Local Improvement Districts Links and Resources

Links

County Web Pages

City Web Pages

City LID Statutes

35.43 Local improvements -- Authority -- Initiation of proceedings.
35.44 Local improvements -- Assessments and reassessments.
35.45 Local improvements -- Bonds and warrants.
35.47 Local improvements -- Procedure for cancellation of nonguaranteed bonds.
35.48 Local improvements -- Nonguaranteed bonds.
35.49 Local improvements -- Collection of assessments.
35.50 Local improvements -- Foreclosure of assessments.
35.51 Local improvements -- Classification of property -- Reserve funds.
35.53 Local improvements -- Disposition of property acquired.
35.54 Local improvements -- Guaranty funds.
35.55 Local improvements -- Filling lowlands.
35.56 Local improvements -- Filling and draining lowlands -- Waterways.

County RID Statutes

36.88 County road improvement districts.

Attorney General Opinions

Op.Atty.Gen. 1961-62, No. 109
(Requirement that city include, as part of total cost of improvement, that portion which it has voluntarily agreed to assume.)

Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys (WSAMA) Proceedings and Law Review Articles

Avoiding the Pitfalls of LID Assessment Lien Foreclosures, by Rod P. Kaseguma, Attorney, Roberts & Shefelman, Seattle. Information Bulletin No. 446 (1988), Legal Notes, Proceedings of June 18-19, 1987, pp. 115-123.
Hassle Free LIDs, by Rod P. Kaseguma, Attorney, Foster, Pepper & Shefelman. Information Bulletin No. 458 (1989), Legal Notes, Proceedings of October 26-28, 1988, pp. 169-180.
How the Tax Code Can Affect LIDs, by Cheryl L. Duryea, Attorney, Lane, Powell, Moss & Miller. Information Bulletin No. 458 (1989), Legal Notes, Proceedings of October 26-28, 1988, pp. 181-183.
LID Practices and Procedures: "Nuts and Bolts", by Lee Vorhees, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Seattle. Information Bulletin No. 494 (1996), Legal Notes, Proceedings of May 8-10, 1996, pp.9-1 - 9-18.
Local Improvement District Foreclosures, by William L. Cameron, City Attorney of Kennewick. Information Bulletin No. 458 (1989), Legal Notes, Proceedings of October 26-28, 1988, pp. 184-207.
Special Connection Fees, Latecomer Charges and LID Waivers; Some Comments on RCW 35.91.020 and 35.92.025 and Pending Spokane Litigation, by Robert G. Beaumier, Jr., Assistant City Attorney of Spokane. Information Bulletin No. 446 (1988), Legal Notes, Proceedings of June 18-19, 1987, pp. 133-150.
Ascertainment of Amount of Assessment Against Tract. 40 Wash.L.Rev. 121 (1965).

Court Decisions

[As referenced and discussed in Chapters Two and Six of the LID Manual, Fifth Edition]

Abbenhaus v. Yakima, 89 Wn.2d 855, 576 P.2d 888 (1978)
Bellevue Associates v. Bellevue, 108 Wn.2d 671, 741 P.2d 993 (1987)
Bellevue Plaza v. Bellevue, 121 Wn.2d 397, 851 P.2d 662 (1993)
Cammack v. City of Port Angeles, 15 Wn. App. 188, 197, 548 P.2d 571 (1976)
Chemical Bank v. WPPSS, 99 Wn.2d 772, 792, 666 P.2d 329
Doolittle v. Everett, 114 Wn.2d 88, 786 P.2d 253 (1990)
Esping v. Pesicka, 92 Wn.2d 515, 598 P.2d 1363 (1979)
Fisher Bros. v. Des Moines Sewer Dist., 97 Wn.2d 227, 643 P.2d 436 (1982)
Heavens v. King County Rural Library District, 66 Wn.2d 558, 564, 404 P.2d 453 (1965)
Hillis Homes Inc. v. Snohomish County, 97 Wash.2d 804, 808, 650 P.2d 193 (1982)
Hulo v. Redmond, 14 Wn.App. 568, 544 P.2d 34 (1975)
In re Elliott Avenue and Milwaukee Street, 54 Wash. 297, 298, 103 P. 20 (1909)
In re Grandview, 118 Wash. 464, 467, 203 P. 988 (1922)
In re Indian Trail Trunk Sewer Sys., 35 Wn. App. 840, 670 P.2d 675 (1983)
In re Schmitz, 44 Wn.2d 429, 433 34, 268 P.2d 436 (1954)
In re Seattle, 96 Wash.2d 616, 629, 638 P.2d 549 (1981)
Kasper v. Edmonds, 69 Wn.2d 799, 420 P.2d 346 (1966)
Kasper v. Thymian, 69 Wn.2d 799, 420 P.2d 346 (1966).
Malette v. City of Spokane, 77 Wash. 205, 137 P. 496 (1913).
McMillan v. Tacoma, 26 Wash. 358, 361, 67 P. 68 (1901).
Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, 278-279; 19 S.Ct. 187, 190; 43 L. Ed. 443, 447 (1898).
Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359 (1978)
Patchell v. Puyallup, 37 Wn. App. 434, 682 P.2d 913 (1984)
Real Estate Investment Company v. City of Spokane, 59 Wash. 416, 419, 109 P. 1057 (1910).
Schmitt v. Cape George Sewer District No. 1, 61 Wn. App. 1, 6, 809 P.2d 217 (1991)
Seattle v. Rogers Clothing, 114 Wash.2d 23, 229-231, 787 P.2d 39, 48 (Wash. 1990).
State ex rel. Neuert v. Alderwood Water District, 1 Wn.App. 480, 482, 462 P.2d 948 (1969)
State ex. rel Eastvold v. Maybury, 49 Wn.2d 533, 539, 304 P.2d 663 (1956)
Sterling Realty Co. v. Bellevue, 68 Wn.2d 760, 765, 415 P.2d 627 (1966)
Town of Tumwater v. Picks, 18 Wash. 153, 51 P. 353 (1897).

