Source: http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2005/2005-017.htm
Timestamp: 2017-05-24 23:30:03
Document Index: 694222671

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 12', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 48']

2005-017 | 8/4/2005 | Kansas Attorney General Opinion
| Opinion Number List | Download WordPerfect version (33926 bytes)
| Search By: Number | Date | Requestor | Topic | Synopsis | Attorney General | Author | Fulltext | August 4, 2005
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2005-17
Re: Cities and Municipalities--Consolidation of Cities--Consolidation of Topeka,
Kansas, and Shawnee County; Existence of Townships; Use of Power within
Consolidated City/County Government
Constitution of the State of Kansas--Corporations--Cities' Powers of Home
Rule; Use of Power within Consolidated City/County Government
Synopsis: 2005 House Bill No. 2083, which addresses the consolidation of
governmental and administrative functions in the City of Topeka and
Shawnee County, does not violate Article 12, Section 5 of the Kansas
Constitution by limiting a city's home rule powers. Moreover, should
consolidation occur, townships in Shawnee County will continue to exist. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-340, 12-345, 19-212, 80-1404; 2005 House Bill 2083;
Kan. Const., Art. 12, Section 5.
You inquire regarding 2005 House Bill No. 2083 (H.B. 2083), which addresses the
consolidation of governmental and administrative functions in the City of Topeka and
Shawnee County. Specifically, you request our opinion regarding whether H.B. 2083
violates Article 12, Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution (the Home Rule Amendment) and
whether townships in Shawnee County will continue to exist should consolidation occur.
H.B. 2083 creates the Consolidation Commission of Topeka, Kansas and Shawnee
County. The purpose of the Consolidation Commission is to "prepare and adopt a plan
addressing the consolidation of the city and county or certain city and county offices,
functions, services and operations."(1) A preliminary plan has been adopted(2) and a final plan
will be adopted by the Commission within 30 days of the last public hearing.(3) The final plan
will then be submitted to the electors who reside within and without the corporate limits of
the City of Topeka. If a majority of each vote in favor, the consolidation plan shall be
implemented.(4)
Section 4 of H.B. 2083 itemizes what a consolidation plan should address in terms of
consolidating city and county offices, functions, services, and operations.(5) If consolidation
occurs, the consolidated government is subject to Section 6, which is the focus of this
opinion. Section 6 provides, in part:
"(g) Upon the effective date of the consolidation of the city and
county, the territory of the consolidated city-county shall include:
"(1) All territory of the county for purposes of exercising the powers, duties
and functions of a county.
"(2) All of the territory of the county, except for the territory of the cities of
Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake or Willard and the unincorporated area of the
county, for purposes of exercising the powers, duties and functions of a city.
"(k) [T]he consolidated city-county shall be a county. The governing body of
the consolidated city-county shall be considered county commissioners for
the purposes of section 2 of article 4 of the constitution of the state of
Kansas and shall have all the powers, functions and duties of a county and
may exercise home rule powers in the manner and subject to the limitations
provided by K.S.A. 19-101a, and amendments thereto, and other laws of this
state. . . . "(l) The consolidated city-county shall be a city of the first class. The
governing body of the consolidated city-county shall have all the powers,
functions and duties of a city of the first class and may exercise home rule
powers in the manner and subject to the limitations provided by article 12,
section 5 of the constitution of the state of Kansas and other laws of this
state."(6)
Your first query regarding whether H.B. 2083 violates the Home Rule Amendment to the
Kansas Constitution,(7) is based upon a memorandum from the League of Kansas
Municipalities to the Consolidation Commission positing that because Section 6(l) makes
the consolidated city/county a city of the first class, the Legislature cannot restrict the
exercise of home rule power by excluding the 494 square miles of unincorporated area of
the county as arguably required by Section 6(g)(2). Home rule power, according to the
League, prohibits the Legislature from restricting to certain areas a governing body's
authority.(8)
We disagree with the League's conclusion that H.B. 2083 runs afoul of the Home Rule
Amendment because the League's position rests upon the erroneous premise that H.B.
