Loading...
ORD 95-03 LID 13 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLORDINANCE NO. 95-03 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, approving and confirming the assessments and assessment roll of Local Improvement District No. 13 for the improvement of High School Road from Madison Avenue North to Ferncliff Avenue Northeast by the construction and installation of water mains, sewer mains, storm drainage facilities, streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, traffic signals, underground power and telephone facilities and landscaping as provided by Ordinance No. 90-05, and levying and assessing a portion of the cost and expense thereof against several lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property as shown on the assessment roll. WHEREAS, the assessment roll levying the special assessments against the property located in Local Improvement District No. 13 in the City of Bainbridge Island, Washington (the "City"), has been filed with the City Clerk as provided by law; and WHEREAS, notice of a hearing on the roll and of the opportunity to make objections and protests to the roll was published in the manner provided by law, fixing the time and place of the hearing for January 12, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., in the Bainbridge Island High School Library, 9330 N.E. High School Road, Bainbridge Island, Washington, and further notice thereof was mailed by the City Clerk to each property owner shown on the roll; and WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed and designated in the notice the hearing was held; and WHEREAS, the hearing was continued to February 9, March 9, March 23, May 11, and June 8, 1995; and WHEREAS, all written protests received were considered and all persons appearing at the hearing who wished to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council, sitting and acting as a Board of Equalization for the purpose of considering the roll and the special benefits to be received by each lot, parcel and tract of land shown upon such roll, including the increase and enhancement of the fair market value of each such parcel of land by reason of the improvement, determined to modify on assessment appearing on such roll and overruled all other protests; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: ORDINANCE CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL F:\DMSXRPK\0076157.01 07/07/95 - 1 - Section 1. The City Council adopts by reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached as Exhibit A. Section 2. The assessment for parcel 6 on the assessment roll of Local Improvement District No. 13 ("LID No. 13") is reduced from $70,348 to $35,000. Section 3. The assessments and assessment roll of LID No. 13, which has been created and established for the purpose of improving High School Road from Madison Avenue North to Ferncliff Avenue Northeast by the construction and installation of water mains, sewer mains, storm drainage facilities, streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, traffic signals, underground power and telephone facilities and landscaping, as provided by Ordinance No. 90- 05, as the same now stand after the modification made in Section 2, is approved and confirmed in the total amount of $1,459,652. Section 4. Each of the lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property shown upon the assessment roll is determined and declared to be specially bene~ted by the LID No. 13 improvements in at least the amount charged against the same, and the assessment appearing against the same is in proportion to the several assessments appearing upon the roll. There is levied and assessed against each lot, tract or parcel of land and other property appearing upon the roll the amount finally charged against the same on the roll. Section 5. Parcels 6 through (and including) 13 on the assessment roll of LID No. 13 shall pay to the City before connection of all or a portion of those parcels to the sewer improvements in LID No. 13 a charge in lieu of assessment (delayed benefit charge) equal to a pro rata share of $69,682, which amount is the total cost of such sewer improvements (actual construction, a percentage share of the construction contractor's general costs, and a percentage share of the overall expenses for the improvements, e.g., interim financing costs, inspection, legal and engineering). Fifty percent of the total cost of $69,682 shall be allocated by front footage of the parcels along High School Road, and fifty percent of such total cost shall be allocated by square footage of the parcels. The charge in lieu of assessment shall include interest charges from the end of the 30-day prepayment period until connection, for a period not to exceed ten years, at an interest rate equal to the interest rate charged to the City for permanent financing in LID No. 13. If all or a portion of parcels 6 through (and including) 13 are connected to the sewer improvements in LID No. 13 before the effective date of this ordinance, these parcels shall pay the charge in lieu of assessment within 45 days of the effective date of this ordinance. Section 6. The assessment roll as approved and confirmed shall be filed with the City Clerk for collection, and the City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice as required by law stating that the roll is in her hands for collection and that payment of any assessment thereon or any portion of such assessment can be made at any time within thirty days from the date of first publication of such notice without penalty, interest or cost, and that thereafter the sum remaining unpaid may be paid in 10 equal annual installments together with interest. The estimated interest rate is stated to be 6.25 % per annum, with the exact interest rate to be fixed in the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of the local improvement bonds for LID No. ORDINANCE CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL F:XDMS\RPK\0076157.01 07/07/95 - 2 - 13. The first installment of assessment on the assessment roll shall become due and payable during the thirty-day period succeeding the date one year after the date of first publication by the City Clerk of notice that the assessment roll is in her hands for collection and annually thereafter each succeeding installment shall become due and payable in like manner. If the whole or any portion of the assessment remains unpaid after the first thirty-day period, interest upon the whole unpaid sum shall be charged at the rate as determined above, and each year thereafter one of the installments together with interest due on the unpaid balance, shall be collected. Any installment not paid prior to expiration of the thirty-day period during which such installment is due and payable shall thereupon become delinquent, and shall be subject to penalties and interest in accordance with Section 3.48.100 of the City Municipal Code. The collection of such delinquent installments shall be enforced in the manner provided by law and Section 3.48.110 of the City Municipal Code. Section 7. This ordinance shall be take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council this 20th day of July, 1995. Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: C{ty Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: July 26, 1995 EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1995 ORDINANCE NO.: 95-03 July 7, 1995 July 20, 1995 ORDINANCE CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL F:\DMS~RPK\0076157.01 07/07/95 - 3 - I, SUSAN KASPER, City Clerk of the City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, certify that the attached copy of Ordinance No. 95-03 is a true and correct copy of the original ordinance passed on the 20th day of July, 1995, as that ordinance appears on the Minute Book of the City. DATED this 21st day of July, 1995. CityCl~e~ ORDINANCE CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL F:XDMS\RPK\0076157.01 07/07/95 - 4 - ~UL ~0 '95 04:45PM'F P ~ S SERTTLE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-03 In re LID 13 1. Introduction. This matter came before the City of Bainbridge Island City Council ("Council") for confirmation of the final assessment roll in Local Improvement District No. 13 ("LID"). The Council considered the final assessment roll, and protests noted herein, and enters the following Conclusions of Law. FINDINgs OF FACT Council Findings of Fact and ProceedinGs. Z.1 The hearing in this matter commenced before the on January 12, 1995. The hearing continued on the following dates: February 9, 1995; March 9, 1995; March 23, 1995; May 11, 1995; and June 8, 1995. The Council received further evidence, closed the hearing and heard argument on June 8, 1995. The Council commenced its deliberation on June 15, 1995, and determined to confirm the final assessment roll as modified. 2.2 The parties were given full opportunity to express their positions and offer evidence. The Council took the matter under advisement following closing arguments- 2.3 The Council has maintained a structured process for receipt of testimonial and documentary evidence. All witnesses were sworn and subject to cross-examination- Exhibits (including correspondence received prior to the close of the hearing) were considered- The Council observed, weighed and considered the appearance, demeanor and credibility of witnesses. -1- JUL ZO '95 04:46PM'F P · S SEATTLE P.ZO/~Z 3. partieS- The following parcels and parties appeared regarding the LID and assessments on the various parcels. 3.1 Parcel 14 i ( ,,Mathwig" ), Buskirk, Law Offices of Bruce Buskirk, Shiers, Chrey, Cox & Caulkins · 3.2 represented by Bruce and by Gary T. Chrey, Parcel 13 (,,Martin-Patterson"), represented by Jack Maher. 3.3 Parcel 12 (,,Kitsap County Bank"), represented by Gary Chrey, Shiers, Chrey, cox & caulkins. 3.4 Parcels 7-11 (.Deschamps-Fitzgerald"), represented by John C. O,Rourke, Law Offices of John C. O'Rourke; and 3.5 Parcel 6 (,,Lumberman's"), represented by Richard Hoss, Hoss & Wilson-Moss- 3.6 The City was represented by P- Stephen DiJulio, Foster pepper & Shefelman 4. Backcrround- 4.1 The LID was formed by the City of Winslow (now, the City of Bainbridge Island) by Ordinance 90-05 (February 15, 1990)- The LID, also known as "High School Road LID," was to provide improvements to nigh School Road and to the utilities in the vicinity of High School Road, between Madison Avenue to the west and Ferncliff Avenue to the east. The description of the LID is contained in Ordinance No. 90-05, and is incorporated herein by this reference. The LID includes most of the properties with access to High School Road between Madison and Ferncliff Avenues, including parcels located along Hildebrand Lane. There are a total of 31 tax parcels (Kitsap county) within the LID. The parcels -2- ~UL ZO '95 04:46PM'F P & S SEATTLE P.21/32 include a variety of current uses, including retail, office and multi-family residential, as well as vacant properties- 4.2 Improvement Before LID. High School Road between Madison Avenue and Ferncliff Avenue before the LID was a two-lane arterial, 24 feet in width. pedestrian facilities were intermittent, consisting either of road shoulder or limited sidewalks- The intersection of High School Road with Madison Avenue was controlled by a four-way stop. The intersection with SR 305 was controlled by a traffic signal- The intersection with Ferncliff Avenue was controlled by a stop sign for traffic eastbound on High School Road. Properties north of High School Road and. east of SR 305 were not served by public water or sewer systems. 4.3 Project Improvements- The project improvements included widening of Migh School Road to create a full three-lane section including a center turn lane and turn lanes at the interchange with SR 305. The intersection of SR 305 and Migh School Road represents a ~ajor commercial intersection within the City. LID 13 read improvements include stozm drainage, utilities, signalization, street lights, landscaping and sidewalks. To the east of SR 305, a new sewer line was installed to serve the northeast quadrant of the LID area. Mowever, the assessment roll does not include assessments for sewer improvements- The water system was extended to provide adequate fire flow throughout the LID area and to provide for public water service in the northeast quadrant of the LID area. -3- JUL 80 '95 04:4GPM'F P & S SEATTLE P. 22/32 4.4 EXcluded properties- Two parcels of property at the intersection of Madison Avenue and High School Road were excluded from the LID- 4.4.1 No Challenge to LID Boundaries- There was no challenge to the formation or boundaries oft he LID. ConsequentlY, any challenge to the exclusion of properties is both unfounded and untimely- However, the Council addresses the excluded properties as follows- 4.4.2 LibrarY. The painbridge Island Library is located art he southeast corner of the intersection of High School Road and Madison Avenue- Unlike most other parcels within the LID, the Library has access to another arterial street, Madison Avenue, and is improved upon the frontage of Madison Avenue. The Library iS developed for limited public use and its highest and best use is "as improved." There does not appear to be special benefit to the library parcel as a result of the LID improvements- 4.4.3 St- CeceliaChurch- The St. CeceliaChurchparcel is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of High School Road and Madison Avenue- Similar to the Library, it is served by full street improvements from Madison Avenue. Further, the Church, as a result of redevelopment prior to the LID, was required to construct major street improvements on both Madison Avenue and High School Road, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks- The LID replaced the improvements constructed by the Church on High School Road. The church was not benefited specially by the LID 13 improvements. 