Covers time in which claims must be filed against cities, the  Metro Act,  urban renewal law, the local assessment procedure, and air pollution

Gay, James

English

UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington)

Washington Law Review Volume 32 Number 3 Washington Legislation-1957 8-1-1957 Local Government Law James Gay University of Washington School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr  Part of the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation James Gay, Washington Legislation, Local Government Law, 32 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J. 196 (1957). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol32/iss3/6 This Washington Legislation is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact cnyberg@uw.edu. WASHINGTON LAW REVIEWlender." In the case of insurance which is being renewed, the renewalpolicy must be delivered to such creditor or lender "not later thanthirty days prior to the renewal date."This second section portends even more difficulty of construction,as many of its provisions are not clear. Who are included in the terms"debtor and borrower"? Does the term "property insurance" includeall kinds of automobile insurance as well as the more usual types ofproperty insurance? What shall constitute "reasonable opportunityand choice" in the selection of the agent, broker and insurer? Therecould be considerable opportunity for argument as to this. When isinsurance "properly provided" for the protection of the creditor orlender, and under what circumstances can he object on the basis thatthe insurance is not proper? There could easily be disagreement as towhat insurance properly protects the creditor or lender. The wordingof this section is unfortunate and it may well invite controversy andlitigation in the future to facilitate its construction.ROBERT L. TAYLORLOCAL GOVERNMENT LAWThe 1957 Washington Legislature enacted many statutes in thelocal government law field. It would be impossible in the space avail-able to summarize all of such statutes to indicate the changes from theheretofore existing law and the new enactments. Hence, only a few ofthe most significant statutes will be discussed in this comment.Time In Which Claims Must Be Filed Against Cities. Chapter 224changes the time within which claims against a city must be filed. Theold statutes provided that claims for damages against cities must befiled within thirty days. The new act provides that claims for damagesagainst cities of certain classes must be filed within ninety days. Anexception is made to the effect that claims for damages arising fromalleged defective sidewalks must be filed within thirty days from thedate the damage occurred or the injury was sustained. Apparently, theLegislature felt that the thirty-day rule on claims in general was tooharsh on claimants. For some reason, this rationale did not extend toclaims for damages arising from alleged defective sidewalks."Metro Act." Chapter 213 is the Metropolitan Municipal Corpora-tions Act, the so called "Metro Act." This act is probably the mostinteresting and unusual act of its kind passed by the 1957 Legislature.[AUTUM NWASHINGTON LEGISLATION-1957The metro act is enabling legislation. It permits, but does not require,the people of any first-class city and its surrounding area to establisha metropolitan council. This council can be established only if a major-ity of the people inside the largest city and a majority of the peoplein the suburban area outside the largest city both vote in favor of itsformation at an election.The metropolitan council would consist of representatives from themayors, city councils and county commissioners of the cities andcounties in the metropolitan area. Representation from these citiesand counties would be approximately in proportion to their population.The people of each metropolitan area would determine for them-selves which of the metropolitan functions in the act would be per-formed by their metropolitan council. They could authorize the councilto act only in the field of sewage disposal or only in the field of watersupply or in any one or more of the metropolitan functions. Thesefunctions are: sewage disposal, water supply, garbage disposal, masstransportation, parks and parkways, and comprehensive planning.The metropolitan council would perform the metropolitan phases ofthe particular function involved. For example, in the field of sewagedisposal metro would build the major intercepter sewers and treatmentplants while cities, towns and districts would continue to construct andoperate their own local sewer collection facilities. Metro would be the"wholesaler" and the individual cities and districts would be the"retailer."Use of metropolitan facilities by the cities, towns and districts wouldbe optional, with the single exception of sewage disposal, where eachdistrict or city would be required to discharge its sewage into availablemetropolitan facilities. This is necessary to insure that water pollutionwill be cleaned up and that one community will not continue to pollutewaters after others have removed their sewage. If the voters shouldauthorize the metropolitan council to provide water supply or garbagedisposal facilities, however, use of these metropolitan facilities by thecities, towns and districts would be wholly voluntary. The metropolitancomprehensive planning function would be advisory only.No municipally owned facilities may be acquired by the metropolitancouncil without the consent of the municipality owning such facilities.Thus, the water system of a city could not be acquired by metro with-out the consent of that city.Metropolitan facilities, such as large sewage treatment plants, wouldbe financed by revenue bonds paid from charges to the cities or districts1957]WASHINGTON LAW REVIEWusing such facilities based upon the amount of sewage contributed tothe metropolitan facilities. Each city or district would pay metro forthe cost of treatment of sewage delivered to the metropolitan treat-ment plant. Each city or district would continue to collect its ownsewer charges from its own residents. Other revenue producing func-tions would also be financed from charges for the use of facilities con-structed or acquired. Non-revenue producing functions, such as plan-ning, would be financed by pro-rata payments from the cities andcounties in the metropolitan area, since these entities would, to alarge extent, be relieved from making expenditures in their own budgetsto provide such services. General obligation bonds or tax levies maybe issued or levied by the metropolitan council only if, in each case,the voters of the metropolitan area have approved such bonds or levyat an election held thereon. Local facilities would continue to be fi-nanced on a local basis.Urban