Get Connected!
|
|
Search
Latest Groups
-
Administrators and Managers
A place for administrators and managers to gather and discuss topics. -
-
New photos
- No photos uploaded yet.
Who's Online
Members
Recent activities
1 month ago
5 months ago
Larry Kleeman replied to the topic Re:Community Improvement Districts (CID) - HB 2324 in the forums.
Wichita approves the policy mentioned above (with PDF highlights)...
blogs.kansas.com/gov/2010/04/06/wichita-...ent-district-policy/
blogs.kansas.com/gov/2010/04/06/wichita-...ent-district-policy/
Apr 07
Larry Kleeman created a new topic Google renames itself Topeka in the forums.
If you haven't checked out Google on this April Fool's day (or, if they've already changed back), check out the attached photo.
An article about this joke can be found at googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/differen...of-company-name.html
This comes after Topeka renamed itself "Google, Kansas" for the month of March.
www.topeka.org/googleks.shtml
An article about this joke can be found at googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/differen...of-company-name.html
This comes after Topeka renamed itself "Google, Kansas" for the month of March.
www.topeka.org/googleks.shtml
Apr 01
Larry Kleeman created a new topic Lyons allows golf carts on city streets in the forums.
Per the Hutch News....
www.hutchnews.com/Print/MON--golf-carts--1
You can find similar sample ordinances under our "Downloads" section....
www.citycode.com/index.php?option=com_do...d=110&Itemid=170
www.hutchnews.com/Print/MON--golf-carts--1
You can find similar sample ordinances under our "Downloads" section....
www.citycode.com/index.php?option=com_do...d=110&Itemid=170
Mar 29
Larry Kleeman created a new topic Appeals Court: Sumner County lacks standing to sue Mulvane over strip annexation in the forums.
The Kansas Court of Appeals recently issued its decision in
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. CITY OF MULVANE
www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opin.../20100326/101975.pdf
Mulvane had annexed a strip (or, narrow corridor) of land to reach a tract of land for a casino approval/development. Sumner County sued - claiming it was a end-run around the "island annexation" process, which would have required the county to approve such an annexation.
The Sumner County district court found that:
the strip annexations were so "grossly unreasonable as to exceed statutory authorization and constitute an unconstitutional application of the authority granted to the City by the legislature in K.S.A. 12-520(a)(7)." However, the district court also denied the Board's motion for summary judgment based upon its claim that the annexed territory did not adjoin the City within the meaning of K.S.A. 12-519(d). The court found that "adjoins" means to "lie upon or touch" and that the annexed property met that definition. Finally, the district court addressed the City's argument that the Board lacked standing to challenge the annexations. Although noting it had agreed that the land was adjacent to the City as required by K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 12-520(a)(7), the court nevertheless reasoned the "[Board] must have standing to sue as the annexations circumvent the county's statutory right to approve or disapprove of island annexations." (Emphasis added.)
Without addressing the strip annexation issue, the Court of Appeals holds that Sumner County does not have standing to sue.
Regardless of the approach taken, however, we must conclude in this case that the Board lacks standing to challenge the City's annexations.
First, in the cases discussed above, the appealing cities challenged whether the annexed land adjoined the cities at the time of annexation as required by statute and whether a city could annex multiple contiguous tracts under one ordinance when only one tract adjoined the city. See Leawood, 245 Kan. at 286-88; Lenexa II, 229 Kan. at 391-93.
Here, we are not dealing with an annexation challenge by another city within the county. Rather, we are considering the Board's challenge to the City's annexation. Further, the district court found that each of the step-by-step annexations "adjoined" the City and denied the Board's motion for summary judgment on that ground. The Board has not appealed that determination, and the issue is not before us. See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, 279 Kan. 178, 191-92, 106 P.3d 483 (2005) (appellees must cross-appeal adverse rulings to obtain appellate review of those issues).
Moreover, even if the issue were before us, we would affirm the district court on this ruling. As discussed, the legislature has defined the term "adjoined" to mean simply to "lie upon or touch" the city boundary. K.S.A. 12-519(d)(1); see also Lenexa III, 233 Kan. at 165 (finding two tracts adjacent when it was "undisputed that Tract II touches tract IB at one point"). Unquestionably, while the annexed property in this case does not share a "substantial" boundary with the City, as the Board suggests that the legislature intended, it does touch at one point. That is all the statute requires.