4.4.4 city contribution- Even were the Council to determine that the Library and Church parcels were benefited -4- 3'UL Pg '95 g4:4?PM'F P 8~ S SF_Iql IIF P. 23x32, specially by the LID improvements, the City has provided for any such inadvertent omission by electing to'pay approximately 35% of the total project cost. Included within the City's determination to pay certain of the project costs was to provide for any omitted properties- 4.5.1 slopes and wetlands- Road, the easement unusable- The speculative in restrictions 4.5 properties Not Assessed. The Council has evaluated certain claims regarding properties included within the LID, but not found to have special benefit- Parcel 1 is an interior parcel with steep While access is byan easement to MighSchool crosses a deep gully and is practicably development potential for this property is light of its development constraints and deed (non-profit use)- Special benefits have not been demonstrated as a result of the LID improvements- 4.5.2 Parcel 20 is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of High School Road and Ferncliff. It is improved as a low-income apartment complex. Unlike other parcels that will benefit by increased exposure, traffic flow and improvements, Parcel 20 has not been demonstrated to have the potential for increased rents and value as a result of the LID improvements. The Council notes that counsel for parcels 7-11 was also counsel for Parcel 20 and asserted to Bruce C. Allen & ASsociates ("Allen") that rent restrictions would preclude special benefit. The Council finds similarly that the location and other factors regarding parcel 20 preclude a finding of special benefit- -5- ]UL 20 '95 04:47PN'F P & S SERTTLE P.24/32 4.5.3 Challengers to the final assessment roll have not presented facts sufficient to demonstrate that parcels i or 20 should be assessed, or that the assessments against the other parcels within the !~D are not proportional- 4.6 Sewer Utility Improvements- The assessments levied in the LID do not include any assessments for construction or improvement of the City's system of sewerage. To the extent properties connect to the improvements, the City will apply latecomer fees, connection charges, and other appropriate rates and charges for such ~mprovements. The Council has not considered sewer improvements, or the availability of sewer, to be a special benefit and its confiLmation of the final assessment roll is not premised on sewer improvements constructed pursuant to this LID- 4.7 Dat~ of Value. The Council evaluates the special benefit to property as of a given date. This approach is recognized in the appraisal industrY, and was used by the appraisers who testified in this matter- Allen used a date of analysis of July 1, 1993. Nicholas H. Veenstra, MAI, the Clarke Consulting Group (,,Veenstra"}, used a date of June 1, 199Z- Charles R. Macaulay, MAI, Macaulay &Associates, Ltd. (,,Macaulay"), did not prepare an appraisal, but recognized that: valuation of property rights resulting in estimates of value before and after the attachment of special benefits derived from an LID project should be as of the same date. The various LID improvements were constructed over time, but not placed finally into service until later in 1993. The Council finds the valuation date of July 1, 1993, ~mployed by Allen, to be reasonable and supportable- However, there is no material -6° JUL 20 '95 04:47PM'F P & S SEATTLE P.Z5/~ difference for purposes of this Council's decision based upon different dates for considering the before and after value of the property benefited by the improvements. 4.8 Special Benefit Process. The appraisers recognize the use of special benefits assessment for determining. the assessments- The use of a special benefits approach is valid and supportable by the record, and more fairly reflects the special benefits from the improvements than other methods- 5. parcel 13 [Martin-Patterson)- Parcel 13 did not protest its assessment. Upon learning that the assessment did not include sewer improvements, the representatives of Parcel 13 did not participate further in the proceedings. The assessment against parcel 13 is ratified and confirmed. 6. Parcel 6 [~mberman's)- Parcel 6 protested the initial assessment in the amount of 870,348. Upon stipulation, a copy of which is included in the record, the assessment was to be reduced ,,to no more than $35,000." The stipulation of the parties is acknowledged and accepted by the council. An assessment in the amount of $35,000 against Parcel 6 is hereby ratified and confirmed- The assessment role is reduced accordingly- 7. Burden of Proof. The City proceeds on the assumption that the LID Assessments are correct- The burden is upon the party challenging the assessment to prove its incorrecthess, as it is pres~ed the City has acted legally and properly- Abbenhaus v- Yakimp, 89 Wn.2d 855, 861, 576 P.2d 888 (1978)- Further, [i]t is pres,~ed that an improvement is a benefit; that an assessment is no greater than the benefit~ that an assessment is equal or ratable to an assessment upon other property similarly situated; and that the assessment is fair" JLL 80 '95 04:48pMiF P & S SEATTLE p.~6/3~ Ida, ~Trautman, Assessments in Washington, 40 Wa. L Rev. 100, 118 (1965). Here, only parcels 7-11 submitted a before and after appraisal that would cause the Council to consider the challenge to the validity of the assessment. The protests from parcels 14i and 12 are unsupported by before and after appraisal evidence, and therefore do not overcome the presumption of correcthess- Nevertheless, the Council addresses the protest~ of parcels 14i and 12, as well as the protests of parcels 7-11. 8. parcel 14i (Mathwi~) 8.1 Parcel i4i is located on the eastside of Hildebrand Lane, adjacent (west) of SR 305, and approximately 450 feet south of High School Road- The parcel's sole means of legal access to High School Road is by Hildebrand Lane. The property is substantially similar to Parcels 14h and 14g immediately north of parcel 14i. The Parcel is unimproved, but is suitable for commercial/retail development- parcel 14g has been improved with a Seafirst Bank building- parcel 14h has been improved with a University Federal Savings and Loan building. 8.2 Unlike Parcels 14b, c, d, and e (west of ~ildebrand Lane), Parcel 14i is without access to Wallace Way to. the south- ConsequentlY, Allen properly determined that parcel 14i received greater special benefit than Parcels 14b, c, d and e. parcel 14i was assessed in the same manner as adjacent Parcels 14h and g, and properties similarly situated within the LID. 8.3 Allen's approach to assessment of parcels 14b - 14e was criticized. Allen acknowledged that his approach may have caused confusion- Because of the long history of the LID, and the ongoing discussions withpropertY owners, Allen made a determination to not -8- ~UL ~0 '95 04~48PN. F P · S SE~ITTI_E change the -before" values of parcels 14b-e, but rather to adjust the special benefits. The Council finds no material impact as a result of this approach, and no parcel has been prejudiced as a result of this approach- The assessments remain proportional, based on the special benefits reported in the Allen study- 8.4 The before value of Parcel 14i is $206,47 4. The after value is $344,124- The special benefits accruing to the property as a result of the LID improve-m-ents is $137,650- The assessment levied against the property is $29,289, or approximately $.85 per square foot. 9- parcel 12 (KitsaD Bank] 9.1 parcel 12 is located on the north side of High School Road, approximately 290 feet east of SR 305. The Parcel's sole means of legal access is provided by High School Road- In the before condition, the road adjacent to the parcel was a two lane section with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. There was a 5 foot gravel walkway and landscaping- The after condition is described above- 9.2 Parcel 12 is improved with a good quality wood frame, one-~torY bank building of approximately 6,185 square feet. The land and building are owned by Kitsap Bank. Certain of the building space is leased to other tenants. The property is improved to its highest and best use. The Council has evaluated