Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.50.005 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Within fifteen days after any city or town has ordered a local improvement and created a local improvement district, the city or town shall cause to be filed with the officer authorized by law to collect the assessments for such improvement, the title of the improvement and district number and a copy of the diagram or print showing the boundaries of the district and preliminary assessment roll or abstract of same showing thereon the lots, tracts and parcels of land that will be specially benefited thereby and the estimated cost and expense of such improvement to be borne by each lot, tract, or parcel of land. Such officer shall immediately post the proposed assessment roll upon his or her index of local improvement assessments against the properties affected by the local improvement.
[ 2009 c 549 s 2089; 1969 ex.s. c 258 s 16; 1965 c 7 s 35.50.005. Prior: 1955 c 353 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1984–2001 · 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 10× “The City did not file with the city treasurer a diagram of the LID and preliminary assessment roll as required by RCW 35.50.005. Shortly thereafter a number of property owners along 41st Street S.”
Little Deli Marts, Inc. v. City of Kent, 32 P.3d 286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “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.”
Rainier Nat'l Bank v. Wells, 829 P.2d 1168 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “As between a vendor and vendee, however, if there is no express agreement as to the payment of the LID assessments, the hen *897 attaches 30 days after the preliminary filings required by RCW 35.50.005. 2 The threshold question is thus whether the parties had an express…”
Little Deli Marts, Inc. v. City of Kent, 32 P.3d 286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “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.”
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.