Kansas Attorney General Opinion 2014-013

July 28, 2014
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2014- 13
Jeffrey A. Chubb, General Counsel
Independence Community College
204 E. Laurel
P.O. Box 747
Independence, KS 67301-0747
Re: 	Schools-Community 	Colleges—Attachment 	of 	Territory—Territory
Attachment; Elections, When; Limitations and Approvals
Synopsis: 	An area that is currently included in a community college district may not
be removed or transferred from such district. 	Territory that may be added
to a community college district pursuant to K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 71-1201 is
territory 	that 	is 	not 	already 	included 	within 	the 	territory 	of 	another
community college district. Cited herein: K.S.A. 71-120; 71-702; 71-1101;
71-1102; 71-1103; K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 71-1201; K.S.A. 71-1301; 72-7101;
Kan. Const., Art. 6, § 1.
* 	* 	*
Dear Mr. Chubb:
As general counsel for Independence Community College, you request our opinion
regarding whether a community college may pursuant to K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 71-1201
annex or add additional territory to its taxing district when such territory is already in the
taxing district of another community college and, if so, whether the annexed territory is
automatically dropped from the first district or is subsequently included in both districts.
In addressing the issues you present, we initially review whether an area that is
included in the territory of a community college district may be removed or transferred to
the territory of another community college district and then determine whether an area
that is included in the territory of a community college district may pursuant to K.S.A.
2013 Supp. 71-1201 be added to the territory of another community college district.

Jeffrey A. Chubb
Page 2
The Kansas Supreme Court “has uniformly held that the power to create municipal or
quasipublic corporations is a legislative power and that its exercise is a function of the
legislature.” 1 “The power to create municipal corporations, including the power to
designate their boundaries and to increase or to decrease their corporate limits, is
purely 	legislative-it 	is 	not 	a 	part 	of 	either 	the 	executive 	or 	judicial 	branch 	of
government.”2
“A community college is a statutory creation whose actions are limited by the content of
those statutes.”3 Such a subdivision of the state has only such powers as are conferred
upon it by statute, specifically or by clear implication, and any reasonable doubt as to
the existence of such power should be resolved against its existence. 4
The taxing district of a community college is referred to in state statute as the
“community college district.”5 The procedure for establishing a community college
district is set forth in K.S.A. 71-1101 et seq. 	The procedure requires that a community
college district be comprised of at least all of the territory of the petitioning school district
or all of one county. 6 The statutes also provide for adding territory to a community
college district following submission of a petition by the board of education of a unified
school district or board of trustees of a community college. 7 Further, “the boards of
trustees of any two (2) or more community college districts are hereby authorized to
enter 	into 	agreements 	to 	form 	one 	consolidated 	community 	college 	district.”8 A
procedure for transferring territory from one unified school district to another is set out in
K.S.A. 72-7101 et seq. 	However, a community college is statutorily excepted from
utilizing those provisions. 9
We have been unable to locate any other statutory procedure that expressly addresses
removing territory from a community college district or transferring territory from one
community college district to another. 	We likewise do not believe the authority to
remove or transfer territory is clearly implied in the statutes that address establishing or
consolidating community college districts or adding territory to a community college
district. 	An area that is currently included in a community college district may not be
removed or transferred from such district.
1 State ex rel. Jordan v. City of Overland Park, 215 Kan. 700, 706 (1974).
2 State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, 264 Kan. 293,
301 (1998), quoting Taylor v. City of Augusta, 120 Kan. 42, 50 (1926).
3 Attorney General Opinion No. 2011-004.
4 Hobart v. Bd. of Education of U.S.D. No. 309, 230 Kan. 375, 383 (1981), quoting State ex rel. v. Rural
High School Dist. No. 7, 171 Kan. 437, Syl. ¶ 1 (1951).
5 K.S.A. 71-701(e).
6 K.S.A. 71-1102(a).
7 K.S.A. 71-1201.
8 K.S.A. 71-1301.
9 See K.S.A. 72-7101(a) (“‘District’ means any school district except a community junior college”).

Jeffrey A. Chubb
Page 3
We then determine whether an area that is included in one community college district
may be added to the territory of another community college district, thereby placing the
area in two districts.
K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 71-1201 provides the two procedures for adding territory to a
community college district:
(a) The board of education of any unified district a part of which is in the
community college district or which touches and adjoins a community
college district may petition the state board for attachment of the territory
of such unified district to the community college district for community
college purposes. . . .
(b) Any board of trustees may petition the state board for the attachment
of any adjoining territory to the community college district. . . .10
In determining whether an area currently located in a community college district may be
added to a different community college district, it is necessary to determine the meaning
of “territory.”
The most fundamental rule of statutory interpretation and construction is
that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.
We 	first 	attempt 	to 	ascertain 	legislative 	intent 	through 	the 	statutory
language enacted, giving common words their ordinary meanings. 	When
a statute is plain and unambiguous, we do not speculate as to the
legislative intent behind it and will not read into the statute something not
readily found in it. 	Where there is no ambiguity, we need not resort to
statutory construction. 	Only if the statute's language or text is unclear or
ambiguous do we use canons of construction or legislative history or other
background considerations to construe the legislature's intent. 	In doing
so, we may look to the historical background of the enactment, the
circumstances attending its passage, the purpose to be accomplished,
and the effect the statute may have under the various constructions
suggested. 	We cannot delete provisions or supply omissions in a statute.
No matter what the legislature may have really intended to do, if it did not
in fact do it, under any reasonable interpretation of the language used, the
defect is one that the legislature alone can correct. 11
Since adoption of the Kansas Constitution, the Kansas Legislature has been obligated
to provide for intellectual, educational and scientific improvement of the citizenry, initially
“by establishing a uniform system of common schools, and schools of a higher grade,
embracing normal, preparatory, collegiate and university departments,”12 and then “by
10 Emphasis added.
11 State v. Prine, 297 Kan. 460, 474-75 (2013) (internal citations omitted).
12 Kan. Const., Art. 6, § 3 (Wyandotte Constitution).

Jeffrey A. Chubb
Page 4
establishing 	and 	maintaining 	public 	schools, 	educational 	institutions 	and 	related
activities. . . .”13 As a means of meeting this obligation, the Legislature early on
authorized boards of education of cities of the first and second classes and boards of
trustees of county high schools to “provide for an extension of the high-school course of
study by establishing for high-school graduates a two-year course in advance of the
course prescribed for accredited high schools” 14 that is “approximately equivalent to the
course of study in the first and second years of accredited colleges.”15 The authority to
establish such a program, “commonly known as [a] junior college,” was extended to a
“board of directors” of other qualifying school districts in 1937. 16 It appears that no
school district extended beyond the boundaries of one county so the taxing district of a
junior college consisted of one county or an area within one county. 17 Some territory in
the state was not included in any school district and thereby was not paying any school
taxes. 18
Following adoption of the Unified School District Act of 1963, “all areas of the state
[were] included in school districts.” 19 The resulting school districts in some instances
included territory from multiple counties.
As school unification was proceeding, the Community Junior College Act20 was enacted.
The 	act 	required 	preparation 	of 	a 	state 	plan 	that 	established 	not 	more 	than 	22
community junior college areas. 21 Any existing junior college would, after submission of
a petition to the state superintendent, be deemed a community junior college. 22 Any
one or more interested school districts could petition for establishment of a community
junior college within its or their community junior college area. 23 The act established
minimum standards for the taxable property valuation of the proposed community junior
college district and “potential student attendance volume within commuting distance in
the area.”24 Governance of any junior college was thereafter transferred from a school
district to an elected board of trustees. 25 The act provided the manner for determining
“the territory of the community junior college district”26 and precluded the inclusion of
any land area into more than one community junior college district. 27 The act then set
out the procedures through which territory could be added to a community junior college
13 Kan. Const., Art. 6, § 1.
14 L. 1917, ch. 283, § 1, codified at K.S.A. 72-3301 (repealed).
15 L. 1917, ch. 283, § 3, codified at K.S.A. 72-3303 (repealed).
16 L. 1937, ch. 302, § 1, codified at K.S.A. 72-3307 (repealed).
17 See Bd. of Trustees of Butler County Community College v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Sedgwick
County, 257 Kan. 468, 475 (1995).
18 Hobart, 230 Kan. at 379.
19 L. 1963, ch. 393, § 1.
20 L. 1965, ch. 417, §§ 1 – 16
21 L. 1965, ch. 417, § 7(a), codified at K.S.A. 71-1003 (repealed).
22 L. 1965, ch. 417, § 10(d), codified at K.S.A. 71-1103.
23 L. 1965, ch. 417, § 8(a) codified at K.S.A. 71-1101.
24 L. 1965, ch. 417, § 9, codified at K.S.A. 71-1102.
25 L. 1965, ch. 417, § 13, codified at K.S.A. 72-6913 (repealed).
26 L. 1965, ch. 417, § 10(e), codified at K.S.A. 71-1103.
27 L. 1965, ch. 417, § 10(e), codified at K.S.A. 71-1103.

