SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 5132

BYSenators McCaslin and Rasmussen

Specifying additional requirements for local improvement district notices.

Senate Committee on Governmental Operations

Senate Hearing Date(s):January 30, 1989; February 16, 1989

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5132 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.

      Signed by Senators McCaslin, Chairman; Thorsness, Vice Chairman; Sutherland.

Senate Staff:Sam Thompson (786-7754); Desley Brooks (786-7443)

                  February 16, 1989

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS, FEBRUARY 16, 1989

BACKGROUND:

Laws concerning local improvement districts (LIDs) require that notices be sent to property owners subject to assessments within the district at two steps.  The first notice declares the intention of the jurisdiction's legislative authority to hold a hearing to consider the formation of an LID.  The second notice concerns the hearing upon the final assessment roll after the LID has been formed and the improvement has been constructed. Neither notice is required to contain a legal description of the property subject to assessment.  Street addresses or assessor's parcel numbers are commonly used instead.  It is suggested that the notices include a legal description of the property to ensure that the jurisdiction is up to date in its records of the property and fair in its assessment of current holdings.

SUMMARY:

Notices to property holders within proposed and established local improvement districts must contain recorded legal descriptions of property subject to assessment.

EFFECT OF PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE:

The substitute bill incorporates amendments ensuring that the measure applies to improvement districts formed by counties, cities, towns, fire protection districts, port districts, public utility districts, irrigation districts, water districts and sewer districts.

Appropriation:    none

Revenue:    none

Fiscal Note:      none requested

Senate Committee - Testified: Gary Lowe, Washington State Association of Counties (con); Kent Swisher, Association of Washington Cities (pro)