12-520. Conditions which permit unilateral annexation; exceptions; ordinance; severability of ordinance where annexation invalid; limitations. (a) Except as hereinafter provided, the governing body of any city, by ordinance, may annex land to such city if any one or more of the following conditions exist:
(1) The land is platted, and some part of the land adjoins the city.
(2) The land adjoins the city and is owned by or held in trust for the city or any agency thereof.
(3) The land adjoins the city and is owned by or held in trust for any governmental unit other than another city except that no city may annex land owned by a county without the express permission of the board of county commissioners of the county other than as provided in subsection (f).
(4) The land lies within or mainly within the city and has a common perimeter with the city boundary line of more than 50%.
(5) The land if annexed will make the city boundary line straight or harmonious and some part thereof adjoins the city, except no land in excess of 21 acres shall be annexed for this purpose.
(6) The tract is so situated that ⅔ of any boundary line adjoins the city, except no tract in excess of 21 acres shall be annexed under this condition.
(7) The land adjoins the city and a written petition for or consent to annexation is filed with the city by the owner.
(b) No portion of any unplatted tract of land devoted to agricultural use of 21 acres or more shall be annexed by any city under the authority of this section without the written consent of the owner thereof.
(c) No city may annex, pursuant to this section, any improvement district incorporated and organized pursuant to K.S.A. 19-2753 et seq., and amendments thereto, or any land within such improvement district. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to such improvement districts for which the petition for incorporation and organization was presented on or before January 1, 1987.
(d) Subject to the provisions of this section and K.S.A. 12-520a(e), and amendments thereto, a city may annex, pursuant to this section, any fire district or any land within such fire district.
(e) No city may annex the right-of-way of any highway under the authority of this section unless at the time of the annexation the abutting property upon one or both sides thereof is already within the city or is annexed to the city in the same proceeding. The board of county commissioners may notify the city of the existence of the right-of-way of any highway which has not become part of the city by annexation and which has a common boundary with the city. The notification shall include a legal description and a map identifying the location of the highway. The governing body of the city shall certify by ordinance that the certification is correct and declare the highway, or portion of the highway extending to the center line where another city boundary line abuts the opposing side of the highway, annexed to the city as of the date of the publication of the ordinance.
(f) The governing body of any city by one ordinance may annex one or more separate tracts or lands each of which conforms to any one or more of the foregoing conditions. The invalidity of the annexation of any tract or land in one ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining tracts or lands which are annexed by the ordinance and which conform to any one or more of the foregoing conditions.
(g) No city may utilize any provision of this section to annex a narrow corridor of land to gain access to noncontiguous tracts of land. The corridor of land must have a tangible value and purpose other than for enhancing future annexations of land by the city.
History: L. 1967, ch. 98, § 2; L. 1974, ch. 56, § 4; L. 1980, ch. 62, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 70, § 2; L. 1987, ch. 66, § 2; L. 1993, ch. 147, § 1; L. 2005, ch. 166, § 11; L. 2005, ch. 186, § 6; L. 2007, ch. 142, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 130, § 1; L. 2015, ch. 91, § 1; July 1.
Revisor's Note:
Section was also amended by L. 2005, ch. 155, § 1, but that version was repealed by L. 2005, ch. 186, § 23.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"State Control of Local Government in Kansas: Special Legislation and Home Rule," Barkley Clark, 20 K.L.R. 631, 677 (1972).
"Urban Revitalization: Planning for the Future in Our Cities," Lester D. Mardiks, 21 W.L.J. 116, 118 (1981).
"Annexation in Kansas," Robert W. Parnacott, 70 J.K.B.A. No. 10, 28 (2001).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Location of detached auxiliary banking services facilities. 82-92.
Boundaries of representative districts; authority to establish precinct boundaries. 83-46.
Conditions which permit annexation by cities; ordinances; actions challenging validity. 88-138.
Ownership and disposition of fire-fighting equipment subsequent to annexation of township by a city. 91-162.
Annexation of land devoted to agricultural use. 95-91.
Land separated from city by military reservation does not "adjoin" city. 95-116.
Annexation; land devoted to agricultural use, effect of presence of home site; rural homestead exemption. 96-17.
Recreational trails; requirements on responsible party; adjacent property owner, rights and remedies; annexation. 98-6.