whether the LID improvements contribute value to that use, notwithstanding that the protest has not presented a before and after appraisal to challenge the Allen appraisal. In the Council's consideration, it has evaluated the testimony of the appraisers, the bank representatives and the City's finance director who has -9- JUL 80 '95 04:48P~ F P & S SEATTLE P. Z8/3Z substantial prior experience in the siting of retail bank facilities- The Council also notes the testimony of the bank's appraiser, Macaulay, that there is substantial benefit from the improvements, and as a result he did not prepare a before and after appraisal. The bank is specially benefited by the LID improvements- 9.3 The Council notes that the assessment against Kitsap Bank recognizes its improvement to highest and best use, and is less than other bank parcel~ (such as Parcels 3, 4, 14g and 14h). The Parcel 12 assessment is fair and proportional- 9.4 The Council notes further thatthe bank's testimony regarding a decrease in automatic teller transactions over a limited period of time is not persuasive- The construction of additional banks in the vicinity is documented in these proceedings- See e.g., ParCels 14g and 14h. 9.5 The before value of the bank property is $900,000. The after value of the bank property is $1,030,000. The special benefits from LID improvements is $130,000. The assessment against Parcel 12 is $27,661, or approXimatelY $.66 per sqlxare foot. ' 10. Parcels 7-11 (DeschamDs-Fitzgerald] 10.1 As recognized by Veenstra, these parcels are an integral part of the neighborhood. Parcels 7-11 are located on the north side of High School Road with combined frontage of approximately 320 feet on High School Road. While there is 552 feet of frontage on SR 305, there is no vehicular access other than from High School Road. In the before condition, the road adjacent to the subject parcels was a two lane section, with no curbs, -10- JUL PO ' 95 04: 49PM. F P & S SEATTLE gutters or sidewalks- In the after condition the road was improved, as noted above. 10.2 parcels 7-11 vary in size and shape. However, the appraisers are consistent in their evaluation that the highest and best use of the property is for commercial development- The majority of the site would be suitable for multiple retail, office and other uses. One or two pad sites would be available £or development immediatelY adjacent to High School Road. 10.3 During the course of these final assessment roll hearings, the City was also involved in hearings on Comprehensive Plan decisionsunder the GrowthManagement Act ("GMA"). The owners of Parcels 7-11 had, in separate proceedings, appealed Council decisions to the Growth Management Hearing Board- On r~mand, the City reconsidered, and revised the GMA plan designations for parcels 10 and 11 only by ordering reclassification from HSR II to HSR. While the Council takes notice of the GMAproceedings, such proceedings do not influence materially the finding of special benefit from the LID improvements. 10.4 Under any of the Comprehensive Plan designations considered by the Council (e-g., HSR or HSR II), the Plan and development regulations to follow will allow for major commercial development of the parcels. The highest and best use of the property for commercial development would not be realized in the before situation because of the absence of supporting infrastructure- LID 13 improvements allow for the properties' development to its highest and best use and benefit specially the parcels- -11- 3'LL PO ' 95 04: 49PM' F P ~ S SF_~TTIE P. ~1~/3~. 10.5 Each property in the vicinity of Parcels 7-11 (including multi-familY, large and small retail, and office) has been required as a condition of development to construct or provide for necessary improvements- The Council takes notice of the City's development ordinances in this regard. Further, the comparable properties referenced by Veenstra were also subject to substantial development expenses that parcels 7-11 would have been responsible for in the absence of the LID. Such expenses are typically in the range of $2 to $5 per square foot- Mere, the average assessment over the entirety of Parcels 7-11 is approximately $.60 per square foot. Veenstra's opinion that no benefit accrues tothe parcels as a result of the LID improvements is not credible- 10.6 Parcel 10, at the northeast corner of SR 305 and High School Road, is assessed at the same per square foot rate for special benefit as t~e property immediatelyto the south (improved with a McDonald's restaurant) and at the same rate as the other two corner~ of the intersection. parcel 11 and interior parcels 7-9 are assessed for special benefits in amounts proportional to other properties within the LID. 10.7 The before value of Parcel 7 is $310,365. The after value is $620,730- The special benefits from LID improvements is $310,365- The assessment against Parcel 7 is $66,038, or approximately $.53 per square foot. 10.8 The before value of parcel 8 is $100,188- The after value is $200,376- The special benefits from LID improvements is $100,188- The assessment against Parcel 8 is $21,318, or approximately $.53 per square foot. -12- ] ~UL ZO '95 04:49PM.F P ~ S SEATTLE P.31/3~ 10.9 The before value of Parcel 9 is $300,564- The after value is $601,128. The special benefit from LID im[~rovements is $300,564. The assessment against Parcel 9 is $63,953, or approximately $.53 per square foot. 10.10 The before value of Parcel 10 is $353,707. The after value is 8606,355. The special benefit from LID improvements is $252,648. The assessment against Parcel 10 is $53,758, or approximately $1.06 per square foot. 10.11 The before value of Parcel 11 is $137,214. The after value is 8215,622- The special benefit from LID improvements is $78,408. The assessment against Parcel 11 is $16,683, or approximately $.85 per square foot. 10.12 The evidence of values presented in the protest of parcels 7-11 is not persuasive- The evidence of values presented by Allen is accepted by the Council. 11. General- The challengers to the LID final assessment roll have not presented evidence that is persuasive or sufficient as to the special benefits to the parcels at issue. The Allen appraisal, and supporting data, supports the special benefit assessments as to the challenged parcels. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12. Ouasi-Judicial Decision- This decision is the independent, quasi-judicial decision of the Council, sitting and acting as a Board of Equalization after having weighed the evidence and considered the record as presented by the parties. 13. presumptions- Several presumptions favor the City: 1) the improvements are a benefit to the properties within the LID; 2) the assessment is no greater than the benefit; 3) the assessment is -13- JUL 80 '95 04:58PM.F P & S SEATTLE P.38/3E equal or ratable to assessments upon other properties similarly situated; and 4) the assessment is fair. In Re Indian Trail Trunk Sewer, 35 Wash. App. 840,620 P.2d 675 (1983), citing, Abbenhaus v. yakimp, 89 Wn.2d 855, 576 p.2d 888 (1978). Because of these presumptions the burden of going forward with evidence attacking these presumptions is on the protestor. In Re Indian Trail T~unk Sewe~, supra. 