase offers for properties the City needed to acquire related to a public works road improvement project. The City produced documents in response to the PRA request, but redacted all appraisal documents related to the properties pursuant to RCW 42.56.260(1)(a) and redacted the sale prices and information indicating the sale prices of the properties pursuant to RCW 42.56.260(1)(b).

¶ 4 We hold that (1) the RCW 42.56.260(1)(a) exemption applies despite the exception relating to chapter 8.26 RCW because nothing in that chapter states that the general public is entitled to appraisal documents for properties impacted by a public works project, and (2) the RCW 42.56.260(1)(b) exemption applies because documents and information related to the sale price of properties necessarily are documents prepared for the purpose of considering the acquisition of property.

¶ 5 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the City and denying Ekelmann's summary judgment motion.

FACTS

Background

¶ 6 The public works road improvement project known as the Noll Road Project will connect State Route (SR) 305 to Lincoln Road via Noll Road, Languanet Lane, and Maranatha Lane in Poulsbo. The project will be constructed in three stages. Completing each stage will require the City to acquire real property parcels and/or easements of private real property. The first stage involved 16 parcels, including the Arness property.

¶ 7 The City received both state and federal transportation funding for the Noll Road Project. Because the project uses federal funds, all right of way activities must be completed in accordance with the City's right of way acquisition policies and procedures as approved by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), WSDOT's local agency guidelines, and the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4601 - 4655.¹ In addition, the Relocation Assistance – Real Property Acquisition Policy Act (Relocation Act), chapter 8.26 RCW, outlines the procedures that local public agencies must follow regarding compensation for the acquisition of real property for a public works program.

¶ 8 Under these statutes and regulations, the fair market value of the real property must be assessed before a purchase offer is approved and made to any private property owner. The fair market values of each parcel for the Noll Road Project were appraised through the use of pre-approved certified real estate appraisers who prepare administrative offer summary (AOS) worksheets, narrative appraisal reports, and/or appraisal review reports. These documents were used as the basis of the purchase offers that were recommended to and ultimately approved by the City before purchase offer packages are presented to private property owners.

¶ 9 In July 2015, the City contracted with Parametrix, Inc. as the design engineer consultant to manage the Noll Road Project. Parametrix subcontracted with Universal Field Services, Inc. (UFS). UFS hired the appraisers for the Noll Road Project, managed the appraisal process, generated offers for the property owners, and engaged in negotiations for final acquisition of the parcels. UFS was required to present the completed AOS worksheets, narrative appraisal reports, and appraisal review reports to city council in executive session for review or rejection of the proposed just compensation to be offered to the property owners. The City had final approval for all offer letters, the amounts of just compensation for each parcel, and proposed acquisition documents before any offers were extended.

¶ 10 After written approval from the City, UFS prepared an offer package to purchase all the required real property interests and negotiated in good faith to reach a settlement with each property owner. The purchase offers consisted of an offer letter that stated the price the City was willing to pay to acquire the property, any counteroffers, real estate appraisal documents, other property valuation reports, and other proposed acquisition documents necessary to finalize the sale of real property.

The Arness Property and PRA request

¶ 11 In March 2018, UFS sent Ekelmann an offer package that included a copy of the appraisal report to purchase a portion of the Arness property. The offer letter stated that the City was willing to pay $0 based on the market value estimated for the Arness property. Shortly after receiving the offer package, Ekelmann hired attorney Ron Templeton to represent him during negotiations with UFS.

¶ 12 In April 2019, Templeton submitted a PRA request to the City asking for documents related to:

[1]Any and all settlement and or purchase and sale agreements between the City and owners of property arising from or related to the City's proposed Noll Road Improvement Project for the period November 2017 through April 2019 and [2] all purchase offers made by the city before the City acquired such property or reached an agreement for the purchase of any such property by the City. This request includes property the City has or intends to acquire for proposed improvements to SR305, Lincoln Road, Languanet Lane and Johnson Road. This request includes both easements and fee title to any and all such property.

Clerk's Papers at 557. Templeton did not state in his PRA request that he was seeking records on behalf of Ekelmann or the Arness Estate, and he did not mention his connection to the Arness property.

¶ 13 As the City worked on responding to Templeton's PRA request, the City sent Ekelmann a new offer package for $165,000. Ekelmann did not respond to the City's offer as he waited for Templeton's PRA request to be completed.

¶ 14 In July, the City produced 2,685 documents with significant redactions in response to Templeton's PRA request. The City provided a redaction log explaining the statutory justification for the redacted records. Relevant here, the City redacted all documents related to appraisals pursuant to RCW 42.56.260(1)(a) and the sale prices and information indicating the sale prices of real estate pursuant to RCW 42.56.260(1)(b). At that time, the City was still in the process of purchasing all necessary properties for the Noll Road Project.

¶ 15 After Templeton's PRA request had been completed, Ekelmann accepted the City's offer to purchase a portion of the Arness Property for $165,000.

Procedural History

¶ 16 In June 2020, Ekelmann filed a lawsuit against the City, arguing in part that the City improperly redacted and withheld public records that were not exempt from disclosure in violation of the PRA.²

¶ 17 Ekelmann moved for partial summary judgment, stating that there were no disputed material facts that the City had wrongfully redacted and withheld public documents under RCW 42.56.260(1)(a)-(b) as a matter of law. Specifically, Ekelmann argued that (1) the PRA exemption under RCW 42.56.260(1)(a) was not applicable when the appraisal documents at issue were prepared in accordance with chapter 8.26 RCW, and (2) the PRA exemption under RCW 42.56.260(1)(b) was not applicable when the City already had identified which parcels they needed to acquire to complete the Noll Road Project.

¶ 18 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The court ruled that the City (1) had not improperly withheld any public records, (2) properly withheld the contents of appraisals from public disclosure pursuant to the exemption in RCW 42.56.260(1)(a), and (3) properly withheld or redacted documents made for the purposes of acquiring real estate from public disclosure pursuant to the exemption in RCW 42.56.260(1)(b). The court also struck several sentences in Templeton's declaration as hearsay.

¶ 19 Ekelmann appeals the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the City and the court's denial of his summary judgment motion.

ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 20 We review de novo an agency's action in responding to a PRA request. RCW 42.56.550(3). Our de novo review includes summary judgment orders involving the PRA. West v. City of Puyallup , 2 Wash. App. 2d 586, 591, 410 P.3d 1197 (2018). And we stand in the same position as the trial court on PRA matters when the record...