K.S.A. » Chapter 12
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 12-6a04 (2026)

Initiation of improvement; notice and hearing, when; resolution determining advisability of

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-6a04. Initiation of improvement; notice and hearing, when; resolution determining advisability of. (a) Before any contract is let or any work is ordered or authorized for an improvement, the governing body shall by resolution direct and order a public hearing on the advisability of the improvement. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e), notice of the hearing shall be given by not less than two publications in a newspaper. The two publications shall be a week apart and at least three days shall elapse between the last publication and the hearing. Notice shall be given as to:

(1) Time and place of hearing;

(2) general nature of the proposed improvements;

(3) the estimated or probable cost;

(4) extent of the proposed improvement district to be assessed;

(5) the proposed method of assessment; and

(6) proposed apportionment of cost, if any, between the improvement district and the city at large. The hearing may be adjourned from time to time and until the governing body shall have made findings by resolution as to the advisability of the improvement, the nature of the improvement, the estimated cost, the boundaries of the improvement district, the method of assessment and the apportionment of cost, if any, between the district and the city at large, all as finally determined by the governing body, except that the area of the improvement district to be assessed may be less than, but shall not exceed, the area proposed to be assessed as stated in the notice of hearing without giving notice and holding a new hearing on the improvement. The governing body may proceed without such notice and hearing, to make findings by resolution as to the advisability of improvements as provided in this section whenever the proceedings are to improve sanitary and storm water sewers.

(b) Petitions for any improvement authorized to be made under the provisions of this act which set forth:

(1) The general nature of the proposed improvement;

(2) the estimated or probable cost;

(3) the extent of the proposed improvement district to be assessed;

(4) the proposed method of assessment;

(5) the proposed apportionment of cost, if any, between the improvement district and the city at large; and

(6) a request that such improvement be made without notice and hearing as required in subsection (a) of this section, may be filed with the city clerk. Names may not be withdrawn from the petitions by the signers thereof after the governing body commences consideration of the petitions or later than seven days after such filing, whichever occurs first, except that the petitions shall contain a notice that the names of the signers may not be withdrawn after such a period of time. Such petitions may be found sufficient if signed by either:

(A) A majority of the resident owners of record of property liable for assessment under the proposal; (B) the resident owners of record of more than one-half of the area liable for assessment under the proposal; or (C) the owners of record, whether resident or not, of more than one-half of the area liable to be assessed under the proposal.

(c) Any municipality, as such term is defined in K.S.A. 12-105a, and amendments thereto, or any one or more persons or entities who or which, whether one or more, are willing to pay the costs of a proposed improvement may file a petition requesting the proposed improvement. Such petition shall be filed with the city clerk and shall set forth:

(1) The general nature of the proposed improvement;

(2) the estimated or probable cost;

(3) a description of the property proposed to be included in the improvement district to be assessed;

(4) the proposed method or methods of assessment;

(5) the proposed apportionment of costs, if any, between the improvement district and the city at large;

(6) a statement that the signers of the petition, in the aggregate, are the owners of 100% of the property or properties proposed to be included in the improvement district, acknowledge that the:

(A) Petition is one submitted pursuant to subsection (c) of K.S.A. 12-6a04, and amendments thereto;

(B) proposed improvement district does not include all properties which may be deemed to benefit from the proposed improvement; and

(C) signers' names may not be withdrawn from the petition by the signers thereof after the governing body commences consideration of the petition or later than seven days after such filing, whichever occurs first; and

(7) a request that such improvement be made without notice and hearing as required in subsection (a).

For purposes of subsection (c), the term "entity" shall mean and include, but shall not be limited to, any municipality, any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, trust, association or other form of business or charitable organization.

(d) Upon filing of such petitions, the governing body may make findings by resolution as to the advisability of the improvement, the nature of the improvement, the estimated cost, the boundaries of the improvement district, the method of assessment and apportionment of cost, if any, between the improvement district and the city at large, all as determined by the governing body. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (c), such findings shall include a finding that the improvement district does not include all the property which may be deemed to be benefited by the proposed improvement and the persons who signed such petition are willing to pay the costs of the proposed improvement as set forth in the petition. Thereupon the governing body may proceed without notice and hearing to order the improvement as provided in K.S.A. 12-6a06, and amendments thereto, except that no protest shall be received as provided in such section. The area of the improvement district finally determined by the governing body to be assessed may not exceed the district proposed in the petition unless notice is given and a hearing held as provided in subsection (a) of this section, in which instance the proceedings shall be subject to protest as in other cases.

