IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

HAMILTON CORNER I, LLC, No. 49507-4-II

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF NAPAVINE, PUBLISHED OPINION

Respondent.

WORSWICK, J. — Hamilton Corner I LLC, appeals from a superior court decision 

affirming the city council’s confirmation of the city of Napavine’s local improvement district 

(LID) assessment levied against Hamilton Corner’s properties. The assessment was for 

expansion of city water to an area not previously serviced by public water. Among other 

improvements, the LID improvements included equipping a recently drilled city well (Well 6)

with a pump, power, controls, and piping to connect the well to the city’s water mains. 

However, the city later determined that the water from Well 6 was not suitable for drinking 

without additional improvements and currently could be used only for fire suppression. 

Hamilton Corner argues that the city’s current inability to use Well 6 for drinking water

materially altered the LID as originally proposed, and thus, the assessment roll was founded 

upon a fundamentally wrong basis. Hamilton Corner further argues that because the assessment 

roll was founded upon a fundamentally wrong basis, the city’s appraisal of Hamilton Corner’s 

properties was founded upon a fundamentally wrong basis, and thus, the council’s decision to 

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

August 22, 2017
No. 49507-4-II

2

confirm the assessments was arbitrary and capricious. We disagree and affirm the superior 

court’s decision.

FACTS

Hamilton Corner owns three properties relevant to this case, which are located in the city 

of Napavine. In 2011, the city declared its intention to order the acquisition and construction of 

certain water system improvements in the “Rush Road area,” which included Hamilton Corner’s 

properties. The planned improvements aimed to expand the city water system to the Rush Road 

area to promote development. The plan included connecting the public water system to a 

recently drilled well, Well 6. The city’s “Description of Improvements” described the 

improvements as follows: 

Acquisition of a 12-inch water main, pressure reducing stations and fire hydrants, 

on Rush Road from Cedar Crest Street north to the Interstate 5 freeway interchange, 

and north on Hamilton Road to a point approximately 2,400 feet beyond the 

Interstate 5 freeway interchange; construction of additional 12-inch and 8-inch 

water main along Rush Road across the Interstate 5 freeway interchange, 

construction of 8-inch water main north on Rush Road from the Interstate 5 

interchange approximately 1,500 feet, and south from the Interstate 5 interchange 

along Kirkland Road and Bond Road approximately 1,800 feet; additional fire 

hydrants per City of Napavine by these water mains; equipping a recently drilled 

City well[1] with a pump, power, controls, and piping to connect well to 

aforementioned water mains; and construction of a new water reservoir for pressure 

control for the zone to be served by aforementioned water mains, including piping 

from the new water reservoir to aforementioned water mains; and associated work 

and appurtenances related to the above-described improvements. 

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 76. The city adopted Resolution No. 11-12-34 giving notice of its intent 

to establish LID No. 2011-1, which would implement the proposed improvements and provide

 

1 This recently drilled well is Well 6.
No. 49507-4-II

3

payment for the improvements in part by special assessments upon the property within the 

district.

In February 2012, the city mailed notices of the LID formation hearing and preliminary 

assessments to the taxpayers of record as shown for the LID properties. After a public hearing, 

the city council adopted Ordinance No. 497, forming the LID and adopting the preliminary 

assessment roll in accordance with Resolution No. 11-12-34. For the next three years the city 

moved forward with its improvement plans.

During this time, the city discovered that the water from Well 6 was significantly 

discolored and thus failed to meet public health and city code requirements to be used as potable 

drinking water. While the city explored its options for correcting the Well 6 issue, the city 

moved forward with its improvement plans to otherwise bring public water to the Rush Road 

area, while reserving Well 6 water for fire suppression purposes until the discoloration was 

corrected.2

In 2012, the city acquired an appraisal of Hamilton Corner’s properties in order to obtain 

an opinion as to the “before” and “after” market values of the properties and resulting special 

benefits, if any, relating to the LID, for purposes of establishing the properties’ assessments. The 

appraisal was performed without any owner contact, and the properties were inspected only from 

the exterior and public areas.

