BP BHEAD INT S [atlas:bill]

AN ACT Relating to local improvement districts; and amending RCW 35.43.180 and 87.03.480.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. RCW 35.43.180 and 1983 c 303 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:

The jurisdiction of the legislative authority of a city or town to proceed with any local improvement initiated by resolution shall be divested by a protest filed with the city or town council within thirty days from the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the improvement, signed by the owners of the property within the proposed local improvement district or utility local improvement district subject to ((~~sixty~~)) fifty-one percent or more of the total cost of the improvement including federally-owned or other nonassessable property as shown and determined by the preliminary estimates and assessment roll of the proposed improvement district or, if all or part of the local improvement district or utility local improvement district lies outside of the city or town, such jurisdiction shall be divested by a protest filed in the same manner and signed by the owners of property which is within the proposed local improvement district or utility local improvement district but outside the boundaries of the city or town, and which is subject to ((~~sixty~~)) forty percent or more of that part of the total cost of the improvement allocable to property within the proposed local improvement district or utility local improvement district but outside the boundaries of the city or town, including federally-owned or other nonassessable property: PROVIDED, That such restraint by protest shall not apply to any of the following local improvements, if the legislative body finds and recites in the ordinance or resolution authorizing the improvement that such improvement is necessary for the protection of the public health and safety and such ordinance or resolution is passed by unanimous vote of all members present: (1) Sanitary sewers or watermains where the health officer of the city or town, or department of ecology, files with the legislative authority a report showing the necessity for such improvement; and (2) fire hydrants where the chief of the fire department files a report showing the necessity for such improvement.

Sec. 2. RCW 87.03.480 and 1959 c 75 s 9 are each amended to read as follows:

Any desired special construction, reconstruction, betterment or improvement or purchase or acquisition of improvements already constructed, for any authorized district service, including but not limited to the safeguarding of open canals or ditches for the protection of the public therefrom, which are for the special benefit of the lands tributary thereto and within an irrigation district may be constructed or acquired and provision made to meet the cost thereof as follows:

The holders of title or evidence of title to one-quarter of the acreage proposed to be assessed, may file with the district board their petition reciting the nature and general plan of the desired improvement and specifying the lands proposed to be specially assessed therefor. The petition shall be accompanied by a bond in the sum of one hundred dollars with surety to be approved by the board, conditioned that the petitioners will pay the cost of an investigation of the project and of the hearing thereon if it is not established. The board may at any time require a bond in an additional sum. Upon the filing of the petition the board with the assistance of a competent engineer, shall make an investigation of the feasibility, cost, and need of the proposed local improvement together with the ability of the lands to pay the cost, and if it appears feasible, they shall have plans and estimate of the cost prepared. If a protest against the establishment of the proposed improvement signed by a majority of the holders of title in the proposed local district is presented at or before the hearing, or if the proposed improvement should be found not feasible, too expensive, or the lands to be benefited insufficient security for the costs, they shall dismiss the petition at the expense of the petitioners. If any vote of the affected property owners is taken to determine acceptability of the proposed improvement, only the votes of those owners actually present at the meeting may be considered. The unexpressed opinions and positions of those owners not present at the meeting may not affect such vote.