Stueckemann v. City of Basehor
| Decision Date | 24 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | 105,457. |
| Citation | 301 Kan. 718,348 P.3d 526 |
| Parties | Daniel L. STUECKEMANN and Cathy S. Stueckemann, Trustees of the Stueckemann Living Trust Dated May 13, 2004, and Any Amendments Thereto, and Cedar Lake Association, a Kansas Not–For–Profit Corporation, Appellants, v. The CITY OF BASEHOR, Kansas, A Kansas Municipal Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
James R. Orr, of Westwood, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellants.
Patrick G. Reavey, of Reavey Law LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
This case arises from the City of Basehor's unilateral annexation of Cedar Lake Estates (Estates), a platted subdivision adjoining the City. Daniel L. Stueckemann and Cathy S. Stueckemann, as trustees of the Stueckemann Living Trust, and the Cedar Lake Association (collectively the Stueckemanns) sued the City to invalidate the annexation on numerous grounds. The district court and Court of Appeals rejected all of the Stueckemanns' arguments and upheld the annexation.
On appeal to this court, the Stueckemanns confine their arguments to three distinct issues. Reordered and recast for clarity, the issues, and our accompanying holdings, are as follows:
Accordingly, we affirm the lower courts.
The material facts are undisputed. In December 2008, the City—through its City Council—adopted Resolution No. 2008–15 and Resolution No. 2008–16, which together initiated the unilateral annexation of the Estates. The Estates is a platted residential subdivision of approximately 115 acres that adjoins the City's boundary and is accessible from the City's streets.
The Estates have been served by the City's wastewater treatment plant since 2004 when the Kansas Department of Health and Environment required the Estates to discontinue the use of a sewage lagoon. The landowners in the Estates then entered an agreement with the City for their use of the treatment plant in exchange for paying the City 125% of its ordinary sewage user rates.
The City published the annexation resolutions and a proper notice that it would hold a February 9, 2009, public hearing regarding the proposed annexation as required by K.S.A.2005 Supp. 12–520a. The published resolutions attached a sketch of the area subject to annexation (published sketch).
The City's initial description of the land subject to annexation
As required by Kansas' annexation statutes, the City directly notified numerous parties of its intended annexation. Specifically, the City mailed certain documents to all owners of record of the land subject to the annexation, including Daniel and Cathy Stueckemann. The documents included a notice of the February 9 public hearing, which was captioned “Annexation Proposal Cedar Lakes Subdivision,” and information about the City's plan for the extension of municipal services to the land.
The documents also included three items more specifically identifying the land to be annexed: (1) copies of the City's annexation resolutions containing a legal description; (2) an aerial photograph of the Estates with overlaid lot and boundary lines (GIS map); and (3) a sketch (mailed sketch). The mailed sketch correctly depicts the area subject to annexation. But the resolutions and the GIS map both contain errors in property identification.
Specifically, the legal description in the resolutions erroneously includes Parcel 15.02 for annexation—an unplatted 11.4 acre tract adjacent to the Estates. This error is not repeated in the GIS map or the mailed and published sketches.
While the GIS map correctly excludes Parcel 15.02 in identifying the property to be annexed, the map erroneously excludes Parcel 62. This 2.4 acre parcel near the Cedar Lake dam is an open area within the Estates. No structures may be built there. The published sketch contains the same erroneous omission of Parcel 62. But the mailed sketch and the resolutions correctly include it.
The City's plan for extending municipal services
Before the public meeting on February 9, the City provided residents with details regarding its plan for extending municipal services to the Estates. The two municipal services that the Stueckemanns primarily complain about on appeal are police protection and maintenance of streets and infrastructure.
The City notified residents that the Basehor Police Department would patrol the Estates following the annexation. The City first detailed why it believed the Estates' pre-annexation law enforcement—provided by the Leavenworth County Sheriff—was inadequate. The City then explained its own law enforcement coverage, specifically detailing how the Estates would be patrolled by Basehor police. And the City noted its officers already routinely drove through the Estates when patrolling other outlying subdivisions.
The City also provided residents with information regarding the cost of extending its police protection to the Estates. The City showed its entire annual budget for police protection—$741,101.
This money comes from the City's general fund, which is funded by taxes on property within the City. Based on this aggregate, the City calculated its annual cost for police protection as $123,520 per square mile. Because the Estates subdivision is 0.18 square miles, the City estimated the cost of extending its police protection there to be approximately $22,200 per year.
