December 22, 2014 The Honorable Bob Ferguson Washington State ...
December 22, 2014
The Honorable Bob Ferguson Washington State Attorney General P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, Washington 98504-0100 RE: Request for informal opinion Dear Attorney General Ferguson: My legislative district has the only irrigation and rehabilitation district in the state - the Moses Lake Irrigation & Rehabilitation District (MLIRD). MLIRD is unique because it is a hybrid of a special benefit district (supplying irrigation water) and a general benefit district (a clean lake). Due to the unique nature of the district, I am seeking guidance in the form of an informal attorney general opinion on the parameters for imposing assessments on property by an irrigation and rehabilitation district. Some background is helpful. Under RCW 87.03.010 and .015, irrigation districts in Washington State are authorized to construct, maintain, and operate infrastructure systems for the irrigation of lands within the district boundaries, as well as other related public works and services such as provision of domestic water, electric power, or drainage or sewage disposal systems. One method of financing these operations is through assessments on property within district boundaries. RCW 87.03.240 provides that these assessments “shall be made in proportion to the benefits accruing to the lands assessed…” Further, that same section provides that the assessment roll shall specify “the ratio of benefits, or, when deemed by the secretary more practicable, the peracre value, or the amount of benefits, for general and special district and local improvement district purposes, and the total amount assessed against each tract of land.” In addition, irrigation districts that meet certain criteria are authorized to convert to irrigation and rehabilitation districts (RCW 87.84), with the added responsibility of rehabilitation and improvement of lakes and shorelines in order to further the health, recreation, and welfare of local residents. RCW 87.84.005. To fund these purposes, irrigation and rehabilitation districts are authorized to specially assess land within the district, “taking as a basis the last equalized assessment for county purposes: PROVIDED, [t]hat such assessment shall not exceed twenty-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value upon such assessed valuation without securing authorization by vote of the electors of the district at an election called for that purpose.” RCW 87.84.070.
Therefore, I pose the following questions to you:
Can a district that is organized as an irrigation and rehabilitation district impose two assessments, one for irrigation purposes under RCW 87.03.240 and one for rehabilitation purposes under RCW 87.84.070, as seems to be allowed by RCW 87.84.050 and 87.84.060, which say that the purposes and powers of the irrigation and rehabilitation district are in addition to those granted to irrigation districts? Can irrigation and rehabilitation districts, which are required to use the assessed value of properties as the basis for their annual assessment for rehabilitation purposes, also use the same assessed value as the basis for annual assessment for irrigation district purposes while remaining compliant with RCW 87.03.240? Can irrigation and rehabilitation districts charge properties the same assessment, regardless of the amount or type of benefit received? For example, can the following properties be assessed for irrigation purposes: 1) commercial property that the property owner does not irrigate; or 2) a parcel that cannot irrigate because there are no irrigation pipes and pumps to deliver water to the parcel? Can an irrigation and rehabilitation district combine the assessment under RCW 87.84.070 and the assessment under RCW 87.03.240 into a single ad valoreum rate that is charged to all ratepayers within the district regardless of the ratio of the benefit received? Can an irrigation and rehabilitation district combine the assessment under RCW 87.84.070 and the assessment under RCW 87.03.240 into a single ad valoreum levied on all ratepayers within the district and have that levy be in excess of twenty-five cents per thousand dollars, without a ratifying ratepayer vote as required under RCW 87.84.070?
Thank you for your due consideration of my request. If you have any questions or need more information to respond to my request, please feel free to contact me at my Olympia Office at 360-786-7624. Sincerely,
Senator Janéa Holmquist Newbry 13th Legislative District
The Honorable Bob Ferguson Washington State Attorney General P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, Washington 98504-0100 RE: Request for informal opinion Dear Attorney General Ferguson: My legislative district has the only irrigation and rehabilitation district in the state - the Moses Lake Irrigation & Rehabilitation District (MLIRD). MLIRD is unique because it is a hybrid of a special benefit district (supplying irrigation water) and a general benefit district (a clean lake). Due to the unique nature of the district, I am seeking guidance in the form of an informal attorney general opinion on the parameters for imposing assessments on property by an irrigation and rehabilitation district. Some background is helpful. Under RCW 87.03.010 and .015, irrigation districts in Washington State are authorized to construct, maintain, and operate infrastructure systems for the irrigation of lands within the district boundaries, as well as other related public works and services such as provision of domestic water, electric power, or drainage or sewage disposal systems. One method of financing these operations is through assessments on property within district boundaries. RCW 87.03.240 provides that these assessments “shall be made in proportion to the benefits accruing to the lands assessed…” Further, that same section provides that the assessment roll shall specify “the ratio of benefits, or, when deemed by the secretary more practicable, the peracre value, or the amount of benefits, for general and special district and local improvement district purposes, and the total amount assessed against each tract of land.” In addition, irrigation districts that meet certain criteria are authorized to convert to irrigation and rehabilitation districts (RCW 87.84), with the added responsibility of rehabilitation and improvement of lakes and shorelines in order to further the health, recreation, and welfare of local residents. RCW 87.84.005. To fund these purposes, irrigation and rehabilitation districts are authorized to specially assess land within the district, “taking as a basis the last equalized assessment for county purposes: PROVIDED, [t]hat such assessment shall not exceed twenty-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value upon such assessed valuation without securing authorization by vote of the electors of the district at an election called for that purpose.” RCW 87.84.070.
Therefore, I pose the following questions to you:
Can a district that is organized as an irrigation and rehabilitation district impose two assessments, one for irrigation purposes under RCW 87.03.240 and one for rehabilitation purposes under RCW 87.84.070, as seems to be allowed by RCW 87.84.050 and 87.84.060, which say that the purposes and powers of the irrigation and rehabilitation district are in addition to those granted to irrigation districts? Can irrigation and rehabilitation districts, which are required to use the assessed value of properties as the basis for their annual assessment for rehabilitation purposes, also use the same assessed value as the basis for annual assessment for irrigation district purposes while remaining compliant with RCW 87.03.240? Can irrigation and rehabilitation districts charge properties the same assessment, regardless of the amount or type of benefit received? For example, can the following properties be assessed for irrigation purposes: 1) commercial property that the property owner does not irrigate; or 2) a parcel that cannot irrigate because there are no irrigation pipes and pumps to deliver water to the parcel? Can an irrigation and rehabilitation district combine the assessment under RCW 87.84.070 and the assessment under RCW 87.03.240 into a single ad valoreum rate that is charged to all ratepayers within the district regardless of the ratio of the benefit received? Can an irrigation and rehabilitation district combine the assessment under RCW 87.84.070 and the assessment under RCW 87.03.240 into a single ad valoreum levied on all ratepayers within the district and have that levy be in excess of twenty-five cents per thousand dollars, without a ratifying ratepayer vote as required under RCW 87.84.070?
Thank you for your due consideration of my request. If you have any questions or need more information to respond to my request, please feel free to contact me at my Olympia Office at 360-786-7624. Sincerely,
Senator Janéa Holmquist Newbry 13th Legislative District
