Printable Format68-701. Petition of resident landowners; publication of order; time for actions to restrain; supplemental petitions; state lands. When a petition requesting the permanent improvement of one or more roads of benefit to the benefit district is filed in accordance with this section, the board of county commissioners may cause such roads to be improved as requested in the petition. Such petition shall be signed by (a) 51% of the resident landowners owning at least 35% of the land within the district, (b) 35% of the resident landowners owning 51% of the land within the district or (c) the owners of 60% of the land within the district. The petition shall be filed with the board of county commissioners of the county where such road or roads are located. Nothing in this act shall prevent completion of benefit district roads for which petitions have been approved or construction is under way at the time this act is passed. Before the improvements requested in the petition are ordered by the county commissioners, the commissioners shall, by order, find the improvements to be of public utility, and the county clerk shall publish such order once in the official county paper. No action shall be brought to restrain the making of such improvements, payment therefor or levy of taxes or special assessments or issuance of bonds therefor on the grounds of an illegality in the petition, in any proceedings prior to the order or in the order unless such action is commenced within 30 days after the date of the order. The board of county commissioners shall set a time and place to meet to consider the petition for road improvements and shall give notice of the time and place of such meeting by publication once in the official county paper and by certified mail to the owners of the property adjoining the road, at the address where the owner's tax statement is sent. Publication and mailing of the notice shall be not less than 10 days prior to the date of the meeting.
Thirty days after the filing of a petition with the board of commissioners no signer thereon shall be permitted to withdraw the signer's name therefrom. After any petition has been signed by the legal owner of any land in the benefit district the change of ownership of the lands does not affect the petition. Additional or supplemental petitions may be filed with the county clerk at any time before the contract is let for the improvements.
In any case where the owners of lands affected by the provisions of this act are tenants in common, each cotenant shall be a legal petitioner in an amount equal to the cotenant's undivided interest in the tract of land. The owner of a life estate shall be deemed a legal owner for the purposes of this act. Guardians of minors or of incapacitated persons may petition for their wards when authorized by the district court so to do. "Resident landowner," as used herein, means any landowner residing in the county, and owning land in the benefit district.
The governor may sign a petition on behalf of the state for any land owned by the state and located within the benefit district. Any land owned by the state shall be liable for its share of the cost of road improvements by a road improvement district and the state treasurer may pay all assessments against the land for such purposes from any funds in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated.
History: L. 1909, ch. 201, § 1; L. 1917, ch. 265, § 1; L. 1919, ch. 246, § 1; R.S. 1923, 68-701; L. 1933, ch. 242, § 1; L. 1976, ch. 145, § 230; L. 1981, ch. 173, § 71; July 1.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Procedure when more than one county affected, see 68-716.
Attorney General's Opinions:
School districts; student transportation; maintenance of transportation routes. 88-59.
Classification and designation of roads in noncounty unit road system counties. 91-140.
County and township roads; maintenance; requirement that roads be accepted by county. 93-117.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Act held constitutional and valid. Hill v. Johnson Co., 82 Kan. 813, 109 P. 163; Stevenson v. Shawnee County, 98 Kan. 671, 159 P. 5.
2. Property owners and taxpayers may prosecute action to enjoin. Stevenson v. Shawnee County, 98 Kan. 671, 159 P. 5.
3. In absence of fraud, sufficiency of petition conclusive. Stevenson v. Shawnee County, 98 Kan. 671, 159 P. 5.
4. Statute cited; personal injury case. Gratney v. Wyandotte County, 111 Kan. 160, 165, 207 P. 209.
5. Apportionment of cost; notice to taxpayers. Washburn v. Shawnee County, 103 Kan. 169, 170, 172 P. 997.
6. Act held constitutional and valid. The State, ex rel., v. Raub, 106 Kan. 196, 198, 186 P. 989; Field v. Reno County, 107 Kan. 397, 399, 191 P. 315.
7. Time in which signers may withdraw names considered. Field v. Reno County, 107 Kan. 397, 399, 191 P. 315.
8. Section cited and construed with amendment of 1919. The State, ex rel., v. Stewart, 107 Kan. 434, 435, 191 P. 269; Anderson v. Douglas County, 107 Kan. 655, 656, 193 P. 329; Hines v. Barton County, 109 Kan. 783, 786, 202 P. 77.