City of Mulvane is authorized to commence proceedings to annex property in Sumner county. 2007-33.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Procedure under last paragraph permissive; annexation of lands which depend on completion of other pending annexations not permitted. State, ex rel., v. City of Coffeyville, 211 Kan. 746, 748, 749, 750, 752, 508 P.2d 1007.
2. Substantial compliance with subsection (g) consent to annexation; statute not jurisdictional; no review under K.S.A. 12-712. Sabatini v. Jayhawk Construction Co., 214 Kan. 408, 410, 411, 412, 520 P.2d 1230.
3. Construed; word "perimeter" defined; act constitutional. State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, 215 Kan. 700, 702, 707, 708, 709, 712, 714, 715, 716, 717, 527 P.2d 1340.
4. Adequate standards (plan and timetable requirements) contained in amended statute (1974) substantial compliance. Clarke v. City of Wichita, 218 Kan. 334, 336, 343, 543 P.2d 973.
5. Annexation of territory by municipality challenged by United States; city's plan was bona fide; there was substantial compliance with statutes (K.S.A. 12-520 through 12-520(b)). United States v. City of Leavenworth, Kan., 443 F. Supp. 274.
6. Applied in holding a city has no standing to challenge the annexation proceedings of another city. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 228 Kan. 773, 779, 780, 620 P.2d 1153.
7. Whether land adjoins annexing city is in dispute, another city has rights which entitle it to challenge annexation. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 229 Kan. 391, 392, 625 P.2d 423.
8. Statute discussed; annexation under two successive ordinances adopted by city; procedure substantially complied with statute. Grandon v. City of Hutchinson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 896, 897, 898, 899, 636 P.2d 205 (1981).
9. Considered in holding board of county commissioners a proper party to appeal from its order denying petition filed under K.S.A. 12-521. Board of Johnson County Commissioners v. City of Lenexa, 230 Kan. 632, 633, 638, 639, 640 P.2d 1212 (1982).
10. Publication of incorrect description of property annexed held to be not in substantial compliance of act. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 233 Kan. 159, 162, 163, 165, 660 P.2d 1368 (1983).
11. Where annexation of wholly described tract invalid as to part, invalid in toto; separately described tracts, if invalid do not affect remainder. Board of Riley County Comm'rs v. City of Junction City, 233 Kan. 947, 952, 954, 955, 956, 667 P.2d 868 (1983).
12. Annexation of tracts nonadjoining at time proceedings commenced ineffective following annexation of adjoining tract. Banzer v. City of Wichita, 237 Kan. 798, 805, 806, 703 P.2d 812 (1985).
13. Where no showing made annexation under subsection (e) would make boundary line straight or harmonious, annexation invalid. McDowell v. City of Topeka, 239 Kan. 263, 267, 718 P.2d 1308 (1986).
14. City not required to exhaust proceedings to annex parcels eligible hereunder before proceeding pursuant to K.S.A. 12-521. In re Petition of City of Overland Park for Annexation of Land, 241 Kan. 365, 736 P.2d 923 (1987).
15. Cited; proper statute to challenge city ordinance rezoning property, timeliness of notice of appeal, effective date of ordinance examined. Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 243 Kan. 522, 527, 759 P.2d 113 (1988).
16. With owners' consent, annexation of multiple contiguous tracts, where part adjoins city, proper under one hearing and one ordinance. City of Leawood v. City of Overland Park, 245 Kan. 283, 287, 777 P.2d 830 (1989).
17. Proposed use of or reason for island annexation (K.S.A. 12-520c) examined where future growth affected. Cedar Creek Properties, Inc. v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 249 Kan. 149, 153, 815 P.2d 492 (1991).
18. Pre-1987 improvement district organized, none of its territory may be annexed by city unilateral annexation. Dillon Real Estate v. City of Topeka, 284 Kan. 662, 664, 666, 667, 676, 163 P.3d 298 (2007).
19. No standing for any party to challenge a city's annexation accomplished with consent of landowners. Board of Sumner County Comm'rs v. City of Mulvane, 43 Kan. App. 2d 500, 227 P.3d 997 (2010).
20. The boundary survey of the property must be filed by the owner of the property or agent in order for a city to have authority to annex. Bunge Milling, Inc. v. City of Atchison, 49 Kan. App. 2d 325, 310 P.3d 1065 (2013).
21. City's decision to unilaterally annex land is a quasi-judicial determination. Stueckemann v. City of Basehor, 301 Kan. 718, 746, 348 P.3d 526 (2015).
|
|