Title: West Elk Unified School District v. City of Grenola

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

211 Kan. 301 (1973)
507 P.2d 335
WEST ELK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 282, ELK COUNTY, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF GRENOLA, ELK COUNTY, KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 46,474

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 3, 1973.
Lynn L. Perkins, of Howard, and Elvin D. Perkins, of Emporia, argued the cause, and Donald D. DeWitt, of Emporia was with them on the brief for appellant.
David A. Brace, of Moline, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FATZER, C.J.:
This action was instituted by West Elk Unified School District No. 282, Elk County, against the city of Grenola, seeking to have Ordinance No. 928-S, relating to sewer service charges, declared void as being an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful usurpation of the legislative power of the municipality. The school district alleged the ordinance in question was discriminatory in its application to it, and requested relief in the form of an injunction to prohibit enforcement of special assessments provided therein.
Ordinance No. 928-S was passed and approved by the governing body on or about February 4, 1969, and published in the official city newspaper on February 13, 1969, thereby placing the ordinance into effect. The ordinance established classifications of users of the sewer system and imposed a service charge based upon structured rates directly related to the classification in which the user was categorized. Pertinent portions of the ordinance follow:
The case was tried to the district court on November 25, 1969, and in a memorandum opinion dated June 8, 1970, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant city. After making necessary findings of fact, the district court concluded:
On appeal, the school district contends the district court erred in holding it had failed in its burden of proof, and renews its contention the ordinance in question is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and unlawful.
The school district asserts the city failed to follow the directive of K.S.A. 12-860. That section reads in part:
The argument is premised upon an allegation the city gave no notice to the school district before the ordinance was enacted. The school district claims that had notice been given, it would have offered evidence relating to fair and reasonable classifications "sufficient to pay the costs of operation, repair, maintenance, extension and enlargement of the ... improvements ..." The point is not well taken. This court does not find a notice requirement incorporated in the statute. Moreover, the record indicates the city officials had discussed the sewer service charges with the school district on several occasions, and on other occasions the city officials had attempted to negotiate a reasonable rate with the school district. That testimony, if believed by the district court, would have been sufficient to support a conclusion the school district was notified and aware of the future enactment of the challenged ordinance. As notice is supported by the record, the school district's first contention is without merit.
The school district next contends the rates established under the classifications included within the challenged ordinance were tantamount to constructive fraud, asserting the classifications were unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.
In determining whether the special assessments charged to the school district were reasonable so as to secure judicial approval, this court is guided by the rule stated in Mullins v. City of El Dorado, 200 Kan. 336, 436 P.2d 837, where it was said:
While neither cited nor briefed by the parties, this court has held in Usher v. City of Pittsburg, 196 Kan. 86, 410 P.2d 419, that a municipality operating a water plant and serving customers outside the city limits had authority to make separate classifications of users for rate making purposes, and in arriving at a rate schedule, it need not make a complete investigation of rates within the city. In addition, the fact that rates are different is not sufficient to destroy the presumption the rates are reasonable and warrant a conclusion the classifications are discriminatory. In Usher it was held a rate schedule based upon allocation of investment and charges to customers outside the city, but which was not based upon a detailed study of the entire system, was adequate and reasonable.
A.E. Reiss, the city engineer, testified the rate schedule was based upon population, number of sewer connections, the costs of principal and interest on general obligation and revenue bonds sold to finance the system, and the number of students and teachers who would normally be using the facilities at the school. He further testified the residential rate of $4, based upon the existing information of 190 connections and 360 population, would equate to a charge of approximately $2.10 per person. When the rate applied to the school district was divided by the estimated school population, the rate equated to a charge of $1.04 per person. Reiss' testimony, if believed by the district court, would be sufficient *305 evidence to conclude the rate schedule was fair and equitable. We think the school district may not assert that a rate base which favors it per capita, could be the standard upon which an allegation of discrimination could be sustained.
The arguments of the school district are analogous to those raised in Usher. Other jurisdictions have considered the merits of such contentions, and we have carefully considered those authorities cited by both parties. For those who may be interested in additional review of case law on the subject, see Bloomsburg M.A. v. Bloomsburg C. Can., 203 Pa. Superior Ct., 393, 199 A.2d 502 (classification based upon metered water), and Hickory Twp. v. Brockway et al., Aplnts, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 260, 192 A.2d 231 (classification and rate based upon number of receptacles). It is sufficient to say the burden was upon the school district to establish palpable injustice in the apportionment and assessment of the sewer charges in question. There was ample evidence to support the finding of the district court that the school district failed in its burden of proof, and this court concludes the ordinance was reasonable and equitable under the facts and circumstances.
The judgment is affirmed.