Regarding the Hamilton properties, the appraisal noted that the primary difference 

between the “before” condition and the “after” condition would be that water would be provided 

 

2 Costs associated with resolving the discoloration issue are not included in the LID costs.
No. 49507-4-II

4

by an extension of the city’s public water system as opposed to the properties’ private well 

system. The completed public water system would allow for full development of the properties 

in accordance with the city’s zoning and development standards, reduce system maintenance 

expenses, and lower property insurance rates. The appraisal concluded that “[t]he highest and 

best use is the continued use of the existing improvements for the foreseeable future, with the 

excess land of 19.43 acres suitable for additional commercial and industrial development upon 

extension of public water.” Based on its investigation, the appraisal placed the “before” value of 

the Hamilton Corner properties at $3,440,000, and the “after” value at $3,760,000, for a total 

special benefit of $320,000. CP at 57.

On September 29, 2015, the city council published and mailed notices of public hearing 

for the LID final assessment roll to all property owners within the LID. Based on the appraisal, 

Hamilton Corner’s three properties were assessed for a total $170,329.02, approximately half of 

the value of the special benefits to them, as calculated by the appraisal.

3

 On October 27, 2015, 

Hamilton Corner sent a written objection to the assessment of its properties to the city council. 

That same day, the city began its public hearing on the assessments.

At the hearing, Hamilton Corner expressed its concerns to the city council. The council 

noted Hamilton Corner’s protest and explained that while no water from Well 6 would be 

provided until the discoloration issue was resolved, a valve system allowed the city to 

nonetheless provide potable water to the area in the meantime. The council then continued the 

hearing to November 24, to allow time for the LID to prepare written responses to the protests 

received at the October 27 hearing. The council also encouraged Hamilton Corner to contact an 

 

3 Only 50 percent of the improvement project costs were funded by LID assessments. 
No. 49507-4-II

5

independent appraiser, stating, “I would recommend that maybe what you should possibly look 

at doing is talking to an appraiser . . . and have them determine whether they feel there’s benefit 

after the improvements to your property.” Administrative Record (AR) at 155-56.

On November 19, legal counsel for the city responded to Hamilton Corner’s letter 

explaining the cost of the improvement project. The letter also explained:

A Benefit Study/Appraisal Report was prepared for your property in accordance 

with standard practices. The work was performed by an independent appraiser with 

expertise in special benefit assessments. The appraiser has worked throughout the 

State on LIDs. The City is unaware of any appraisals undertaken by qualified 

experts which contradict the conclusions reached by the City’s expert.

The City will not provide water that does not meet all public health requirements 

as well as the City’s own stricter requirements. Water from Well 6 will not be 

placed into service until the discoloration issue is resolved. Costs associated with 

resolving this problem are not included in the LID costs.

CP at 70-71.

At the November 24 hearing, the council heard further testimony from protesting property 

owners and the city. At the hearing, Hamilton Corner had the opportunity to question the appraiser 

as to his appraisal methods and valuations. Of particular note were Hamilton Corner’s concerns 

about what special benefits were being conferred on its properties since the properties were 

sufficiently serviced by their private water systems. The appraiser explained that under the city’s 

zoning ordinances, the properties could not be further developed without being attached to a public 

water system, and that by bringing that infrastructure to the area, the properties’ values increased 

commensurate with their increased ability to develop to their “highest and best use.”

4

 CP at 110. 

 

4 On appeal, Hamilton Corner criticizes the appraisal alleging it “failed to assign any value to 

Appellant’s existing water system.” Br. of Appellant at 31. However, the appraisal report 

explicitly acknowledged the properties’ on-site private well system as serving its current use, but 
No. 49507-4-II

6

Hamilton Corner did not present any valuation evidence of its own. After considering all the 

protests and evidence, the city council passed a motion to accept the final assessment roll without 

modification and adopted an ordinance to confirm the final assessment roll.5

Hamilton Corner then appealed the city council’s decision to superior court, pursuant to 

RCW 35.44.210. The superior court affirmed the city council’s decisions. Hamilton Corner now 

appeals to this court.

ANALYSIS

I. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Local governments may impose special assessments on property owners within a local 

LID to pay for particular improvements that specially benefit those properties. Hasit LLC v. City 

of Edgewood, 179 Wn. App. 917, 933, 320 P.3d 163 (2014). Special benefit is “the increase in 

fair market value attributable to the local improvements.” Doolittle v. City of Everett, 114 

Wn.2d 88, 103, 786 P.2d 253 (1990). “To be subject to a LID assessment, a property must 

realize a benefit that is ‘actual, physical and material . . . not merely speculative or conjectural.’” 

