MEMORANDUM
TO: Timothy Navarre, Assembly President
Members of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
THRU: Dale Bagley, Borough Mayor
THRU: Shane Horan, Director of Assessing
FROM: Clyde Johnson, Special Assessment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Resolution 2002-____ Tote Road & Echo Lake Road - Resolution of Necessity
DATE: May 23, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
A petition has been received for the purpose of forming a Utility Special Assessment District (USAD) in the Tote Road and Echo Lake Road area south of Soldotna. This proposal allocates 100% of the costs to the 295 benefited parcels involved in the formation of the district. Two (2) of the 295 parcels are borough owned and therefore abstained from the voting process, leaving 293 voting parcels. The first petition signature was dated March 20, 2002. All signatures were received by April 19, 2002, thereby meeting the 30-day circulation requirement of regulation/resolution 92-54(D). A separate signature page for each property owner was issued along with a map of the benefited parcels (attachment 4 to the resolution); a petition information sheet (attachment 5 to the resolution); and a commitment letter from ENSTAR (attachment 6 to the resolution). Signatures of owners for 206 parcels of the 293 were needed to meet the greater than 70% approval requirement of KPB 5.35.050; validated signatures for 207 parcels, or 70.6% were obtained (attachment 1 to the resolution, Clerk's certification).
Petitions for two parcels, tax ID numbers ________________ and ________________, were submitted to the owners late due to the record owner information not being updated on the borough's computer system at the time the petition was assembled. Resolution 92-54, Section 1(D)(3), requires the petition to be filed with the clerk within 30 days of the original signature. Since the late submitted petition was due to a borough error, the administration recommends that the assembly, by adoption of the resolution of necessity, extend the filing period for parcels _________________ and _______________. The signed petition for parcel _____________ was returned within ______ days of submitting it to the correct owner.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
1) The project cost is estimated at $628,618.45 (SIX HUNDRED TWENTY - EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTEEN DOLLARS AND FORTY - FIVE CENTS).
2) The proposed method of allocating the cost is by equal allocation of the assessment among all benefited parcels, i.e., dividing the cost by the number of benefited parcels. The present per-parcel cost is estimated to be $2,130.91. KPB 5.35.090 requires that the assembly determine that an equal allocation of costs to each lot is reasonable where the lots are of disparate size (where one or more parcels are more than three times the size of the typical lots). Equal allocation is reasonable because the immediate benefit of being able to connect a service line to the mainline is the same for all parcels.
3) As required by KPB 5.35.070 no lien for this project may exceed 21% of the fair market value of the property, after giving effect to the estimated benefit from the improvement. Within this project there are 23 parcels that exceed the 21% limitation and require prepayment. In order to reduce the liens to the allowable level an amount of $4,257.63 must be submitted prior to the adoption of the resolution to proceed with the construction of the improvement.
4) Pursuant to KPB 5.35.070(D), as amended by Ordinance 2001-03, a special assessment district may not be approved where properties which will bear more than ten percent (10%) of the estimated costs of the improvement are delinquent in payment of borough property taxes from the immediately preceding tax year. As of today's date, May 23, 2002, there are 11 parcels within the proposed district, or 3.7%, that have tax arrearages.
5) The following list of attachments to the resolution support and are incorporated by reference in the Resolution of Necessity:
1. The Clerk's certification of the petition, dated May 13, 2002;
2. A profile information sheet for the proposed USAD containing the tax parcel identification, the assessed value before and after the proposed improvement, the name of each parcel owner, the value-to-cost ratio (which may not exceed 21%), maximum assessment and any prepayment needed, whether the property owners have approved the proposed district, and tax delinquencies. The profile sheet further specifies the total costs for the proposed USAD, the number of lots and cost of the improvement per lot.
3. The estimated assessment roll including each parcel's identification number, legal description, assessed value, estimated assessment per parcel, and owner's name and mailing address;
4. A map of the proposed district showing the benefited parcels, which benefited parcels are improved, and the proposed course of the mainline;
5. The petition form cover sheet which explained to the petitioners the nature of the project, its total and per-parcel cost, filing and signature deadlines and requirements, the approved withdrawal prohibition, and the filing fee.
6. A letter/statement from Enstar Natural Gas dated January 30, 2002, stating the total linear feet on the project, cost per linear foot, and its confirmation that it is prepared to construct the proposed improvement during the 2002 season (KPB 5.35.050).
7. Memo from the Finance Director dated the 13th day of May 2002, stating that in-house financing will be used and setting forth the number and frequency of payments.