Commission sends special-assessment schedule back to committee after legal concerns about 'secondaries'

Washburn commissioners voted on July 13 to send a disputed special-assessment schedule back to the special-assessment committee after the city attorney raised questions about legal defensibility of the method used for properties outside the project area, known as 'secondaries.' The commission said primaries (properties inside the project) could remain unchanged while the committee reviews the secondary calculations, and that another public hearing would follow if numbers change.

The motion to refer the assessments back to the special-assessment committee was offered by a commissioner citing advice from City Attorney David Lindell and seconded by another member; the commission then opened the floor to public comment before taking a roll-call vote. The city attorney, the commissioner said, told them he was “more than willing to come to the special assessment committee when they meet to explain his reasons why his opinion was that we should not go forward with this at this time.”

Residents who spoke at the hearing urged the commission to address perceived inequities in how the assessments were calculated. One long-time property owner said owners of multiple adjacent lots are carrying far higher bills than single-lot households and repeatedly cited individual assessment amounts he considered unaffordable. A member of the special-assessment committee, Dan Langang, said he filed a protest because he believed people outside the project were not being treated as fairly as those inside; he recommended switching to a method based on square footage or street frontage, similar to county practice.

“Per household was charged $19,000,” Langang said, describing the inside-project approach; he argued that the outside parcels should be treated by frontage or square footage to achieve greater equity. Other commenters suggested the commission explore alternate financing and regional bidding (for example combining projects with Wilton and Underwood) to reduce per-property costs, and some callers urged a hard cap so no owner faces a one-time bill in the tens of thousands.

Commissioners noted practical limits: some state or grant programs pay only for specific infrastructure (for example underground utilities, not asphalt), and the community’s median income and prior project precedents affect eligibility for outside funding. The commission concluded that legal and technical revisions to the secondary calculations were warranted and voted to refer the item back to the special-assessment committee, with the city attorney available to advise; the commission indicated it would publish revised numbers and hold a subsequent public hearing.

The motion passed in roll call with members indicating approval and at least one recorded abstention; the precise roll-call tally in the transcript is not fully clear and will be published with the meeting minutes. The commission adjourned after the vote.

Next steps: the special-assessment committee will review the attorney’s guidance, consider alternative measurement methods (parcel vs. lot vs. frontage/square footage), and prepare revised assessment numbers and notices for a subsequent public hearing.