Title: Clarke v. City of Wichita
Citation: 218 Kan. 334, 543 P.2d 973
Docket Number: 47,801
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: December 13, 1975

218 Kan. 334 (1975)
543 P.2d 973
PATRICK CLARKE and MILDRED R. CLARKE, et al., Appellants,
v.
THE CITY OF WICHITA, Appellee, and HARRY B. GARDEN and MARY A. GARDEN, et al., Appellants,
v.
THE CITY OF WICHITA, Appellee.
No. 47,801

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 13, 1975.
Paul V. Dugan, of Wichita, argued the cause, and was on the brief for the appellants.
H.R. Kuhn, of Arn, Mullins, Unruh, Kuhn &amp; Wilson, of Wichita, argued the cause, and John Dekker, of Wichita, was with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SCHROEDER, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court of Sedgwick County rejecting the landowners' constitutional *336 and procedural attacks upon two municipal annexation ordinances and refusing to enjoin the City of Wichita from annexing three areas of land immediately to the west of the City's boundary line.
The essential facts are not seriously disputed. The City of Wichita, Kansas, (defendant-appellee) is a governmental body located in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Patrick Clarke and Mildred R. Clarke, et al., (plaintiffs-appellants) were as of July 29, 1974, residents of the Callahan Addition. Harry B. Garden and Mary A. Garden, et al., (plaintiffs-appellants) were as of August 23, 1974, residents of the Westport Addition. They bring these actions pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-520 which now permits an owner of land annexed by a city to "maintain an action in the district court of the county in which such land is located challenging the authority of the city to annex such lands and the regularity of the proceedings had in connection therewith." The two separate actions were consolidated for trial in the district court.
Added by the City of Wichita were the Callahan and Westport Additions, both platted, and a third unplatted area less than twenty acres in size and having two-thirds of its boundary line adjacent to the city. In addition to being immediately west of the City's boundary line, the north line of the Callahan Addition adjoins the existing City's boundary line and the Westport Addition is immediately adjacent to and adjoins the south boundary line of the Callahan Addition.
On May 7, 1974, the City Commission of the City of Wichita adopted a resolution declaring its interest in annexing the above mentioned tracts. This resolution was duly published; notice was mailed to the residents; sketches of the area to be annexed were included; a "plan" for the extension of major services was prepared; and a public hearing was held which answered all questions posed by the residents. On July 23, 1974, and August 13, 1974, the City Commission of the City of Wichita adopted by a three-to-two vote two ordinances annexing the above mentioned tracts. The first ordinance annexed only a portion of the area described in the resolution, and the second ordinance adopted the remaining portion of the area described by the resolution. Robert A. Lakin, the City representative at the trial, described why two ordinances were used as follows:
Material to a determination of this dispute is the "plan" for the extension of major services prepared by the City. K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-520b provides:
The report of the City disclosing its plans for the annexation is fully set forth herein. It reads:
"Existing Development.
"Street Conditions.
*340 outlay. The Department has also indicated that two additional special services would become available to the area. Family Crisis Intervention Unit and Crime Prevention Building Survey personnel would provide services which are unavailable from any other enforcement agency in this area.
"Parks and Recreation.
"Other Municipal Services.
"Summary of Plan for Services
The appellants presented a proffer of evidence which attacks the "plan" as costing approximately $6,000 per half-acre lot for streets, water and sewer lines, but without providing better service. Among other things, the appellants' proffer of evidence indicated present street maintenance was satisfactory. Based on past experience, it was contended the City might change the present asphalt mat streets back to gravel streets because the cost of maintenance was lower. Objection was also raised because the "plan" proposed making arterial streets conform to City streets in 1978, yet it was testified there was no binding effect in this 1978 date; that it might be changed, postponed, or never occur. Finally nothing in the "plan" mentions other street improvements.
The appellants' proffered evidence to prove there had been no health hazards develop in the area annexed due to the private septic tank systems and private water well systems. Under the "plan" municipal water and sewer systems were to be installed in the area "when petitioned for by owners", which might never occur. Furthermore, a change of policy by the City Commission might prevent the extension.
The appellants' proffer of evidence indicated the present county fire department has a station within the area annexed, while the nearest City of Wichita fire stations are four and five miles, respectively, from the area annexed. Furthermore, most of the area presently lacks fire hydrants which will not be installed until the water mains are installed  "when petitioned for by owners." The appellants contend this makes the county's pumper unit more feasible.
Service by the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Department was said to be totally and wholly satisfactory before annexation. It is alleged by the appellants there will be no improvement in police protection and law enforcement in the area and there exists the probability that the same will not be adequate after annexation.