9. Condemnation proceedings; measure of landowner's damages. Anderson v. Douglas County, 107 Kan. 655, 656, 193 P. 329.
10. Authority of county commissioners to change location of road. The State, ex rel., v. Allen County, 110 Kan. 596, 597, 598, 599, 204 P. 695.
11. Road benefit district; petition therefor held sufficient. Heidel v. Geary County, 106 Kan. 382, 384, 187 P. 866.
12. After petition acted on, petitioners may not withdraw names. Heidel v. Geary County, 106 Kan. 382, 384, 187 P. 866.
13. Petitioners cannot withdraw names after petition filed. Field v. Reno County, 107 Kan. 397, 399, 191 P. 315.
14. Measure of landowner's damages stated. Anderson v. Douglas County, 107 Kan. 655, 193 P. 329.
15. Power of county commissioners to purchase road-building machinery. The State, ex rel., v. Younkin, 108 Kan. 634, 636, 196 P. 620.
16. Distribution of costs unreasonable and unlawful; mandamus refused. The State, ex rel., v. Younkin, 108 Kan. 634, 636, 196 P. 620.
17. Injunction proceedings begun thirty days after order; held too late. Norton v. Montgomery County, 109 Kan. 559, 199 P. 388.
18. Improvements delayed two years; jurisdiction not lost. Norton v. Montgomery County, 109 Kan. 559, 199 P. 388.
19. Abandonment of original proceedings; further proceedings held void. Hines v. Barton County, 109 Kan. 783, 786, 202 P. 77.
20. Limitation of thirty days to bring suit; section construed. Hines v. Barton County, 109 Kan. 783, 786, 202 P. 77.
21. Petition signed conditional; conditions must be respected. Railway Co. v. Barton County, 109 Kan. 787, 790, 202 P. 78.
22. Taxpayers may enjoin proceedings in violation of condition. Railway Co. v. Barton County, 109 Kan. 787, 790, 202 P. 78.
23. Improvements ordered upon condition; mandamus. Hermann v. Nemaha County, 110 Kan. 168, 169, 202 P. 980.
24. Improvements ordered without giving ten days' published notice; held void. Railway Co. v. Barton County, 110 Kan. 310, 203 P. 698.
25. Injunction to enjoin special assessment; limitation of action. Railway Co. v. Mitchell County, 110 Kan. 582, 204 P. 729.
26. Power of commissioners to change materials; location of road considered. The State, ex rel., v. Allen County, 110 Kan. 596, 204 P. 695.
27. Railroad right of way and improvements thereon subject to assessment. Railroad Co. v. Jefferson County, 114 Kan. 156, 160, 217 P. 315; Railway Co. v. Labette County, 113 Kan. 423, 215 P. 447.
28. Recall petition presumably refers to petition to board to organize benefit district. True v. McCoy, 119 Kan. 824, 828, 241 P. 249.
29. Recall petition cannot revive petition after it has served its purpose. True v. McCoy, 119 Kan. 824, 829, 241 P. 249.
30. Section not unconstitutional as delegation of legislative power to petitioners. State, ex rel., v. Drainage District, 123 Kan. 191, 193, 254 P. 372.
31. County may appropriate land in improvement of road on petition under benefit district. Breedlove v. Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 127 Kan. 754, 275 P. 379.
32. Duty of county commissioners to improve road when petition for benefit district filed. State, ex rel., v. Leavenworth County Comm'rs, 128 Kan. 453, 279 P. 10.
33. Where improvement transferred to highway department, commissioners and department must proceed jointly. State, ex rel., v. Miami County Comm'rs, 131 Kan. 144, 289 P. 394.
34. Cited in holding county liable for cost of bridges after highway commission takes over road. State, ex rel., v. Sumner County Comm'rs, 132 Kan. 870, 876, 297 P. 658.
35. Cited in determining liability for improvement within city. State, ex rel., v. State Highway Comm., 137 Kan. 800, 810, 813, 814, 22 P.2d 969.
36. Commissioners may contract for part of road improvement within city. Dinges v. Board of County Commissioners, 179 Kan. 35, 36, 37, 292 P.2d 706.