Printable Format12-6a08. Financing costs; assessment plan; classifications, formulae and methods of assessment. (a) The portion of the cost of any improvement to be assessed against the property in the improvement district as determined in K.S.A. 12-6a04, and amendments thereto, shall be apportioned against the property in accordance with the special benefits accruing thereto by reasons of such improvement or in accordance with the provisions of any petition submitted pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of K.S.A. 12-6a04, and amendments thereto. The cost may be assessed equally per front foot or per square foot against all lots and pieces of land within such improvement district or assessed against such property according to the value of the lots and pieces of land therein as determined by the governing body of the city with or without regard to the buildings and improvements thereon or as set forth in the petition requesting such improvement or the cost may be determined and fixed on the basis of any other reasonable assessment plan which will result in imposing substantially equal burdens or shares of the cost upon property within the improvement district similarly benefited. The governing body may from time to time determine and establish by ordinance reasonable general classifications and formulae for the apportionment of the cost between the city and the area to be assessed, and the methods of assessing the special benefits, for various classes of improvements.
(b) This section shall not be construed to limit the adoption of any assessment plan for any improvement that recognizes varying benefit levels to property within the improvement district and imposes assessments in relation thereto.
History: L. 1957, ch. 99, § 8; L. 1959, ch. 72, § 3; L. 1983, ch. 63, § 1; L. 2003, ch. 120, § 3; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Special assessment plans in municipal corporations, 25 K.L.R. 286, 290, 294 (1977).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. District created and assessment made held arbitrary; plaintiff's property not lawfully included in improvement district. Snyder Realty Co. v. City of Overland Park, 208 Kan. 273, 278, 492 P.2d 187.
2. Square foot assessment; evidence of one sale insufficient to establish arbitrary action; injunctive relief denied. Board of Education v. City of Topeka, 214 Kan. 811, 812, 813, 815, 816, 819, 522 P.2d 982.
3. Construed; city enjoined; arbitrary assessment of costs; burden imposed upon property not substantially equal. Davies v. City of Lawrence, 218 Kan. 551, 559, 561, 545 P.2d 1115.
4. Mentioned; substantial departure in making assessments under K.S.A. 12-608; assessments invalid. Dodson v. City of Ulysses, 219 Kan. 418, 425, 549 P.2d 430.
5. Property owners challenging special assessment not obligated to post bond. Becker v. City of Wichita, 231 Kan. 322, 323, 644 P.2d 436 (1982).
6. Cited; terms of resolution override subsequent ordinance, not only about boundaries and method of assessment but apportionment of cost. Mallon v. City of Emporia, 11 Kan. App. 2d 494, 500, 502, 726 P.2d 1354 (1986).
7. Cited; powers granted under Article 6a examined; no authority under K.S.A. 12-6a12 to redetermine boundaries. Madden v. City of Lenexa, 239 Kan. 397, 398, 402, 721 P.2d 261 (1986).
8. Whether city's designation of street as main trafficway precludes financing improvements by special assessments examined. Davis v. City of Leawood, 257 Kan. 512, 515, 518, 536, 893 P.2d 512 (1995).
9. Whether assessing right-of-way acquisition costs against only nondedicating property owners bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate governmental purpose examined. Bauer v. City of Olathe, 257 Kan. 540, 550, 554, 894 P.2d 823 (1995).