Kansas Attorney General Opinion 1992-032

ROBERT T. STEPHAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
March 4, 1992
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 92- 32
Robert A. Beall
City Attorney
117 Cherokee
P.O. Box 69
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048
Re: Cities and Municipalities--Buildings, Structures
and Grounds; Redevelopment of Central Business
District Areas--Procedure to Establish District
Synopsis: The city of Leavenworth has pursuant to K.S.A.
12-1770 et seq. properly established a
redevelopment district. Resolutions passed by the
Leavenworth board of county commissioners failed
to meet statutory requirements and are of no legal
effect and cannot prevent the establishment of such
a district. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-1770; 12-1771.
*
Dear Mr. Beall:
As attorney for the city of Leavenworth, Kansas you inquire
about the proper statutory procedures to be followed when
establishing a redevelopment district pursuant to K.S.A.
12-1770 et seq.
You inform us that the city, after a public hearing held
January 8, 1991, passed a resolution making the findings
required by K.S.A. 12-1771 and adopted an ordinance
establishing a redevelopment district. You indicate that the
district property was not subject to ad valorem taxes at any

time during the period that the public hearing was conducted
or the resolutions and ordinances were passed.
On March 14, 1991, pursuant to K.S.A. 12-1772(f), the
Leavenworth board of county commissioners adopted resolution
1991-8 finding the redevelopment plan adverse to the interests
of the county. On November 26, 1991 the city adopted
ordinance no. 7077 approving an amended redevelopment plan for
the district. Thereafter, the Leavenworth county board of
commissioners adopted resolution no. 1991-55 again finding the
plan inimical to the interests of the county.
You inquire whether the county's initial resolution, adopted
March 14, 1991, has any legal effect on the city's plans for a
redevelopment district, and what, if any, effect the county's
second resolution adopted after the city's second public
hearing, has on the amended redevelopment plan.
K.S.A. 12-1771 sets forth the procedures a city must comply
with in order to establish a redevelopment district, including
the adoption of a resolution stating that the city is
considering establishment of such a district, giving notice of
a public hearing and describing the boundaries. K.S.A.
12-1771(e) provides that upon the conclusion of the hearing
the governing body may adopt a resolution making the findings
required and may establish the district by ordinance. The
city appears to have complied with all the applicable
provisions of the statute relating to the establishment of the
district.
To answer your first question, what effect, if any, the
county's resolution has on the city's redevelopment plan, we
examine K.S.A. 12-1771(f) which states:
"(f) No privately owned property subject
to ad valorem taxes shall be acquired and
redeveloped under the provisions of
K.S.A. 12-1770 et seq., and amendments
thereto, if the board of county
commissioners or the board of education
levying taxes on such property determines
by resolution adopted within 30 days
following the conclusion of the hearing
for the establishment of the redevelopment
district required by subsection (d) that
the proposed redevelopment district will
have an adverse effect on such county or
school district." (Emphasis added).

The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the
purpose and intent governs when that intent can be ascertained
from the statute and that where the language of a statute is
plain and unambiguous the court must give effect to the
intention of the legislature as expressed. Johnson v.
McArthur, 226 Kan. 128 (1979). The statute clearly
states "no privately owned property subject to ad valorem
taxes shall be acquired and redeveloped . . . if the board of
county commissioners . . . determines by resolution adopted
within 30 days . . . that the . . . district will have an
adverse effect or such county. . . ."
The property was not privately owned and not subject to ad
valorem taxes at any time during the proceedings establishing
the district including the January 8, 1991 public hearing
after which the resolution and ordinance were passed. The
county was, therefore, without authority to intervene in the
city's plans for a redevelopment district. Even in the event
the county did have authority to adopt a resolution preventing
redevelopment of the district, the statute clearly specifies
the county must take action and adopt such a resolution within
30 days of the January 8, 1991 hearing. The county's
resolution, adopted March 14, 1991, 65 days after the public
hearing, does not comply with the statutory time period
specified in K.S.A. 12-1771(f) and for this reason as well,
the resolution would have no legal effect.
The county's second resolution, no. 1991-55, following the
city's second public hearing to amend the plan, is likewise of
no legal consequence since the county was without authority to
act on the city's first plan. In our opinion the second
public hearing is a continuation of the original proceedings
to establish the redevelopment district and does not not begin
a new time period.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT T. STEPHAN
Attorney General of Kansas
Rebecca E. Floyd
Assistant Attorney General
RTS:JLM:REF:jm