State ex rel. Tomasic v. Kansas City, 52961

• Decision Date: 29 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 52961,52961
• Citation: 630 P.2d 692,230 Kan. 19
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, ex rel., Nick A. TOMASIC, Wyandotte County District Attorney, Relator, v. KANSAS CITY, Kansas Port Authority, Respondent.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 692

630 P.2d 692

230 Kan. 19

STATE of Kansas, ex rel., Nick A. TOMASIC, Wyandotte County District Attorney, Relator, v. KANSAS CITY, Kansas Port Authority, Respondent.

No. 52961.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

June 29, 1981.

Nick A. Tomasic, Dist. Atty., argued the cause for relator.

John A. Price, of Weeks, Thomas & Lysaught, Chartered, Kansas City, argued the cause, and Leonard O. Thomas, Kansas City, of the same firm, Norman E. Gaar, of Gaar & Bell, of Kansas City, Mo., and John F. Steineger, Jr., Kansas City, were with him on the briefs for respondent.

David Schauner, of Kansas National Education Association, Topeka; Patricia Baker, of Kansas Association of School Boards, Topeka; Lana Jeanne Tyree and John F. Cooper, Oklahoma City, Okl. and Robert Miller, Kansas City, all of Unified School District # 203 of Wyandotte County, were on the brief for amici curiae.

SCHROEDER, Chief Justice:

Reconsideration of this quo warranto action comes before the court on a joint motion for rehearing or modification filed by both parties to the action. The original opinion, granting the State's writ of quo warranto, was announced April 1, 1981, in an abbreviated form and reported in 229 Kan. 538, 626 P.2d 209 (1981). Subsequent actions by the Kansas Legislature and the Board of Commissioners of the City of Kansas City, Kansas, significantly affected the basis for this court's prior decision, and the motion for rehearing was granted. A brief summary of events will clarify the issues as well as the interests of the various parties in them.

The original action in quo warranto was brought by Nick A. Tomasic, Wyandotte County District Attorney (relator), challenging the constitutionality of the Port Authorities Act, K.S.A. 12-3401 et seq., as amended, and requesting the court to oust the Kansas City, Kansas Port Authority (respondent) of all rights, powers, and authority in violation of the constitution and laws of Kansas. Oral argument was set before this court for March 11, 1981. Motions to intervene in the action were filed by The Piper Area Association, Inc., on March 2 and by the Kansas National Education Association and Unified School District No. 203 of Wyandotte County, Kansas, on March 6. Both motions were denied, but the movants were granted leave to file briefs amici curiae. On March 23, 1981, an application for leave to join the brief as amicus was granted to the Kansas Association of School Boards. After due consideration of arguments presented by the parties and amici, the court entered judgment for the relator in State ex rel. Tomasic v. Kansas City, Kansas Port Authority, 229 Kan. 538, 626 P.2d 209 (1981), as follows:

"The court finds the Act does not violate the Kansas Constitution Art. 2, § 1; Art. 2, § 16; Art. 2, § 21; or Art. 11, § 1. The court finds the purpose of the Act, and the rights and powers of port authorities created under the Act, are limited to a 'Port' as defined in K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 12-3401(f ). The Legislature has failed to provide adequate definitions in the present Act to authorize the establishment of an industrial use facility independent of a 'Port' as defined in K.S.A.1980 Supp. 12-3401(f ). The Legislature has failed to provide adequate guidelines in the present Act to authorize an industrial use facility independent of a 'Port' as defined in K.S.A.1980 Supp. 12-3401(f ), which the respondent proposes in the stipulation of facts. The Legislature failed to provide sufficient guidelines in the present Act for the issuance of industrial revenue bonds by the port authority for an industrial use facility independent of a 'Port' as defined in K.S.A.1980 Supp. 12-3401(f ).

"The city of Kansas City, Kansas, in its Code of Ordinances, article XVIII, § 2-361 and § 2-362, adopted February 1, 1979, by Ordinance No. 59263, indicating a need for a port authority to function with all the duties and powers under the present Act, fails to specify the need for an industrial use facility in the Kansas City, Kansas Port Authority." (pp. 538-39, 626 P.2d 209.)

Subsequent to this decision, the Kansas Legislature amended K.S.A. 12-3401 et seq., in L.1981, ch. --- (HB 2462), effective April 18, 1981, which in turn led the Board of Commissioners of the City of Kansas City, Kansas: (1) to amend its Code of Ordinances, article XVIII, on April 20, 1981, to broaden the statement of declaration of need for the Kansas City, Kansas Port Authority consistent with the amended Act, HB 2462, § 2(a); and (2) to adopt a resolution on April 21, 1981, which determined a need for the G.M. project and approved the respondent's proceeding with the G.M. project, such proceeding to include the issuance of bonds by the respondent for the financing thereof. In the foregoing actions the Board of Commissioners implicitly ratified prior actions taken by the Port Authority in approving the G.M. project. Thereafter on the 21st day of April, 1981, the relator and respondent filed a joint motion for rehearing or modification which was granted on April 22, 1981, with leave to parties and amici to file additional briefs. On May 6, 1981, one day prior to the oral argument on rehearing, amici filed a joint motion to intervene which was denied. They were, however, permitted to address the court orally at the rehearing and given extension of time in which to file their briefs.

On rehearing, relator and respondent agree defects in the Port Authorities Act have now been cured; amici continue to contend constitutional infirmity.

After due consideration of the entire record and all issues and arguments presented to the court by the parties and amici, we hold, by a unanimous court, K.S.A....