Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTION 1992-26Suggested by: Finance City of Kenai' R~SOLUTIONNO. 92-2& A RESOLUTION OF THE. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA ESTABLISHING A GENEPALPOLICYR~GARDING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED TO BENEFITED PROPERTIES IN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS. ' WHEREAS, by KMC 16.10.'070, the City Council has the authority to determine the percentage of costs to be assessed in special assessment districts; and . WHEREAS, reduced State financing for public improvement projects makes it necessary that more costs be assessed to benefited properties; and WHEREAS, citizens desiring to form assessment districts have a need to know in advance of the petitioning process the portion of the project that is likely to be assessed. NOW, THER~FO.RE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that. ~ectton 1: The policy of the City CounCil regarding ~ercentages of costs to be assessed in special assessment distrtct~.ts a general.' rule. . · It is meant to inform, the City administration"and citizens of.a' usual rule to be.followed, and it applies to all types of improvements. The Council reserves the right to apply percentages different from those that follow based Upon unique characteristics of each project. It is not implied that the Council must form an assessment district with each project. The policy is subject to all State, City Charter, and City Municipal code requirements and restrictions. ~ectiqn 2: In developed areas that include numerous property owners, each benefiting somewhat equally, the assessment rate.will be 25% of all eligible costs. The Council intends that all elig/ble costs include the entire project costs defined by KMC 16.05.090. ~ecti0n 3: In partially developed or undeveloped areas that include one or a small number of property owners, the assessment rate will be 100% of all eligible costs. ' This is the rate that will apply in situations where the owner or owners are essentially acting as developers, with tile intent of marketing and profiting from the developed land. The owners may have to waive the limitations placed on assessments, as provided by KMC 16.05.010(~) e/id Section 7-3 of the City Charter. In additzon, the City may require cash or other assets to be advanced or pledged to the City as security that the assessments will be paid. Generally, the unsecured portion of the assessments should not exceed 30% of the cost of the flUprovements. The Cit ma require that the owner or owners ¥ Y _ enter into a contractual relationship with the City ~o ensure payment of the assessments. Resolution No. 92-26 Page Two May', 1992. '..-'. ATTEST OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 6th day of Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Approvea by Finance (4/22/92) kl 17Bl-lBB1 CITY OF KENAI 210 FIDALeO KBNAI, A~ TELEPHONE ~I- FAX 007-28~.~014 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Kenai City Council Charles A. Brown, Finance Director April 23, :!.992 ~ Resolution No. 92-26 On November 19, 1991, the City Manager and I wrote to the Council regarding establishment of the Set Net Drive special assessment district. In that memo, we said: On a final note, the Administration believes that the City Council should review its assessment policy. Assessments at 12% of paving costs, which are often about 9% of project costs, are low. A more realistic percentage would probably be 25% of total project costs for all such improvements, including roads, water and sewer. Perhaps after the Set Net Drive percentage is established, Council may desire to address this issue. It may be easier to arrive at a fair, objective rate if no specific district is being considered at the time. Recently, a homeowner has started a petition to form a paving assessment district in the area of Evergreen, Haller, McKinley, North Gill, Second Avenue, Third Avenue, Fourth Avenue, Jefferson, and Eadies Way. Jack LaShot and I assisted this individual with maps, access to property tax records, information about how an assessment district is formed, and estimated project costs. I informed this individual that the City Manager and I would be very reluctant to recommend formation of this assessment district unless the property owners were willing to pay at least 25% of costs. I said this based upon the above memo that we issued, and I was clear that Council had not yet set this as a policy. Subsequently, the individual did include the 25% assessment language in her petition. .The attached .resOlution -(s . 'Propert~...O~ners',."., ~ '~'reate 'a~'~ assessments-, the.;S~e, ~hether' the~ ~e ~or p~vinq,, g~ave~ roads,· ~ater.,: or.se~er...'.,It dlst~n~shes be2~een developed ~eas and' thOSe. ~eas.~- be~nq -developed flor. Pr°f~t.' In. ~e case o~ .deVe~opers,"tt allo~s for'Security' to. help 'preven~-a repeat o~ · Inlet ~ds. It. a~so allo~s: Counct~ to' provide. '~Provements ~thout · asSessments. ~' ~t 'desires. '