14. Sufficiency of Evidence- There has been insufficient evidence to rebut the expert testimony of Allen. Even were the Council to determine that there was sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption, the weight of the evidence supports the findings of special benefit, in at least the amount shown upon the roll. 15. Assessments proportional. The assessments are equal, ratable, and proportional among similarlysituated properties- The benefits are Special to the parcels within the LID, except as noted. The benefits are substantially greater to the parcels assessed than will be realized by the general public. 16. Special Benefit. Each of the lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property shown upon the assessment roll is determined and declared to be specially benefited by the LID improvements in at least the amount charged against the same, except as modified herein. The assessment appearing against the parcels is in proportion to the several assessments appearing upon the roll- &0144072.04 -14- JLL 20 '95 04:40PM'F P & S SEATTLE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISIa~ND EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 95-03 [WITH MR. O'ROURKE'S PROPOSALS AND :MR. CHREY'S COMMENTS] In re LID 13 1. Introduction. This matter came before the City of Bainbridge Island City Council (.Council") for confirmation of the final assessment roll in Local Improvement District No. 13 ("LID"). The Council considered the final assessment roll, and protests noted herein, and enters the following Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT CounCil Findings of Fact and ProceedinGs- 2.1 The hearing in this matter commenced before the on January 12, 1995. The hearing continued on the following dates: February 9, 1995; March 9, 1995; March 23, 1995; May 11, 1995; and June 8, 1995. The Council received further evidence, closed the hearing and heard argument on June 8, 1995. The Council commenced its deliberation on June 15, 1995, and determined to confirm the final assessment roll as modified. 2.2 The parties were given full opportunity to express their positions and offer evidence. The Council took the matter under advisement following closing arguments. 2.3 The council has maintained a structured process for receipt of testimonial and documentary evidence. All witnesses were sworn and subject to cross-examination. Exhibits (including correspondence received prior to the close of the hearing) were -1- ]LIL 28 ' 95 04: 41~PM' F P ~ S SEIzITTLE P. considered. The Council observed, weighed and considered the appearance, demeanor and credibility of witnesses. 3. PartieS. The following parcels and parties appeared regarding the LID and assessments on the various parcels. 3.1 Parcel 14i ("Mathwig"), represented by Bruce Buskirk, Law Offices of Bruce Buskirk. CHREY: The lan~uaqe should be modified to provide that Robert_ C. Mathwi~ was represented bY both Bruce Huskirk, of the Law Offices of Bruce Buskirk, and Garv T. Chrev, of Shiers, ChreV, cox & Caulkins- 3.2 Parcel 13 (-Martin-Patterson"), representedby Jack Maher. 3.3 Parcel 12 ("Kitsap County Bank"), represented by Gary Chrey, Sheits, Chrey, Cox & Caulkins. C~REY: The reference to "Sheits" should properly be "Shiers". 3.4 Parcels 7-11 (,,Deschamps-Fitzgerald"), represented by John C. O'Rourke, Law Offices of John C. O'Rourke; and 3.5 Parcel 6 ("Lumberman's"), represented by Richard Hoss, Hoss & Wilson-Hoss. 3.6 The City was represented by P. Stephen DiJulio, Foster Pepper & Shefelman 4. Background. 4.1 The LID was formed by the City o£ Winslow (now, the City of Bainbridge Island) by Ordinance 90-05 (February 15, 1990). The LID, also known as "High Sc~hool Road LID," was to provide improvements to High School Road and to the utilities in the vicinity of High School Road, between Madison Avenue to the west -2- JUL ~0 '95 04: 40PM F P I~ S SEATTLE P.4/32 and [erncliff Avenue to ~he east. The description of the LID is contained in Ordinance No. 90-05, and is incorporated herein by this reference. The LID includes most of the properties with access to High School Road between Madison and [erncliff AvenUes, including parcels located along HildebrandLane. There are a total of 31 tax parcels (Kitsap County) within the LID- The parcels include a variety of current uses, including retail, office and multi-familY residential, a~ well as vacant-properties. 4.2 Improvement Before LID. High School Road between Madison Avenue and Ferncliff Avenue before the T.TD was a two-lane arterial, 24 ~eet in width. pedestrian facilities were intermittent, consisting either of road shoulder or limited sidewalks- The intersection of High School Road with Madison Avenue was controlled by a =eur way step- The intcrocetion with SR 305 was co~rollca by = traffiu ~ign=l traffic light. The intersection with Ferncliff Avenne ~as controlled by a stop sign ~or traffic eastbound on High School Road. Properties north of High School Road and east of SR 305 were not served by public water or sewer systems, however, private water and ~ewer service existed or was available to serve said DroDe~ties. C~R[~: It should be noted that there is testimony in the r~cord that the area ~as served by bo~h private and Dublie water and sewer systems. 4.3 Project Improvements. The project improvements included widening of ~igh School Road to create a full three-lane section including a center turn lane and turn lanes at the interchange with SR 305. The intersection of SR 305 and High School Road represents a major commercial intersection~e~ri~..with ~UL ZO '95 04:4iPM'F P & S SEATTLE P.5/3~. the City. LID 13 road improvements include sto~ drainage, utilities, signali~ation, street lights, landscaping and sidewalks- To the east of SR 305, a new ~ewer line was installed to serve the northeast quadrant of the LID area. However, the assessment roll does not include assessments for sewer improvements. Properties north of ~i~h School Road and east of SR 305 may connect to tb.e sewer line on a latecomer basis with pro-rata cost to the Darcels recouped throuqh latecomer charqers- The water system was extended to provide adequate fire flow throughout the LID =re-~- and to provide for public water service in the northeast quadrant of the LID area. CHR~Y: It should be noted that the intersection of SR 305 and High School Road was a ma~or co=mercial intersection both before and after the improvements of L.I.D. No. 13. It should also be noted that Bruce C. Allen was unable on behalf of the City to .seqre~ate the value of the water and sewer imDrovements from the othe~ special benefits to the Kit~aD Bank and Mathwi~ properties. 4.4 ~xcluded Properties. Two parcels of property at the intersection of ~adison Avenue and ~igh school Road were excluded ~rom the LID. 4.4.1 No Challenge to LID Boundaries- There was no challenge to the formation or boundaries of the LID. Consequently, any challenge to the exclusion of properties is both unfounded and untimely. However, the Council addresses the excluded properties as follows. 4.4.2 LibrarY. The Bainbridge Island Library is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of High School Road and ~adison Avenue. Unlike most other parcels within the LID, the -4- JUL ZO '95 04:4iPM;F P & S SEATTLE P.E~Z Library has access to another arterial street, Madison Avenue, and is improved upon the frontage of Madison Avenue. The Library is developed for l~mited public use and its highest and best use is "as improved." There does not appear to be special benefit to the library parcel as a result of the LID i~prove_ments. 