12-520c.
Annexation of land not adjoining city, when; resolution to county commissioners; findings by board spread upon journal; effect; appeals to district court.
(a) The governing body of any city may by ordinance annex land not adjoining the city if the following conditions exist:
(1) The land is located within the same county as the city;
(2) the owner or owners of the land petition for or consent in writing to the annexation of the land; and
(3) the board of county commissioners of the county, by a ⅔ vote of the members thereof, find and determine that the annexation of the land will not hinder or prevent the proper growth and development of the area or that of any other incorporated city located within the county.
(b) No land adjoining any land annexed by any city under the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be adjoining the city for the purpose of annexation under any other act or section of this act until the adjoining land or the land annexed under this section shall adjoin the remainder of the city by reason of the annexation of the intervening territory.
(c) Whenever the governing body of any city deems it advisable to annex land under the provisions of this section, the governing body shall by resolution request the board of county commissioners of the county to make a finding as required under subsection (a)(3). The city clerk shall file a certified copy of the resolution with the board of county commissioners who shall, within 30 days following the receipt of the resolution, make findings and notify the governing body of the city of the board's decision.
Any owner or city aggrieved by the decision of the board of county commissioners may appeal from the decision of such board to the district court of the county in the manner and method set forth in K.S.A. 19-223, and amendments thereto. Any city so appealing shall not be required to execute the bond prescribed therein.
History:
L. 1974, ch. 56, § 5; L. 2015, ch. 91, § 2; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 660 P.2d 1368 (Kan. 1983).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 12-520c governs the procedure for annexation of land not adjoining the city.”
Baggett v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Douglas, 266 P.3d 549 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 7× “The property does not adjoin the contiguous boundaries of the City, and therefore the proposed annexation constitutes an island annexation pursuant to K.S.A. 12-520c. Before the annexation request, the property was undeveloped agricultural property used as pastureland and was…”
Cedar Creek Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 789 P.2d 1170 (Kan. 1990).
· cites it 20× “We call upon statutory construction concepts in dealing with this issue of first impression: the interpretation of K.S.A. 12-520c. *413 The case is before us on a petition for review from the Court of Appeals decision in Cedar Creek Properties, Inc.”
City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 620 P.2d 1153 (Kan. 1980).
· cites it 2× “The subject matter of annexation of land not adjoining the city is covered by K.S.A. 12-520c. That section provides as follows: “12-520c.”
Cedar Creek Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 779 P.2d 463 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 8× “On June 14, 1988, Holland asked the City to annex Holland’s 328 acres pursuant to K.S.A. 12-520c, which authorizes a city to annex land not adjoining the city limits (island annexation) upon petition or by consent of the owner of the land.”
Baggett v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 266 P.3d 549 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 7× “The property does not adjoin the contiguous boundaries of the City, and therefore the proposed annexation constitutes an island annexation pursuant to K.S.A. 12-520c. Before the annexation request, tire property was undeveloped agricultural property used as pastureland and was…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Mulvane, 227 P.3d 997 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “The Board claimed the ordinances were unlawful because the City circumvented K.S.A. 12-520c, which governs “island annexations” or annexations of land not adjoining the City and required Board approval.”
In re City of Kansas City, 856 P.2d 144 (1993).
· cites it 2× “Cedar Creek, contrary to the case at bar, involved “island annexation” under K.S.A. 12-520c. A limestone quarry was the intended use for the area to be annexed.”
Bd. v. City of Mulvane, 227 P.3d 997 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “The Board claimed the ordinances were unlawful because the City circumvented K.S.A. 12-520c, which governs "island annexations" or annexations of land not adjoining the City and required Board approval.”
— K.S.A. § 12-520c(a) — 1 case
Cedar Creek Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 789 P.2d 1170 (Kan. 1990).
“We call upon statutory construction concepts in dealing with this issue of first impression: the interpretation of K.S.A. 12-520c. *413 The case is before us on a petition for review from the Court of Appeals decision in Cedar Creek Properties, Inc.”
— K.S.A. § 12-520c(a)(3) — 3 cases
Cedar Creek Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 789 P.2d 1170 (Kan. 1990).
“We call upon statutory construction concepts in dealing with this issue of first impression: the interpretation of K.S.A. 12-520c. *413 The case is before us on a petition for review from the Court of Appeals decision in Cedar Creek Properties, Inc.”
Cedar Creek Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 779 P.2d 463 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
“On June 14, 1988, Holland asked the City to annex Holland’s 328 acres pursuant to K.S.A. 12-520c, which authorizes a city to annex land not adjoining the city limits (island annexation) upon petition or by consent of the owner of the land.”
— K.S.A. § 12-520c(b) — 1 case
Cedar Creek Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 789 P.2d 1170 (Kan. 1990).
“We call upon statutory construction concepts in dealing with this issue of first impression: the interpretation of K.S.A. 12-520c. *413 The case is before us on a petition for review from the Court of Appeals decision in Cedar Creek Properties, Inc.”
— K.S.A. § 12-520c(c) — 4 cases
Cedar Creek Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 789 P.2d 1170 (Kan. 1990).
“We call upon statutory construction concepts in dealing with this issue of first impression: the interpretation of K.S.A. 12-520c. *413 The case is before us on a petition for review from the Court of Appeals decision in Cedar Creek Properties, Inc.”
Cedar Creek Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 779 P.2d 463 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
“On June 14, 1988, Holland asked the City to annex Holland’s 328 acres pursuant to K.S.A. 12-520c, which authorizes a city to annex land not adjoining the city limits (island annexation) upon petition or by consent of the owner of the land.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.