Hasit, 179 Wn. App. 933 (alteration in original) (quoting Heavens v. King County Rural Library 

Dist., 66 Wn.2d 558, 563, 404 P.2d 453 (1965)). An assessment may not substantially exceed a 

property’s special benefit. Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 933.

 

correctly noted that full development of the property could not be achieved without connecting to 

the public water system. The appraisal based the increased value on the value of the property 

with the potential to development.

5 The improvements provided public water that met all public health and City requirements to the 

Hamilton Properties. Water from Well 6 was being reserved for fire flow until the discoloration 

issue could be remedied.
No. 49507-4-II

7

Affected owners have the right to a hearing as to whether the improvement resulted in 

special benefits to their properties. Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 933. Parties may appeal a council's 

final assessment decision to the superior court. RCW 35.44.200. The superior court shall 

confirm the assessment decision, unless it finds “that such assessment is founded upon a 

fundamentally wrong basis and/or the decision of the council . . . was arbitrary or capricious.” 

RCW 35.44.250.

An assessment is founded on a “fundamentally wrong basis” if there exists “‘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.’” Abbenhaus v. City of Yakima, 89 Wn.2d 855, 859, 

576 P.2d 888 (1978) (quoting Cammack v. City of Port Angeles, 15 Wn. App. 188, 196, 548 P.2d 

571 (1976)). “Arbitrary and capricious” refers to “willful and unreasoning action, taken without 

regard to or consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the action.” Abbenhaus, 89 

Wn.2d at 858. And, “[w]here there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due 

consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be 

erroneous.” Abbenhaus, 89 Wn. 2d at 858-59.

When reviewing a superior court’s determination under RCW 35.44.250, our review is 

not an “independent consideration of the merits of the issue but rather a consideration and 

evaluation of the [city council’s] decision-making process.” Abbenhaus, 89 Wn.2d at 859-60. 

“Review is limited to the record of proceedings before the City Council.” Bellevue Assoc. v. City 

of Bellevue, 108 Wn.2d 671, 674, 741 P.2d 993 (1987). We review the superior court’s appellate 
No. 49507-4-II

8

decision by applying the same “fundamentally wrong basis” and “arbitrary and capricious” 

standards of review directly to the council’s decision.6 See RCW 35.44.250.

We presume that the council’s assessment decision was proper, and the party challenging 

the assessment bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. Bellevue Assoc., 108 Wn.2d at 

674. We also presume “‘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, 89 Wn.2d at 861 (quoting Philip A. 

Trautman, Assessments in Washington, 40 WASH. L. REV. 100, 118 (1965)). However, these 

presumptions merely establish which party bears the burden of going forward with evidence. 

Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 935. When the opposing party presents credible evidence to rebut these 

presumptions, the burden shifts to the city to support its decision. Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 935-

36.

 

6 Hamilton Corner dedicates portions of its brief to criticizing the superior court’s reasoning and 

decision. Specifically, it assigns error to the superior court’s decision “that Appellant needed to 

have first appealed the City’s earlier establishment of the LID in order to challenge the 

subsequent LID Assessment amount imposed upon Appellant’s properties, and that Appellant’s 

arguments were moot.” Br. of Appellant at ii. Hamilton Corner also argues that the superior 

court erred by commenting on the fact that Hamilton Corner is the only property owner within 

the LID appealing its assessment.

Even if the superior court erred in any of these respects, it does not affect our decision. 

Because we apply the same “fundamentally wrong basis” and “arbitrary and capricious” 

standards of review directly to the council’s decision, we may affirm the council’s assessment 

decision on any grounds supported by the record. Sunde v. Tollet, 2 Wn. App. 640, 643, 469 

P.2d 212 (1970). Any alleged defects in the superior court’s appellate decision are immaterial to 

our review of the council’s decision.
No. 49507-4-II

9

II. UNSUITABILITY OF WELL 6 FOR DRINKING WATER

Hamilton Corner argues that because Well 6 does not provide drinking water, the city’s 

assessments included benefits not received by the property owners and was thus founded upon a 

fundamentally wrong basis, and therefore, the council’s decision to confirm the assessments was 

arbitrary and capricious. The city responds that despite not using Well 6 for drinking water, the 

fundamental purpose of the LID improvements and its foundation for special benefits and 

assessments was accomplished, and consequently, the council’s confirmation decision was not 

arbitrary and capricious. We agree with the city. 