4.4- 3 St. Cecelia Church. The St. Cecelia Church parcel is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of High School Road and Madison Avenue- Similar to the Library, it is served by full street improvements from Madison Avenue. Further, the Church, as a result of redevelopSent prior to the LID, was required to construct major street i m~Drovement~ on both Madison Avenue and High School Road, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks- The LID replaced the improvements constructed by the Church on High School Road. The church was not benefited specially by the LID 13 improvements- 4.4.4 City Contribution. Even were the Council to determine that the Library and Church parcels were benefited specially by the LID improvements, the City ham provided for any such inadvertent omission by electing to pay approximately ~8~ of cost. Included within the City'~ determination the total project to pay certain of the project costs was~o provide for any omitted> properties. 4.5 Properties Not Assessed. The Council has evaluated certain claims regarding properties included within the LID, but not found to have special benefit. 4.5.1 slopes and wetlands. Road, the easement Parcel i is an interior parcel with steep While access is by an easement to High School crosses a deep gully and is practicably -5- JUL 80 '95 04:4iPM'F e ~ S EF_I::III'~ unusable. speculative restrictions The development potential for this property is in light of its development constraints and deed (non-profit use). special benefits have not been dn~onstrated as a result of the LID improvements- 4.5.2 Parcel 20 is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of High School Road and Ferncliff. It is improved as a low-income apartment complex. Unlike other parcels that will benefit by increased exposure, traffic flow and improvements, parcel 20 has not been demonstrated to have the potential for increased rents and value as a result of the LID improvements. The Council notes that counsel for Parcels 7-11 was al~o counsel for parcel 20 and asserted to Bruce C. Allen & Associates ("Allen") that rent restrictions would preclude special benefit. The Council finds similarly that the location and other factors regarding Parcel 20 preclude a finding of special benefit. CHREY: The testimony of Bruce C. Allen was that the rent restrictions aDDlicable to the low-income apartment complex had a life of five to seven years. Mr. Allen further testified that the life of the improvements of L.I.D. No. 13 was f~ftv years. The finding as ~roDosed completeIV fails to address this =estimonV. 4.5.3 Challengers to ~he £inal asses~men~ roll h~ve not presented facts su=ficient to demonstrate that Parcels I or 20 should be assessed, or that the assessments against the other parcels within the LID are not proportional. 4.6 Sewer Utility Improvements- The assessments levied in the LID do not include any assessments for construction or improvement of the Cit~'s system of sewerage- To the extent properties connect to the improvements, the City will apply -6- ~.~ JUL 20 · ~5 0~: ~]~ F ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ LE latecomer fees, connection charges, and o~-her appropriate rates and / charges for such improvements. The Council has/'n/ot considered benefit and its confik~ation of the final assessment roll is not pr~ised on sewer improvements constructed pursuant to this LID. Alien testified that special benefits attached to Parcel 7-11 b~ reason of sewer construction and Allen was unable to searedate or separate sewer benefits to parcels 7-11 from his findin~ of special benefit as to each Darcel- CHREY: Bruce C. Allen was unable to searedate the value of the water and sewer improvements from the other special benefits to the KitsaD Bank and Mathwia properties. 4.7 Date of Value. The Council evaluates the special benefit to property as of a given date. This approach is recognized in the appraisal industry, and was used by the appraisers who testified in this matter. Allen used a date of analysis of July 1, 1993. 'Nicholas H. Veenstra, MAI, the Clarke Consulting Group (.Veenstra"), used a date of June 1, 1992. Charles R. Macaulay, MAI, Macaulay & Associates, Ltd- ("Macaulay"), did not prepare an appraisal, but recognized that: Valuation of property rights resulting in e~timates of value before and after the attachment of special benefits derived from an LID project should be as of the ~ame date. The various LID improvements were constructed over time, but not placed finally into service until later in 1993. The Council [inds the valuation date of July 1, 1993, employed by ~llen, to be reasonable and supportable- However, there is no material difference for purposes of this Council's decision based upon -7- JUL 20 '95 04:42PI~I'F P & S SEATTLE P.9/32 different dates for considering the before and after value of the property benefited by the improvements. 4.8 Special Benefit Process. The appraisers recognize the use of special benefits assessment for determining the assessments. The use of a special benefits approach is valid and supportable by the record, and more fairly reflects the special benefits from the improvnments than other methods. 5. Parcel 13 {Martin-Patterson]- Parcel 13 did not protest · its assessment- Upon learning that the assessment did not include sewer improvements, the representatives of Parcel 13 did not participate further in the proceedings. The assessment against Parcel 13 is ratified and confirmed. 6. Parcel 6 {Lumberman'sl. Parcel 6 protested the initial assessment in the amount of $70,348. Upon stipulation, a copy of which is included in the record, the assessment was to be reduced "to no more than $35,000." The stipulation of the parties is acknowledged and accepted by the Council. An assessment in the amount o[ $35,000 against Parcel 6 is hereby ratified and con[irmed. The assessment role is reduced accordingly. 7. Burden of Proof. The City proceeds on the assumption that the LID Assessments are correct. The burden is upon the party challenging the assessment to prove its incorrectness, as it is presumed the City has acted legally and properly. Abbenhaus v. Xakima, 89 Wn.2d 855, 861, 576 P.2d 888 (1978). Further, [i]t is presumed that an improvement is a benefit; that an assessment is no greater than the benefit; that an assessment is equal or ratable to an assessment upon other property similarly situated; and that the assessment is fair" -8- JUL Z0 '95 04:4~P~'F P & S SEATTLE Id., ~Trautman, Assessments in Washington, 40 Wa. L Rev. 100, 118 (1965). Here, only Parcels 7-11 submitted a before and after appraisal that would causethe Council to consider the challenge to the validity of the assessment. The protest8 from Parcels 14i and 12 are u~supported by before and after appraisal evidence, and therefore do not overcome the presumption of correctness. Nevertheless, the Council addresses the protests o£ Parcels 14i and 12, as well as the protests of Parcels 7-11. 