Printable Format12-602. Resolution, protest, contract, levy and assessment for improvements. Whenever the governing body of any city deems it necessary to grade, regrade, pave, repave, curb, recurb, gutter, regutter, macadamize, remacadamize or otherwise improve any street or avenue, or any part thereof, for which a special tax is to be levied, as herein provided, the governing body shall by resolution declare such work or improvement necessary to be done. Such resolution shall be published once each week for two consecutive weeks in the official city newspaper. If the resident owners of more than ½ the property liable for the tax do not within 20 days from the last publication file with the city clerk a protest against such improvement, the governing body shall have power to cause such work to be done or such improvement to be made, to contract therefor and to levy taxes as herein provided.
Whenever a majority of the resident owners of real property liable for the tax for the improvement in two or more adjacent blocks petition the governing body to grade, regrade, pave, repave, curb, recurb, gutter, regutter, macadamize, remacadamize or otherwise improve a street or avenue, or any part thereof, the governing body shall cause such work to be done or such improvement to be made, shall contract therefor and shall levy taxes for all such improvements as herein provided upon the property on each side of the street or avenue to the middle of the block.
The sufficiency of a protest or petition filed hereunder, as to the ownership of the property, shall be determined by the record in the office of the register of deeds at the time of the adoption of the resolution.
The cost of grading, regrading, paving, repaving, curbing, recurbing, guttering, reguttering, macadamizing, remacadamizing or otherwise improving intersections of streets and the cost of making any of improvements in streets, avenues and alleys running along or through city property shall be paid for by the city at large, for which general improvement bonds of the city may be issued according to law, except that, if the petition of the resident owners initiating the project so provides, the entire cost or a part thereof may be assessed against the benefited property in the same manner as the remainder of the improvements.
The governing body in its discretion may levy the entire tax or special assessment for such cost at one time or may provide for payment thereof in installments and issue bonds as provided by law for such installments. The owner of any property liable for such assessment may, within 30 days from the time of the determination of the amount assessed against the owner's property, pay the same in full, and such property shall not thereafter be liable for any assessment for the cost of such improvement. Bonds shall be issued only for the amount of the cost of such improvement remaining unpaid at the end of 30 days from the time such assessment is fixed.
History: R.S. 1923, § 12-602; L. 1931, ch. 107, § 1; L. 1967, ch. 83, § 1; L. 1981, ch. 173, § 12; July 1.
Source or Prior Law:
L. 1872, ch. 100, § 75; L. 1873, ch. 65, § 4; L. 1885, ch. 99, § 6; L. 1887, ch. 104, § 1; L. 1899, ch. 84, § 1; L. 1911, ch. 110, § 1; L. 1911, ch. 120, § 1; L. 1913, ch. 112, § 1; L. 1913, ch. 129, § 2; L. 1921, ch. 143, § 1. See also Source or Prior Law under 13-1011.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Cities, third class, bond issues, see 15-720.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
1953-55 survey of Kansas law, Earl B. Shurtz, 4 K.L.R. 311 (1955).
1955-56 survey of Kansas law, Ferd E. Evans, Jr., 5 K.L.R. 300, 321 (1956).
Survey of law of municipal corporations, Albert B. Martin, 10 K.L.R. 265 (1961).
Survey of law of real property and future interests, James K. Logan and N. William Hines, Jr., 10 K.L.R. 299 (1961).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Contract to pay for grading by "special tax" considered. Casey v. City of Leavenworth, 17 Kan. 189.
2. Contract to look exclusively to "special tax" for compensation considered. Casey v. City of Leavenworth, 17 Kan. 189.
3. Estimate required before improvement made under former law. Hentig v. Gilmore, County Clerk, 33 Kan. 234, 6 P. 304.
4. Power of cities of first class under former law considered. The State v. Kansas City, 60 Kan. 518, 57 P. 118.
5. Statute must be followed as to resolution and publication of notice. Decker v. City of Pleasanton, 117 Kan. 279, 281, 231 P. 330.
6. This section does not pertain to construction of sewers. St. Louis-S. F. Rly. Co. v. City of Pleasanton, 121 Kan. 559, 560, 247 P. 477.
7. Ordinance for improvement is not subject to referendum. State, ex rel., v. City of Kingman, 123 Kan. 207, 254 P. 397.
8. Sufficiency of declaration of necessity by governing body considered. Palmer v. Munro, 123 Kan. 387, 255 P. 67.
9. Time for withdrawal of names from protest considered. Bentley v. Gunn, 125 Kan. 784, 266 P. 28.
10. Petition of property owners examined and held sufficient. Riley v. City of Wellington, 130 Kan. 66, 285 P. 569.
11. "Shall" construed to mean "may." Bock v. Stack, 132 Kan. 533, 296 P. 357.
12. City has implied power to pass ordinance changing name of streets. Brown v. City of Topeka, 146 Kan. 974, 977, 74 P.2d 142.
13. Proceedings reviewed; resolutions and ordinance held sufficient; school board not "resident owner" of property; city property included in benefit district; protest petition insufficient. Horejsi v. City of Holyrood, 171 Kan. 190, 192, 194, 195, 231 P.2d 215.
14. Cited; drainage system construction held exercise of city's governmental functions. Perry v. City of Wichita, 174 Kan. 264, 270, 255 P.2d 667.
15. Discussed in holding off street parking act (K.S.A. 13-1388 through 13-1391) constitutional. State, ex rel., v. City of Topeka, 176 Kan. 240, 247, 270 P.2d 270.
16. Construed; city liable for entire cost of improvement, when. Overholt v. City of Ellinwood, 176 Kan. 330, 333, 270 P.2d 213.
17. Taxpayer must be resident owner of real property to be proper protester. Baker v. City of Leoti, 179 Kan. 122, 126, 292 P.2d 720.
18. Phrase "two or more adjacent blocks" construed. Berndt v. City of Ottawa, 179 Kan. 749, 750, 751, 752, 298 P.2d 230.
19. Mentioned; word "block" as used in K.S.A. 13-1602a defined (dissenting opinion). State, ex rel., v. City of Kansas City, 181 Kan. 870, 880, 881, 317 P.2d 806.
20. Date when sufficiency of petition or protest determinable determined. Shaw v. City of WaKeeney, 187 Kan. 301, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 356 P.2d 832.
21. "Intersection" includes "T" intersection; cost of paving chargeable to city at large. Dodson v. City of Ulysses, 219 Kan. 418, 426, 549 P.2d 430.
22. Provision requiring only publication notice involved no deprivation of property rights; due process not offended. Dodson v. City of Ulysses, 219 Kan. 418, 420, 425, 426, 549 P.2d 430.
23. Both resolution and petition method require comparison of persons or area in two adjoining block segments regardless of project size. Barrows v. City of Ness City, 9 Kan. App. 2d 225, 228, 676 P.2d 1285 (1984).
24. City initiated projects by both resolution and petition of resident owners; procedure considered; sufficiency of protest. Barrows v. City of Ness City, 235 Kan. 818, 820, 821, 822, 824, 683 P.2d 1267 (1984).