Laserfiche WebLink
Laws recognize a distinction between public improvements which benefit <br />the entire community, and those local in their nature which benefit <br />particular real property or limited areas. The property benefitted is usually <br />required to pay the expense cf the latter. A local improvement is a public <br />improvement, which, although it may incidentally benefit the public at <br />large, is made primarily for the accommodation, and convenience of the <br />inhabitants of a particular locality, and which is of such a nature as to <br />confer a special benefit upon the real property adjoining or near the <br />improvement. On the other hand, if its primary purpose and effect are to <br />benefit the public, it is not a local improvement, although it may <br />incidentally benefit property in a particular locality. <br />Whether an improvement is local, is a question of fact, rather than one of <br />law, to be determined from its nature and object. [City of Seattle v. Rogers <br />Clothing for Men, Inc., 114 Wn.2d at 226, quoting 14 E. McQuillin, <br />Municipal Corporations § 38.11 (3d ed. 1987)] <br />The importance of measuring special benefits is far reaching and will be discussed more <br />fully below. <br />Issues relating to proportionality are raised far less frequently than special benefit <br />questions. Although it is sometimes difficult to apply, the rule of law may be simply <br />stated: each parcel in an improvement district may only be assessed "its proportionate <br />share in relation to other parcels throughout the improvement district." Sterling Realty <br />Company v. City ofBellevue, 68 Wn.2d 760, 765, 415 P.2d 627 (1966). In otherwords, like <br />properties should receive like assessments. <br />If staff and council keep the two absolutes of special benefit and proportionality in mind <br />when confirming a final assessment roll, the chance of a court overturning an assessment <br />is substantially reduced. <br />2. Pre -Presentation Considerations and Mechanics <br />A. Attitude — Cooperative and Adversarial <br />The employees of a city who are involved in the presentation of an assessment roll are <br />placed in an awkward position. On the one hand they are called upon to serve as public <br />servants whose role it is to provide assistance and guidance to members of their <br />community in their dealings with the city. On the other hand, these same employees are <br />charged with the task of being proponents of a project and, therefore, the adversaries of <br />those property owners who oppose the LID or the assessments which are to be levied. <br />There is no way to resolve this conflict. It is helpful, however, for staff and council to <br />recognize the dual nature of the role of the City employees. .fudges do not look kindly <br />upon employees of a city who have not been forthrightwith citizens seeking information <br />or assistance. Likewise, council members are not pleased when an assessment is lost <br />and the money must be made up from a different source ratherthan being charged to the <br />property which has benefitted from the improvement. <br />The only way to deal with this conflict is to recognize the dual role and to reach some <br />accommodation. Each city will have to set its own policies with regard to deal'ng with <br />property owners within an LID. Some cities only provide information which is directly <br />requested and will volunteer nothing. Other cities advise the affected property owners <br />66 Local and Road Improvement Districts Manual for Washington State Sixth Edition <br />