Title: In Re Reincorporation of Piper City
Citation: 220 Kan. 6, 551 P.2d 909
Docket Number: 47,920
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: June 12, 1976

220 Kan. 6 (1976)
551 P.2d 909
In the Matter of the Petition for Reincorporation of Piper City, Kansas, a City of the Third Class.
BURKE A. BETTIS, et al., Appellants,
v.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 47,920

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 12, 1976.
Louis A. Silks, Jr., of Shawnee Mission, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellants.
Thomas C. Lysaught, Wyandotte county counselor, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MILLER,, J.:
The Board of County Commissioners of Wyandotte County denied a petition for the incorporation of the City of Piper, Kansas on April 1, 1974. The district court affirmed, and petitioners appeal.
This is a sequel to City of Kansas City v. Board of County Commissioners, 213 Kan. 777, 518 P.2d 403. There the Board of County *7 Commissioners had unanimously granted a petition to incorporate Piper City. The City of Kansas City appealed, challenging the lawfulness of the incorporation. The district court approved the legality of the proceedings, but we reversed, holding the order of incorporation invalid for the reason that the required statutory notice had not been given.
Shortly following our decision a second petition for the incorporation of Piper City was circulated and filed with the county clerk on January 29, 1974. This petition was signed by over 90% of the residents of the 15-square-mile area involved. It was accompanied by supporting affidavits, certificates, and an enumeration. Appropriate notice was given, and a hearing was held before the Board on March 4, 1974. We note that there was a complete change of membership on the Board between the hearings on the earlier and the 1974 petitions.
Petitioners appeared with counsel and presented numerous witnesses and exhibits in support of the petition. Apparently the evidence was similar to that presented in 1971, but it was updated and reflected developments since the earlier hearing. No opposition was voiced. At the conclusion of the hearing the matter was adjourned until April 1, 1974 for the ostensible reason that this court had not then ruled upon a pending motion for rehearing in City of Kansas City v. Board of County Commissioners, supra. Our ruling, denying the motion, was made on March 6, 1974.
The hearing reconvened on April 1, 1974. Further evidence was offered in support of the petition, and two witnesses, residents of Kansas City, Kansas, appeared pro se and voiced opposition to the incorporation. Full opportunity was given to all present to be heard. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board took a short recess and reconvened to announce its unanimous decision denying incorporation. The Board's order in pertinent part reads:
The written decision of the Board was prepared prior to the April 1, 1974 hearing. The sentence "The Board has also considered the evidence offered April 1, 1974" was inserted in the document immediately prior to its adoption. Thereafter, petitioners gave timely notice of appeal to the district court pursuant to K.S.A. 19-223.
*9 Also on April 1, 1974 the Board, without prior notice, unanimously passed a resolution adopting the County Road Unit System, pursuant to K.S.A. 68-515b. While not important in the matter at hand, it is of some moment to petitioners who reside in that portion of Prairie Township which constitutes, for all practical purposes, the only portion of Wyandotte County not presently within an incorporated city. So far as we are informed, no petition protesting the adoption of the resolution was filed.
The appeal came on for hearing before the district court on August 14, 1974. Mr. Burke Bettis testified on behalf of the petitioners and Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Hart, and Murray Rhodes, County Director of Planning, testified for respondents. The proceedings were continued to and concluded on August 28, 1974. The court took the matter under advisement, counsel submitted briefs, and on September 12, 1974 the court wrote to counsel a lengthy letter in which he detailed his findings and the reasons therefor, and concluded that judgment should be entered in favor of the Board. A journal entry followed. Petitioners then appealed to this court.
The trial court's carefully prepared letter-memorandum is enlightening. Since it treats at length the issues raised on this appeal, we quote from it as follows:
The principal claim of error is that the Board, in arriving at its decision, went outside of the record and considered matters not in evidence. The question is whether a Board of County Commissioners, in acting upon a petition to incorporate under K.S.A. 15-115, et seq., must confine its consideration to the evidence offered at the public hearing.
When weighing the pros and cons and determining the advisability of incorporation, the board is performing a legislative function. Lampe v. City of Leawood, 170 Kan. 251, 253, 225 P.2d 73; Town of Olsburg v. Pottawatomie County, 113 Kan. 501, 215 Pac. 451. K.S.A. 15-123 specifically provides that after a public hearing has been adjourned, the board (ostensibly to assist it in arriving at a decision) "may request the director of the division of planning of the state department of economic development to make a study of the general area in which the territory is located, information in possession of the county board and other sources, and render an opinion as to the advisability of the proposed incorporation." A board has readily available to it from county officers tax and valuation data, plats, road and highway information. It has first-hand knowledge of the area. Members of such boards are no strangers to local finance, budget, road, waste disposal, water, sewage and like problems. We see no reason why the board cannot consider all such matters, whether touched upon by the evidence or not.