In considering issues of standing, this court simply is not permitted to address the numerous concerns addressed in the Board's brief regarding the wisdom and reasonableness of so-called strip annexations, and/or the intent of the City and landowners in undertaking such annexations. If such considerations were permissible, the Board's arguments might be successful. Similarly, we must reject the Board's request that we take judicial notice that the 2008 Kansas Legislature unsuccessfully sought to enact legislation which would render strip annexations unlawful. The wisdom or propriety of proposed action clearly is not before us.
CONCLUSION
Because we have concluded the Board lacked standing to challenge the City's annexations, we hold the district court erred in denying the City's motion for summary judgment on that ground and in granting the Board's motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand with directions to the district court to enter an order of dismissal in favor of the City due to the Board's lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction.
The full opinion is at www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opin.../20100326/101975.pdf
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. CITY OF MULVANE
www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opin.../20100326/101975.pdf
Mulvane had annexed a strip (or, narrow corridor) of land to reach a tract of land for a casino approval/development. Sumner County sued - claiming it was a end-run around the "island annexation" process, which would have required the county to approve such an annexation.
The Sumner County district court found that:
the strip annexations were so "grossly unreasonable as to exceed statutory authorization and constitute an unconstitutional application of the authority granted to the City by the legislature in K.S.A. 12-520(a)(7)." However, the district court also denied the Board's motion for summary judgment based upon its claim that the annexed territory did not adjoin the City within the meaning of K.S.A. 12-519(d). The court found that "adjoins" means to "lie upon or touch" and that the annexed property met that definition. Finally, the district court addressed the City's argument that the Board lacked standing to challenge the annexations. Although noting it had agreed that the land was adjacent to the City as required by K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 12-520(a)(7), the court nevertheless reasoned the "[Board] must have standing to sue as the annexations circumvent the county's statutory right to approve or disapprove of island annexations." (Emphasis added.)
Without addressing the strip annexation issue, the Court of Appeals holds that Sumner County does not have standing to sue.
Regardless of the approach taken, however, we must conclude in this case that the Board lacks standing to challenge the City's annexations.
First, in the cases discussed above, the appealing cities challenged whether the annexed land adjoined the cities at the time of annexation as required by statute and whether a city could annex multiple contiguous tracts under one ordinance when only one tract adjoined the city. See Leawood, 245 Kan. at 286-88; Lenexa II, 229 Kan. at 391-93.
Here, we are not dealing with an annexation challenge by another city within the county. Rather, we are considering the Board's challenge to the City's annexation. Further, the district court found that each of the step-by-step annexations "adjoined" the City and denied the Board's motion for summary judgment on that ground. The Board has not appealed that determination, and the issue is not before us. See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, 279 Kan. 178, 191-92, 106 P.3d 483 (2005) (appellees must cross-appeal adverse rulings to obtain appellate review of those issues).
Moreover, even if the issue were before us, we would affirm the district court on this ruling. As discussed, the legislature has defined the term "adjoined" to mean simply to "lie upon or touch" the city boundary. K.S.A. 12-519(d)(1); see also Lenexa III, 233 Kan. at 165 (finding two tracts adjacent when it was "undisputed that Tract II touches tract IB at one point"). Unquestionably, while the annexed property in this case does not share a "substantial" boundary with the City, as the Board suggests that the legislature intended, it does touch at one point. That is all the statute requires.
In considering issues of standing, this court simply is not permitted to address the numerous concerns addressed in the Board's brief regarding the wisdom and reasonableness of so-called strip annexations, and/or the intent of the City and landowners in undertaking such annexations. If such considerations were permissible, the Board's arguments might be successful. Similarly, we must reject the Board's request that we take judicial notice that the 2008 Kansas Legislature unsuccessfully sought to enact legislation which would render strip annexations unlawful. The wisdom or propriety of proposed action clearly is not before us.
CONCLUSION
Because we have concluded the Board lacked standing to challenge the City's annexations, we hold the district court erred in denying the City's motion for summary judgment on that ground and in granting the Board's motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand with directions to the district court to enter an order of dismissal in favor of the City due to the Board's lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction.
The full opinion is at www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opin.../20100326/101975.pdf
Mar 29
Larry Kleeman created a new topic Population down in 80% of Kansas counties in the forums.
