FONT SIZE
Email this
Print this
POST A COMMENT
Notes from the LID Manual
You may have heard attorneys, elected officials, the department head/project manager, etc. reference “the LID Manual,” as in, “We’re doing it this way because the LID Manual recommends it . . .” But were all deferral options explored, and “publicized early in the process”? This is recommended by the Washington State Local Improvement District Manual (Sixth Edition), which stresses “LIDs Don’t Have to Create Hardships.” On p. 15 (emphasis added): “Of legitimate concern are low income senior citizens and those who are economically disadvantaged. No councilperson wants to vote for a project that will put someone out of their home. Two types of assessment deferrals are referenced in the statutes. Chapter 84.38 RCW provides for assessments to be deferred for qualified senior citizens. RCW 35.43.250 and 35.54.100 provide for a deferral of up to four years for economically disadvantaged property owners, as defined in the formation ordinance. In both of these cases, the deferred assessment does not go away, but becomes a lien against the property. Other options for property owner relief may be available.
“Deferrals and other options for relief should be publicized early in the process, with a concerted effort made to identify those who may need such relief. Elected officials also need to know these options so that they can advise citizens who may contact them.Reference these options in the public hearings or enter any documentation available regarding your efforts to identify property owners eligible for deferrals.”
RCW 35.43.250
Deferral of collection of assessments for economically disadvantaged persons — Authorized.
Any city of the first class in this state ordering any local improvement upon which shall be levied and collected special assessments on property specifically benefited thereby may provide as part of the ordinance creating any local improvement district that the collection of any assessment levied therefor may be deferred until a time previous to the dissolution of the district for those economically disadvantaged property owners or other persons who, under the terms of a recorded contract of purchase, recorded mortgage, recorded deed of trust transaction or recorded lease are responsible under penalty of forfeiture, foreclosure or default as between vendor/vendee, mortgagor/mortgagee, grantor and trustor/trustee and grantee, and beneficiary and lendor, or lessor and lessee for the payment of local improvement district assessments, and in the manner specified in the ordinance qualify for such deferment, upon assurance of property security for the payment thereof.
RCW 35.54.100
Deferral of collection of assessments for economically disadvantaged persons — Payment from guaranty fund — Lien — Payment dates for deferred obligations.
Whenever payment of a local improvement district assessment is deferred pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35.43.250 the amount of the deferred assessment shall be paid out of the local improvement guaranty fund. The local improvement guaranty fund shall have a lien on the benefited property in an amount equal to the deferral together with interest as provided for by the establishing ordinance. The lien may accumulate up to an amount not to exceed the sum of two installments: PROVIDED, That the ordinance creating the local improvement district may provide for one or additional deferrals of up to two installments. Local improvement assessment obligations deferred under chapter 137, Laws of 1972 ex. sess. shall become payable upon the earliest of the following dates: (1) Upon the date and pursuant to conditions established by the political subdivision granting the deferral; or (2) Upon the sale of property which has a deferred assessment lien upon it from the purchase price; or (3) Upon the death of the person to whom the deferral was granted from the value of his or her estate; except a surviving spouse shall be allowed to continue the deferral which shall then be payable by that spouse as provided in this section.
[2009 c 549 § 2092; 1972 ex.s. c 137 § 3.]
I’m with you in spirit, Voter, but I wish it was as easy as simply not voting for the candidates I didn’t believe. In fact I’m afraid that’s what’s happening in a general way everywhere.
We need candidates who are not satisfied to bully the rest with a tiny majority. Democracy is not a principle, but a method. We need candidates that represent each individual as a rightful entity with goals and objectives which are indicated by the purchase or use of the land chosen. Using “Democacy” as a principle ends in gang rule. That’s why this country was formed as a Republic. Rule by representation, not the biggest gang. I’ve heard they don’t teach that any more.
This is the wrong thread, I know, but my sympathies go out to the writer who had the privacy screen cut down. What a waste!
The silent majority. All those that said nothing in the beginning, in effect, voted “yes” for this project. It needed a 6o% margin of protest that never materialized. Now, after the fact, those that said nothing in the beginning, want to change their vote. I don’t think that’s the way it works. If you don’t want to get involved, then you have to settle for what others decide for you.
Well said Marymary!
Yeah, but the problem was that the people who wanted new roads bought something that didn’t have a price. Who does that? They knew it had a cost, though much of it was not discovered until later, but it had no price. The total cost was estimated, but it was clearly an estimate and anyone possessing conciousness cannot avoid knowing that the government will spend more and bill you.
If I put a road across my ranch I’d need to contract the work to include a price, since I am no expert on road building and could not estimate costs and alternatives. Additional unforseen costs would be covered in the contract by specific solutions, including workarounds and conditions under which the work and payment stops.
Therefore, it seems someone had elected a leadership where price is no object.
Information was “publicized early in the process”. Taxpayers and voters were lulled into a stupor by the the desire for decent roads and the ballooning real estate bubble. Council took advantage of this and made a bad decision to have a Street LID. Do all the roads at a lightning pace while everything else is normally done at a snail’s pace. Perfect soil for incompetence to flourish. This could have been stopped by taxpayers if 60% of the assessed property value had protested.
The moral of the story is watch what your elected representatives and their employees are doing. Don’t vote for them in the first place if you don’t trust what they say? This is hard to do as often a voter doesn’t realize how ineffective or incompetent a council member can be until after they get the power.
“No councilperson wants to vote for a project that will put someone out of their home.”
The ethic I REALLY want to see is:
“No councilperson wants to vote for a project that imposes hardship on a large percentage of property owners.”
A handful over half of our voters seem to have no hardship, while the rest of us, voters and non, keep begging for some relief.
In fact there are few people if any who will lose their home over this LID, but there are many that will suffer hardship. And it is not just the seniors and disabled. It is people who invested here when they had jobs. There are no “options” for these people. (Yes, someone said we could sell and they are correct.)
So, call me if you want to buy a lot–I have two choice ones for sale, plus a nostalgic little cabin.
FYI: RCW 35.01.010
First-class city.
A first-class city is a city with a population of ten thousand or more at the time of its organization or reorganization that has a charter adopted under Article XI, section 10, of the state Constitution.
Does not sound like Ocean Shores with less than 5000 people.
The deferral from the county assessor may be different. Have you compared that Tom? They charge 5% and make the payments. The two isntallment part of your information here disturbs me. Then what? Also, is Ocean Shores a City of the first class? Maybe this is the wrong RCW.
TA DA!!