*342 The appellants have properly filed their suits, which were consolidated by the trial court, and have duly perfected an appeal from the decision of the trial court. On appeal they raise many constitutional and procedural objections aimed at the "plan" particularly on the availability of municipal services for the area under consideration for annexation.
The appellants contend the annexation law under which this annexation was conducted (House Bill No. 1623, L. 1974, ch. 56) is so vague and uncertain in its terms "plan", "timetable", and other terms that it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. They contend this grant of legislative authority is not accompanied by adequate standards or guideposts for its exercise. (Citing State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, 215 Kan. 700, 527 P.2d 1340.) It is argued each city that "undertakes an annexation will construe its own definition of `plan' and `timetable'." The appellants argue the "plan" was orally amended at the public hearing.
The trial court's finding that the plan "substantially satisfied" the statutory requirements is attacked by the appellants on two grounds. First, it is said the timing and plan for financing was uncertain because the plan was not a guarantee or commitment. Second, the annexation which was accomplished by two ordinances is attacked as not strictly complying with the annexation statute.
Finally, the appellants contend the trial court erred in not considering the question of unfairness or unreasonableness of the annexation by the City. Here the appellants argue the prior law that it is not a proper judicial function for a court to inquire into the reasonableness, wisdom, necessity or advisability of annexing and platting land (Sabatini v. Jayhawk Construction Co., 214 Kan. 408, 520 P.2d 1230)  has been changed. It is urged the legislature would not have required steps relating to "plans" and "timetables", if it had not intended to impose a requirement of reasonableness for the annexation.
I
Are adequate standards present in the amended annexation law for municipal annexation?
It has been established that the legislature may grant municipalities the authority to extend their boundaries provided the grant be accompanied by adequate standards or guideposts for its exercise. (State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, supra.) Before a municipality may annex outlying territories, certain geographical conditions *343 enumerated in K.S.A. 12-520 (now K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-520), must be satisfied. In 1974 this court held these geographic requirements provided meaningful standards in the sense they at least reflected legislative policy. (State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, supra at 708.) These meaningful geographical standards remain as a guidepost for municipal annexation. (K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-520.) In the case at bar there is no question but what the geographical standards were met. They are not challenged by the appellants. In 1974 the legislature supplemented these geographical standards with the "plan" and "timetable" requirements of K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-520b. (See also, K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-520a.) The legislature would not have amended the annexation act unless it intended to effectuate some change. (Curless v. Board of County Commissioners, 197 Kan. 580, 587, 419 P.2d 876.)
Do the additional "plan" and "timetable" requirements enumerated in K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-520b make the legislative standards meaningless? We think not.
The law is well established that the historical background of a legislative enactment, and the circumstances attending its passage, should be taken into account. (State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, supra.)
A brief look into the legislative history of the 1974 amendment to the annexation law of Kansas discloses a Legislative Research Department Memorandum dated January 5, 1973. The subject is entitled "Kansas Annexation Procedures and Alternative Methods and Standards." Among the many topics discussed thereunder is one entitled "Statutory Standards for Unilateral Annexation." Another topic is "Capacity of the City to Supply Services to the Annexed Area." The discussion under this topic reads in part:
Analogous statutes in four states support our conclusion that the additional requirements imposed by the 1974 legislative amendment to the Kansas annexation law do not make the legislative standards meaningless.
In Tennessee T.C.A. § 6-309 required that the governing body of a municipality planning to annex shall adopt a plan of services *344 setting forth at a minimum the identification and projected timing of municipal services proposed to be extended into the territory proposed to be annexed. In State v. Town of Madisonville, 222 Tenn. 272, 435 S.W.2d 803 (1968) the plan of services was attacked as vague, evasive, wholly inadequate and not complying with T.C.A. § 6-309. There the court noted:
It is apparent the Tennessee Supreme Court held the city had complied with the plan of services and projected timing requirement, even though there was no guarantee by the city.
In North Carolina G.S. § 160-453.3 a municipality planning annexation was required to make plans for the extension of services to the area proposed to be annexed. The plans were specifically required to make provision for extending police protection, fire protection, garbage collection, street maintenance, water mains and sewer lines. In Adams-Millis Corp. v. Kernersville, 6 N.C. App. 78, 169 S.E.2d 496 (1969), cert. denied, 275 N.C. 681, 169 S.E.2d 496 (1969), it was contended the annexation report did not contain adequate plans. The North Carolina Court of Appeals set forth the plans and held they were in substantial compliance with the statute.
