Does an old Kansas city-school joint recreation commission have to update its membership rules to match the current state statute?

Plain-English summary

The Independence city attorney asked whether a joint recreation commission the city set up with U.S.D. 446 in 1979 was still lawful, because its governing resolution requires city-appointed members to be city "electors," while the current version of K.S.A. 12-1926 only requires members to be "residents of the taxing district," a broader group that can include nearby rural areas within the school district.

The Attorney General traced the history: in 1979, when the commission was formed, the governing statute (then K.S.A. 12-1907) did require appointees to be "electors" of the city and school district, so the joint resolution matched the law at the time. In 1987, the Legislature rewrote the statute to use the broader "residents of the taxing district" standard, but it also added a grandfather clause, now at K.S.A. 12-1926(b), letting any recreation commission already established before that 1987 change continue "as constituted" unless a majority of its own commissioners vote to reorganize under the new five-member structure. Because Independence and U.S.D. 446's commission was lawfully formed under the pre-1987 rules, the opinion concluded it can keep operating under its original, more restrictive "elector" requirement unless the commissioners themselves choose to switch.

What this means for you

Cities and school districts with recreation commissions predating 1987: the opinion holds your commission can continue operating under whatever membership rules were valid when it was originally established, even if those rules are stricter than the current K.S.A. 12-1926 standard, unless your own commissioners vote to reorganize.

Recreation commission members and city or district attorneys reviewing an older joint resolution: the opinion confirms that a mismatch between an old joint resolution and the current statute's residency standard is not automatically a legal problem; check when the commission was established and whether its membership rules matched the law in effect at that time.

Common questions

Can the commission switch to the current, broader residency standard if it wants to?
Yes, according to the opinion. K.S.A. 12-1926(b) lets a pre-1987 commission reorganize into the current five-member structure on a majority vote of its own commissioners, but that switch is optional, not required.

What area counts as the "taxing district" under the newer standard?
The opinion notes K.S.A. 12-1922(d) defines "taxing district" as the area within either the city's corporate limits or the school district's boundaries, whichever has the greater assessed valuation, for a jointly established recreation system.

Background and statutory framework

K.S.A. 12-1926 currently requires that when a city and school district jointly establish a recreation commission, each governing body appoint two residents of the taxing district, who then select a fifth member. The Independence/U.S.D. 446 joint resolution instead requires city appointees to be city "electors" and school district appointees to be school district electors, tracking the narrower standard from the 1979-era version of the statute, then codified at K.S.A. 12-1907.

The Legislature revised the recreation commission statutes in 1987 (L. 1987, ch. 71), replacing the "elector" requirement with the broader "resident of the taxing district" standard and repealing the old K.S.A. 12-1907. Critically, the 1987 revision included a savings clause, preserved today at K.S.A. 12-1926(b), allowing any recreation commission established before the 1987 act's effective date to "continue as constituted" under its original rules, or to reorganize into the current five-member structure if a majority of its commissioners vote to do so. Because the Independence/U.S.D. 446 commission's 1979 membership rules matched the law at the time of its creation, the opinion concluded the grandfather clause protects its continued operation under those original, stricter terms.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- K.S.A. 12-1926 (incl. (b))
- K.S.A. 12-1907 (1979 version, repealed 1987)
- K.S.A. 12-1922(d)
- L. 1987, ch. 71, § 5(a), § 5(b), § 15

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ks.gov/reports-resources/ag-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ks.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/24618/638906098416170000

Original opinion text

The full opinion as issued by the Office of the Kansas Attorney General:

August 12, 2025

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2025-18

Jeffrey A. Chubb
Independence City Attorney
204 E. Laurel – P.O. Box 747
Independence, KS 67301-0747

Re: Cities and Municipalities—Public Recreation and Playgrounds—Recreation Commission; Membership; Selection; Existing Commissions

Synopsis: Because the membership of the joint recreation commission between Independence and U.S.D. 446 was consistent with state law when it was established in 1979, K.S.A. 12-1926(b) allows the commission to continue as constituted, provided the majority of commissioners have not voted to reorganize the commission. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-1907 (1979); K.S.A. 12-1926.

Dear Mr. Chubb:

As City Attorney for Independence, you ask whether a joint resolution between the city and U.S.D. 446 establishing a recreation commission complies with state law in the qualifications it establishes for members of the commission.

K.S.A. 12-1926 provides that when a city and a school district jointly establish a recreation commission, "the governing bodies each shall appoint two persons who are residents of the taxing district to serve as members of the recreation commission, and the persons so selected shall select one additional person, and all of such persons shall constitute the recreation commission." But the joint resolution between Independence and U.S.D. 446 states:

Said joint recreation commission shall consist of five (5) members, two of which shall be electors of the School District who shall be appointed by the Board of Education of the School District, two of which shall be electors of the City who shall be appointed by the Governing Body of the City and the four persons so selected and appointed shall select and appoint a fifth member of the recreation commission and all of such persons shall constitute the recreation commission.

In other words, the joint resolution requires that members appointed by the city be electors of the city, while K.S.A. 12-1926 merely requires that they be "residents of the taxing district." The "taxing district" in this case is the taxing district of U.S.D. 446, which includes both Independence and adjacent rural areas.1 You ask whether it is permissible for the joint resolution to establish more restrictive membership qualifications than K.S.A. 12-1926.

1 See K.S.A. 12-1922(d) (defining "taxing district" as "the area within the corporate limits of a city or the area within the boundary lines of a school district, whichever has the greater assessed valuation, in the case of a jointly established recreation system").

The discrepancy appears to trace to the fact that the joint resolution was adopted in in 1979. At the time, K.S.A. 12-1907 provided that when a city and a school district establish a joint recreation commission, "the governing bodies shall each appoint two (2) of its electors to serve as members of the recreation commission, and the persons so selected shall select one additional person, and all of said persons shall constitute the recreation commission." Thus, the joint resolution between Independence and U.S.D. 446 reflected state law at the time it was adopted.

The laws governing recreation commissions were revised in 1987, and at that time, the requirement that the members appointed by the city and school district be "electors" of those entities was replaced with the requirement that members be "residents of the taxing district."2 But the new act provided that "[a]ny recreation commission established pursuant to K.S.A. 12-1901 et seq., and amendments thereto, prior to the effective date of this act may continue as constituted on the effective date of this act or may, upon a majority vote of the commissioners, reorganize into a five-member commission as provided by subsection (a)."3 This provision remains in K.S.A. 12-1926(b) today.

2 L. 1987, ch. 71, § 5(a), § 15 (repealing K.S.A. 12-1907).
3 L. 1987, ch. 71, § 5(b).

Because the membership of the joint recreation commission between Independence and U.S.D. 446 was consistent with state law when it was established in 1979, K.S.A. 12-1926(b) allows the commission to continue as constituted, provided the majority of commissioners have not voted to reorganize the commission.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kris W. Kobach

Kris W. Kobach
Attorney General

/s/ Dwight R. Carswell

Dwight R. Carswell
Deputy Solicitor General