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

Home Browse Search

1. of property aggregating a majority of lineal frontage upon the improvement and 2. of a majority of the area within the limits of the proposed RID. The form of the petition, or who can prepare it, is not addressed in the statute. Typically, staff should prepare the petition to avoid or minimize confusion and legal contentions. The RID staff can prepare the petition and formally delive.- it to the sponsor(s) for collection of signatures. In that way, the consistency and accuracy of the petition can be maintained. In addition, it can be prepared in such a fashion thatthe owner names and other relevant information according to the county auditors records are included. The validity of signatures on the petition is governed by Section 36.88.370 RCW. RCW 36.88.050 requires the board of county commissioners to review the petition for sufficiency in relation to RCW 36.88.020 and also to determine whether the property is sufficiently developed. The Board then adopts a resolution of intention, which is processed in a manner very similar to the Resolution of Intention method described previously. EXCEPT that the resolution must contain language that property owners maywithdraw their names from the petition or add their names thereto at any time prior to five o'clock p.m. of the day before the hearing. The hearing proceeds as discussed for the Resolution of Intention method with the goal of determining feasibility. Subsequentto the public hearing and based upon finding, the Board can move to create or terminate the RID. Hearing Process and Steps to Follow When Creating or Terminating a Proposed RID The public hearing process leading to the creation (or termination) of an RID is spelled out in RCW 36.88.060. Under that statute, the board of county commissioners must conduct a public hearing on the feasibility of forming the RID. The steps leading up to that hearing are discussed above. The following paragraphs focus on what must occur during and as a result of the hearing. (As an alternative. RCW 36.88.062 allows the board to adopt an ordinance providing for a committee of the county legislative authority or an officer to conduct the hearings. The committee or hearing officer reports recommendations on the resolution to the full county legislative authority for final action. The legislative authority need not hold a hearing on the proposed assessment roll and shall either adopt or reject the recommendations.) Generally, staff will present and describe the proposed RID to the Board atthe feasibility hearing. If possible, it's also helpful to provide the Board with a written report well in advance of the hearing so that they can be as informed as the owners are likely to be. The Board will consider the proposal as well as all public testimony in determining feasibility. The feasibility of the proposed RID is at the core of the public hearing that must be held prior to the Board making a decision on forming the RID. At that hearing, the Board must choose an assessment method and "... ascertain whether the plan of improvement or construction is feasible,' There is really no precise definition of what'feasible' is. However, the portion of the sentence following the above statement in RCW 36.88.060 probably comes closest to indicating what 'feasible' actually means. It states that the Board must also ascertain ... whether the benefits to be derived therefrom by the property within the proposed district, together with the amount of any county road fund participation, exceed the costs and expense of the formation of the proposed district and the contemplated construction or improvement...' In conclusion, the Local and Read Improvement Districts Manuel far Washington State Sixth Edition 79