Under the North Carolina statute in the case of In re Annexation Ordinance, 255 N.C. 633, 122 S.E.2d 690 (1961) the city made no plan to completely extend water services. This was held improper, the court stating:
The experience of Mississippi must also be noted. M.C.A. § 21-1-27 reads in part:
In Ritchie, et al. v. City of Brookhaven, 217 Miss. 860, 65 So. 2d 436, suggestion of error overruled 217 Miss. 876, 65 So. 2d 832 (1953), the annexing ordinance provided:
The Mississippi Supreme Court held the ordinance substantially complied with the statute despite use of the term "where necessary and economically feasible." (See also, Ferguson v. Town of Vaiden, 242 So. 2d 124 [Miss. 1970] [improvements within three years where necessary and economically feasible satisfied statute]; and Bridges v. City of Biloxi, 253 Miss. 812, 178 So. 2d 683 [1965], appeal dismissed, 383 U.S. 574, 16 L. Ed. 2d 106, 86 S. Ct. 1077 [1966] [improvements to be completed within a reasonable time not to exceed five years satisfied statute].)
In Indiana, if the evidence establishes that:
It was held in Harris v. City of Muncie, ___ Ind. App. ___, 325 N.E.2d 208 (1975):
There the evidence did not show that the City of Muncie had any fiscal plan, or definite policy, written or oral, to furnish the requisite services.
Taking into consideration the legislative history of the 1974 amendment to our annexation law, the legislative experience of the four states above reviewed and the fact that the Kansas legislature intended to effectuate some change in the annexation law by the 1974 amendments, it is our opinion the legislature of Kansas intended that a city proposing annexation of territory to the city must first prepare and submit a bona fide plan covering each major governmental and proprietary service to be furnished the territory to be annexed substantially equivalent in standard and scope to such governmental and proprietary services furnished by the annexing city to persons and property already located within the municipality at the time of annexation. The plan must include a timetable setting forth when those services will be extended to such annexed area and the method by which the city plans to finance the extension of such services. In this connection, a bona fide plan is one which must be prepared and submitted by the city in accordance with the statute in good faith and with honest intentions on the part of the city to implement the plan as submitted.
If the plan submitted is a hoax, which is designed only to accomplish the annexation of territory, the annexation is subject to challenge by any owner of land within the territory annexed by the city on the ground that the city had no statutory authority to annex the territory under these circumstances.
The basic theory underlying the annexation law as it now exists is that the owners of land in the newly annexed territory are entitled within a reasonable time to share in the municipal services and benefits accorded to owners of land in other portions of the municipal territory upon a footing of substantial equality. (2 E. McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporation, § 7.46 [3d ed. 1966 rev. p. 518].)
We hasten to add, however, that all municipal services and facilities are subject to economic, political and other practical contingencies and vicissitudes, too numerous to mention, over which a *347 municipality has no absolute and complete control. Limitations and restrictions are imposed by other statutory and regulatory provisions, both state and federal, which mandate changes and modifications in the plans and timetables of municipalities. A municipality cannot know what fortune or misfortune time will bring. For these reasons the "plan" and "timetable" of a municipality cannot be a "guarantee" to the owner of land in the proposed area of annexation. Our rule has always been that substantial compliance with an annexation statute is all that can be required. (City of Kansas City v. Board of County Commissioners, 213 Kan. 777, 518 P.2d 403.) Action taken by the City in the annexation of territory, however, must be done in good faith.
II
Does the City's plan substantially comply with the statutory requirement of K.S.A. 12-519, et seq., as amended in 1974?
Mr. Lakin, the City's representative, on cross-examination at the trial, referred to various provisions of the plan "as policy statements and not guarantees", indicating that the City policy could change and the timetable become inaccurate. The appellants seize upon these statements to argue the City has not committed itself to a plan.
Taken as a whole, however, the evidence demonstrates compliance with the annexation statute as amended. The plan and the timetable comprehensively covered essential municipal services. Although the timing for some services was listed as "when petitioned for by owners", the record indicates this to be consistent with the City of Wichita's policy in connection with provision for similar services and improvements to others within the City.
This procedure has been specifically approved by the Kansas Legislature in the general improvement and assessment law. (K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-6a01, et seq.) We find substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's conclusion that a bona fide plan has been submitted by the City.
III
Does the annexation via two ordinances substantially comply with the statute?
Although the City of Wichita declared its interest in annexing the tracts in question in one resolution, it annexed the area via two ordinances. The appellants rely on State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, supra, and argue the annexation statute must be strictly *348 applied by the annexing city. The appellants misconstrue this Overland Park case which held:
Whether a city has acted within its authority in adopting an annexation ordinance is determined by a substantial compliance test. (City of Kansas City v. Board of County Commissioners, supra; and Sabatini v. Jayhawk Construction Co., supra.) In Sabatini the Jayhawk Construction Company filed a petition for annexation after entering into a purchase contract but before the deed showing their ownership was filed of record. Under the annexation ordinance the written petition for annexation was to be filed by the "owner". There the appellants contended since Jayhawk did not hold record title at the time the petition was filed, the petition and all subsequent proceedings were defective and void. This contention was rejected by the court which held there was substantial compliance with the statute  compliance consistent with the purpose of the statute.
