## Facts

- Washington’s RCW 35.87A authorizes municipalities to create parking and business improvement areas funded by special assessments, initiated by a petition from businesses responsible for at least 60% of the proposed assessments.
- Seattle enacted Ordinance 113015 (1986) establishing the Downtown Seattle Retail Core Business Improvement Area (BIA) and levying special assessments on businesses within the defined retail core.
- The ordinance followed an initiating petition signed by more than 60% of the businesses in the BIA, and the trial court found the ordinance reflected the petition.
- Assessment revenue funded two sets of services: (1) a marketing program (beautification of public places, pedestrian signage, and public relations) and (2) a common area maintenance program (sidewalk sweeping, graffiti removal, flowers/greenery, litter receptacles, and security).
- The ordinance stated the BIA services were supplemental to, and not replacements for, ordinary city maintenance.
- Rogers Clothing for Men, Inc. and Grand Furniture Company, Inc., businesses located in the BIA, refused to pay; Seattle sued to collect.
- The municipal court upheld the ordinance and assessments, and the superior court affirmed.
- The businesses sought review, arguing the ordinance exceeded statutory authority, imposed an unconstitutional tax rather than a special assessment, and violated uniformity and equal protection requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether Seattle exceeded its statutory authority under RCW 35.87A by creating the BIA and imposing the assessments.
2. Whether the charges were invalid because they functioned as a tax rather than a special assessment tied to special benefits, including whether the amounts substantially exceeded any special benefit.
3. Whether the assessment classifications and apportionment violated Washington’s uniformity requirements or state and federal equal protection guarantees.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgments for the City.
- Seattle acted within RCW 35.87A’s authorization and followed the statutory petition procedure.
- The charges were valid special assessments because the BIA services conferred special benefits on assessed businesses and the businesses did not prove the assessments substantially exceeded those benefits.
- The ordinance’s classifications and apportionment were reasonable, uniform within classes, and consistent with equal protection and state uniformity requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality may impose special assessments under authorizing legislation when statutory procedures are satisfied, including petition requirements for creation of an improvement area.
- A valid special assessment must be supported by a special benefit to the assessed property or business beyond that enjoyed by the general public, and the assessment may not substantially exceed the value of that special benefit.
- Incidental benefits to the public or to properties outside the assessment area do not invalidate a special assessment if the assessed class receives a distinct, localized benefit.
- Assessment classifications and apportionment satisfy equal protection and uniformity requirements when they are rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives and are applied uniformly within each class.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court upheld Seattle’s retail-core business improvement area ordinance, concluding it was authorized by RCW 35.87A, imposed permissible special assessments proportionate to special benefits, and used constitutionally acceptable, uniform classifications for allocating the assessments.


City of Seattle v. Rogers Clothing for Men, Inc., 787 P.2d 39 (Wash. 1990)