Jeffrey A. Chubb
Page 5
district.28 This provision, which was codified at K.S.A. 71-1201, authorized the board of
education of any unified district “a part of which is in the community junior college
district or which touches and adjoins” a community junior college district to “petition . . .
for attachment of the territory of such unified district to the community junior college
district for junior college purposes.” 	The boundaries of a community junior college
district could then be the same as those of a school district that included land area in
more than one county. 	Likewise, the board of trustees of a community junior college
could “petition . . . for the attachment of any adjoining territory to the community junior
college 	district.” 29 Reading 	the 	provisions 	of 	the 	Community 	Junior 	College 	Act
together, it is clear that the “territory” referred to in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 71-1201 was
territory that was not already included in another community junior college district.
Two years later, the “Community Junior College Election Act” 30 was enacted. 	Part of
that act included repealing the provision in K.S.A. 71-1103 that expressly precluded the
inclusion of an area in more than one community junior college district.31 However, the
minimum standards for the taxable property valuation and potential student attendance
volume remained in effect, as did the limitation in the number of community junior
college areas. We do not believe the repeal of this prohibition represented a change in
legislative intent because, as a creature of statute, a community college can only act as
authorized by the content of those statutes.32
In 1980, the Community College Act 33 was enacted, resulting in the amendment of over
50 statutes. 	Every public community junior college was thereafter designated a
community college. 34 The act continued the minimum standards for taxable property
valuation and potential student attendance volume and to recognize a state plan that
included division of the state into not more than 22 community college areas. 35 K.S.A.
71-1201 was amended only as needed to change references from “community junior
college” to “community college.” 36
The state plan for community colleges was no longer effective after July 1, 2000. 37
Amendments to K.S.A. 71-1201 in 1999 and 2011, however, did not affect the original
intent of the statute. 	Territory that may be added to a community college district
pursuant to K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 71-1201 is territory that is not already included within the
territory of another community college district.
28 See L. 1965, ch. 417, § 11, codified at K.S.A. 71-1201.
29 Id.
30 L. 1967, ch. 407, §§ 1 – 18.
31 See L. 1967, ch. 407, § 17.
32 See Kelly v. Kansas City, 231 Kan. 751, 758-59 (1982). 	Because the power of agencies that are
creatures of statute is dependent on statutes, “they must find within the statute warrant for the exercise of
any authority which they claim.”
33 L. 1980, ch. 207, § 48, codified as K.S.A. 71-702.
34 L. 1980, ch. 207, § 1, codified at K.S.A. 71-120.
35 L. 1980, ch. 207, § 52, codified at K.S.A. 71-1003 (repealed).
36 L. 1980, ch. 207, § 61.
37 See L. 2000, ch. 86, § 7(e).

Jeffrey A. Chubb
Page 6
In summary, we conclude that an area that is currently included in a community college
district may not be removed or transferred from such district. 	Territory that may be
added to a community college district pursuant to K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 71-1201 is territory
that is not already included within the territory of another community college district.
Sincerely,
Derek Schmidt
Attorney General
Richard D. Smith
Assistant Attorney General
DS:AA:RDS:sb