[Additional Cases]

Beach v. City of Bellingham, 80 Wash. 287, 141 P. 703 (1914)
(Provisions of city charter are superseded to the extent they are inconsistent with statutory local improvement district provisions.)
Brown v. City of Anacortes, 79 Wash. 33, 139 P. 652 (1914) (A requirement that a local improvement district include all territory which may be benefited is not strictly mandatory, and city council retains some discretion to decide to exclude property where it appears that the property could use other sewers.)
Buck v. Town of Monroe 85 Wash. 1, 147 P. 432 (1915)
(City may include in assessment of benefited property of cost of portion of improvement within street intersections, or may pay for whole or part of such cost out of its general fund.)
Casco Co. v. City of Olympia, 124 Wash. 218, 213 P. 915 (1923)
(Protest divesting city council of authority to proceed with a local improvement does not preclude the city from subsequently initiating proceedings for the same improvements.)
First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Walla Walla v. City of West Richland, 39 Wn. App. 401, 693 P.2d 171 (1985) (Challengers of LID assessments must be property owners to have standing; mortgage interest in leasehold was insufficient ownership interest to entitle mortgagee to object.)
Forsgreen v. City of Spokane, 28 Wn. App. 919, 627 P.2d 118 (1981), review denied
(City has broad discretion in establishing local improvement district boundaries.)
Hansen v. Local Imp. Dist. No. 335, 54 Wn. App. 257, 773 P.2d 436 (1989) (Slight evidence is all that is necessary to meet requirement that city make record demonstrating that it considered merits of using particular method of assessment.)
Hargreaves v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 37 Wn.2d 522, 224 P.2d 1061 (1950) (Municipality may follow the termini and zone method provided by statute or may provide for assessments to be made against the property in accordance with the special benefits such property will derive from the improvement.)
In Re: California Ave. Local Improv. Dist., 30 Wash.2d 144, 190 P.2d 738 (1948)
(Local improvements are grounded in the theory that property specially benefited may be assessed to the extent of special benefits accruing from an improvement.)
In re Local Imp. No. 6097, City of Seattle, 52 Wash.2d 330, 324 P.2d 1078 (1958)
(Assessments cannot substantially exceed amount of special benefits; assessment roll will be presumed to be correct, and burden rests on challenger to show otherwise.)
Knickerbocker Co. v. City of Seattle, 69 Wash. 365, 124 P. 922 (1912)
(The city has the discretion to determine the necessity of an improvement, and how it is to be constructed.)
Little Deli Marts, Inc. v. City of Kent 108 Wn. App. 1, 32 P.3d 286 (2001), review denied 145 Wash.2d 1030, 42 P.3d 975
(A failure to appeal an LID assessment may not mount a collateral attack absent a jurisdictional defect in the LID proceedings.)
Kusky v. City of Goldendale, 85 Wn. App. 493, 933 P.2d 430 (1997) (Degree to which property is specially benefited from LID is measured by difference between fair market value of property immediately before and immediately after improvement.)
Peoples Nat. Bank of Washington v. City of Anacortes, 44 Wn. App. 262, 721 P.2d 1003 (1986)
(Defect in city's notice of public hearing on proposed LID, which failed to describe the estimated benefits, was waived by affected property owner who failed to assert the deficiency in hearing before city council.)
Redding v. City of Spokane, 81 Wash. 263, 142 P. 664 (1914)
(Objection that notice of hearing on assessment roll failed to conform to statute is waived where owners presented their objections to roll and were accorded hearing thereon.)
Vincent v. City of South Bend, 83 Wash. 314, 145 P. 452 (1915)
(An assessment is not invalidated because it exceeds the initial cost estimate; the purpose of an estimate is to provide city council with information to decide whether or not to go forward with improvement.)

Selected Library Holdings

These publications are available to Washington State city/town/county employees and officials to borrow at no charge through the MRSC Library Loan Request Form. If you are not a Washington city/town/county official or employee, we suggest you contact your local public library or law library for information or research direction.

Poulsbo, WA Ordinance No. 89-45 provides for the deferral of certain land use approval conditions relating to the improvement of Viking Avenue in exchange for covenants expressing non-opposition to an LID and providing for construction in the event no LID is formed Passed 11/89.
"Financing LIDs," Puget Sound Finance Officers, May 8, 1996.
"LID Guaranty Fund Benchmarks Roundtable Workshop," Washington Municipal Treasurers Association, April 1998.
Ocean Shores, WA Ordinance No. 682 establishes a system of charges in lieu of assessment for connections to improvement to the City system of sewerage.
Langley Ordinance No. 752 regulates foreclosure on utility local improvement district delinquent assessments, passed 10-97.
Pierce County, WA Ordinance No. 2003-34 establishes an administrative write-off policy for uncollectible delinquent utility local improvement district assessments, passed 7/1/03
Yelm Ordinance Nos. 654 and 655 creating Local Improvement District to upgrade its sewer treatment plant, provide for the issuance and sale of LID bonds and interim financing warrants or notes.