2083 combines two territories into one. This premise is based upon the consolidation of Kansas City, Kansas and Wyandotte County which occurred in 1996. The Kansas
City/Wyandotte County consolidation statutes(9) served as the template for H.B. 2083. Section 6 of H.B. 2083 is almost identical to K.S.A. 12-345(h)(j)(l) and (m). Unfortunately,
the Kansas City/Wyandotte County legislation was crafted to fit a situation that differs
significantly from Topeka/Shawnee County. As a result, the denomination of the
consolidated city/county as a city of the first class in Section 6(l) is confusing - but does not
In 1996, only 2.5 square miles of Wyandotte County was unincorporated.(10) Except for 37
people, every person in Wyandotte County lived in one of four incorporated cities: Bonner
Springs, Edwardsville, Lake Quivera, and Kansas City.(11) Thus, while the statutes require
the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas to wear different hats
when exercising city or county power depending upon whether the power is exercised in
the county or within the former boundaries of the City of Kansas City, the practical effect
is that the territorial boundaries of the county and the city are almost identical.(12) Therefore,
when the legislation describes the consolidated city/county as both a city of the first class
and a county,(13) such description captures the reality of two territories with almost identical
The situation is quite different in Topeka/Shawnee County. In Shawnee County, according
to the League, the County's unincorporated area is 494 square miles out of a total of 552
square miles, with 40,000 people residing in the unincorporated areas. If consolidation
occurs, the Topeka/Shawnee County Unified Government will wear different hats when
exercising city or county power depending upon whether the power is exercised in the
county or within the former boundaries of the City of Topeka. However, as the League
points out, Section 6(g)(2) restricts the authority of the consolidated government to
exercise its city power to the former boundaries of the City of Topeka which is 58 square
miles. The League maintains that, by virtue of Section 6(l), city power must be extended
to include the unincorporated area of Shawnee County. Failure to accord that power to the
consolidated governing body, according to the League, violates the Home Rule
That fact that H.B. 2083 could have been more artfully drafted does not make it
unconstitutional.(14) We are also mindful that H.B. 2083 is presumed constitutional, and all
doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity. A statute must clearly violate the
constitution before it may be struck down. Should a court review H.B. 2083, it would have
the duty to construe it in such a manner that it is constitutional.(15) While the League bases its claim of unconstitutionality on Section 6(l), which states that
"the consolidated city-county shall be a city of the first class," that phrase must be
interpreted in light of the entire bill.(16) It is our opinion that H.B. 2083 appears to be a
consolidation of governing bodies and administrative functions - not a consolidation of two
territories into one. The section addressing annexation is the most compelling evidence that H.B. 2083 does
not create one territory. Section 7(b) of H.B. 2083 provides: "The governing body of a
consolidated city-county may not initiate annexation procedures of land located within the
county, but may annex land upon petition of the owners of any such land."(17) This section
makes no sense if the newly consolidated territory is a city of the first class because there
would be no land "within the county" to annex. Only if one interprets Section 6 to require
a consolidated governing body to exercise city or county power depending upon whether
the power is exercised in Shawnee County or within the former boundaries of the City of
Topeka does Section 7(b) make sense. To give effect to Section 7(b), the consolidated
governing body, when wearing its "city" hat, will be unable to annex land located within the
unincorporated area of Shawnee County unless the landowners petition to do so.
Given the burden of overcoming the presumption of constitutionality that H.B. 2083 enjoys,
it is our opinion a court would conclude that H.B. 2083 does not run afoul of the Home Rule
You also inquire whether townships in Shawnee County would continue to exist under a
consolidated governing body. Section 6(i) provides, as follows:
"(i) Except for the consolidated city-county and unless
otherwise provided by law, other political subdivisions of the county shall not
be affected by consolidation of the city and county. Such other political
subdivisions shall continue in existence and operation."
A township is a political subdivision of the state and county.(18) Section 6(i) is very clear that
political subdivisions of the county, such as townships, shall continue to exist. Section
6(g)(2) reinforces this conclusion by removing from the consolidated governing body the
ability to exercise the powers, duties and functions of a city in the unincorporated areas of
the county that include townships.
In its memorandum to the Consolidation Commission, the League indicated that Section
6(j) states that other political subdivisions shall not be affected by the consolidation unless
otherwise provided by law. The League maintains that the "law" in question is K.S.A. 80-1404, which, it maintains, would require the discontinuation of Shawnee County's twelve
townships should consolidation occur. K.S.A. 80-1404 provides, in part: "No city of the first or second class shall be included
within the corporate limits of any township." The League's position, again, is founded on
the faulty premise that H.B. 2083 creates one new territory that is a city of the first class.
This city of the first class would - in effect - swallow all twelve townships and, pursuant to
K.S.A. 80-1404, require their discontinuation. For the reasons previously mentioned in this
opinion, we disagree with the League's conclusion.
