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

Home Browse Search

The term "fundamentally wrong basis" has a less well established meaning. [It] refers to some error in the method of assessment or in the procedures used by the municipality, the nature of which is so fundamental as to necessitate a nullification of the entire LID, as opposed to a modification of assessment as to particular property, [Abbenhaus v..City of Yakima, 89 Wn.2d at 859.' If a fundamental error is found to exist, however, the judge is limited to nullification or modification only of those assessments which have actually been appealed. Thus, under the scope and standard of review dictated by our LIQ laws, a judge must determine, solely on the basis of the record before the city council, whether the council acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or proceeded on a fundamentally wrong basis. The scope and standard of review places a burden at the assessment roll hearing upon both the city and property owners who wish to objectto an assessment. Property owners are required: To placeall relevant information and objections beforeths proper decision-making body, the council, and prior to the municipality`s decision, instead of permitting later attack in the superior court based upon information which the municipality did not have the opportunity to consider. Obbenhaus v_ City of Yakima, 89 Wn.2d at 860.] Under this rule, if a property owner attempts to establish on appeal that he or she was assessed on a "fundamentally wrong basis," he or she must be able to do so by reference to information or evidence which he or she presented to the council and which is part of the transcript on appeal. The property owner cannot bring in any new witnesses, documents, or any other evidence to try to substantiate his or her objections to an assessment. If a property owner has failed to support his or her objections to an assessment by placing relevant evidence before the city, the assessment should be confirmed by the judge on appeal. Likewise, it is important that the participants from the city in the assessment roll hearing recognize that a judge will be reviewing the evidence that the city presents to the city council. In other words, all participants in the final assessment roll hearing on behalf of a city should be thinking in terms of what a judge should see when confronted with a property owner's assessment appeal. The city is also limited on appeal to the record which is made before the city council and it, too, cannot count upon calling additional witnesses or presenting additional information or evidence. B. The Assessment Roll Hearing is a "Trial" and the City Council Members are the "Judges" Since on an assessment appeal the Superior Court judge is restricted to consideration of the documents and evidence contained in the record of the proceedings before the city council. the finai assessment roll hearing must be approached as a "trial" by all participants. The final assessment roll hearing has been referred to by one court as "the property owner's day in court, so to speak, and the penalty, upon his failure to so appear, is that he waives objections or the right to an independent suit in equity." In re Grandview, 118 Wash. 464, 467, 203 P. 968 (1922). Locai and Road Improvement Districts Manuel for Washington State Sixth Ediidon 63