Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ulid Assessments topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council rescinds resolution setting ULID No. 25 hearing to finalize assessment rule

2356556 · February 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Lacey City Council unanimously adopted Resolution 11-64 to rescind Resolution 11-62 after staff discovered small changes were needed to the final assessment rule for Utility Local Improvement District No. 25; the hearing will be rescheduled once final costs are confirmed.

The Lacey City Council on Feb. 18 adopted Resolution 11-64, rescinding Resolution 11-62, which had set a hearing for March 18 on objections to the final assessment roll for Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) No. 25.

City staff told the council the rescission is procedural: minor adjustments are needed to the final assessment rule and the city must reissue notice and mailings once those numbers are finalized. “All we're doing here is just pumping the brakes,” a city staff member said, summarizing the request to rescind the earlier resolution so the council can set a new hearing date later.

The change means the previously announced March 18 hearing will not proceed as scheduled; staff said it will return to the council with a new resolution and hearing date after final costs are confirmed and statutory notice requirements are met. The council moved and seconded adoption of Resolution 11-64 and the motion carried unanimously.

Why it matters: ULIDs assign project costs to affected property owners and require legally prescribed public notice steps. Rescinding the earlier resolution pauses the hearing schedule so the city can ensure mailed notices and newspaper publication match the finalized assessment amounts.

Council members did not debate the merits of the assessment amounts at the meeting; staff characterized the needed edits as minor and procedural. The council did not take a separate vote on a new hearing date at this meeting.

Staff said a new resolution to set a hearing date will be brought back after the assessment rule is finalized and the city schedules the required public-notice publication and mailings.