Chandler v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 24 June 1914
• Docket Number: 12036.
• Citation: 80 Wash. 154,141 P. 331
• Parties: CHANDLER et ux. v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

141 P. 331

80 Wash. 154

CHANDLER et ux. v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.

No. 12036.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 24, 1914

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson Judge.

Bill by Albert Chandler and wife against the City of Seattle, its Mayor and City Comptroller. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Van Nuys & Hunter, of Seattle, for appellants.

James E. Bradford and Howard A. Hanson, both of Seattle, for respondents.

GOSE J.

This is a bill in equity by taxpayers to enjoin the issuance and sale of certain bonds. There was a judgment for the defendants, which the plaintiffs have brought here for review.

The facts are these: In November, 1910, the citizens of Seattle by more than a three-fifths vote, authorized the city to issue $1,400,000 of general bonds for improving and extending the existing municipal lighting plant by the construction of a masonry dam on Cedar river, to replace the wooden dam theretofore constructed. $1,000,000 of these bonds have been issued and sold. In March, 1913, the citizens by a like vote authorized the city to issue $425,000 additional general bonds, 'for enlarging and extending the municipal lighting and power plant and system * * * by the acquisition, by purchase or condemnation, of lands for a site, the construction of buildings thereon * * * for a steam power plant, for furnishing electricity for lighting heating, fuel and power purposes, and for furnishing steam for heating purposes.' The validity of the remaining $400,000 bonds authorized at the first election and the $425,000 authorized at the last election is attacked by the appellants. They contend: (1) That these bonds fall within, and are in excess of, the first 5 per cent. debt limit as fixed by section 6, art. 8, of the Constitution; (2) that the steam plant proposition contains unrelated objects; and (3) that it is ambiguous.

The article of the Constitution referred to provides:

'That any city or town, with such assent, may be allowed to become indebted to a larger amount, but not exceeding five per centum additional for supplying such city or town with water, artificial light, and sewers, when the works for supplying such water, light, and sewers shall be owned and controlled by the municipality.'

The bonds were authorized in harmony with the provisions of the public utilities act (Laws 1909, p. 580).

The real question is: May the bonds be classified as light bonds? If so, they fall within the second 5 per cent. limit of the Constitution. The respondents contend, and the court held, that they should be so classified. The appellants strenuously insist that they are, in fact and law, light and power bonds, and hence that they fall within the first debt limit of the Constitution, and that if so classified the constitutional limit will be exceeded.

The city has from the beginning pursued the policy of charging such bonds to the second class. It has issued bonds and expended more than $3,000,000 for generating and transmitting electric current from Cedar river falls to and through the city, primarily for lighting the streets of the city and furnishing lights to its inhabitants in their homes. It first constructed a wooden dam at the Cedar river falls; but, finding that inadequate, additional bonds to the extent of $1,400,000 were authorized for the construction of a masonry dam. In 1913 about 12 1/2 per cent. of the entire revenue from the system was derived from the sale of current for power purposes, representing in quantity between one-fourth and one-fifth of the entire current. The city now lights one-third of its streets (about 879 miles), and furnishes lights to one-half of its inhabitants (about 150,000 people). The current rate for lighting has been reduced from 20 cents per kilowatt hour in 1902 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour at the present time. Mr. R. H. Thompson, formerly city engineer of the city, after detailing the purpose of the city from the beginning, gave the following testimony:

'Q. Now, having the statutes all cleared away and the field clear, you prepared the ordinance creating the city light and power system? A. Yes, sir. Q. You declared that for what purpose? A. It is a light and power ordinance, and it was prepared simply to define what must happen when you distribute electric energy. It may be light or heat or power, but it is electric energy. Q. Was it ever contemplated that the plant should be purely a power plant? A. Never. Q. Was it ever contemplated that the city should go into the power business, purely as such, for manufacturing and other purposes? A. Only in connection with light. Q. Only in connection with light? A. Yes. Q. And what was the primary and dominating factor of the plant and system? A. To put a plant in the field, which by careful management would reduce the cost of light both to the city as a municipality and to the inhabitants of the city to a much less rate than was then being paid, and, if possible, to a rate equal to that charged for gas, and yet supplying a more cleanly method of illumination. Q. Now, has it been used after its construction for its primary purpose, and it is now being used for its primary purpose as a light plant? A. It is. Its whole purpose is for supplying light; but, to make the price of that light the best price to the people who pay the cost of construction, the by-products are sold whether it is heat or power. Q. And there is a large amount of surplus energy to be disposed of as a by-product? A. During a great many hours a day there is. The light load runs up to its maximum at different hours of the year, but has an average of 8 o'clock in the evening and it holds for three-quarters of an hour at the same point and then goes down to midnight, except household lights, it is almost nothing.'

The evidence is that a hydro-electric plant may be operated 24 hours a day at practically the same expense as for shorter hours. All that is required in the operation of the plant is to permit the water to flow through the pipes and penstock onto the turbines. The steam plant will when constructed be auxiliary to the hydro-electric plant on Cedar river which is situated about 40 miles from the city. The plan is to carry steam constantly, so as to have power available for lighting the city in cases of emergency. The city will use the surplus steam for power and heat. This surplus the witnesses term a by-product. By utilizing the surplus energy, the rate for lights is materially reduced. Whether the plant is operated for power or light, the expense will be the same, for, as the superintendent of the plant said:

'It will be ready to connect with the light service of the city 24 hours in the day and 365 days in the year.'

The words 'light, heat and power purposes,' in the...