No to annexation-Legislature

State of Kansas Legislative Issues

Background:

Kansas is one of only a handful of states in the nation that does not allow landowners a voice on involuntary takeover attempts of a city to get them inside their boundaries and increase their tax base.   Last year, we worked with lawmakers to introduce legislation, House Bill (HB) 2747, to modify state statutes to allow the landowners to have a vote before their homes and land were swallowed up by a city desiring additional tax revenue. That bill got impacted with other controversial issues during the session and was defeated by 18 votes in the House.

In 2009, we crafted House Substitute for Senate Bill 51. While it didn't contain everything we wanted, we thought a baby step in our direction was better than ending the session with no bill going to the governor.

Status:

Unfortunately, Governor Parkinson vetoed the bill, House Substitute for SB 51, which included our annexation measure. Below is the veto message from the governor, along with a response from Majority Leader Ray Merrick. We greatly appreciate the unwavering support from Majority Leader Merrick and many members of the Kansas Legislature.

Although this is a setback, during the process, we were pleased we received strong backing in the Kansas House and from the joint committee that worked on the measure (with the exception of one senator). The final bill that went to the governor represented a great compromise on our part, but with time running out in the session, we felt it was important to try to get even a baby step toward what we ultimately want to achieve.

Thanks to everyone who contacted the governor on this measure. We understand the response was huge! Unfortunately, the governor decided to be swayed by a few big city voices instead of the overwhelming voice of the people.

As we begin the 2010 legislative session, please take the time to contact the governor and legislators about the importance of updating Kansas annexation laws. Click on the "Take Action" button above for e-mail contact information.

Governor Parkinson’s Veto message for H Sub SB 51

“The state should not take action that limits the ability of cities to pursue developments that will lead to economic growth, especially during these difficult economic times. Cities in Kansas must have the flexibility to annex property that will allow growth and economic development. Planning for growth in a way that promotes the health, safety and public welfare of its citizens and neighbors also is a fundamental responsibility of cities.

“I support the procedural safeguards for landowners whose property is annexed over their objection that are contained in House Substitute for SB 51. I also support the provisions limiting a city’s future ability to annex a narrow corridor of land to reach a non-contiguous tract of land, and the provisions dealing with rural water districts. I hope the Legislature will focus on these aspects of House Substitute for SB 51 during the next legislative session.

“I am concerned that the provisions in House Substitute for SB 51 that prohibit a city from annexing more than 65 acres of land devoted to agricultural use may prevent cities from growing in ways that would greatly benefit the economy. I have confidence that the current requirement for a county commission to approve a city’s proposed annexation of property in the unincorporated county provides a safeguard from unreasonable annexation attempts.

“Therefore, pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, I veto House Substitute for Senate Bill 51.”

Majority Leader Ray Merrick's response to the Governor's veto of SB 51

"I am very disappointed with the Governor's action on SB 51 today. It is unfortunate that he would override a majority of not just the House and Senate but of all Kansans," said Representative Ray Merrick. "His veto appears to be a move to placate a powerful special interest group and members of the Senate leadership who strongly opposed this bill. This bill was a great compromise that took more than two years to craft. It protected land owners as well as ensured more cost-effective means for cities to expand and annex land and rural water districts. This veto is a defeat to both cities and private property owners.

"Senate Bill 51 passed the House 81-31 and passed the Senate 23-11 on May 8. The bill set forth requirements for cities in unilateral annexation, mainly limiting such annexation of a single property owner to 65 acres or smaller without their consent. The bill also contained language to help ensure city services were delivered to the annexed area as promised in the annexation process. Additionally SB 51 set forth the way cities and rural water districts interact over disputes on annexation. It required cities to go through several steps before moving cases to court where both parties spend scarce resources on lawsuits. This piece of SB 51 would have saved cities significant costs on attorney fees by prescribed mediation procedures found to historically resolve such issues."

We are not done yet:

--We still have the vast majority of House representatives, and most Senators, that want to have more landowner rights in annexations.

--2010 is an election year. Hopefully, voter rights will ring loud and clear. Let your voice be heard by contacting the governor and legislators -- you'll find e-mail contacts by clicking on the "Take Action" button in the upper right hand corner of this page.

--We already have bills in process that we can use to work on getting the voter rights included (e.g. one related to the Homestead Act).

The Issues:

Areas that need to be addressed in Kansas statutes include:

--If an unincorporated area wants to incorporate into a city, it requires a unanimous approval from county commissioners vs. a simple majority approval required for a city to annex an unincorporated area.
--Neither incorporation nor annexation statutes provide for a vote of the people on what they want done with their homes and land.
--The statutes require the county commissioners to sit in a quasi-judicial process and determine manifest injury although these terms are not well defined, and are not followed by commissioners.
--All the burden of proof is on the individual citizens who have no representation in the process.
--County commissioners must determine if the annexation will result in manifest injury to citizens, but just what classifies as manifest injury is not defined anywhere in state statute, so commissioners just have to guess at what it means.
--Annexation statutes require a 5-year review of previous annexations, yet when they are not done, there is no repercussion.
--In Johnson County, over 98% of the residents were opposed to a recent forced Overland Park annexation, but under current law, it didn’t matter.
--In a democracy, citizens should certainly have a choice where they live.

Let us have a voice!