Can a Kansas city annex a small slice of a larger farm without the owner's consent?

Plain-English summary

Troy's city attorney asked the Attorney General to clarify a wording ambiguity in K.S.A. 12-520(b), which bars cities from unilaterally annexing "any portion of any unplatted tract of land devoted to agricultural use of 21 acres or more." The question was whether that 21-acre figure measures the size of the specific piece the city wants to annex, or the size of the whole tract that piece comes from, a distinction that matters a lot if a city wants to annex a small slice of a much larger farm.

The Attorney General concluded the 21-acre threshold measures the whole tract, not just the piece being annexed. Reading the statute's cross-referenced definition of "tract" as a single unit of real property under one ownership, the opinion concluded the phrase "21 acres or more" grammatically attaches to "tract of land," the immediately preceding phrase, not to the smaller "portion" the city is trying to carve out. That means once a landowner's unplatted agricultural tract reaches 21 acres, no part of it, however small, can be unilaterally annexed without the owner's consent. The opinion also pointed to the statute's 1974 legislative history, added specifically in response to farmer complaints about cities annexing agricultural land to pad their tax base, and reasoned that letting cities carve off small parcels one at a time from a large farm would defeat that protective purpose and effectively let cities annex around the rule piece by piece.

What this means for you

City attorneys and planning officials considering annexation near farmland: the opinion holds you must look at the total size of the unplatted agricultural tract a parcel sits within, not just the boundaries of the specific area you want to bring into the city, before annexing without landowner consent; if that whole tract is 21 acres or larger, unilateral annexation of any part of it is off the table.

Landowners and farmers near expanding cities: the opinion confirms that owning a large unplatted agricultural tract protects the whole thing from piecemeal, involuntary annexation, closing off a strategy where a city might otherwise nibble away at a farm's edges a few acres at a time.

Common questions

Does it matter how small the piece is that the city wants to annex?
No, according to the opinion. As long as the piece comes from a larger unplatted agricultural tract of 21 acres or more, the city cannot annex it unilaterally, regardless of how small the targeted portion is.

Can a city annex a big farm in small pieces over several years to avoid the 21-acre rule?
The opinion's reasoning forecloses that strategy; it treats the whole ownership tract as the relevant measurement, and cites the presumption that the Legislature does not intend meaningless legislation as a reason not to read the statute in a way that would let cities annex around the rule.

Where did the 21-acre rule for agricultural land come from?
The opinion traces it to a 1974 legislative amendment adopted after farmers complained that cities were annexing farmland indiscriminately to expand their tax base and reserve room for future growth.

Background and statutory framework

K.S.A. 12-520(b) restricts a city's unilateral (non-consensual) annexation power by barring annexation of any portion of an unplatted tract of land devoted to agricultural use of 21 acres or more. K.S.A. 12-519(a) defines "tract" for these purposes as a single unit of real property under one ownership located outside a city's corporate limits. The Attorney General's office previously documented, in a 1995 opinion, that the Legislature added this agricultural protection in 1974 in direct response to complaints that cities were annexing farmland indiscriminately to grow their tax base and secure room for future expansion.

Applying ordinary statutory interpretation principles, including reading provisions in pari materia and avoiding readings that would render legislation meaningless, the opinion concluded the phrase "of 21 acres or more" modifies "tract of land" (the whole ownership unit), not "portion" (the specific piece targeted for annexation). The opinion also invoked the presumption that when the Legislature amends a statute, it means to change existing law, reinforcing that the 1974 amendment was meant to meaningfully restrict, not merely relocate, the annexation of agricultural land.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- K.S.A. 12-519(a)
- K.S.A. 12-520(b)

Cases:
- League of Women Voters of Kan. v. Schwab, 549 P.3d 363 (Kan. 2024)
- Roe v. Phillips Cty. Hosp., 317 Kan. 1, 522 P.3d 277 (2023)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ks.gov/reports-resources/ag-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ks.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/22866/638723797476370000

Original opinion text

September 6, 2024

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2024-7

Mr. Alan M. Boeh
Troy City Attorney
206 South Main
Troy, KS 66087

Re: Cities and Municipalities—Additions, Vacation and Lot Frontage—
Annexation by Cities—Definitions—Conditions Which Permit
Unilateral Annexation—Exceptions

Synopsis: Absent the consent of the land owner, a city may not annex any un-
platted tract of agricultural land that is part of a larger tract of land of
at least 21 acres. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-519; 12-520.

                         *             *             *

As City Attorney for the City of Troy, you ask for our interpretation of K.S.A. 12-
520(b), which prohibits the unilateral annexation of any "portion of any unplatted
tract of land devoted to agricultural use of 21 acres or more." You question whether
the 21-acre limitation applies only to the size of the parcel being annexed or if it
applies to the size of the tract of land from which the city is seeking to annex. We
read it as the latter, meaning a city cannot annex any portion of a 21-acre (or
greater) tract of unplatted agricultural land absent the consent of the owner.

Statutory interpretation begins with the plain language of the statute. When the
statute is unambiguous, courts simply interpret the language as it appears,
abstaining from reading language into it that is not readily found there.1 Courts
also read various provisions within an act in pari materia, reconciling and bringing
those provisions into workable harmony, if possible.2

The relevant annexation provisions are unambiguous. "Tract" is defined in part as
"a single unit of real property under one ownership, outside the corporate limits of a
city."3 Incorporating this definition into K.S.A. 12-520(b), a city may not unilaterally
annex any "portion" of any "single unit of real property" that is unplatted,
agricultural in use, and at least 21 acres in size. The phrase, "21 acres in size"
plainly relates to the immediately preceding "tract of land," from which "[n]o
portion" can be annexed. As a result, if the overall tract of land containing the
portion of land the city seeks to annex is at least 21 acres in size, then the city may
not annex the smaller portion of land.

This office has previously detailed K.S.A. 12-520(b)'s legislative history, noting the
Legislature added this restriction in 1974 in response to complaints from farmers
that cities were annexing "farm land indiscriminately in order to increase a city's
tax base and protect future expansion needs."4 Reading K.S.A. 12-520(b) in a way
that would permit cities to successively annex smaller portions of land that are part
of a tract of land that is at least 21 acres in size would not only violate the
presumption that the Legislature does not intend to enact meaningless legislation,
it would also run afoul of the presumption that when the Legislature amends a
statute, it intends to change the law from how it existed prior to the amendment.5
We therefore conclude that a city may not unilaterally annex unplatted agricultural
property that is part of a tract of land that is at least 21 acres in size.

                                             Sincerely,

                                             /s/ Kris W. Kobach

                                             Kris W. Kobach
                                             Attorney General

                                             /s/ Kurtis K. Wiard

                                             Kurtis K. Wiard
                                             Assistant Solicitor General

1 League of Women Voters of Kan. v. Schwab, 549 P.3d 363, 375 (Kan. 2024).
2 Roe v. Phillips Cty. Hosp., 317 Kan. 1, 5-6, 522 P.3d 277 (2023).
3 K.S.A. 12-519(a).
4 Att'y Gen. Op. No. 95-91, at 1.
5 See Dep't of Revenue v. Powell, 290 Kan. 564, 570, 232 P.3d 856 (2010).