Here the City of Wichita has substantially complied with the statute by annexing the whole of the territory set forth in their resolution. The purpose of the statute is to protect the rights of the landowners against unilateral action by a city in annexing their land. Under this section, notice of the City's intention to annex, and an opportunity to be heard is required. These procedures were fulfilled by the City. The City gave sufficient notice to the landowners to protest, and the City Commission conducted hearings on two separate occasions for three hours on each occasion to hear the landowners and to inform them. The decision to annex via two ordinances came from administrative procedures of long-standing which were not aimed at, and in no way prejudiced, the appellants.
IV
Did the court err in not considering the question of unfairness or unreasonableness of the annexation by the City?
The problem encountered in giving a definite answer to this question involves semantics.
The rule to which this court adheres was stated in State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, 192 Kan. 654, 391 P.2d 128, where the court held:
In Sabatini v. Jayhawk Construction Co., supra, the foregoing rule was paraphrased as:
In State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, 215 Kan. 700, 527 P.2d 1340, the court said:
A careful study of our cases illustrates that the court does recognize the "reasonableness" of action taken by a city in connection with annexation as a viable issue, where the action taken by a city is found to violate constitutional guarantees. The same could be said if the action taken by a city in connection with annexation is found to exceed statutory authorization.
It may fairly be said in this case the wisdom, necessity or advisability of annexing the three areas in question by the City of Wichita is not a matter open for challenge by the appellants in court.
The 1974 legislative amendment allowing any owner of land annexed by the city to "challenge the authority of the city to annex such lands and the regularity of the proceedings had in connection therewith" changes our prior law only to the extent that it is no longer necessary that an action protesting an annexation be brought in the name of the state.
The amended law under consideration provides for notice to the persons affected. That notice is designed to be adequate to inform the affected landowners of the municipality's decision, what benefits they will receive and what cost they will incur. Through this notice and the hearing procedure afforded, the affected landowner may attempt to persuade the City that annexation would not be in *350 the best interest of either party. The court, however, does not examine the wisdom, necessity or advisability of the annexation.
The appellants' proffer of evidence relates to matters discretionary in nature involving economic and political considerations entrusted to the governing body of the City and is outside judicial cognizance and thus the trial court properly excluded it. (State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, 215 Kan. 700, 527 P.2d 1340.)
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
[*]  U.S. 54 Highway
[**]  Includes 1 mile of frontage roads along U.S. 54

"The type of construction influences the annual roadway maintenance costs. The City's Engineering Department estimates the costs at $1000/year/mile for gravel surfaced streets and $3,500/year/mile for asphalt mat, as compared to $500/year/mile for streets constructed to City standards. The Engineering Department has further estimated that the cost of reconstructing the streets in the study area would be $1,621,700. Except for the Arterial streets (Tyler and Maple) reconstruction to City standards would be on the basis of a petition from property owners. On the basis of the above estimate the per acre cost to the area benefited would be $6,760/acre.
"Water and Sewer Services.
"As indicated previously, the study area does not have municipal water or sewer services. The City Engineering Department and the Water Department have estimated the costs to the area of providing these services. Sewer service would require the construction of a main sewer and lateral sewers. The main sewer may be ordered in by the City whereas the laterals would be constructed on a petition basis. The estimated cost to the study area for its portion of a sewer main would be $250,000 which approximates $550/acre. The laterals would cost an estimated $536,000 or $2250/acre to install.
"The Water Department has indicated that the area could be served by extension from an existing 16-inch water main located along Tyler Road. Construction of an adequate water service system for the area is estimated to cost the area $399,400 or an average of $1,016.29 per lot. Water service, like sewer laterals, would be extended on the basis of a petition from property owners. Service installation to each lot is estimated to cost an additional $130.00.
"Fire Protection.
"At the present time, the study area is served by the County Fire Department from their station located on Tyler Road. The County Fire Department can respond to a fire with two pumper trucks, one 1750 gallon water tank and 5 men. The Wichita Fire Department has indicated that with the completion of their new station (anticipated in May of 1975) at Caddy and Central Avenue, they will be able to respond to a fire in the area with 3 pumpers, one 65-foot aerial unit, 1 car, and sixteen men. The Department has indicated that the additional direct costs to them would be in the form of fire hydrant rentals at $20/each. If the hydrants were located in accordance with a new water system for the area, it is estimated the direct costs would be $600/year.
"Police Protection.
"In regard to police protection, the Wichita Police Department has indicated that serving the area would not require additional personnel or capital