Correction to Daily World story

OCEAN SHORES — They waited and waited and waited, these patient protesters.

A marathon hearing Monday evening on property owners’ tax assessments for completed repairs to Ocean Shores roads drew a standing room only crowd of about 1,000 and pushed into the early hours of this morning.

Just before 1:30 a.m., with at least 10 more protesters waiting to speak, hearing examiner Wayne Tanaka, a Seattle attorney, recessed the hearing for the night. It continued, today at 10 a.m.

They arrived early at the Convention Center for the 6 p.m. hearing that was officially labeled the “Public Hearing on the Final Assessment Roll. ”

Nearly all of them were there to protest the assessment they recently received as one of the culminating pieces of the three-plus year, $44.5 Street LID (Local Improvement District) project.

Less than three weeks ago, Ocean Shores property owners received letters giving each an “Amount of Proposed Assessment.” For many, the amount was significantly more than a preliminary estimate sent out just three years ago. The letter explained that a public hearing would be held on the matter.

Tanaka, who has created “dozens” of LID’s himself, started the hearing started promptly at 6. The crowd listened to presentations by the city’s LID team: City attorney Art Blauvelt, public works director Ken Lanfear, bond counsel David O. Thompson and consultant Robert Macaulay.

When protesters were given the opportunity to make oral arguments, many aimed questions and complaints at Macaulay. His company, Macaulay and Associates, was paid more than $650,000 by Ocean Shores to recommend how much each of some 14,000 property owners would pay for the Street LID, based on a “Special Benefits” formula that seemed confusing to most.

One thing that was clear: Different sections of the city had vastly differing assessments, and some owners of undeveloped lots were asked to pay far more than owners of some huge houses. (Most residential assessments were in the $3,000 to $5,000 range.)

Perhaps the strongest, and surely the most specific attack on Macaulay came from Donald Williams, who started his oral protest at 12:42 a.m. today. “One of the problems with this technique is it lends itself so easily to working backwards,” Williams said, of the special benefits study. He challenged Macaulay to explain how his overall assessment showed the city’s total assessment dropping less than 5 percent in five years, “as opposed to 20-25% less county-wide.”

Macaulay repeated his explanation about special benefits, including better marketing time, but Williams was not satisfied. “Something is wrong with your assessment,” he said.

Williams, a youthful retiree who has spent much time researching the Street LID, challenged the segmented approach, stating “the entire city benefited equally from the new roads.”

He also disagreed with the Macaulay assertion of “lower marketing time.” Rather, Williams said, “I think what’s going to happen is people are going to be selling their properties, and marketing time will go longer.”

Williams recently made a public information request to see the “interviews with real estate professionals” that the Macaulay’s final report alluded to. He was give a 90-page document that included interviews with about 10 Ocean Shores real estate agents and brokers.

Williams read part of page 90 of the real estate report, quoting a portion based on an interview by the Macaulay team with Jeff Daniel, of Coldwell Banker: “In 2007 and 2008, when the first roads fixed were the ones down by the jetty,” Williams read, “the project was a huge help in marketing and sales – but only for a while. Now, it’s not an issue since knowledgeable buyers assess the infrastructure whenever considering an investment and expect adequate roads. Jeff says that the coming road assessment ‘hasn’t broken any deals’ but that the new roads ‘aren’t helping’ with closing sales or reducing marketing time.”

Williams concluded by saying, “I think this idea of segmented issues of town and reduced marketing times is bogus, it’s not supported by the professionals in town.”

One of the real estate professionals quoted in the report, April Swenson, also spoke at the meeting. She was highly critical of the Macaulay special benefits assessment, concluding:

“I can tell you exactly what property values are. These are way off. … I don’t know where you got some of these values.”