Approximately 85 counties have seen their populations drop...
www.kansas.com/2010/03/26/1242017/popula...-80-of-counties.html
www.kansas.com/2010/03/26/1242017/popula...-80-of-counties.html
Mar 29
Larry Kleeman replied to the topic Re:Community Improvement Districts (CID) - HB 2324 in the forums.
The City of Lawrence recently provided a review of their Community Improvement District policy. The PDF handout is available under our "Downloads" section at www.citycode.com/index.php?option=com_do...d=131&Itemid=170
Mar 21
Larry Kleeman created a new topic Small town is first to declare bankruptcy in Pennsylvania in the forums.
"Too many towns, too much debt: Welcome to Pennsylvania"
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/print_672744.html
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/print_672744.html
Mar 21
Larry Kleeman created a new topic Annexation bills to follow in the forums.
HB 2029
Annexation procedures; deannexation, board of county commissioners duties,
election required, when. Effective date: Statute Bk.
01/20/2009 H Introduced -HJ 52
01/21/2009 H Referred to Local Government -HJ 54
01/29/2009 H Hearing: Tues., 2/3/09, 3:30 PM, Rm 446-N
02/17/2009 H CR: Substitute be passed by Local Government -HJ 179; Substitute
introduced & placed on General Orders -HJ 179
02/20/2009 H Withdrawn from calendar, referred to Appropriations -HJ 223
02/24/2009 H Withdrawn from Appropriations -HJ 224; Referred to COW -HJ 224
03/11/2009 H COW: CR recommending sub. bill be adptd; be am.; Sub. be passed as
am -HJ 274; Engrossed -HJ 282
03/12/2009 H FA: Passed as am.; Yeas 75 Nays 47 -HJ 278
03/12/2009 S Received and introduced -SJ 300
03/13/2009 S Referred to Local Government -SJ 316
03/02/2010 S Hearing: 3/08/2010, Mon., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S; Hearing: 3/09/2010,
Tues., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (poss cont)
03/10/2010 S Hearing: 3/15/2010, Mon., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (cont)
03/15/2010 S Hearing: 3/16/2010, Tues., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (cont)
HB 2471
Cities; annexation; strip annexation restricted. Effective date: KS Register.
01/19/2010 H Introduced -HJ 814
01/20/2010 H Referred to Local Government -HJ 818
01/27/2010 H Hearing: Tues., 2/2/2010, 3:30PM, Rm 144-S
02/17/2010 H CR: Be passed as am. by Local Government -HJ 956
02/18/2010 H COW: CR be adptd; be passed as am. -HJ 985
02/19/2010 H FA: Passed as am.; Yeas 119 Nays 3 -HJ 996
02/23/2010 H Engrossed -HJ 1010
02/24/2010 S Received and introduced -SJ 1100
02/25/2010 S Referred to Local Government -SJ 1105; Hearing: 3/02/2010, Tues.,
9:30 am, Rm 144-S
03/02/2010 S Hearing: 3/08/2010, Mon., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (cont)
HB 2478
Cities; annexation; county approval of certain annexations. Effective date:
Statute Bk.
01/19/2010 H Introduced -HJ 815
01/20/2010 H Referred to Local Government -HJ 818
01/27/2010 H Hearing: Tues., 2/2/2010, 3:30 PM, Rm 144-S
02/17/2010 H CR: Be passed by Local Government -HJ 956
02/18/2010 H COW: Be passed -HJ 985
02/19/2010 H FA: Passed; Yeas 94 Nays 28 -HJ 997
02/24/2010 S Received and introduced -SJ 1100
02/25/2010 S Referred to Local Government -SJ 1105
03/02/2010 S Hearing: 3/08/2010, Mon., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S; Hearing: 3/09/2010,
Tues., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (poss cont)
Annexation procedures; deannexation, board of county commissioners duties,
election required, when. Effective date: Statute Bk.