Similarly, the City's plan for the extension of its municipal services also provides that the City, instead of Leavenworth County, would be responsible for maintaining the Estates' streets and infrastructure after annexation. In its plan, the City first described the county's current road budget and general maintenance standards. It concluded that the county's street maintenance is “inadequate,” based primarily on the county's alleged lack of capacity for maintaining paved and curbed roads like those in the Estates. The City observed many residents of the Estates expressed displeasure at the county's maintenance when it sealed a portion of the paved roads several years previously. Finally, the City also noted the county system was not designed to maintain an enclosed storm drainage system like that found in the Estates.
The City then explained its current street maintenance and repair program, which would cover the Estates after annexation. Excluding a large one-time construction project, the City spent approximately $11,200 annually per mile of roadway. This represents a reduction from the county's annual expenditure per mile of $12,600. Because the Estates has 1.5 miles of streets, the City calculated it would spend approximately $16,800 per year on the Estates' streets. The City also detailed how its maintenance of streets and infrastructure is funded, explaining that property taxes collected from the Estates would help fund these new services. The City further noted it recently undertook a campaign of curb replacement, patching, milling, and overlaying, from which the Estates would benefit.
The City's public hearing and adoption of the annexation ordinance
On February 9, the City held the public hearing on the proposed annexation. More than 50 people attended, including Daniel and Cathy Stueckemann and their attorney. The City's administrator and engineer both made detailed presentations and answered questions about the intended annexation. The presentations included a PowerPoint slide show that comprehensively reiterated the City's plans for the extension of municipal services, including police protection and maintenance of streets and infrastructure. The City also specifically addressed each of the 16 factors a city must consider under K.S.A.2014 Supp. 12–520a(e) in determining the advisability of an annexation.
After the presentations and questions, the City Council received written testimony and heard oral testimony from numerous residents of the Estates. The majority of them opposed annexation. The City Council specifically heard testimony in opposition to the annexation from the Stueckemanns and their attorney. Additionally, Daniel and Cathy Stueckemann's written comments informed the City Council: “Our goal is to prevent this annexation from going forward at all.” Their attorney notified the City Council of its discrepancies in the sketches, GIS map, and legal description of the Estates. At the conclusion of the testimony, and before the public hearing was adjourned, all present were informed that an annexation ordinance would be taken up at the February 17 regular meeting. The City's mailed notice had informed its recipients that a decision on annexation would be made “at a regular city council meeting.”
The next day the City contacted its engineer to address the concerns raised by the Stueckemanns' attorney about the identification discrepancies. After reviewing the sketches, GIS map, and resolutions' legal description, the engineer confirmed the documents were inconsistent. Among other things, he confirmed that the legal description in the resolutions of annexation erroneously included the 11.4 acre Parcel 15.02 and the GIS map erroneously excluded the 2.4 acre Parcel 62. The engineer accordingly deleted Parcel 15.02 to correct the legal description of the Estates, which the City ultimately included in its final ordinance of annexation.
On February 17, the City Council met in a “work session” to discuss, among other matters, the proposed annexation. Immediately following the work session, the Council held its regular meeting, and all present were informed Parcel 15.02 should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodes & Nauser, MDS, P.A. v. Schmidt
...applies the wrong standard, remand for it to apply the correct standard is not always necessary. Cf. Stueckemann v. City of Basehor , 301 Kan. 718, 750-51, 756, 348 P.3d 526 (2015) (affirming district court's inquiry that met expansive concept of reasonableness in test later articulated by ......
-
Bicknell v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue
...law, this court presumes that the Legislature intended to change the law as it existed before the amendment. Stueckemann v. City of Basehor , 301 Kan. 718, 745, 348 P.3d 526 (2015). The position advocated by KDOR here is inconsistent with the new statutory language. KDOR's assertion that th......
-
State v. Kerrigan
...preamendment law.'" The presumption is more persuasive "where the amendment contains a radical change to a statute's phraseology." Stueckemann, 301 Kan. at 745. See also University of Kan. Hosp. Auth. v. Board Comm'rs of Unified Gov't, 301 Kan. 993, 1000, 348 P.3d 602 (2015) (explaining tha......
-
Protect Rural JoCo LLC v. City of Edgerton
... ... rights so much as standing to attack a municipality's ... authority for annexation." Stueckemann v. City of ... Basehor , No. 105,457, 2012 WL 3966521, at *4 (Kan. App ... 2012) (unpublished opinion) (citing Dillon Real Estate ... ...