Hamilton Corner contends that because Well 6 is not being used for drinking water, the 

assessment requires Hamilton Corner to pay for benefits it is not receiving. However, the 

purpose of the LID improvements—expanding the public water system to the LID properties—

has not changed and is being accomplished. As of December 2015, when the council confirmed 

the LID assessments, the improvements delivered public water that met all public health and city 

requirements to the assessed properties. The LID did not require water to be supplied 

specifically from Well 6. That the drinking water for Hamilton Corner is not currently supplied 

by Well 6 is not material because Hamilton Corner is receiving the special benefit of city water.7

 

7 Hamilton Corner’s focus on Well 6 on appeal misapprehends the purpose of the LID and Well 

6’s role within the improvement projects. The city established the LID to expand its public 

water system to an area not previously served by a public water system. Ordinance No. 497, 

which established the LID, detailed the specific improvements planned as part of the LID. The 

description included, among other improvements, “equipping [Well 6] with a pump, power, 

controls, and piping to connect [the] well to aforementioned water mains.” CP at 76. However, 

the LID did not fund the water rights acquisition or the drilling of Well 6. Well 6 was funded 

and drilled prior to the city introducing the LID at issue here. Connecting Well 6 to the rest of 

the city’s water system was merely one facet of the development plan.
No. 49507-4-II

10

Hamilton Corner analogizes this situation to that in Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 938. There, 

the city of Edgewood chose to install oversized sewer pipes in its new sewage system in order to 

have the capacity to serve future users outside the LID. Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 931, 940. This

court in Hasit held that the extra cost of oversized pipes were improperly financed through the 

LID assessments and consequently the assessments were made on a fundamentally wrong basis. 

Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 941 The court explained that the City’s choice forced the property 

owners to finance capacity with no special benefit to them now or ever, and as such exceeded the 

rules of LID assessments. Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 941 (citing In re Shilshole Ave., 85 Wash. 

522, 537, 148 P. 178 (1915) (“the basic principle and the very life of the doctrine of special 

assessments [is] that there can be no special assessment to pay for a thing which has conferred no 

special benefit upon the property assessed.”)). But Hasit is distinguishable.

Here, all of the LID improvements, including the equipment on Well 6, are designed to 

specially benefit the LID properties; there is no evidence of any benefit to properties outside the 

LID as there was in Hasit. Also, the LID did not fund Well 6 other than connecting it to the rest 

of the public water system.

Insofar as the connection of Well 6 to the public water system was a part of the LID 

improvements,

8 Ordinance No. 497 stated, “The Improvements shall be in accordance with the 

plans and specifications therefor prepared by the City Engineer, and may be modified by the city 

council as long as such modification does not affect the purpose of the Improvements.” CP at 73

 

8 The LID improvements included equipping Well 6 with a pump, power, controls, and piping to 

connect it to the city’s water mains.
No. 49507-4-II

11

(emphasis added). The city did not modify the connection of Well 6 to the public water system. 

And, although water from Well 6 is not currently being used for drinking water, it is available for 

fire suppression purposes, which is a purpose noted in the Description of Improvements.9 

Although the current use of Well 6 water deviates from the city’s original goal for Well 6, the 

LID provided only for the well’s connection to the public water system, and that connection is 

still providing some special benefit to the LID properties via fire suppression, and the overall 

purpose of the LID—providing public water—is being otherwise accomplished. Therefore, 

Hamilton Corner is receiving the special benefits for which it was assessed, and the assessment 

was not founded upon a fundamentally wrong basis.

Hamilton Corner further contends that without drinking water from Well 6 specifically, 

Hamilton Corner’s assessment exceeds the special benefits received, and therefore, the council’s 

decision to confirm the assessment was arbitrary and capricious. However, Hamilton Corner 

fails to offer any evidence to support its argument. See Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 935-36 (stating 

that the appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that the assessment decision 

was correct). Hamilton Corner was assessed for $170,329.02, which is far less than the $320,000 

in special benefits provided by the LID. Nothing in the record suggests that any portion of the 

special benefit related specifically to receiving drinking water from Well 6 as opposed to 

connecting with the public water delivery system generally. Hamilton Corner fails to show that 

the modified use of Well 6 rendered either the assessment or the special benefit inaccurate.

