You are on page 1of 22
10 u n 3 4 Is 16 ” 18 19 20 au 23 4 a ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KITSAP COUNTY BAINBRIDGE RATEPAYERS ALLIANCE, a| ‘non-piofit corporation, CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, a ‘munie-pal corporation, ‘No. 09-2-01023-6 Plaintst CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THIS SUIT'S CLAM REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE CITY'S PROPOSED BOND ISSUE Ccrv's Momow For Susouany Jurca ON Ths Sur's Crane Fosren Feren PLLC -REGARLING THE VALIDITY OF Tie CHTY's PROPOSED BONDISSUE i sumtin aves Sune a 10 n B 1“ 15 6 "7 18 » 20 a 2B 24 2s 26 < Crv's Mono For Suvaany JUDGMENT ON Tis SU's CLAM [REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE CITY'S PROPOSED BOND ISSUE - i ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. RELIEF REQUESTED. BACKGROUND CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS, ‘A. Milestones Before Plaintiff Filed Suit B. Plaintiff's Assertion Of This Suit’s Two Bond Claims Prevents The City’s Bond Financing From Closing (QUESTIONS OF LAW PRESENTED BY THIS MOTION. LEGAL DISCUSSION. ‘A. The City’s Proposed Bond Issue Is Valid Under Washington Law’s ‘Threo-Part Test For Bond Validity fl 1. The City’s proposed bond issue is for a public purpose... 2. Th Sat sane ersng he iy pnpeed ban nme were constitutionally enacted bar ae anda sony to the = Gy for this proposed bond issue. " (a) The State Lepsatue’s delegation othe City. (0) The proposed bond issue complied withthe State Legare

You might also like