The history of townships also does not support the League's position. Before Kansas
became a state, the territorial legislature authorized counties to create townships.(19)
In 1868, K.S.A. 80-1404(20) was enacted which provided, in part:
"No city of more than two thousand inhabitants shall be
included within the corporate limits of any township; but each of such cities
shall constitute a township for the purpose of electing justices of the peace
and constables . . . ."(21)
K.S.A. 19-212 authorizes county commissioners to "set off, organize, and change the
boundaries of townships." K.S.A. 80-1404 speaks to cities of the first class "within"
townships - not townships "within" cities. K.S.A. 80-1404's purpose appears to preclude
county commissions from creating townships containing cities of the first or second classes
and to exclude from existing townships those cities that have changed their classification
from third to second class because of increases in population.
We are also mindful that the Consolidation Commission itself believes that townships will
continue to exist should consolidation occur. The Commission's preliminary plan provides
"Governmental entities in Shawnee County, other than county
government and the city of Topeka are not affected by consolidation. Townships, water districts, special service districts, and the third class cities
of Auburn, Rossville, Silver Lake, and Willard will continue to exist and carry
out the same responsibilities they do now. . . ."(22)
Should a court consider whether townships continue to exist under a Topeka/Shawnee
County consolidation, it would accord some deference to the Consolidation Commission's
interpretation of H.B. 2083.(23) Finally, assuming conflict between Section 6 of H.B. 2083 and K.S.A. 80-1404, (i.e.
townships exist after consolidation vs. townships discontinued after consolidation), the
rules of statutory construction provide that the more recent and more specific statute
controls.(24) Given the plain language of Section 6 of H.B. 2083, the interpretation by the Consolidation
Commission, the rule of statutory construction that prefers the more recent and specific
statute, and the history of townships, it is our opinion that K.S.A. 80-1404 would not result
in the discontinuance of townships in Shawnee County should consolidation occur.
1. 2005 H.B. 2083, §§ 1(a), 3(a).
2. www.cctksc.org
3. 2005 H.B. 2083, § 3(d).
4. 2005 H.B. 2083, § 3(e).
5. 2005 H.B. 2083, § 4(b), (c).
7. Article 12, § 5.
8. Memorandum from Don Moler & Sandy Jacquot to the Consolidation Commission of Topeka, Kansas and Shawnee County dated June 14, 2005.
9. K.S.A. 12-340 et seq.
10. Minutes, House Committee on Local Government, January 25, 1996; League of Kansas Municipalities Memorandum to Consolidation Commission, June 14, 2005.
11. Minutes, House Committee on Local Government, January 25, 1996.
12. When considering which territory would be subject to the powers, duties and functions of a city, Chris McKenzie from the League of Kansas Municipalities persuaded the Senate Committee on Local Government to exclude the 2.5 square miles of unincorporated area in Wyandotte County. Minutes, Senate Committee on Local Government, January 18, 1996.
13. K.S.A. 12-345(l)(m).
14. State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, 265 Kan. 779, 798 (1998).
15. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. v. Praeger, 276 Kan. 232, 254 (2003).
16. Wirt v. Esrey, 233 Kan. 300 (1983) ("[i]n construing statutes, legislative intention is to be determined from general consideration of entire act; effect must be given, if possible, to entire act and every part thereof, and . . . it is duty of court . . . to reconcile different provisions so as to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible").
18. Powers v. Thorn, 155 Kan. 758 (1942).
19. James M. Drury, Township Government in Kansas, 1-2 (1954); K.S.A. 19-212, Seventh.
20. L. 1868, Ch. 110, § 48.
21. K.S.A. 80-1404, last amended in 1968, deleted the reference to population size.
22. Emphasis added. Preliminary Plan for Consolidating the Governments of Topeka, Kansas and Shawnee County, June 21, 2005, p. 7; Letter from Consolidation Commission Attorney, Deanne Watts Hay, to the Commission dated May 20, 2005. See www.cctksc.org
23. Appeal of Harbour Bros., 256 Kan. 216 (1994) (interpretation of statute by administrative agency with the responsibility of enforcing statute is entitled to judicial deference especially when agency is one of special competence and expertise).
24. State, ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 264 Kan. 293, 311 (1998). See Letter from Consolidation Commission Attorney, Deanne Watts Hay, to the Commission dated May 20, 2005.
URL: http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2005/2005-017.htm.