 

9 Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that Well 6 will never be used to service drinking 

water. “[C]ities may assess such costs before completion of the improvement.” Little Deli 

Marts, Inc. v. City of Kent, 108 Wn. App. 1, 8, 32 P.3d 286 (2001). Insofar as the city hopes to 

eventually deliver drinking water from Well 6, the record shows that the city is working to 

correct the discoloration issue.
No. 49507-4-II

12

Because the special benefits provided by the LID were not materially altered by the 

modified use of water from Well 6, the assessments were not founded upon a fundamentally 

wrong basis and the city council’s decision confirming the assessments was not arbitrary and 

capricious. We hold that Hamilton Corner’s arguments based on Well 6 fail. 

III. APPRAISAL10

A. The Appraisal of Hamilton Corner’s Properties Was Not Founded on a Fundamentally 

Wrong Basis

Hamilton Corner also argues that the assessment must be set aside because the appraisal 

on which the city based its decision was founded on a fundamentally wrong basis, and as a 

result, the council’s reliance on the appraisal in confirming the assessments was arbitrary and 

capricious. Hamilton Corner alleges several defects in the appraisal of its properties, including 

that the appraisal (1) did not consider the value of the properties’ existing private water system 

and water rights, (2) was performed too far in advance of the final assessments, (3) relied on 

speculation that the properties would be developed, and (4) did not appraise Hamilton Corner’s 

properties as individual parcels. We disagree.

As discussed above, we presume that the council’s assessment decision was proper. 

Bellevue Assoc., 108 Wn.2d at 674. Hamilton Corner bears the burden of overcoming this 

presumption. Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 935-36. It fails to do so.

 

10 Hamilton Corner contends that it need not present its own appraisal evidence to successfully 

challenge the assessment. We agree. Because it is clear that here the city council fully 

considered Hamilton Corner’s concerns regarding the appraisal, we do not consider this issue 

further.
No. 49507-4-II

13

1. Private Water System

Hamilton Corner contends that the appraisal was improperly based on incomplete and 

inaccurate information, particularly because it failed to consider the value of Hamilton Corner’s 

preexisting private water system. However, the appraisal expressly accounted for the properties’ 

private water system and recognized that the system adequately provided for the properties’

current use. The appraisal stated:

The only difference in the “after” condition compared to the “before” condition is 

the property is now served by the public water system. The owner no longer has 

the cost and expense of the private water system nor the cost to extend the water 

system in order to develop the excess land or in the event of extreme failure of the 

private water system.

CP at 64. The appraisal did not improperly ignore the value of the properties’ current water 

system, rather it recognized that, while the private system served its current needs, by connecting 

to public water the property’s value would increase due to improved development opportunity.11 

2. Timing of Appraisal

Hamilton Corner also suggests that the 2012 appraisal was completed too far in advance 

of the LID improvements. However, Hamilton Corner offers no authority to support its 

contention that an appraisal must be done closer to the completion of the LID improvements. 

Furthermore, Hamilton Corner offers no evidence suggesting that the time between the appraisal 

and the completion of the LID improvements rendered the initial valuations inaccurate.

 

11 Hamilton Corner also contends that the appraisal failed to factor in the costs of public water 

connection fees and monthly water charges and how those additional expenses would affect 

tenant retention and income from leases. However, Hamilton Corner provides no authority or 

evidence to show that the appraisal’s failure to explicitly consider these alleged costs 

demonstrated that the appraisal was founded on a fundamentally wrong basis.
No. 49507-4-II

14

3. Future Development

Hamilton Corner also contends that the appraisal improperly relied on the speculation 

that the property would be immediately developed.12 The record does not support its contention. 

