Memorandum
City of
Legal Services Department
|
TO: |
David Corliss, City
Manager Toni Ramirez
Wheeler, Director of Legal Services |
|
FROM: |
John Jay Miller,
Staff Attorney |
|
CC: |
Cynthia Boecker.
Assistant City Manager Dianne Stoddard,
assistant City Manager |
|
Date: |
June 10, 2008 |
|
RE: |
Queens Road Improvement District Analysis |
Staff wanted to provide an update on the analysis of the
Intersection Improvements
§
Signalization of the intersection at 6th
and
§
Right-turn lane from
Improvements South of
§ Approximately 450’ of street 31’ wide, sidewalks on both sides, storm sewer, and waterline improvements
§ Entrance treatment (island)
§ At the intersection, widening to four lanes to provide for turning movements
Improvements North of
§ At the intersection, the traffic volume would require a five-lane section to accommodate through and turning traffic. Just north of the intersection, the street section will taper down to a two-lane collector street.
§
Roundabouts will provide traffic control at
§ Multi-use path (10’) and sidewalks (6’)
§ Stormwater improvements and water main
§ Approximate length of one mile to north city limits
§
Proposed improvement would extend from
§
Dedicated right turn lanes for west bound
§
The intersection at
The focus of this memorandum is to provide a review of the
issues on the
Method of Assessment:
The first issue is the method of assessment. Because of the scope of the project, Staff has prepared an analysis of different assessment methods for the City Commission’s consideration. Staff is providing an example based on three methods of assessment. The first, and our typical method for straight streets, is splitting the front footage on the east and west side of the road then front footage per tract and then area per tract.
The second, is splitting the front footage on the east and west side of the road and then by the square footage. The third, is by total square footage per tract of land of the whole improvement district
For comparison purposes staff has chosen a single family
residence in the Westwood Hills subdivision and a one acre rural residential
tract of land zoned urban reserve. The
assessment amounts are examples based on preliminary analysis, are subject to
change depending upon the land area and final configuration of the improvement
district, and do not include the interest that would be added to the total
assessment. The
assessment amount example is the total that would be divided by the number of
years of the improvement district.
Generally, the City collects assessments in ten equal annual
installments.
Westwood Hills One acre urban reserve
Front footage $1,966.32 $95,908.99
east and west
and then front
footage per tract
and then area per
tract.
Front footage $3,983.67 $24,862.31
east and west
and then square
footage per tract
Square footage $2,979.36 $18,599.35
per tract
Staff recommends using our typical method of assessment for straight streets, by splitting the front footage on the east and west side of the road then front footage per tract and then area per tract.
Property to Include in the District:
The second issue is what property to include in the
improvement district. On the east side
of
To make improvements to all of
A second option would be to pursue an improvement district to include property outside the city limits pursuant to K.S.A 12-693, because the improvements include a boundary line road. Under this statute, the City could initiate the district or the property owners in the county could petition for the improvement district. In either scenario the City would need to obtain approval for the project and creation of the district from the board of county commissioners before the City adopted a resolution calling a public hearing on the creation of the improvement district,
If the approval is obtained, the City Commission may adopt a resolution calling the public hearing and follow the other statutory procedures to create the district.
A third option is to include the property outside of the city limits pursuant to K.S.A. 12-12-6a19. Under this statute, the City would create an improvement district that only includes property inside the City limits. The resolution creating the district would also include a provision stating the City's intent to collect a benefit fee pursuant to 12-6a19 from the property outside the City limits, at the time that property is annexed into the City.
The City could choose to pay those properties' share of the costs as a city-at-large contribution, and then later reimburse the City from the benefit fee payment. This approach is similar to the agriculture deferral concept that the City has used in prior benefit districts. Alternatively, the city could chose to assess 100% of the costs of the project against the improvement district, and then rebate a portion of the special assessments to each property owner when the benefit fee payment is made. This approach adds an additional layer of administrative complexity to the benefit fee issue, and is why most cities choose to pay the "benefit fee" portion of the project costs as a city-at-large contribution. Using this statutory approach since no property outside the city limits is included; the City is not required to seek county approval prior to adopting a resolution calling a public hearing on the creation of the improvement district.
Does the City want to pursue annexation of the property prior
to creating the improvement district or pursue one of the two statutory
alternatives for improving all of
The attached map shows the proposed east and west boundaries for the district.
Apportionment of Costs:
The third Issue is whether the City-at-large will pay a
portion of the costs for the street improvements north along
The City Commission may want to consider deferring the assessments on some of the property included in the district until the property develops.
The current estimated cost for the
Action Requested:
Receive staff report and direct staff as appropriate on the advisability of the construction of
Attachments: