Stueckemann v. City of Basehor
301 Kan. 718
| Kan. | 2015Background
- City of Basehor adopted resolutions in Dec 2008 to unilaterally annex Cedar Lake Estates, a 115-acre platted subdivision adjacent to the city that had used Basehor wastewater treatment since 2004.
- The City mailed notice, a mailed sketch (accurate), a published sketch (inaccurate as to Parcel 62), a GIS map (erroneously excluded Parcel 62), and resolutions containing a legal description (erroneously included Parcel 15.02) to affected landowners; a public hearing occurred Feb 9, 2009.
- At the Feb 9 hearing the Stueckemanns and others objected and alerted the City to the identification errors; the City corrected the legal description (removing Parcel 15.02) before adopting Ordinance No. 548 on Feb 17 with the accurate description.
- The City presented a service plan estimating costs and funding for police protection and street/infrastructure maintenance (e.g., ~$22,200/yr policing by area method; ~$16,800/yr streets), and described immediate commencement of city services on annexation.
- Stueckemann plaintiffs sued under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 12-538 challenging (1) identification/regularity, (2) adequacy of the service plan, and (3) reasonableness of the annexation; district court and Court of Appeals upheld the annexation; Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of description/regularity (identification of land) | Errors/inconsistent documents (published sketch, GIS map, resolutions) prevented landowners from knowing what was to be annexed and violated statutory notice requirements | Mailed sketch and final ordinance correctly identified the Estates; errors were minor, discoverable, and corrected before ordinance so statutory purposes (notice & hearing) satisfied | Court held City substantially complied; errors (Parcel 15.02 and Parcel 62) were not fatal, correction before ordinance and accurate mailed sketch satisfied statutes |
| Adequacy of service plan (police; streets/infrastructure) | Plan lacked sufficient detail and substantiation about existing county service levels and City costs—insufficient to allow meaningful challenge | Plan provided estimated costs, financing method, comparison to county service, and timetable (services begin on annexation); bona fide plan under Clarke standard suffices | Court held service plan substantially complied; bona fide, good-faith plan with required estimated costs and financing satisfies K.S.A. 12-520b |
| Reasonableness of annexation under K.S.A. 12-538 | Annexation unreasonable because residents get little or no net benefit but will face significant new taxes—court should review substantive reasonableness de novo | Statute permits reasonableness review but judicial review must be deferential; City acted quasi-judicially and decision warrants deference | Court held (1) K.S.A. 12-538 expanded review to allow a reasonableness challenge (burden on landowner by preponderance), (2) annexation decisions are quasi-judicial but reasonableness review applies (not de novo substitution), and (3) Basehor’s annexation was reasonable on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Clarke v. City of Wichita, 218 Kan. 334 (1975) (defines "bona fide" service plan and substantial-compliance standard)
- Sabatini v. Jayhawk Constr. Co., 214 Kan. 408 (1974) (limits judicial inquiry into annexation to statutory authority and regularity)
- City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 233 Kan. 159 (1983) (purpose of land-description provisions is to inform public of annexation boundaries)
- Board of Riley County Comm'rs v. City of Junction City, 233 Kan. 947 (1983) (over-inclusive legal description can invalidate annexation when error is substantial)
- 143rd Street Investors v. Bd. of Johnson County Comm'rs, 292 Kan. 690 (2011) (discussion of standards of review for quasi-judicial decisions and reasonableness review)
- Reiter v. City of Beloit, 263 Kan. 74 (1997) (tests for when municipal actions are quasi-judicial)