Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.43.140 (2026)

Resolutions—Contents, publication—Hearing, by whom held

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any local improvement to be paid for in whole or in part by the levy and collection of assessments upon the property within the proposed improvement district may be initiated by a resolution of the city or town council or other legislative authority of the city or town, declaring its intention to order the improvement, setting forth the nature and territorial extent of the improvement, containing a statement that actual assessments may vary from assessment estimates so long as they do not exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair value the improvement, or street lighting, adds to the property, and notifying all persons who may desire to object thereto to appear and present their objections at a time to be fixed therein.

In the case of trunk sewers and trunk water mains the resolution must describe the routes along which the trunk sewer, subsewer and branches of trunk water main and laterals are to be constructed.

In case of dikes or other structures to protect the city or town or any part thereof from overflow or to open, deepen, straighten, or enlarge watercourses, waterways and other channels the resolution must set forth the place of commencement and ending thereof and the route to be used.

In the case of auxiliary water systems, or extensions thereof or additions thereto for protection of the city or town or any part thereof from fire, the resolution must set forth the routes along which the auxiliary water system or extensions thereof or additions thereto are to be constructed and specifications of the structures or works necessary thereto or forming a part thereof.

The resolution shall be published in at least two consecutive issues of the official newspaper of the city or town, the first publication to be at least fifteen days before the day fixed for the hearing.

The hearing herein required may be held before the city or town council, or other legislative authority, or before a committee thereof. The legislative authority of a city or town may designate an officer to conduct the hearings. The committee or hearing officer shall report recommendations on the resolution to the legislative authority for final action.

[ 1994 c 71 s 2; 1989 c 243 s 2; 1985 c 469 s 29; 1984 c 203 s 1; 1965 c 7 s 35.43.140. Prior: 1957 c 144 s 8; prior: 1953 c 177 s 1. (i) 1929 c 97 s 1, part; 1911 c 98 s 10, part; RRS s 9361, part. (ii) 1911 c 98 s 16, part; RRS s 9368, part. (iii) 1911 c 98 s 17, part; RRS s 9369, part. (iv) 1911 c 98 s 18, part; RRS s 9370, part.]

Notes:

Severability—1984 c 203: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1984 c 203 s 10.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1972–2001 · leading case: Patchell v. City of Puyallup, 682 P.2d 913 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patchell v. City of Puyallup, 682 P.2d 913 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 5× “The trial court denied Patchells' statutory appeal because of a tardy filing of a bond and transcript, invoked its inherent or equity jurisdiction and set aside the assessment on the ground that the City's failure to abide with the statutory notice procedures of RCW 35.43.140,…”

Hansen v. Local Improvement Dist. No. 335, 773 P.2d 436 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “140 by determining the boundaries of the LID in resolution 1591 before receiving the officer's certification fixing those boundaries and thereby violated RCW 35.43.140. RCW 35.43.140 authorizes the City of Auburn to set forth the "territorial extent", that is, the boundaries of…”

Little Deli Marts, Inc. v. City of Kent, 32 P.3d 286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Because the notice provisions contained in RCW 35.43.140 and .150 and RCW 35.50.005 are merely statutory — not constitutionally mandated — procedures, the City’s failure to comply did not constitute a jurisdictional defect.”

Little Deli Marts, Inc. v. City of Kent, 32 P.3d 286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Because the notice provisions contained in RCW 35.43.140 and .150 and RCW 35.50.005 are merely statutory not constitutionally mandatedprocedures, the City's failure to comply did not constitute a jurisdictional defect.”

Citizens for Underground Equality v. City of Seattle, 492 P.2d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “Over the objection of some of the appellants, who appeared at the RCW 35.43.140 hearing which the city council held to determine whether or not to create the local improvement district, the city council passed resolution No.”

First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. City of West Richland, 39 Wash. App. 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 35.43.140. Pursuant to RCW 35.43.150, a city is instructed to notify by mail the "owners or reputed owners" of all property to be "specially benefited by the proposed improvement", as shown on the county assessor's rolls.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.