Kansas Attorney General Opinion 1992-091

ROBERT T. STEPHAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 7, 1992
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 92- 91
Linda P. Jeffrey
Shawnee County Counselor
Shawnee County Courthouse
200 E. 7th, Room 203
Topeka, Kansas 66603-3922
Re: Counties and County Officers -- Public
Improvements; Improvement and Service Districts --
Special Benefit Districts
Roads and Bridges; Roads -- Improvement of Roads in
Benefit Districts -- Improvements of Public Roads
in Areas Platted Outside of Cities; Special
Assessments
Synopsis: The requirement of a 3/4 majority vote of the
county commissioners in K.S.A. 19-270 does not
apply to approval of street improvements and
assessments unless the project falls within an
improvement district which was created pursuant to
K.S.A. 19-2701 et seq. Cited herein: K.S.A.
19-270; 19-2701; 68-728.
Dear Ms. Jeffrey:
As Shawnee county counselor, you have requested our opinion as
to whether the 3/4 majority vote requirement in K.S.A. 19-270
is applicable when the county wants to establish an assessment
district pursuant to K.S.A. 68-728 within the fringe area of a
city.

K.S.A. 19-270(b) states that "no special benefit district
shall be created, established or otherwise formed within the
fringe area of any city unless approved by at least a 3/4
majority vote of the board of county commissioners of the
county in which the city is located."
A special benefit district includes any:
"(A) Sewer District;
(B) water district, rural water
district and water supply district;
(C) fire district;
(D) improvement district;
(E) industrial district; and
(F) drainage district." K.S.A.
19-270(a)(1).
Arguably, a street improvement project and assessment could
create an improvement district within the purview of K.S.A.
19-270(a)(1)(D). However, review of the legislative history
of K.S.A. 19-270 indicates that the statute was intended to
apply only to improvement districts created pursuant to K.S.A.
19-2701 et seq. Report, Special Committee on Local
Government Interim Committee, December 4, 1985; Minutes, House
Local Government Committee, March 18, 1986. Since the street
improvement project referred to in your request letter does
not involve such an improvement district, the 3/4 majority
vote required in K.S.A. 19-270 would not be applicable to an
assessment district established under K.S.A. 68-728 et seq.
Legislative history also indicates that K.S.A. 19-270 was only
one part of numerous statutory changes addressing the issue of
annexation. K.S.A. 19-270 was drafted to give the county and
city some control and input into the establishment and
expansion of special district governments like those listed in
K.S.A. 19-270(a)(1)(A-F). Furthermore, since the issue of
annexation was part of an interim committee study the year
before this statute was enacted, the legislature had ample
opportunity to include street assessment districts established
under K.S.A. 68-728 et seq. if they had desired the
statute to cover such an issue. Since the legislature did not
include such, we must "give effect to the intention of the
legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law
should or should not be." State v. Coley, 236 Kan. 672,
675 (1985); Randall v. Seeman, 228 Kan. 395 (1980).
In conclusion, the requirement of a 3/4 majority vote of the
county commissioners pursuant to K.S.A. 19-270 does not apply

to street improvements and assessments unless the project
falls within an improvement district which was created
pursuant to K.S.A. 19-2701 et seq.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT T. STEPHAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS
Mary Jane Stattelman
Assistant Attorney General
RTS:JLM:MJS:bas