KANSAS ONE-CALL SYSTEM, INC. v. State
274 P.3d 625
| Kan. | 2012Background
- One-Call is a Kansas nonprofit that operates the state’s single underground-utility notification center.
- KUUDPA, enacted in 1993, requires excavators to notify the center before digging and for utilities to mark facilities.
- The 2008 HB 2637 amendments added KORA/KOMA compliance for the center, created Tier 1–3 fee structures, and imposed public-accountability requirements.
- Tier 1 = non-water utilities; Tier 2 = water utilities; Tier 3 = large water utilities with their own center; Tier 3 fees are flat $500; Tier 2 fees capped at 50% of Tier 1 fees; all facilities must join; center designated as a public agency for records/meetings.
- One-Call challenged these amendments as violating the one-subject rule, separation of powers, equal protection, and the Fifth Amendment takings clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HB 2637 violate the one-subject rule? | One-Call: two unrelated subjects. | State: provisions germane to utilities. | Amendments do not violate the one-subject rule. |
| Does the delegation to the KCC violate separation of powers? | Delegation usurps legislative power. | Delegation is administrative with standards; constitutional. | No separation-of-powers violation. |
| Do amendments violate equal protection by singling out One-Call? | One-Call is treated differently from similar entities. | Center is public, distinctions rational and supported by public-powers. | Equal protection claim fails. |
| Do the fee provisions constitute a taking without just compensation? | Tiered fees reduce One-Call’s revenues confiscatorily. | Costs pass-through to members; not a taking; no permanent deprivation. | No taking; regulations do not require just compensation. |
Key Cases Cited
- KPERS v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 262 Kan. 635 (1997) (one-subject rule requires all germane to title; broad subject allowed)
- State v. Reves, 233 Kan. 972 (1983) (broad subject allowed if germane to title; single subject remains)
- Memorial Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663 (1986) (equal-protection analyses)
- Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc., 292 Kan. 285 (2011) (equal-protection framework for classifications)
- Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (regulatory takings; not a per se taking where government regulates but not compels use)
- Frick v. City of Salina, 290 Kan. 869 (2010) (per se takings framework; regulatory takings standards)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (takings regulation analysis; balancing regulatory effects)
- Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm'rs, 293 Kan. 332 (2011) (regulatory taking considerations; costs pass-through)
- Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 238 Kan. 842 (1986) (cost-recovery as just compensation where pass-through possible)