Source: http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2000/2000-025.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:58:24+00:00

Document:
In the absence of a public purpose, a city cannot rent city equipment to private individuals for private use. Cited herein: Kan. Const., Art. 12, § 5.
You request an opinion regarding the ability of a city to rent city equipment to individuals for private purposes. You indicate that the City of Oberlin rents bucket trucks, backhoes and other city equipment to private citizens as well as city employees for private use.
The Home Rule Amendment(4) to the Kansas Constitution trumped Dillons Rule by specifically empowering cities to "determine their local affairs and government,"(5) by enacting ordinary ordinances provided that state law does not preempt or conflict with local legislation. In Attorney General Opinion No. 87-88, Attorney General Robert T. Stephan concluded that the Home Rule Amendment allowed a city to lease public park land to a private individual for the development of a recreational facility provided that there was a public purpose in doing so.
We find no statutes that specifically address a city's authority to rent equipment such as backhoes and bucket trucks to individuals for private use. Therefore, it is our opinion that the Home Rule Amendment would allow a city to do so. However, a city cannot escape its obligation to ensure that renting city equipment to private individuals for private use is for a public purpose.
"What is for the public good or what are public purposes for which appropriations may be made are questions which the legislature must in the first instance decide. In determining those questions, a state legislature is vested with a broad discretion, which cannot be controlled by the courts, except when its action is clearly evasive or violative of a constitutional provision. It has been said that a strict formula to determine public purposes for all times cannot be formulated, since the concept expands with the population, economy, scientific knowledge, and changing conditions. As people are brought closer together in congested areas, the public welfare requires governmental operation of facilities which were once considered exclusively private enterprises, and necessitates the expenditure of tax funds for purposes which were not classified as public.
In Duckworth, the Court, citing Ullrich, concluded that the City of Kansas City could loan public moneys to an individual who planned to use the funds to remodel a building in the blighted downtown area. The Court noted the City's resolution authorizing the loan stated that the purpose was to revitalize the central business district by improving the appearance of the neighborhood which the Court found to be a legitimate public purpose.
In Attorney General Opinion No. 93-1, Attorney General Robert T. Stephan concluded that, absent a public purpose, a county could not contract with an individual to provide county personnel and equipment to perform private road work.
We do not have any information concerning the City of Oberlin's practice of renting equipment to private individuals for private uses and, therefore, we cannot opine regarding whether such use is for a public purpose. In the absence of a public purpose, it is our opinion that a city cannot rent city equipment to private individuals for private use.
You also inquire whether the public purpose doctrine distinguishes between moneys generated from general tax funds and moneys derived from other kinds of public funds such as utility funds. While there are no Kansas appellate court decisions that address this point, it is our opinion that public funds, regardless of their origin, can only be used for public purposes. Moreover, in some cases, certain public funds can be used only for specified purposes set forth in statute or in other guidelines.
1. Dillon, Municipal Corporations, § 237 (5th ed. 1911).
2. State, ex rel. Mitchell v. City of Coffeyville, 127 Kan. 663 (1929); State, ex rel. Smith v. City of Hiawatha, 127 Kan. 183 (1928); Darby v. Otterman, 122 Kan. 603 (1927).
3. 127 Kan. at 186 (citation omitted).
4. Kan. Const., Art. 12, § 5.
5. Id. at § 5(b).
6. Attorney General Opinion No. 83-90: city may pool its oil and gas rights with private individuals where public purpose shown.
7. 234 Kan. 782 (1984).
9. 234 Kan at 788-789.
10. 234 Kan. at 789.

References: Art. 12
 § 5
 § 237
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 12
 § 5
 § 5