8. Parcel 14i (Hathwi~) 8.1 Parcel 14i is located onthe eastside of ~ildebrand Lane, adjacent (west) of SR 305, and approximately 450 feet south of High School Road. The Parcel's sole means of legal access to High School Road is by Hildebrand Lane. The property is substantially similar to parcels 14h and 14g immediately north of Parcel 14i. The Parcel is unimproved, but is suitable for commercial/retail development- Parcel 14g has been improved with a Seafirst Bank building. Parcel 14h has been improved with a /~ CRREY: The findin~ fails to recoQnize that two way traffic flows daily on Hildebrand lane. ~"nere is therefore no practical difference between the DroDerties on the we~t side ~f Hildebrand Lane and the east side of ~ildebrand Lane reqardin~ access to High School Road. 8.2 Unlike Parcels 14b, c, d, and e (west of ~ildebrand Lane), Parcel 14i is without access to Wallace Way to the south. Consequently, Allen properly determined that Parcel 14i received greater special benefit than Parcels 14b, c, d and e. Parcel 14i -9- ~UL ~0 '95 04:4~P~'F P & S SF_J~TT~ P.11f3~ was assessed in the same manner as adjacent Parcels 14h and g, and properties similarly situated within the LID. CHREY: The findin~ fails to recognize that two way traffic flows daily on Hildebrand lane- There is therefore no practical difference between the properties on the west side of Hildebrand Lane and the east side qf Hildebrand Lane re~ardin~ access to ~i~h School Road. 8.3 Allen's approach to assessment of Parcels 14b - 14e was criticized. Allen acknowledged that his approach may have caused confusion- Because of the long history of the LID, and the ongoing discussions withproperty owners, Allen made a determination to not change the "before" values of Parcels 14b-e, but rather to adjust the special benefits. The Council finds no material impact as a result of this approach, and no parcel has been prejudiced as a result of this approach. The assessments remain proportional, based on the special benefits reported in the Allen study. 8.4 The before value of Parcel 14i is ~206,47 4. The after value is $344,124. The special benefits accruing to the property as a result of the LID improvements is $137,650. The assessment levied against the property is $29,289, or approximately $.85 per square foot. 9. Parcel 12 {Kitsap Bank) 9.1 Parcel 12 is located on the north side of High School Road, approximately 290 feet east of SR 305. The Parcel's sole means of legal access is provided by High School Road. In the before condition, the road adjacent to the parcel was a two lane section with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. There was a 5 foot -10- .TUL 20 '95 04:,~PM'F P g, S SEI:~TTLE P.1P_/3~ gravel waLkway and landscaping. The after condition is described above- CHREY: It should be noted t hat the ~mDrovements to the KitsaD Bank DroDertV immediately adjacent to HiGh School Road were in exact accordance with the original land use approval ~ranted b~ KitsaD County to KitsaD Bank before the incorporation of the City of Bainbrid~e Island- 9.2 Parcel 12 is improved with a good quality wood frame, one-storY bank building of approximatelY 6,185 square feet- The land and building are owned by Kitsap Bank. Certain of the building space is leased to other tenants. The property is improved to its highest and best use. The Council has evaluated whether the LID improvements contribute value to that use, notwithstanding that the protest has not presented a before and after appraisal to challenge the Allen appraisal- In the Council's consideration, it has evaluated the testimony of the appraisers, the bank representatives and the City's finance director who has substantial prior experience in the siting of retail bank facilities- The Council also notes the testimony of the bank's appraiser, MacaulaY, that there is substantial benefit from the improvements, and as a result he did not prepare a be£ore and a£ter appraisal- The bank is specially benefited by the LID improvements- 9.3 The Council notes that the assessment against Kitsap Bank recognizes its improvement to highest and best use, and is less than other bank parcels (such as parcels 3, 4, 14g and 14h). The parcel 12 assessment is fair and proportional. -11- JUL ~0 '95 04:~3PI;1. F P ~ S SEATTLE P.13/3~ 9.4 The Council notes further that the bank's testimony regarding a decrease in automatic teller transactions over a limited period of time is not persuasive. The construction of additional banks in the vicinity is doc.~ented in these proceedings. See e.g., Parcels 14g and 14h. 9.5 The before value of the bank property is $900,000. The after value of the bank property is $1,030,000. The special benefits from LID improvements is $130,000. The assessment against Parcel 12 is $27,661, or approximately $.66 per square foot- 10. Parcels 7-11 {Deschamps-[itz~erald) 10.1 A8 recognized by Veenstra, these parcels are an integral part of the neighborhood. Parcels 7-11 are located on the north side of High School Road with combined frontage of approximately 320 feet on High School Road. ~nile there is 552 feet of frontage on SR 305, there is no vehicular access other than from High School Road. In the before condition, the road adjacent to the subject parcels was a two lane section, with traffic si~nalisation at SR 30S but with no curbs, gutters or sidewalks. In the after condition the ro=d w~u improved, as noted ~bovc. lo.2 Parcels 7-11 vary in size and shape. ~ovever, the appraisers are consistent in their evalua~ionthatthe highest and best use of the property is for commercial development and that this highest and best use existed both before and after the DroPset- The majority of the site would be suitable for multiple retail, office and other uses. One or two pad si~es would be available for development i~mediatel~ adjacent to High School Road- -12- JUL ~0 '95 04:44PI~F p & S SEA]'rLE P.14~2 10.3 During the .Course of these final assessment roll hearings, the City was also involved in hearings on Comprehensive plan aecisionsunderthe GrowthManagement Act ("GNA"). The o~ners of Parcels 7-11 had, in separate proceedings, appealed Council decisions to the Growth Management Hearing Board. on remand, the City reconsidered and revised the GMA plan designations for the Parcels 10 and 11 only by ordering reclassification from HSR II to ~S_R. While the Council takes notice of the GMAproceedings, such proceedings do not influence materially the finding of special benefit from the LID improvements- 10.4 Under any of the Comprehensive Plan designations considered by the Council (e.g., HSR or HSR II), the~x~a~Dla-n and development regulations to £ollow will allow for major commercial development of the parcels- The ~ighcot ~nd best uoc of the property for oo~crcial development would not bc realized in the bcforc ~ituation beeauue of the abocncc of supporting infra~truoturc- LID 13 impro~cme~ts allow for thc propc-rtics' dcvclopment to its high~t and bcst uuc and bcncfit spcei=lly the Parccls.. however, neither classification is as favorable to commercial development as the Kitsam County zonin~ reflected bV Veenstra in his before valuation and as testified by both Veenstra and Allen and ~iGhest and best use of Parcel 7-11 was unchanged i~ the before and after a~Draisals- 10.5 Each property in the vicinity of Parcels 7-11 (including multi-family, large and small retail, and office) has been required as a condition of development to construct or provide for necessary improvements- The Council takes notice of the City's development ordinances in this regard- Further, the comparable JUL 20 ~5 O~:'~'M F ~ & S SEATTLE P. 15/3~ properties referenced by Veenstra were also subject to oubctanti~l typical development expenses that Parcels 7-11 would have been responsible for in the absence of the LID. Such expenses arc typionlly in thc r~ngc ef 82 to $5 per oquarc foot depend upon adeguacV of access and utilities for the proposed develoDment. Here, the average assessment over the entirety of Parcel-~ 7-11 is approximately $.60 per square foot. Vccnctrn'c, includin~ all backland areas. veentra's opinion that no benefit accrues to the Parcels as a result of the LID improvcmcnts improvement is no~ credible and i~ based upon the absence of any sales data suDDortin~ ~uch benefit where no chance of hiqhest and best u~e occurs. 