Bellevue Associates v. City of Bellevue
| Citation | 741 P.2d 993,108 Wn.2d 671 |
| Decision Date | 20 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 53288-5,53288-5 |
| Parties | BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES, a Washington limited partnership, Appellant, v. CITY OF BELLEVUE, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Diamond & Sylvester, Paul Sikora, Seattle, for appellant.
Richard Andrews, Bellevue City Atty., Bellevue, for respondent.
We address whether the adoption of a final assessment roll on a local improvement district project was premised on a fundamentally wrong basis. The trial court upheld the final assessment roll. We affirm.
The Bellevue City Council passed Ordinance 3112 on June 7, 1982, thereby creating Local Improvement District (LID) 255. The LID's boundaries encompassed properties owned by (a) Bellevue Associates, (b) Bellevue Properties, and (c) Walter and Frances Webster and Robert Kroum (hereinafter Webster and Kroum). All of the property owners supported the formation of LID 255. Appraisal evidence indicates that all properties within the LID received special benefits from the improvements in an amount equal to or exceeding their assessments by the City Council.
The proposed work was divided into four separate improvements: (1) the extension of 110th Avenue Northeast into the block between the parcels owned by Bellevue Associates and those owned by Webster and Kroum and by Bellevue Properties; (2) roadway improvements to Northeast 8th Street which fronts the properties of Bellevue Associates and of Webster and Kroum; (3) water main improvements to 110th Avenue Northeast; and (4) water main improvements to Northeast 8th Street. The cost of the four improvements totaled $1,235,544.78.
Hearings on the final assessment roll were held on February 21, April 16, and May 7, 1984. The City Council based the proposed assessment roll on a before-and-after appraisal conducted by Bruce C. Allen, a real estate appraiser retained by the City of Bellevue. At the April 16 hearing Allen presented a revised before-and-after appraisal. During the hearings, the LID property owners were provided opportunity to present their objections to the proposed assessment roll, including their own appraisal evidence. On May 7, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3350 approving the final assessment roll.
The assessments were levied as follows:
Bellevue Bellevue Webster
-------------- -------------- --------------
Associates Properties and Kroum
-------------- -------------- --------------
(1) Appraised Value
Before LID 255 $4,276,000.00 $1,290,000.00 $1,130,000.00
(2) Appraised Value
After LID 255 5,131,000.00 1,567,000.00 1,355,000.00
(3) Special Benefits $ 855,000.00 $ 277,000.00 $ 225,000.00
(4) Final Assessment 810,997.91 245,878.81 178,668.06
------------------ -------------- -------------- --------------
(5) Final Assessment /
Special Benefits 94.85% 88.76% 79.41
Total Final Assessment / = $1,235,544.78 / = 91.05%
Total Special Benefits $1,357,000.00
The special benefit figures (row 3) reflect the increased value of the LID properties resulting from the LID improvements. The final assessment figures (row 4) are the amounts taxed. The total sum of the final assessments equals the actual cost of all of the LID improvements. Figures in row 5 represent the percentage of special benefits which were actually taxed.
The method by which the City Council derived the assessments was described in oral argument. The City Council first recognized that the 110th Avenue Northeast improvements (improvements 1 and 3) were distinct from the Northeast 8th Street improvements (improvements 2 and 4). Because the City Council determined that improvements 2 and 4 did not specially benefit the properties of Webster and Kroum and Bellevue Properties, these improvements were assessed exclusively against Bellevue Associates. The City Council then derived a formula which spread the assessments associated with improvements 1 and 3 across all properties in the LID based upon property value. The formula took into consideration the square footage of each of the properties. The formula also recognized that improvements 1 and 3 provided a lesser benefit to the residentially zoned properties of Webster and Kroum and Bellevue Properties than the commercially zoned property of Bellevue Associates.
Bellevue Associates appealed to the King County Superior Court. In its memorandum opinion the trial court held that Allen's appraisal was not founded on a fundamentally wrong basis and the City Council action based on Allen's appraisal was not arbitrary or capricous. The trial court affirmed the final assessment roll. Thereafter, Bellevue Associates appealed to the Court of Appeals. The matter was certified to this court.
The issue we address is whether the Bellevue City Council adopted the final assessment roll on a fundamentally wrong basis. Specifically, we address: (1) May a city assess two of four improvements in an LID project exclusively against one of the several properties within the LID, when all properties within the LID receive special benefits from the project? and (2) Must the percentage of special benefits assessed an LID property be the same as the percentage assessed the other LID properties?