(e) Whenever adjoining parallel streets have been improved, and the city proposes to improve the intervening connecting street to the same extent as the streets to be connected, or when two portions of any street have been improved and an intervening portion not exceeding two blocks has not been improved, and the city proposes to improve such intervening portion to the same extent as the improved portions, in addition to the notice required under subsection (a), notice of public hearing on the advisability of such improvements shall be given by certified mail to the owners of record of such property. Such notice shall include the information required under subsection (a).

History: L. 1957, ch. 99, § 4; L. 1959, ch. 72, § 2; L. 1967, ch. 86, § 1; L. 1997, ch. 97, § 1; L. 2003, ch. 120, § 2; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1974–2005 · leading case: Davis v. City of Leawood, 893 P.2d 233 (Kan. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. City of Leawood, 893 P.2d 233 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 4× “pertinent part: “The governing body may, by a majority vote of the entire members-elect thereof, at any time within six (6) months after the final adjournment of the hearing on the advisability of making the improvements, adopt a resolution authorizing the improvement in…”
Bd. of Educ. of Unified Sch. Dist. No. 345 v. City of Topeka, 522 P.2d 982 (Kan. 1974). · cites it 4× “12-6a08 referred to by engineer Terhune reads as follows: “The portion of the cost of any improvement to be assessed against the property in the improvement district as determined in section 12-6a04 of the General Statutes Supplement of 1957, as amended, shall be apportioned…”
Mallon v. City of Emporia, 726 P.2d 1354 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “provided for in K.S.A. 12-6a04.” The City argues that the distinction between a resolution and an ordinance is that the ordinance prevails over a resolution.”
Bauer v. City of Olathe, 894 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “The cost may be assessed equally per front foot or per square foot against all lots and pieces of land within such improvement district or assessed against such property according to the value of the lots and pieces of land therein.”
Becker v. City of Wichita, 644 P.2d 436 (Kan. 1982). “12-6a08 which provides in pertinent part: “The portion of the cost of any improvement to be assessed against the property in the improvement district as determined in K.S.A. 12-6a04, shall be apportioned against said property in accordance with the special benefits accruing…”
Madden v. Governing Body of Lenexa, 721 P.2d 261 (Kan. 1986). · cites it 4× “Legal notice of the resolution was published on October 19, 1983, as required by K.S.A. 12-6a04. Work commenced on the water main extension and continued throughout 1984.”
Garvey Elevators, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 714 P.2d 956 (Kan. 1986). · cites it 5× “For their second issue plaintiffs contend defendant City violated K.S.A. 12-6a04 in establishing the benefit district.”
Smith v. City of Garden City, 635 P.2d 1271 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “On July 2, 1980, the governing body of the city of Garden City adopted a resolution in accordance with K.S.A. 12-6a04, setting a hearing on the advisability of creating an improvement district along Campus Drive in Garden City for the purpose of improving that roadway.”
Bloom v. City of Oakley, 104 P.3d 1007 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “, reconstruction or other improvement to roads or streets which lie upon the corporate boundary limits of the city is proposed, tire governing body of the city and the board of county commissioners of the county may enter into agreements whereby the city or county may initiate…”
Attorney Gen. Opinion No. (Kan. Att'y Gen. 1998). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 12-6a04 requires that the governing body of the city make findings by resolution as to the advisability of the improvement, the nature of the improvement, the estimated cost, the boundaries of the improvement district, the method of assessment and apportionment…”
K.S.A. § 12-6a04(2): 3 cases
Davis v. City of Leawood, 893 P.2d 233 (Kan. 1995). “pertinent part: “The governing body may, by a majority vote of the entire members-elect thereof, at any time within six (6) months after the final adjournment of the hearing on the advisability of making the improvements, adopt a resolution authorizing the improvement in…”
Mallon v. City of Emporia, 726 P.2d 1354 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). “provided for in K.S.A. 12-6a04.” The City argues that the distinction between a resolution and an ordinance is that the ordinance prevails over a resolution.”
Madden v. Governing Body of Lenexa, 721 P.2d 261 (Kan. 1986). “Legal notice of the resolution was published on October 19, 1983, as required by K.S.A. 12-6a04. Work commenced on the water main extension and continued throughout 1984.”
K.S.A. § 12-6a04(l): 2 cases
Mallon v. City of Emporia, 726 P.2d 1354 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). “provided for in K.S.A. 12-6a04.” The City argues that the distinction between a resolution and an ordinance is that the ordinance prevails over a resolution.”
Garvey Elevators, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 714 P.2d 956 (Kan. 1986). “For their second issue plaintiffs contend defendant City violated K.S.A. 12-6a04 in establishing the benefit district.”
K.S.A. § 12-6a04(l)(f): 1 case
Bauer v. City of Olathe, 894 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1995). “The cost may be assessed equally per front foot or per square foot against all lots and pieces of land within such improvement district or assessed against such property according to the value of the lots and pieces of land therein.”
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.