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

Home Browse Search

If the final assessment roll hearing ',s conceived of as the property owner's day in court, then it is appropriate to think of the members of the city council as the judges or triers of fact. The council sits as a board of equalization to considerthe evidence and information presented and to determine whether to confirm the assessment roll as proposed by the city staff. The city's participants should think of the hearing as being fundamentally different from the council's usual meetings. Ordinarily, the council members are acting solely as public servants, responding to the wishes of their constituents. When work is done under a LID, however, the city acts as an agency of the state. The council acts as the agent of the law, both in the letting of the contract for the improvements and in the levying of the assessments. Maiett'e v. CityofSpokane, 77 Wash, 205,137 P. 496 (1913), In confirming the final assessment roll, the council members act as judges whose purpose it is to weigh the information and evidence presented before confirming, modifying, or refusing to confirm the final assessment roll. C. The Five Presumptions — What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Many city employees and council members approach the final assessment roll hearing with trepidation. Employees are concerned not onlywith how their council members may react to actions taken on the LID, but also whether a property owner will be represented by an attorney who will subject them to undue scrutiny. Council members are often concerned with property owners who are angry with their assessments and are threatening legal or political action. It is important that all city employees and officers understand thatthe law provides them with a nu tuber of aids to protect the validity of the final assessment roll. The limited standard and scope of review discussed above are two of those aids. By prohibiting a judge from making an independent factual inquiry, the statutes are designed to preclude second guessing. Another valuable aid atthe Superior Court level is a series of presumptions favoring the validity of the city's actions. These presumptions play a major role in determining whether a city has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or proceeded on a fundamentally wrong basis. These presumptions further the clear public policy favorable to the construction and financing of local improvements. There are five specific presumptions applicable in Washington on an appeal from a special assessment. First, sincethe construction and financing of local improvements is favored underthe law, there is a strong judicial presumption that the city has acted legally and properly. This places the burden of proof upon the property owner challenging an assessment to establish that it was not correct. Second, if an issue is raised whether an improvement benefits property within the LID, it must be presumed that the improvement specially benefitted the affected property. Third, when a judge addresses the issue whether an assessment exceeds the amount of special benefits conferred by an improvement, the court is aided by the presumption that an assessment is no greater than the benefit. Fourth, if an issue is raised whether the property of those challenging assessments has been assessed proportionately in relation to other parcels throughout the LID, a judge must presume that an, assessment is equal or ratable to an assessment upon other property similarly situated. Fifth, there is a catch-all general presumption when an assessment is challenged that it is fair. See Abbenhaus v. City of Yakima, 89 Wn.2d at 861. It is helpful to analogize the presumptions which favor a municipality in an LID to the presumption of innocence to which everyone charged of a crime is entitled. here, a city's actions with regard to an LID are presumed correct until proven otherwise. 64 local and Road Improvement 0119dets Manuel for Washington State Shcth Edition