Opinion ID: 1501288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is the proposed bond issue illegal?

Text: Section 2, c. 32, supra, provides that any municipality, authorized by the laws of the state of Kansas to issue general obligation bonds for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement, extension or enlargement of any utility, is hereby empowered to issue and sell revenue bonds in payment of the cost of such utility. Section 8 thereof provides that the governing body    of any municipality, by a two-thirds vote    may contract for or make repairs, extensions or improvements of any of its present existing utilities, and issue revenue bonds in payment of the cost thereof, but that in the event of a protest after notice as provided in such section, the governing body shall thereupon submit such proposed project and the proposed bond issue to the electors of such municipality, and in the event a majority of such electors voting on such proposition at such election shall vote in favor thereof, such repairs, extensions or improvements shall be made and such bonds may be issued in payment thereof. (Italics ours.) Section 10 thereof provides that all bonds issued and sold pursuant to the provisions hereof shall first be authorized by a two-thirds vote at an election as now provided by law for issuance of general obligation bonds of the municipality. Section 8 provides for the authorization and issuance of bonds to pay the cost of repairs, extensions, or improvements of an existing utility. In the event of a protest the proposed project and bond issue must be approved by a majority vote of the electors voting on the proposition. Section 10 provides for the authorization and issuance of bonds to pay the cost of the construction of a new utility, or the reconstruction of an old utility. Such bonds must be authorized by a two-thirds vote of the electors voting thereon. The resolutions provided for the purchase and installation of a generating plant and a distributing system to generate and transmit electric energy for light and power for the city waterworks, sewage disposal plant, City Hall, Memorial Hall, city park, white-way street lights and cemetery, and other City instrumentalities, and for the purchase and installation of motors and pumps at the waterworks plant. The proposed electric generating plant and the transmission system, which were specifically described in the resolution and notice as two 280 H. P. Diesel engines, two 233 K. V. A. generators, transformers, and power lines to all electric consuming instrumentalities of the City, would not constitute mere repairs, extensions or improvements of the waterworks plant, but would be the creation of a new electric utility to generate and transmit electric energy for all City purposes. A generating plant at the waterworks and the pumps to be there installed might constitute an extension or improvement of the waterworks, but the proposed project was more than that; it was to be an electric generating plant and a distributing system to generate and transmit electric energy for all City purposes. Nor can we separate the good from the bad. One project not two were submitted. The voters passed upon it as a single or integral project, and not as two projects. It follows that bonds could only be issued to pay the cost thereof after they had been authorized by a two-thirds vote at an election as now provided by law for issuance of general obligation bonds of the City. We conclude therefore that the proposed bond issue, not having been authorized by a two-thirds vote of the electors, is illegal.