A new lawsuit by a Prairie Village resident contends the charter ordinance the city is using to authorize $30 million in bonds is illegal.
At issue is a new “municipal complex” the city wishes to build, which would combine the police and municipal court in one building and a new city hall on the other side of the property at 7820 Mission Road in Prairie Village.
The city is using a charter ordinance passed in 2016 to finance a roughly $3 million streetlight project to prevent citizens from voting on the project, despite a recent poll finding that residents overwhelmingly want the opportunity to vote.
Prairie Village resident Marc Vianello is suing over the chance.
“Mr. Vianello, like the vast majority of Prairie Village taxpayers, wants the City to follow the law and hold an election before issuing $30 million in general obligation bond debt that will cost the taxpayers for the next 30 years for this City Council’s pet project,” said Attorney Fritz Edmunds, who represents Vianello. “We are merely seeking to enforce the Kansas statute requiring a public vote on general obligation bond issuance in excess of $100,000 in a given year. The City Council is trying to bypass state law through a charter ordinance issued in 2016 for a street lights project. We believe that’s illegal.”
According to the lawsuit, under the 1961 “home rule” amendment to the Kansas Constitution, “[a]ny city may by charter ordinance elect in the manner prescribed in this section that the whole or any part of any enactment of the legislature applying to such city, other than enactments of statewide concern applicable uniformly to all cities, other enactments applicable uniformly to all cities, and enactments prescribing limits of indebtedness, shall not apply to such city.” Art. 12 Sec 5(c)(1) (emphasis in lawsuit).
The Home Rule Amendment prohibits a city from using either an ordinary or a charter ordinance to opt out of or exempt itself from any of four at least potentially overlapping types of state statutes: in this case, “enactments prescribing limits of indebtedness.”
According to the lawsuit, K.S.A. 13-1024a requires authorization by a majority of voters in a vote of the people in a bond election before cities may issue bonds, with certain exceptions. The law also provides that cities of the first-class, like Prairie Village, may borrow money and issue bonds “without such bonds having been authorized by a vote of the people, but the total amount of bonds issued for such purposes shall not exceed the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in any one year” (emphasis in filing)
Moreover, Vianello contends — through Edmunds — that the ordinance is invalid for several other reasons.
According to the filing, the ordinance was passed during a “committee of the whole” meeting, which is not an actual council meeting and not subject to the Kansas Open Records Act, such meetings cannot be used to conduct regular business, such as passing an ordinance.
Charter ordinances are also required to be filed with the Kansas Secretary of State’s office, which the lawsuit contends was not done until January 21, 2025 — nearly nine years after it was passed.
Vianello is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the city from issuing the bonds without a vote.
Project lacks transparency
The city has apparently been planning the new municipal complex for several years now, and claims on its website that there would likely be no tax increase to residents, as much of the cost was already baked into city budgets. However, as The Sentinel previously reported, the city refuses to back up that assertion.
“The city began the planning process for making improvements to the Municipal Complex four years ago,” the FAQ on the site reads. “With the direction of the city council, the city has already incorporated approximately 2/3 of the expected annual debt repayment amount into the existing budget. Total costs and borrowing structures are still to be finalized, but it is likely that budgeting for the remaining amount needed will not require an increase to the mill levy. This is similar to how many other cities often pay for major repairs and replacements to capital assets: when one project’s bonds are paid off, the next needed projects are financed and built without raising taxes.”
No cash flow analysis of the proposed bond issues is provided to justify the statement that the new debt will “likely” not require a mill levy increase. The city doesn’t provide the related assumptions, such as the assumed rate of increase in property valuations; even if the city doesn’t need to increase the mill levy, capturing the valuation increases certainly would result in property owners paying higher taxes.
City officials also do not explain what they mean by saying that approximately two-thirds of the project is already in the budget. Does that mean they’ve already unnecessarily raised taxes to put money aside? The city also does not disclose the property tax reduction that could occur if no new debt is approved.