10.6 Parcel 10, at the northeast corner of SR 305 and ~igh School Road, is assessed at the same per square foot rate for special benefit as the proper~y i~ediately to the south (improved with a McDonald's restaurant) and at the same rate as the other two corners of the inter~ection- Parcel 11 and interior Parcels 7-9 are assessed for special benefits in amounts proportional ~o other properties within the LID. 10.7 The before value of Parcel 7 is $310,365. Thc nftcr vatuc i~ ~e20,730- Thc cpeei~l bcncfit-"- from LID _~provcaucnt~ i~ ~310,36~. Thc asscosment against Parccl 7 is 868,038, or approximatclY $.~3 XEr sq]/arc foot, No chan~e in use or value attached bY reason of the LID improvements and there is no special benefit to this parcel. 10.8 The before value of Parcel 8 is $100,188. The aftcr valuc is ~Z00,376- Thc special bcncfits from LID improvcments is 8100,18~. Thc asocssmcnt against parcel 8 io $~1,31~, or approximately 8.~3 pcr uquarc foot. No chance in use or value -14 - ,TIE 20 "95 04:45PM F P g~ S ,SEATTLE P.16/3Z attached bV reason of the LID improvements and there is no sDecial benefit to this parcel. 10.9 The before value of Parcel 9 is $300,564. The after value is 8e01,128- Thc special benefit frem LID _~mprovcmcnto $300,SC~- The a~cscmcnt against Parocl 9 it $63,953, or approximately $.53 per square foot. No chan~e in use or value attached by reason of the LID improvements and there is no sDecial benefit to this parcel- 10.10 The before value of Parcel 10 is $353,707. after value is ~C0e,355- The upeeialbc~cfit from LID improvements is $252,C48. The a~sc~mcnt against lklrocl 10 ic $53,758, or approximately $1.06 per square feot. No chan~e in use or value attached bv reason of the LID improvements and there is no sDecial benefit to this parcel- 10.11 The before value of Parcel 11 is $137,214. after value is e215,622- Thc o~eeialbCncfit from LID imprevcmcnts is $78,{08- The as~csumcn~ a~ainst Darccl 11 is $16,683, or approximately $.85 per square foot. No chan~e in use or value attached bv reason of the LID improvements and there is no special_ benefit to this Darcel. 10.12 The evidence of values presented in the protest as to parcels 7-11 is not pcrouasivc- The 9vetcomes any presumption as to special benefit and the evidence of val~es presented by A~icn Veenstra is accepted .and adopted by the thi=~.ascouncil. 11- General. The e~allcngcre ~o the LID final asocssmcnt roll have not presented evidence t~at ie persuasive or suffioicnt ae to the special benefits ~o the parcels at iOGUC- The Allen -15- ! JUL 20 '95 04: 4~PM:F P & S SEATTLE P.17/32 appraisal, and supporting data, suppoL ts thc assecsmcnts as to thc ohallcngcd p~rccls. Delete. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW spccial bencfit 12. Ouasi-Judicial Decision. This decision is the independent, quasi-judicial decision of the Council, sitting and acting as a Board of Equalization after having weighed the evidence . and considered the record as presented by the parties. 13. pres,,mDtions. Several presumptions favor the City: 1) the improvements are a benefit to the properties within the LID; 2) the assessment is no greater than the benefit; 3) the assessment is equal or ratable to assessments upon other properties similarly situated; and 4) the assessment is fair- In Re Indian Trail Trunk Sewer, 35 Wash. App. 840, 620 P.2d 675 (1983), citing, Abbenhaus v- Yakimp, 89 Wn.2d 855, 576 P.2d 888 (1978)- Because of these presumptions the burden of going forward with evidence attacking these pres~mptions is on the protestor. In Re Indian Trail Trunk Sewer, supra. 14. Sufficiency of Evidence. There has been insufficicnt sufficient evidence to rebut the expert testimony of Allen. Evcn ~:crc thc Council te dctcz~incthatthcrc was ~uffioicnt cvidcnoc to ovcrcomc thc prcsumption, the wcight of thc cvidcnec supports thc findings of special bcncfit~ in at least thc amount ohownupon thc rcl!. as to Parcels 7-11 and to rebut the presumption of SDecial benefit as to those parcels. 15. AsxGsmcnts Proportional- Thc aocc~omcnts arc equal, ratablc. and proportional amon~ similarly situatcd DroDcrticS. The bcncfits arc special ~e thc Darccls within thc LID, cxccDt as notca- Thc bcncfits ar~ Substantial Benefit. As to Parcels 7-11, JUL 80 '95 04:4~PM,,F P & S SEATTLE P.18/3Z the benefits are not substantially greater to the parcels assessed than will be realized by the general public. 16- Special Benefit- E=ch ExcePt as to Parcels 7-11 each of the lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property shownuPon the assessment roll is determined and declared to be specially benefited by the LID improvements in at least the amount charged against the s~me, except as modified herein. Thc a~ccs~mcnt appearing against thc parucl~ iu in proportion to thc scvcral aseessmcn~s appcaring upon t be roll. 4C144072 - 03 -17- INSLEE, BEST, DOEZIE g RYDER, P.S. Deborah S. Berg~*~ David A. Rest Richard G. Birinyi Jerome D. Carpenter Richard U. Chapin Don E. Dascenzo Thomas H. De Buys Peter A, Detains Michael Doezie Eric C. Frirnodt Thomas H. Grimm*~ Henry R. Hanssen, Jr. Evan E. Inslee William C, irvine Rod P. Kaseguma Rosemary A, Larson ATTORNEYS AT LAW Security Pacific Plaza, Suite 1900 777 - loath Avenue N.E. P.O. Box C-90016 Bellerue. Washington 98009-9016 (206) 455-1234 Fax: (206) 635-7720 July 7, 1995 David d. Lawyer William d. LindPerg, Jr. Dan S. Lossing* John W. Miller John W. Milne Douglas L, Phillips John F. Rodda Stephen D. Rose* Michael P. RuarK Milan Gall Ryder John F. Sullivan* Andrew L. Symons James S. Turner Joe E. Wishcamper Of Counsel: William L. Choquette^ Please respond to: 450-4218 Susan Kasper, City Clerk City of Bainbridge Island 625 Winslow Way East Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Re: Ordinance No. 95-03, Confirming Final Assessment Roll Dear Susan: Enclosed for consideration by the City Council at the continued regular meeting on July 13, 1995 is Ordinance No. 95-03 confirming the final assessment roll for LID No. 13. Please note that the enclosed Exhibit A, which is the findings of fact and conclusions of law to be entered by the City Council, must be attached to the ordinance. Also, Ralph Eells will be determining the estimated interest rate to be inserted in Section 6 of the Ordinance in the next few days. F:'d)MS\RPK\0089570.01 Susan Kasper July 7, 1995 Page 2 Because the City Council is entering findings of fact and conclusions of law for this LID, I am sending a copy of the ordinance and Exhibit A to the attorneys for the Mathwig, Kitsap Bank, Deschamps-Fitzgerald and Lumbermen's parcels with a copy of this letter. Sincerely, INSLEE, BEST, DOEZIE & RYDER, P.S. ~/ood P. Kaseguma Enclosures cc: Lynn Nordby Ralph EelIs Bill Bryan / Steve DiJulio Richard Kato Bruce Busldrk Gary Chrey John O'Rourke Richard Hoss BI 2 FADMS\RPK\0089570.01