Before addressing these issues we note that certain principles of judicial review apply. Review is limited to the record of proceedings before the City Council. Abbenhaus v. Yakima, 89 Wash.2d 855, 859, 576 P.2d 888 (1978); Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wash.2d 715, 718-19, 453 P.2d 832 (1969). The reviewing court looks at the propriety of the process and does not undertake an independent evaluation of the merits. Time Oil Co. v. Port Angeles, 42 Wash.App. 473, 479, 712 P.2d 311 (1985); Abbenhaus, 89 Wash.2d at 859, 576 P.2d 888. The action of the City Council is presumed legal and proper; the party challenging the assessment has the burden of proving its incorrectness. Abbenhaus, at 860-61, 576 P.2d 888. Further, an appellate court " 'presume[s] 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.' " Abbenhaus, at 861, 576 P.2d 888, quoting P. Trautman, Assessments in Washington, 40 Wash.L.Rev. 100, 118 (1965).
Special assessments to pay for local public improvements benefiting specific lands are of ancient lineage. See Heavens v. King County Rural Library Dist., 66 Wash.2d 558, 563, 404 P.2d 453 (1965); Austin v. Seattle, 2 Wash. 667, 27 P. 557 (1891). Special assessments have a common element: they support the construction of local improvements that are appurtenant to specific property and bring a benefit to that property substantially more intense than is conferred on other property. Heavens, 66 Wash.2d at 563, 404 P.2d 453. There must be an actual, physical and material benefit to the land. Heavens, at 563, 404 P.2d 453. The measure of special benefits is "the difference between the fair market value of the property immediately after the special benefits have attached and its fair market value before they have attached." Heavens, at 564, 404 P.2d 453; In re Schmitz, 44 Wash.2d 429, 434, 268 P.2d 436 (1954). "[A] valid special assessment for a local improvement is merely compensation paid by the property owner for the improved value of his land." Heavens, 66 Wash.2d at 564, 404 P.2d 453.
A final assessment roll will be upheld unless it stands on a fundamentally wrong basis or the assessing body acts arbitrarily or capriciously. See Abbenhaus, 89 Wash.2d at 858, 576 P.2d 888; Trautman, at 128-30. "Fundamentally wrong basis" has been defined as follows:
[I]t "refers to some error in the method of assessment or in the procedures used by the municipality, the nature of which is so fundamental as to necessitate a nullification of the entire LID, as opposed to a modification of the assessment as to particular property." We agree with this definition and adopt it. Before a superior court alters or nullifies any portion of an assessment under the "fundamentally wrong basis" standard, the assessment must meet this definition, although we emphasize that the statute provides that where such fundamental error exists the court is limited to nullification or modification only of those parcel assessments before it.
(Italics ours.) Abbenhaus, at 859, 576 P.2d 888, quoting in part Cammack v. Port Angeles, 15 Wash.App. 188, 548 P.2d 571 (1976). Bellevue Associates does not allege that the City Council acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
First, Bellevue Associates argues improvements 2 and 4 were assessed improperly because they were only assessed against its property. Bellevue Associates posits that within the boundaries of the LID a city council may not segregate a single cost item and assess it against only one property, relying on Sterling Realty Co. v. Bellevue, 68 Wash.2d 760, 766-69, 415 P.2d 627 (1966); and In re California Ave., 30 Wash.2d 144, 147-48, 190 P.2d 738 (1948). In Sterling the court concluded that a city may not "divide a continuous local improvement project into units in order to assess the cost of acquisition of rights-of-way against the units from which the rights-of-way were acquired." Sterling, 68 Wash.2d at 769, 415 P.2d 627. In California the court concluded that no authority supported segregating a portion of the work and making a special assessment for the segregated portion. California, 30 Wash.2d at 147, 190 P.2d 738.
Sterling and California are distinguishable. Unlike the LIDs in Sterling and California, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tiffany Family Trust Corp. v. City of Kent
...by comparing the fair market values of each property before and after the improvements are made. Bellevue Assocs. v. City of Bellevue, 108 Wash.2d 671, 675, 741 P.2d 993 (1987). Once it is determined that a property is specially benefited, any LID assessment must be logically related to, an......
-
Hasit, LLC v. City of Edgewood (Local Improvement Dist. # 1), Corp.
...that all properties within an LID be assessed the same percentage of the special benefits received. See Bellevue Assoc. v. City of Bellevue, 108 Wash.2d 671, 678, 741 P.2d 993 (1987). ¶ 23 Because LID assessments involve a deprivation of property, affected owners have the right to a hearing......
-
Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores
...offered free of charge by the City or whose property value is increased by the City's actions. Compare Bellevue Assoc. v. City of Bellevue, 108 Wash.2d 671, 741 P.2d 993 (1987) (discussing special assessments). We will not consider arguments for which a party has not cited authority. State ......
-
Doolittle v. City of Everett
...basis or the assessing body acts arbitrarily or capriciously. See Abbenhaus, at 858 ; Trautman, at 128-30. iBellevue Assocs. v. Bellevue, 108 Wash.2d 671, 674-75, 741 P.2d 993 (1987). RCW 35.43.040 provides authority generally for ordering local improvements and for levying and collecting s......