Source: http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2000/2000-013.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:06:27+00:00

Document:
Land that is situated similarly to land included in an improvement district must be considered by the governing body for inclusion in the improvement district. Based on the facts presented, land that abuts a proposed street extension must be included in an improvement district comprised of nonabutting property, regardless of the current uses of the land. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-6a01; 12-6a02; 12-6a04; 12-6a07; 12-693.
As Bond Counsel for the City of Dodge City you ask our opinion on whether the City may create an improvement district under K.S.A. 12-6a01 et seq. in which the proposed improvement district does not include properties abutting a planned street improvement; rather, the improvement district would be created based on the benefit to the owner of nonabutting property.
As background, you inform us that the City proposes to improve a street designated Ross Boulevard, which runs in an east-west direction. The proposed improvement is a westward extension of Ross Boulevard that would terminate at Loretta Street on its western edge. The property north of the extension is outside the corporate city limits and is, therefore, not subject to assessment and, you advise us, cannot be made subject to assessment under the provisions of K.S.A. 12-693. The property south of the extension is platted for residential development with limited access to Ross Boulevard from the planned residential streets in the development.
Unified School District No. 443 owns property located along Loretta Street on the properties' eastern edge, and southwest of the proposed street extension. A new high school will be built on a portion of the school district's grounds and, under the school district's proposal, will comprise the proposed improvement district. None of the property included in the improvement district abuts the proposed improvement, although the extension of Ross Boulevard will be the only means of access to the high school. None of the property abutting the extension of Ross Boulevard is proposed to be included in the improvement district. The school district has also proposed to the City that the improvement district be assessed 75% of the cost of the improvement and that the City pay the remaining 25% of the total cost. Under this proposal there would be no assessments on the property abutting the extension of Ross Boulevard.
K.S.A. 12-6a01 et seq. codify the foregoing constitutional and legal principals. K.S.A. 12-6a07 directs the governing body on the method to apply when assessing the cost of an improvement. "[T]he 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 similarly benefited." (Emphasis added).
The Dodge City school district asserts that the public and the school district patrons should finance the proposed street improvement because they are the beneficiaries of the access road. It is our opinion that this assertion contravenes both the underlying rationale for special assessments and the statutory scheme under which the City must act. The maps you and the City have provided show the proposed extension of Ross Boulevard will abut land which is within the City's limits and is subject to assessments. Looking at the configuration of the properties, it appears the land which lies to the south of the extension road would derive a direct benefit from an access road. The property on which the new school will be located may also derive benefits from street access, as may the surrounding school district property. However, the governing body must determine how all contiguous and surrounding parcels of land would be enhanced by an extension which makes them available to road traffic. Under the definition of "improvement district"all such property must be included in the district, and must be assessed in proportion to the enhancement to the land, itself, regardless of current use.
In conclusion, it is our opinion that land situated similarly to the land included in the improvement district must also be deemed benefitted by an improvement and must be considered by the governing body for inclusion in the improvement district. It is further our opinion that land abutting a proposed street extension must be included in an improvement district which is comprised of nonabutting property, regardless of the current uses of the land.
3. Giddings v. City of Pittsburg, 197 Kan. 777, 783 (1966), quoting 14 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 38.55 (3rd Ed. 1998).
4. Davies v. City of Lawrence, 218 Kan. 551, 558 (1976); 14 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations §§ 38.02, 38.31 (3rd Ed. 1998).
6. Mullins v. City of El Dorado, 200 Kan. 336, 341 (1968).
7. Becker v. City of Wichita, 231 Kan. 322, 438-439 (1982); K.S.A. 12-6a04(c).
9. Davies v. City of Lawrence, 218 Kan. at 562.
12. Board of Education v. City of Topeka, 214 Kan. 811, 818 (1974).
14. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 38.132 (3rd Ed. 1998).

References: v. 
 § 38
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 38