Laserfiche WebLink
III. Overview of the Assessment Financing Process <br />A. Participants in the Process <br />1. Property owners and the pubiic <br />2. Public officials and staff <br />3. Advisors, consultants and legal counsel <br />a. Investment bankers, underwriters and financial advisors <br />b. Engineers and architects <br />C. Local counsel and bond counsel <br />d. Real estate appraisers <br />S. Additional technical consultants <br />f. Others? <br />B. Usual Sequence of Events <br />For an outline of procedures and checklist of documents relating to the statutory <br />assessment district process that involves, among other things, three notices to <br />property owners and two hearings, see Exhibit A attached. Typically, there also <br />will be four ordinances. <br />1. Initiation of an LID, which may contain property outside the City (RCW <br />35.43.030) and may include territory that is noncontinuous or not <br />contiguous (RCW 35.43.050). <br />a. By petition (from owners of a majority of the area within the LID). <br />RCW 35.43.120 and RCW 35.21.005. <br />b. By resolution. RCW 35.43.140 and .150. <br />2. Creation of the assessment district: the "preliminary assessment roll" or <br />formation hearing. RCW 35.43.100 and .150. <br />"The purpose of the notice at this stage is not to accord a <br />hearing upon the validity of the assessment, which has not <br />yet been determined or the benefit to the property within <br />the district, which has yet to be determined, but to accord <br />a hearing upon the limits of the proposed district and upon <br />the question whether the district should be formed at all. <br />Objections by property owners at this stage should be <br />directed to those questions." <br />Trautman, Assessments in Washington, 40 Wash. L. Rev. 100, 112 (1965). <br />3. Protests and finality of the formation <br />a. Written protests by owners of property subject to 60% of the "total <br />cost of the improvement" will deprive the Councii of jurisdiction to <br />proceed. RCW 35.43.180. <br />i) Kasper v. Edmonds, 69 Wn.2d 799, 420 P.2d 346 <br />(1966) regarding effects of City contributions. <br />ii) Esping v. Pgsigka. 92 Wn.2d 515, 598 P.2d 1363, <br />(1979) regarding the City's relinquishment of <br />contractual rights as constituting a contribution. <br />b. Time limitation and barring of collateral attacks on formaton of an <br />LID. RCW 35.43.100. Hulo v. Redmond, 14 Wn.App. 568, 544 P.2d <br />34 (1975). <br />4. Interim financing by means of notes, lines of credit, warrants or interfund <br />loans. Such interfund loans usually should be accompanied by <br />declarations of intent to reimburse pursuant toTreas. Reg. §1.150-2, and <br />12 Local and Road Improvement Districts Manual for Washington State Sirfh Edifion <br />