Renewal Law. Chapter 42 of the 1957 session laws enablesa city or town to improve what the act calls "blighted areas." Thedefinition of a blighted area is very broad, so that a city or town maytake steps to improve an area which is physically dilapidated or obso-lescent or unsanitary, or contains inappropriate or mixed uses of landand buildings, or is overcrowded or has faulty lot lay out, or has defec-tive or unusual conditions of title or improper subdivision or obsoleteplatting, or has other conditions which endanger life or property andare thereby conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mor-tality, juvenile delinquency or crime, and thereby substantially impairsor arrests the sound growth of the city or its environs.The act enables cities or towns to accomplish the improvement ofblighted areas by either of two methods. The first is to redevelop thearea. When a city redevelops an area, it may acquire the blighted areaor any part of it and demolish the buildings and improvements in thearea. It may then install streets, utilities, playgrounds, etc., and makethe land available for development by private enterprise or publicagencies. In other words, redevolpment means what is generally consid-ered to be slum clearance.The second means is rehabilitation. Although there is some overlapbetween redevelopment and rehabilitation, the latter generally meansthe carrying out of a plan of improvement by the private owner. Theowner may carry out the plan voluntarily, or he can be forced to repairand rehabilitate his properties. This program of voluntary or compul-[AuumNWASHINGTON LEGISLATION-1957sory repair can be combined with acquisition of property by the cityor town, with demolition of improvements, and installation of streets,utilities, parks and playgrounds in the same manner as under a redevel-opment program.There are a number of procedural steps to be taken to set the redevel-opment or rehabilitation program in motion. The first is the makingof a comprehensive plan for the municipality as a whole. Also, theremust be a plan for the urban renewal project in particular. The cityor town governing body must by appropriate action determine an areato be a blighted area and designate it as appropriate for an urbanrenewal project. The local governing body of the city or town mustthen approve the project. A hearing is necessary on the matter, and thelocal governing body of the city or town must make certain findings.One required finding is that the urban renewal plan affords maximumopportunity consistent with the sound needs of the municipality forthe rehabilitation or redevelopment of the area by private enterprise.The city or town carrying out an urban renewal plan may receivegrants and loans from the federal government. The city or town isfurther empowered to issue bonds to finance an urban renewal project.These bonds are made payable solely from the income and revenuesof the municipality derived from or held in connection with its carryingout of urban renewal projects.The urban renewal project powers may be exercised by the cityor town itself, or, at the election of the local governing body, such pow-ers may be exercised by an urban renewal agency created under the act.The urban renewal law gives cities and towns broad powers in deal-ing with blighted areas. Although the procedures under the act may attimes appear cumbersome, this new legislation gives cities and townsthe power effectively to clean up any type of metropolitan blight.Local Assessment Procedure. Some very desirable changes havebeen made in the laws relating to local assessment procedure in citiesand towns. Chapter 143 is an attempt to take some of the "sting" outof the result reached in In re Schmitz' by requiring the court, in anyappeal taken from the action of the city or town council in confirmingthe assessment roll, to uphold such council's action unless the courtshall find from the evidence that such assessment is founded upon afundamentally wrong basis and/or the decision of the council or otherlegislative body thereon was arbitrary or capricious, in which event144 Wn.2d 429. 268 P2d 436 (1954).1957]WASHINGTON LAW REVIEWthe judgment of the court shall correct, change, modify or annul theassessment insofar as it affects the property of the appellant.Chapter 144 makes changes in the provisions with respect to therestraint by protest on the authority of the legislative body to proceedwith a local improvement initiated by resolution. Under prior lawthe authority of the city or town council to proceed could be divestedby sufficient protest filed at any time prior to the awarding of thecontract for the improvement. The time for filing such protestshas now been changed to a period within thirty days following thedate of passage of the ordinance ordering the improvement. The newact states that such protests must be signed by the owners of propertywithin the proposed local improvement district subject to sixty percentor more of the total estimated cost of the improvement including fed-erally owned or other nonassessable property. Chapter 144 gives legis-lative sanction to the use of the "assessable units of frontage" formulafor spreading special assessments in addition to the traditional "zoneand termini" formula.Air Pollution. Chapter 232, the Air Pollution Control District Act,gives cities, towns, counties or specially-created "air pollution controldistricts" considerable power in preventing or controlling air pollution.In controlling air pollution a city, town or county may take unilat-eral action or may join with any other city, town or county to form adistrict for the control of air pollution. The district when formed isdeemed a political corporate body. It is given the usual powers of amunicipal corporation and, if authorized by popular vote, may levydistrict taxes against real and personal property in the district.The city, town, county or district, for the purpose of controlling andpreventing air pollution, may consult with other bodies and politicalsubdivisions, conduct studies and research relating to air pollution, andreceive moneys from any source for the study, dissemination of edu-cational information and control and prevention of air pollution. Thepolitical body may pass ordinances, resolutions or rules and regulationspertaining to the control or prevention of air pollution. These enact-ments shall have the effect of a statute of the state within the district.A violation of such an enactment may be enjoined in a civil actionbrought by the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the viola-tion occurred.JAAms GAY[AUTUMN

Local Government Law

https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3207&context=wlr

Local Government Law

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington)