Kansas Attorney General Opinion 2013-002

January 2, 2013
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2013-2
John McNish, City Attorney
City of Blue Rapids
c/o Bolton & McNish, LLC
916 Broadway, P.O. Box 386
Marysville, Kansas 66508-0386
Re: 	Cities and Municipalities—General Provisions—Collection of Certain
Unpaid Special Assessments; Action in District Court for Debt
Cities and Municipalities—Buildings, Structures and Grounds—Unsafe or
Dangerous Structures and Abandoned Property
Synopsis: 	K.S.A. 12-1,115 authorizes a city to both levy a special assessment and
file a civil action to collect the demolition costs from the property owner of
an unsafe and dangerous structure. 	Furthermore, a city is not required to
remit to the county any amount recovered in a lawsuit to recoup the
moneys expended to remove or raze the unsafe or dangerous structure.
Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-1,115; K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 12-1755; and 79-2015.
* 	* 	*
Dear Mr. McNish:
As City Attorney for the City of Blue Rapids, you state that the City condemned a
specific residential structure as unsafe and dangerous and followed all necessary
procedures to raze the structure, fill the basement, grade the lot and re-seed the grass. 1
You state the costs were paid for with money from the general fund of the City and refer
to these costs as demolition costs. 	The City sought collection of the demolition costs
1 We have assumed, therefore, that the requirements of K.S.A. 12-1750 et seq. have been met.

John McNish, City Attorney
Page 2
from the owner of the property in accordance with the city ordinance and state law. 2
The 	City 	Clerk 	certified 	to 	the 	County 	Clerk 	the 	demolition 	costs 	as 	a 	special
assessment against the property to be added on the tax rolls. 3 Subsequently, the City
of Blue Rapids was able to locate the owner of the property and filed a lawsuit pursuant
to K.S.A. 12-1,115 to collect the costs incurred by the City. 	The City recovered a
substantial 	amount 	of 	the 	demolition 	costs 	incurred 	to 	remove 	the 	unsafe 	and
dangerous structure in the settlement of the lawsuit.
You ask for our opinion on whether the City can pursue a civil action to recover the
demolition costs in the district court after having certified the demolition costs as a
special assessment that is added to the tax rolls by the County Clerk. You also ask
whether any amount recovered in the lawsuit should be remitted to the County for
distribution with the other taxing jurisdictions because the City certified the special
assessment to be included on the tax roll.
Regarding your first question on whether both options can be utilized by a city to collect
the demolition costs, we found that on January 16, 1985, Attorney General Robert
Stephan issued an opinion that concluded K.S.A. 79-2015 4 does not authorize a city to
collect special assessments5 in the same manner as a personal debt of the property
owner. 6 Less than a month later, on February 13, 1985, Senate Bill 76 received a
hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government. 	The bill sought “legislative
authorization of an alternative procedure for recovering the cities’ expenses and costs
as a result of undertaking the abatement of public nuisances” 7 similar to K.S.A. 79-
2015. Under the bill, a civil lawsuit could only be filed after the city sells all salvageable
material and exhausts all insurance proceeds before beginning such actions to recover
the remaining debt to the city. 	The new section of Senate Bill 76 became K.S.A. 12-
1,115. 8
K.S.A. 12-1,115 provides in relevant part:
If any special assessments levied by the city in accordance with K.S.A.
12-1617e, 9 12-1617f 10 or 12-1755, 11 and amendments thereto, remain
2 Blue Rapids, Kansas, Municipal Code § 4-609 (1999); K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 12-1755(b).
3 K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 12-1755(b).
4 This statute provides that the taxes, fees, interest and penalties, levied and assessed by any state law
administered by the Secretary of Revenue may be collected in the same manner as a personal debt of
the taxpayer to the State of Kansas.
5 A “special assessment” differs from general taxes in that it can be levied only on land and is based
entirely on benefits conferred. State Highway Commission v. City of Topeka, 193 Kan. 335, 393 (1964).
6 Attorney General Opinion No. 85-5.
7 Minutes, Attachment 1, Senate Committee on Local Government, February 13, 1985.
8 L. 1985, Ch. 73, Sec. 4.
9 This statute provides for removal or abatement of nuisances within the city, including rank grass, weeds
or other vegetation, and motor vehicles on private property.
10 This statute provides for the cutting or destruction of all weeds on land within the city.

John McNish, City Attorney
Page 3
unpaid for a period of one year or more after their initial levy, the city may
collect the amount due in the same manner as a personal debt of the
property owner to the city by bringing an action in the district court of the
county in which the city is located….The city may pursue collection both
by levying a special assessment and in the manner provided by this
section, but only until the full cost and any applicable interest has been
paid in full. 12
A plain reading of the first sentence in the statute leads to the conclusion that a city is
required to levy a special assessment against the lot or parcel of ground, 13 the lot or
piece of land, 14 or the unsafe or dangerous structure15 before it is authorized to file a
civil lawsuit to collect costs as a personal debt. 16 In fact, a city has to wait at least a
year before it is authorized by the statute to proceed with a civil lawsuit to collect such
costs.17 Additionally, 	a 	plain 	reading 	of 	the 	last 	sentence 	in 	the 	statute 	clearly
authorizes a city, in its discretion, to pursue both a special assessment and a civil
lawsuit. 	The only limitation on this discretion is that once the debt is satisfied, a city
must cease its collection efforts by either method. It is worth noting that the statute
authorizing special assessments contains the same plain language.18
The question that remains is whether a city must remit any amount recovered from the
lawsuit to a county. K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 12-1755(c) provides, “All moneys received from
special assessments levied under the provisions of this section or from an action under
K.S.A. 12-1,115, and amendments thereto, when and if paid, shall be placed in the
general fund of the city.” 	There is no additional language in the statute that provides
instruction on the distribution of the moneys after the deposit. 	Therefore, a city, by the
plain reading of the statute, does not have to remit moneys to a county for demolition
costs recovered. 19 However, a city is not relieved of the responsibility of notifying the
county clerk that the special assessment has been recovered.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude K.S.A. 12-1,115 authorizes a city to both
levy a special assessment and file a civil action to collect the demolition costs from the
property owner of an unsafe and dangerous structure. 	Furthermore, a city is not
11 This statute provides for the razing and removal of unsafe or dangerous structures and abandoned
property, and it is the statute relied on by the City in this instance to levy the special assessment against
the owner.
12 Emphasis added.
13 K.S.A. 12-1617e.
14 K.S.A. 12-1617f.
15 K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 12-1755.
16
Note that ordinarily, a tax is not “debt” and a civil action will not lie for its recovery except where a
statute confers the right to bring such action. Hampton v. City of Wichita, 192 Kan. 534, 536-37 (1964).
17
K.S.A. 12-1,115; See Also Minutes, Senate Committee on Local Government, February 20, 1985.
18 See K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 12-1755. (“The city may pursue collection both by levying a special assessment
and in the manner provided by K.S.A. 12-1,115, and amendments thereto, but only until the full cost and
any applicable interest has been paid in full.”).
19 Note that K.S.A. 12-1617e and 12-1617f do not have equivalent language.

John McNish, City Attorney
Page 4
required to remit to the county any amount recovered in a lawsuit to recoup the moneys
expended to remove or raze the unsafe or dangerous structure.
Sincerely,
Derek Schmidt
Attorney General
Athena E. Andaya
Deputy Attorney General
DS:AA:sb