12-520b. Plans for extension of services; reports, contents; statement of plans for extension of municipal services to area; consent, effect. (a) The governing body of any city proposing to annex land under the provisions of K.S.A. 12-520, and amendments thereto, shall make plans for the extension of services to the area proposed to be annexed and shall, prior to the adoption of the resolution provided for in K.S.A. 12-520a, and amendments thereto, prepare a report setting forth such plans. The report shall include:
(1) A sketch clearly delineating the land proposed to be annexed and the area of the city adjacent thereto to show the following information:
(A) The present and proposed boundaries of the city affected by such proposed annexation;
(B) the present streets, water mains, sewers and other city utility lines, and the proposed extension thereof; and
(C) the general land use pattern in the areas to be annexed.
(2) A statement setting forth a plan of sufficient detail to provide a reasonable person with a full and complete understanding of the intentions of the city for extending to the area to be annexed each major municipal service provided to persons and property located within the city and the area proposed to be annexed at the time of annexation and the estimated cost of providing such services. The plan shall state the estimated cost impact of providing such services to the residents of the city and the residents of the area proposed to be annexed. The plan shall state the method by which the city plans to finance the extension of such services to such area. Such plan shall include a timetable of the plans for extending each major municipal service to the area annexed. The plan shall state the means by which the services currently provided by a township or special district in the area to be annexed shall be maintained by the city at a level which is equal to or better than the level of services provided prior to annexation. The plan shall state those services which shall be provided immediately upon annexation and those services which may be provided upon petition of the landowners to create a benefit district.
(b) A copy of the plan for extension of services shall be sent by certified mail not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing as provided in K.S.A. 12-520a, and amendments thereto, to the board of county commissioners.
(c) The preparation of a plan for the extension of services required by subsection (a) shall not be required for or as a prerequisite to the annexation of land of which all of the owners petition for or consent to such annexation in writing.
History: L. 1974, ch. 56, § 3; L. 1987, ch. 66, § 4; L. 2011, ch. 101, § 6; June 2.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Kansas Annexation Law: The Role of Service Plans," Michael M. Shultz, 40 K.L.R. 207, 208 (1991).
"Annexation in Kansas," Robert W. Parnacott, 70 J.K.B.A. No. 10, 28 (2001).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Effect of annexation on fire district territory. 81-213.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Additional standards as to plan and timetable, imposed by 1974 amendments did not make legislative standards meaningless. Clarke v. City of Wichita, 218 Kan. 334, 343, 543 P.2d 973.
2. Section cited in holding a city has no standing to challenge the annexation procedures of another city. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 228 Kan. 773, 779, 780, 781, 620 P.2d 1153.
3. Cited; property owner to be furnished sketch, individual notice and city to furnish extension of services plan. Grandon v. City of Hutchinson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 896, 897, 636 P.2d 205 (1981).
4. 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).
5. Noted; annexation of tracts nonadjoining at time proceedings commenced ineffective following annexation of adjoining property. Banzer v. City of Wichita, 237 Kan. 798, 801, 805, 703 P.2d 812 (1985).
6. 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, 155, 815 P.2d 492 (1991).
7. Erroneous legal description of land substantially complies with statutory requirements where the description is sufficient to inform affected stakeholders of land to be annexed. Stueckemann v. City of Basehor, 301 Kan. 718, 728, 348 P.3d 526 (2015).
|
|