01/20/2009 H Introduced -HJ 52
01/21/2009 H Referred to Local Government -HJ 54
01/29/2009 H Hearing: Tues., 2/3/09, 3:30 PM, Rm 446-N
02/17/2009 H CR: Substitute be passed by Local Government -HJ 179; Substitute
introduced & placed on General Orders -HJ 179
02/20/2009 H Withdrawn from calendar, referred to Appropriations -HJ 223
02/24/2009 H Withdrawn from Appropriations -HJ 224; Referred to COW -HJ 224
03/11/2009 H COW: CR recommending sub. bill be adptd; be am.; Sub. be passed as
am -HJ 274; Engrossed -HJ 282
03/12/2009 H FA: Passed as am.; Yeas 75 Nays 47 -HJ 278
03/12/2009 S Received and introduced -SJ 300
03/13/2009 S Referred to Local Government -SJ 316
03/02/2010 S Hearing: 3/08/2010, Mon., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S; Hearing: 3/09/2010,
Tues., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (poss cont)
03/10/2010 S Hearing: 3/15/2010, Mon., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (cont)
03/15/2010 S Hearing: 3/16/2010, Tues., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (cont)
HB 2471
Cities; annexation; strip annexation restricted. Effective date: KS Register.
01/19/2010 H Introduced -HJ 814
01/20/2010 H Referred to Local Government -HJ 818
01/27/2010 H Hearing: Tues., 2/2/2010, 3:30PM, Rm 144-S
02/17/2010 H CR: Be passed as am. by Local Government -HJ 956
02/18/2010 H COW: CR be adptd; be passed as am. -HJ 985
02/19/2010 H FA: Passed as am.; Yeas 119 Nays 3 -HJ 996
02/23/2010 H Engrossed -HJ 1010
02/24/2010 S Received and introduced -SJ 1100
02/25/2010 S Referred to Local Government -SJ 1105; Hearing: 3/02/2010, Tues.,
9:30 am, Rm 144-S
03/02/2010 S Hearing: 3/08/2010, Mon., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (cont)
HB 2478
Cities; annexation; county approval of certain annexations. Effective date:
Statute Bk.
01/19/2010 H Introduced -HJ 815
01/20/2010 H Referred to Local Government -HJ 818
01/27/2010 H Hearing: Tues., 2/2/2010, 3:30 PM, Rm 144-S
02/17/2010 H CR: Be passed by Local Government -HJ 956
02/18/2010 H COW: Be passed -HJ 985
02/19/2010 H FA: Passed; Yeas 94 Nays 28 -HJ 997
02/24/2010 S Received and introduced -SJ 1100
02/25/2010 S Referred to Local Government -SJ 1105
03/02/2010 S Hearing: 3/08/2010, Mon., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S; Hearing: 3/09/2010,
Tues., 9:30 am, Rm 144-S (poss cont)
Mar 17
Larry Kleeman created a new topic HB 2549: Sales Tax Exemptions - keep them or remove them? in the forums.
The bill (which would have eliminated many exemptions) has been gutted except for removing the exemption on coin-operated laundry services.
www.kansas.com/2010/03/17/1228519/emptio...ed-vote-stalled.html
cjonline.com/news/legislature/2010-03-16...clings_to_tax_breaks
www.kansas.com/2010/03/17/1228519/emptio...ed-vote-stalled.html
cjonline.com/news/legislature/2010-03-16...clings_to_tax_breaks
Mar 17
Larry Kleeman created a new topic Special Assessment Deferral policy in the forums.
The City of Wichita recently reviewed changes to their "special assessment deferral" policy. The PDF/Powerpoint handout is available in our "Downloads" section at
www.citycode.com/index.php?option=com_do...d=132&Itemid=170
www.citycode.com/index.php?option=com_do...d=132&Itemid=170
Mar 12
Larry Kleeman replied to the topic Re:Community Improvement Districts (CID) - HB 2324 in the forums.
The City of Wichita recently provided a review of their Community Improvement District policy. The PDF/Powerpoint handout is available under our "Downloads" section at www.citycode.com/index.php?option=com_do...d=131&Itemid=170
Mar 12
6 months ago
Larry Kleeman created a new topic BABs vs Tax-Exempts: Balancing the Costs and Benefits in the forums.
Recent Bond Buyer article...
www.bondbuyer.com/issues/119_275/revenue...-babs-1007229-1.html
about the history of tax-exempts and the development (and upcoming fine-tuning) of "Build America Bonds" to balance the costs to the federal treasury vs the benefits to local governments.
www.bondbuyer.com/issues/119_275/revenue...-babs-1007229-1.html
about the history of tax-exempts and the development (and upcoming fine-tuning) of "Build America Bonds" to balance the costs to the federal treasury vs the benefits to local governments.
Feb 09