A legislature may of course give consideration to matters not presented during hearings on proposed legislation. The board acts in a legislative capacity. The hearings are not in the true sense adversary. Here there was but one side presented. Certainly a board is not compelled to grant incorporation where the petitioners make a prima facie showing, no one appears in opposition, and no evidence to the contrary is offered.
Where, as here, the territory lies within five miles of incorporated cities, a unanimous vote of the commissioners is required. Viewing *13 the act as a whole, we think it is clear that the legislature did not intend the action of the board to be an empty formalism. The board is required to consider, among others, a large number of factors specified by the legislature. K.S.A. 15-121. These factors must be considered  whether or not there is evidence upon each. The board may employ consultants to provide information and assistance, and to gather information. K.S.A. 15-122. And as noted above, it may request a further study and opinion after the hearing has been concluded. K.S.A. 15-123.
In sustaining a decree of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Berks County denying incorporation, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania said:
We conclude that it was not error for the Board of County Commissioners to consider matters within the personal knowledge of the members, and other matters outside of the formal record in the incorporation proceeding.
Petitioners argue that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of two members of the Board in that such testimony was not in the record made before the Board; that the testimony violated the agreement of counsel limiting the evidence to the record; and that the admission of such testimony deprived petitioners of the opportunity for rebuttal, for proper cross-examination, or to offer further evidence. We have determined that it was proper for the Board to consider matters in addition to the evidence presented in open hearing. The issue before the district court was whether the decision of the Board was arbitrary, unlawful or capricious. We think the testimony of the members as to the additional information considered was highly relevant. The trial procedure in the district court is governed by our Code of Civil Procedure. The reasonableness of the Board's decision should be determined upon the basis of the evidence before the court, and that evidence is not necessarily limited to the evidence before the Board, so long as it is *14 relevant to the issue before the trial court. Keeney v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 389, 395, 454 P.2d 456; Rydd v. State Board of Health, 202 Kan. 721, 451 P.2d 239; Bodine v. City of Overland Park, 198 Kan. 371, 424 P.2d 513; Olathe Hospital Foundation, Inc. v. Extendicare, Inc., 217 Kan. 546, 539 P.2d 1.
Counsel disagreed as to whether they stipulated that the matter would be submitted to the court on the record before the Board. The attorney for petitioners so contended. The county counselor contended that he stipulated only to the admission of that record into evidence before the court. The letter upon which claim of stipulation is based does not set forth a definite stipulation, and in fact stated that Mr. Rhodes would be called as a witness for the Board. Petitioners also offered the testimony of one witness, Mr. Bettis. This tends to negate petitioners' claim that counsel stipulated that the matter would be submitted on the transcripts alone.
Counsel for the Board announced at the commencement of the August 14th hearing before the court that two commissioners would be called as witnesses. Petititioners objected, but did not request a continuance. The witnesses were fully cross-examined. The presentation was not completed on August 14, but was continued for two weeks and concluded on August 28, 1974. Petitioners did not offer rebuttal evidence. The commissioners testified generally as to the matters taken into consideration by them in ruling upon the petition including matters which were not shown of record at the hearings. This testimony was relevant and germane to the issue before the district court. No prejudice to petitioners is shown. Petitioners were not denied preparation time, cross-examination or an opportunity to offer rebuttal evidence. We conclude that the district court did not err in admitting this testimony.
Finally, petitioners claim that the order denying incorporation was not supported by the record and was unlawful and constituted an arbitrary and unreasonable decision. The standards for review of decisions of the Board by the district court is found in K.S.A. 15-126, which provides in pertinent part:
This court's review powers of a district court decision are very much the same as the district court's review of the Board. As this court noted in City of Kansas City v. Board of County Commissioners, supra:
Similar caution was expressed more recently in State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, 215 Kan. 700, 527 P.2d 1340, wherein it was said:
The findings of the Board are not findings of specific facts, but are for the most part conclusions drawn by the Board from the data before it. Petitioner would have us weigh and evaluate the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners and then draw contrary conclusions therefrom. This we cannot do.
The evidence, as we have noted, was supportive of the petition; but there were obvious omissions which, together with other available data, the Board was entitled to ponder.
Petitioners introduced charts showing that there were many cities in Kansas having smaller population and less assessed valuation. What was not offered was a comparison of the areas and road mileage of Kansas cities. During the hearing one of the Commissioners pointed out that the proposed city would be the second largest city in Wyandotte County, although it had but a fraction of the assessed valuation of Bonner Springs and Edwardsville; it would have more streets to maintain than Edwardsville; and Edwardsville was then having difficulty financing its street maintenance and was asking the county to assume the maintenance of some of its principal thorough-fares. The Commissioners also took into consideration county records relating to tax levies, and the findings and projections of Mid-America Regional Council, a planning facility. The Board personally inspected the roads in the proposed city, and estimated the cost of proper maintenance based upon present day costs of labor and material. These were all matters with which the Board was familiar, and matters which it might properly consider.
Its conclusions go to the ultimate question  the advisability of incorporation, a legislative judgment which we are not authorized to consider.
Upon the record before us we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.