2016-05-09-minutes-public-works-study-session

Home Browse Search

Superior Court is really an "appeal" from that trial, a property owner must participate in that trial before he or she can take an appeal. This principle was established long ago; No reason is suggested why respondent did not appear and make his objection before the town council. That body had jurisdiction over the subject matter and was clothed with power to arrive at a correct determination. It was the tribunal appointed by the law for the correction of any mistakes or irregularities. The parties interested cannot be permitted to disregard the opportunities so afforded for a hearing, and to select a forum of their own choosing. They must make their objection seasonably, before the tribunal which the ;aw appoints forthat purpose, and failing to do so, cannot thereafter be heard to complain. [Town ofTumwater v. Picks, 18 Wash. 153, 61 P. 353 (1897)] The LID statutes provide that a property owner must put his or her protest in writing. The city council has the right to insist upon this. If, however, the council decides to hear the appeal in the absence of a written protest, the statutory requirementthat the protest must be in writing will be deemed to have been waived by the council. In re Indian Trail Trunk Sewer System, 35 Wn. App. 212,666 P.2d 378 (1983). It would be appropriate to have study session with the city attorney to discuss the importance of the written protest and the necessity for filing a written protest. B. The Property Owner's Burden of Proof The presumptions discussed above, which favor the city's action, place the burden directly upon the property owner to produce information or evidence to show that his or her final assessment is either excessive, disproportionate, orthe product of proceedings conducted by the city of a fundamentally wrong basis. A challenge to an assessmentthat is based upon special benefits will usually require the testimony of an appraiser. Since the determination of the amount of special benefits requires before and after market analyses of property, this is not an area in which most property owners will have sufficient expertise, if a property owner wishes to prove in court that his or her assessment is excessive, he or she is required to demonstrate that he or she offered before and after market value testimony to the city at the hearing to confirm the final assessment roll. Abbenhaus v. City of Yakima, 89 Wn.2d at 861. Expert evidence is clearly required to establish whether or not property is especially benefitted by an improvement and the extent of the benefit, Expert testimony also may be required to establish a disproportionate assessment. [Cammack v. City of PortAngeles. 15 Wn. App. 188, 197, 548 P.2d 571 (1976)] If a property owner fails to support his or her objection to an assessment by placing relevant evidence before the city council, the assessment should be confirmed by judge on appeal. Except with regard to the issue of special benefits, the evidence which a property owner will be required to place in the record before the council will vary with the type of objection ra;sed. The role of the city employees is to evaluate the evidence which is produced at the final assessment roll hearing and determine what evidence raises a significant question. Such items should be noted and responded to by the city. 70 Local and Road Improvement Districts Manual for Washington State Sixth Edition