Kansas Attorney General Opinion 2012-030

November 13, 2012
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2012-30
Jared Holste, County Attorney
Rawlins County
509 Main St.
Atwood, KS 67730
Re: 	Agriculture—County 	Extension—Extension 	Districts; 	Agreement 	for
Establishment; Tax Levy Limitations
Synopsis: 	The governing body of an extension district is bound by a property tax limit
contained in the agreement establishing the district. 	Cited herein: K.S.A.
2-623; 2-625; K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 79-5040.
* 	* 	*
Dear Mr. Holste:
As County Attorney for Rawlins County, you ask whether the governing body of an
extension 	district 	is 	bound 	by 	a 	term 	in 	the 	agreement 	establishing 	the 	district.
Specifically, you note that the Rawlins County Commission is considering a proposed
agreement to combine the Rawlins and Thomas County extension programs into a
single extension district in accordance with K.S.A. 2-623. 	The proposed agreement
provides that the governing body of the extension district may establish a property tax
levy not to exceed the greater of (1) 2.5 mills or (2) the rate that will yield $150,000. 1
The agreement also provides that any change to this property tax cap must be
approved by the governing body of the extension district, both the Rawlins and Thomas
County boards of county commissioners, and Kansas State University. 	You inform us
that the Rawlins County Commission’s approval of the proposed agreement hinges on
1 We note that this provision mirrors the mill levy limit found in K.S.A. 2-625(c); however, that statutory
limit has been suspended by K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 79-5040 (“In 1999 and in each year thereafter, all
existing statutory fund mill levy rate and aggregate levy rate limitations on taxing subdivisions are hereby
suspended.”).

Jared Holste
Page 2
setting a permanent property tax cap and that the Commissioners are concerned the
governing 	body 	of 	the 	proposed 	extension 	district 	might 	not 	be 	bound 	by 	the
agreement’s cap.
The statutes that govern the formation and operation of extension districts 2 do not
explicitly address whether the governing body of an extension district is bound by a mill
levy limit contained in the agreement forming the district, and we have been unable to
find any authorities on point. However, several features of the extension district statutes
cause us to opine that the governing body of an extension district is bound by such a
term.
The first of these features is the process by which an agreement to form an extension
district must be approved. K.S.A. 2-623(a) provides:
No [agreement to form an extension district] shall be effective unless such
agreement has received the prior approval of (1) the board of county
commissioners of each county included in the proposed extension district
. . . ; (2) the executive board of the extension council of each county
included in the proposed extension district and the director of extension of
Kansas state university of agriculture and applied science, or the director’s
authorized representative, acting together as a body; and (3) the attorney
general . . . .
This approval process would be rendered meaningless if the governing body of the
extension district could unilaterally modify or violate the terms of the agreement after
approval by all of the relevant parties.
Similarly, the protest provision found in K.S.A. 2-623(i) supports our conclusion that a
tax levy limit contained in an extension district agreement is binding. 	This provision
requires a board of county commissioners, before approving any agreement to form an
extension district, to publish a resolution stating its intent to do so. 	If at least 5% of the
voters in the county sign a protest petition opposing the proposed agreement, the
county commissioners may not approve the agreement unless and until the agreement
is put to a public vote and approved by a majority of the voters. The fact that a tax levy
limit may influence the voters’ decision whether to protest or support a proposed
agreement suggests that such a term should be binding on the governing body of the
resulting extension district.
The final statutory provision supporting our conclusion is K.S.A. 2-623(d), which states
that upon the formation of an extension district “all of the personnel and property of
each of the extension programs which are combined into the new district extension
programs shall be transferred to the new extension district and shall be subject to the
authority 	of 	the 	governing 	body 	of 	the 	extension 	district 	in 	accordance 	with 	the
agreement to establish the extension district.”3 Although this provision does not
2 K.S.A. 2-623 et seq.
3 Emphasis added.

Jared Holste
Page 3
address property tax limitations, it supports the broader proposition that the governing
body of an extension district is bound by the terms of the agreement establishing the
district.
Viewing the extension district statutes as a whole, we opine that the governing body of
an extension district is bound by a property tax limit contained in the agreement
establishing the extension district. 	If the proposed agreement to combine the Rawlins
and Thomas County extension programs is adopted in accordance with K.S.A. 2-623,
any change to the property tax limit contained in that agreement must be approved by
the governing body of the resulting extension district, both the Rawlins County and
Thomas County boards of county commissioners, and Kansas State University.
Sincerely,
Derek Schmidt
Attorney General
Dwight Carswell
Assistant Attorney General
DS:AA:DC:sb