Rather, the appraisal noted that although the property is “well located for a combination of 

commercial and industrial developments,” the lack of public water and current market conditions 

made a delay in such development highly likely. CP at 62. The appraisal explicitly stated:

With the exception of the water system changes, the subject property remains 

similar in the “after” condition. With the completion of the LID project, the excess 

land is available for immediate development. As such, the highest and best use of

the subject in the “after” condition is the continued use of the existing 

improvements for the foreseeable future, with the excess land of 19.43 acres 

suitable for additional commercial and industrial development.

CP at 64 (emphasis added).

The appraisal did not rely on speculation that the property would be immediately 

developed, rather it noted that such development would likely be delayed due to market 

conditions.13 Furthermore, “[p]roperty cannot be relieved from the burden of a local 

improvement district assessment simply because the owner devotes it to a use which may not be 

specially benefitted by the local improvement”. Doolittle, 114 Wn.2d 88, 93, 786 P.2d 253 

(1990). Future uses to which the property is reasonably well adapted may be properly 

considered. Doolittle, 114 Wn.2d at 93.

 

12 Hamilton Corner also questions the validity of the city regulation requiring connection to 

public water for further development. However, consideration of city regulations that directly 

influence the value of property are properly considered when estimating the special benefits of 

improvements to property. Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 942.

13 The appraisal relied on comparative property sales in the area to ascertain what a willing buyer 

would pay for such properties with public water and the potential for future development.
No. 49507-4-II

15

4. Individual Parcels

Hamilton Corner also argues that the appraisal improperly evaluated Hamilton Corner’s 

three properties as one unified parcel. Hamilton Corner argues that “[t]his was exactly the 

fundamental error that rendered the appraisals incompetent in Doolittle.” 114 Wn.2d at 106. Br. 

of Appellant at 38.

Doolittle involved four adjacent properties with a common owner. Doolittle, 114 Wn.2d 

at 91. The city created a LID to widen and improve a main road abutting the properties. 

Doolittle, 114 Wn.2d at 91. Three of the properties shared one commercial building while the 

fourth contained a separate commercial building. Doolittle, 114 Wn.2d at 91. Despite the 

properties’ different uses, the city appraised and assessed all four lots as one single tract of land, 

concluding that the “highest and best use” of the properties would be one single large 

commercial building covering all four lots. Doolittle, 114 Wn.2d at 91-92. The property owner 

protested the assessment on the basis that the fourth lot should be considered as a separate and 

distinct appraisal unit from the other three lots, and she provided the city with valuation 

testimony to that effect. Doolittle, 114 Wn.2d at 92.

Our Supreme Court agreed with the property owner. The court explained that because 

the first three lots were improved and used together before the LID, a proper assessment would 

compare those three lots used together before the LID to the three lots used together after the 

LID. Doolittle, 114 Wn.2d at 103. But because the fourth lot was never used in combination 

with the other lots, to consider its increase in value in conjunction with the other lots would be to 

disregard the owner’s actual use. Doolittle, 114 Wn.2d at 103. Thus, the court in Doolittle held 

it was improper for the appraiser to never consider existing use of the various lots but instead 
No. 49507-4-II

16

base the after value on the premise that all existing improvements would be removed and the lots 

used as an integrated whole. 114 Wn.2d at 104-05.

Doolittle is distinguishable because the appraisal here did not consider the lots as one 

integrated whole. Unlike in Doolittle, the appraisal of Hamilton Corner’s properties did not 

disregard the owner’s actual use or improperly consider the three lots as one whole for the 

purpose of future development.

14

 Rather, the appraisal expressly noted that the three lots held a 

variety of improvements and compared the before and after values of the properties according to 

their continued uses. The increased value of the property stemmed from the potential for future 

development but did not rest on the premise that any such development would require the 

integration of all three lots for a single purpose. Because the appraisal did not evaluate Hamilton 

Corner’s three properties as one unified parcel, this argument fails.

B. Due Process

Hamilton Corner also argues that the city violated due process by failing to provide 

Hamilton Corner meaningful notice or opportunity to be heard regarding the assessments and 

appraisal. We disagree.

Article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property 

without due process of law. Due process protections apply only when a person has a protected 

interest in life, liberty, or property and suffers a government deprivation of that interest. Carlisle 

v. Columbia Irr. Dist., 168 Wn.2d 555, 567, 229 P.3d 761 (2010). “Most constitutional 

 

14 We also note that Hamilton Corner never protested its assessments on this basis, unlike the 

property owner in Doolittle.
No. 49507-4-II

17

limitations on the taxing power do not apply to LID assessments because they serve merely as 

“‘compensation paid by the property owner for the improved value’” of the benefited property. 

Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 933 (quoting Heavens, 66 Wn.2d at 564.). However, an assessment 

against property which does not receive special benefits from the improvement constitutes a 

deprivation of property without due process of law. Heavens, 66 Wn.2d at 564.

At a minimum, due process requires reasonable notice to apprise interested parties of the 

pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Hasit, 179 

Wn. App. at 953. The particulars of what process is due vary according to the circumstances of a 

particular situation. Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 953.

Hamilton Corner bases its due process argument in large part on what it characterizes as 

the city’s late disclosure of the appraisal. However, Hamilton Corner provides no authority for 

its contention that the city was required to provide notice of the appraisal to Hamilton Corner

beyond its notice of the amount of the proposed final assessment.

15

 Hamilton Corner likens its 

situation to that in Hasit where this court held that the city of Edgewood violated property 

owners’ due process rights by issuing notices of final assessments 15 days before the 

confirmation hearing. 179 Wn. App. at 954-958. However, Hasit differs significantly from our 

current case.

The holding in Hasit was based on the late disclosure of the amount of the final 

assessment, which left an insufficient amount of time for property owners to obtain their own 

appraisals. See 179 Wn. App. at 954-55. Here, the final assessment notices were sent a month in 

 

15 State law requires only that the city give at least 15-day notice of the assessment hearing. 

RCW 35.44.090; there is no similar requirement for any associated appraisal reports.
No. 49507-4-II

18

advance of the confirmation hearing. Importantly, unlike in Hasit, Hamilton Corner never 

requested a continuance of the confirmation hearing in order to obtain its own appraisal.

Moreover, in Hasit, the final assessments were over 300 percent more than the 

preliminary assessments sent to property owners three years prior. See Hasit, 179 Wn. App. at 

955. In contrast, here the preliminary and final assessments differed by just 12 percent. Hence,

this case is more akin to Time Oil Co. v. City of Port Angeles, 42 Wn. App. 473, 475-81, 712 

P.2d 311 (1985), where the court reasoned that the difference between the preliminary and final 

assessments was small enough that the preliminary assessment effectively put Time Oil on 

formal notice of the assessment.

To the extent Hamilton Corner contends that the procedure of the confirmation hearing 

itself violated due process, its claim also fails. Hamilton Corner appears to suggest that the city 

misled Hamilton Corner when the city concluded the October 27 hearing and continued the 

discussion to November 24. However, the record does not support Hamilton Corner’s 

characterization of events. At the end of the October 27 hearing the city stated:

So what I will do is I’ll recommend the council to hold the hearing over

until the next council meeting a month from now, say the council meeting after 

next. That will allow us time to read these comments and protests and develop our 

staff report and recommendations for either modifying or accepting the assessment 

roll. 

AR at 155 (emphasis added). On November 24, the city characterized the hearing as “a 

continuation of the Rush Road LID 2011-1.” AR at 158.

Hamilton Corner contends that “[t]he City intentionally obstructed Appellant’s ability to 

provide his own expert analysis, and prevented Appellant from having his own counsel crossexamine the testifying appraiser.” Br. of Appellant at 44. Again, the record does not support 
No. 49507-4-II

19

Hamilton Corner’s characterization of events. At the conclusion of the October 27 hearing, the 

city explicitly encouraged Hamilton Corner to talk to an appraiser and get a second opinion as to 

whether the LID improvements benefited its property. This is in direct conflict with Hamilton 

Corner’s contention on appeal that “it did not appear the City would allow new testimony or 

exhibits, from Hamilton Corner I LLC [at the November hearing].” Br. of Appellant at 43-44. 

Additionally, at the November 24 hearing the appraiser testified and Hamilton Corner asked him 

several questions about the procedure of the appraisal and its valuation.

Ultimately, Hamilton Corner had notice reasonably calculated under all the 

circumstances to afford it an opportunity to present its objections to the city in a meaningful 

manner. The procedures employed by the city did not violate the due process to which Hamilton 

Corner was entitled. 

Affirmed.

Worswick, J.

We concur:

Bjorgen, C.J.

Lee, J.