City of Topeka v. Imming, 344 P.3d 957

Background

Heartland Park, a city raceway, fell into private management and debt; Topeka adopted Ordinance No. 19915 to acquire the reversionary interest, expand a STAR bond redevelopment district, and authorize $5,000,000 in additional STAR bonds to finance the acquisition.
Christopher Imming gathered 3,587 valid signatures and filed an initiative petition seeking repeal of Ordinance No. 19915 or submission of repeal to a municipal vote under K.S.A. 12-3013.
The City filed a declaratory judgment action challenging Imming's petition; Imming counterclaimed seeking a writ of mandamus compelling repeal or an election.
The district court: (1) found some technical defects in the City’s authorization to sue but denied dismissal on other grounds; (2) held the ordinance was administrative and thus not subject to initiative/referendum; and (3) alternatively held the STAR-bond-specific protest-petition mechanism excluded the ordinance from the general initiative process.
On appeal, the court held the district court erred in finding ratification of the City Manager’s filing, ruled Ordinance No. 19915 is legislative (not administrative), but affirmed that Imming’s petition was barred because the STAR-bond protest-petition statute provides the exclusive referendum mechanism for this subject, so mandamus was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City Manager’s filing of declaratory judgment was authorized or ratified by the Council	Imming: filing was unauthorized and not ratified; suit should be dismissed	City: Council conduct (failed suspension motion) and subsequent actions ratified the filing	Court: Council did not ratify; motion to dismiss should have been granted, but dismissal was mooted by Imming’s counterclaim for mandamus
Whether Ordinance No. 19915 is administrative (excluded from initiative/referendum) or legislative (subject to initiative)	Imming: ordinance is primarily legislative — creates new law, declares public purpose, purchases property	City/Jayhawk: ordinance involves technical financing/bond details requiring municipal expertise and is administrative	Court: ordinance is legislative (purchase of racetrack and expansion of district are general, permanent, policy decisions)
Whether the STAR-bond protest-petition statute displaces initiative/referendum for this ordinance	Imming: only the bond-authorization portion (§11) is subject to STAR protest; rest remains subject to initiative	City: STAR statute provides a protest-petition referendum process that makes the entire ordinance an "election under another statute" and thus excluded from initiative	Court: STAR protest-petition scheme is the exclusive referendum mechanism; ordinance is subject to that statute and excluded from K.S.A. 12-3013 initiative process
Whether Imming is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling repeal or an election	Imming: Council must repeal or submit ordinance to voters once valid petition filed	City: No duty to repeal or hold election because initiative process excluded and only STAR protest procedure applies	Court: Mandamus denied — no legal duty to repeal or hold election under initiative statute; STAR protest mechanism governs

Key Cases Cited

Waterview Resolution Corp. v. Allen, 274 Kan. 1016 (res judicata on unappealed district-court rulings)
Bunge Milling, Inc. v. City of Atchison, 49 Kan. App. 2d 325 (prompt repudiation required to avoid ratification by acquiescence)
Theis v. duPont, Glore Forgan Inc., 212 Kan. 301 (ratification by failure to repudiate in commercial setting)
City of McCall v. Buxton, 146 Idaho 656 (city council may ratify unauthorized suit only by open-meeting action complying with law)
Rauh v. City of Hutchinson, 223 Kan. 514 (issuance of industrial revenue bonds characterized as administrative)
City of Wichita v. Kansas Taxpayers Network, Inc., 255 Kan. 534 (municipal storm-water utility financing and management administrative)
McAlister v. City of Fairway, 289 Kan. 391 (guidelines for distinguishing legislative vs administrative ordinances)
State, ex rel., v. Jacobs, 135 Kan. 513 (public-improvement ordinance held legislative)