Ullrich v. Board of County Com'rs of Thomas County, s. 55684
| Decision Date | 13 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | 55685,Nos. 55684,s. 55684 |
| Parties | Robert E. ULLRICH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THOMAS COUNTY, KS.; Jimmy Nickel, Chairman; Vera Sloan, Member and Ernest Kistler, Member; and the Thomas County Hospital Ass'n., A Kansas Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. Robert E. ULLRICH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy NICKEL, Vera Sloan, and Ernest Kistler, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under the 1974 version of Article 2, Section 17, of the Kansas Constitution, the enactment of special legislation by the Kansas legislature is no longer prohibited by that section. The Kansas legislature has the authority to enact special legislation applicable to a single county without the legislation being subject to attack under the provisions of Article 2, Section 17, as special legislation.
2. The only legislation now prohibited by Article 2, Section 17, of the Kansas Constitution, is legislation of a general nature which does not operate with geographical uniformity throughout the state.
3. The Thomas County Hospital Assets Transfer Act (K.S.A.1982 Supp. 19-18,133 and 19-18,134) is not in violation of Article 2, Section 17, of the Kansas Constitution.
4. The government may accomplish a public purpose through the means of a private agency, a private individual or individuals, or a private corporation. It is the ultimate object to be obtained which must determine whether a thing is a public or a private purpose.
5. The Thomas County Hospital Assets Transfer Act (K.S.A.1982 Supp. 19-18,133 and 19-18,134), which authorizes the board of county commissioners of Thomas County to transfer county hospital assets to the Thomas County Hospital Association, is for a public purpose and does not violate Section 2 of the Kansas Bill of Rights.
Zackery E. Reynolds, of Fisher, Ochs & Heck, P.A., Topeka, argued the cause, and Robert D. Ochs, Topeka, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Ronald S. Shalz, of Shalz, Taylor, Schiffner & Gatz, Colby, argued the cause, and John D. Gatz, Colby, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for defendant-appellant, Thomas County Hosp. Ass'n.
T.J. Carney, of Turner & Boisseau, Chartered, Great Bend, argued the cause, and Casey R. Law, Great Bend, of the same firm, was on the brief for defendants-appellants, Bd. of County Com'rs of Thomas County, Kan., Jimmy Nickel, Chairman Vera Sloan, Member, and Ernest Kistler, Member.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Robert E. Ullrich, a Thomas County taxpayer, to enjoin the transfer of assets of the Thomas County hospital by the Board of County Commissioners of Thomas County to a private nonprofit corporation, the defendant, Thomas County Hospital Association (TCHA). In a separate action, plaintiff also sued the individual county commissioners to recover the value of all assets previously transferred to the hospital association. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in both cases, and the plaintiff has appealed.
The primary issue in the case is the constitutionality of the Thomas County Hospital Assets Transfer Act (K.S.A.1982 Supp. 19-18,133 and 19-18,134). The facts are essentially undisputed and are as follows: Since 1976, there has been a dispute among the citizens of Thomas County over whether to build a new hospital. Two earlier cases before this court have addressed other phases of the controversy. In Thomas County Taxpayers Ass'n v. Finney, 223 Kan. 434, 573 P.2d 1073 (1978), it was determined that the statute on the authority of which bonds were to be issued to construct a new hospital by the county was not applicable and did not allow for the issuance of the proposed bonds. Later in Pratt v. Board of Thomas County Commissioners, 226 Kan. 333, 597 P.2d 664 (1979), it was held that the county commissioners had no authority to issue and sell general obligation bonds, because there was no properly issued certificate of need as required by K.S.A. 19-18,128. Being unsuccessful in satisfying the legal requirements for construction of a publicly owned and financed county hospital, a group of citizens formed the Thomas County Hospital Association, a private nonprofit corporation. The objective was to have TCHA construct its own hospital and have the county transfer all of the assets owned by the old county hospital to TCHA.
The defendant county commissioners then sought the aid of the legislature to obtain statutory authority to transfer the hospital assets to TCHA. In 1981, the Kansas legislature enacted K.S.A. 19-18,132, which was designed to give the county commissioners authority to transfer the assets of the hospital. K.S.A. 19-18,132 provided as follows:
It should be noted that the statute was worded in the language of so-called bracket legislation by making the statute applicable to "any county having a population of more than 8,000 and less than 9,000 and an assessed tangible valuation of more than $55,000,000 and less than $58,000,000 and in which is located a county hospital which is to close and terminate its operations pursuant to an election held in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 19-18,130 and 19-18,131 ...." K.S.A. 19-18,132 required an election and prior approval of the transfer by a majority of the voters in the county.
On April 7, 1981, a county election was held in Thomas County, and the transfer of hospital assets was approved by a majority of the voters. Thereafter, the plaintiff reached the conclusion that the assessed tangible valuation of Thomas County was greater than the $58,000,000 limitation provided for in the statute and questioned whether or not the statute could be applicable to Thomas County. Plaintiff then brought the first of these two consolidated lawsuits to challenge the transfer of hospital assets from Thomas County to TCHA. While the action was pending, the 1982 legislature enacted the Thomas County Hospital Assets Transfer Act (K.S.A.1982 Supp. 19-18,133 and 19-18,134) which provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Tomasic v. Kansas City
...a private entity may consist, at least in part, of the public benefit which flows from the transfer. See Ullrich v. Board of Thomas County Comm'rs, 234 Kan. 782, 676 P.2d 127 (1984). Relator also asserts that the Joint Port Authority lacks the authority to convey its interest in the project......
-
State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan.
...a valid public use, and what may be considered a valid public use or purpose changes over time. Ullrich v. Board of Thomas County Comm'rs, 234 Kan. 782, 789, 676 P.2d 127 (1984). Further, this court has noted that as long as a governmental action is designed to fulfill a public purpose, the......
-
Bonner Springs Unified School v. Blue Valley Unified School, No. 90,656 (KS 8/13/2004)
...expenditures, including donations of public property to private concerns. See Crow, 243 Kan. at 290; Ullrich v. Board of Thomas County Commr's, 234 Kan. 782, 788-90, 676 P.2d 127 (1984); Hackler v. Board of County Commissioners, 189 Kan. 697, 698, 369 P.2d 782 (1962). Given the adoption by ......
-
Duckworth v. City of Kansas City, 61421
...of governmental agencies to issue economic assistance requires us to reject plaintiffs' contention. In Ullrich v. Board of Thomas County Comm'rs, 234 Kan. 782, 676 P.2d 127 (1984), this court recognized that, as a general rule, the state legislature may appropriate public money for private ......