Jones v. City of Paducah

• Decision Date: 28 June 1940
• Citation: 283 Ky. 628,142 S.W.2d 365
• Parties: JONES v. CITY OF PADUCAH et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

142 S.W.2d 365

283 Ky. 628

JONES v. CITY OF PADUCAH et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

June 28, 1940

Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County; Joe L. Price, Judge.

Suit by Dr. F. A. Jones against the City of Paducah and others, to enjoin payment of money and the carrying out of contract for slum clearance project. From a judgment for defendants plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Boyd &amp Boyd, of Paducah, for appellant.

Adrian H. Terrell, of Paducah, for appellees.

STANLEY Commissioner.

Pursuant to the authority of Section 2741x-1 et seq., Kentucky Statutes, the Board of Commissioners of Paducah set up a Municipal Housing Commission in June, 1938. See Spahn v Stewart, 268 Ky. 97, 103 S.W.2d 651.

This suit is prosecuted by Dr. F. A. Jones, a taxpayer, to enjoin the payment of money and the carrying out of a contract between the City of Paducah and the Commission for slum clearance projects. Both the subject matter of several measures and the procedure observed in their enactment are questioned. The circuit court, upon the pleadings and exhibits, dismissed the petition and the plaintiff appeals.

The apportionment and appropriation of public funds by the City Commissioners for the year 1938 specified a contingent fund of $5,260 for the finance department. On June 18th, by ordinance, there was appropriated $1,000 of the contingent fund to the Housing Commission. On August 22nd, by motion $1,500 was "set aside" out of that fund, and on September 28th, by motion, the request of the Housing Commission for "an additional loan of $750.00" was granted, to be paid out of the contingent fund. The validity of these measures is questioned in the petition and judgment asked against the members of the City Board of Commissioners to recover the amount into the treasury. The alleged illegality is based upon the proposition that the measures did not lie over one week before adoption as is required by Section 3235dd-42, Statutes, and upon several other grounds. It appears that these sums were advancements to the Housing Commission for preliminary work. The allegations of the answer are not controverted that only $2,800 was paid out under these proceedings and that it all had been paid back. The questions are, therefore, moot and it is unnecessary to pass upon them.

On September 19, 1938, there was introduced and adopted, without having laid over a week, an ordinance entitled, "An ordinance agreeing to a form of cooperation agreement between the City of Paducah, Kentucky, and the City of Paducah Municipal Housing Commission and authorizing its execution." The preamble of the ordinance states the purposes and plans of the Housing Commission and the benefits to be derived by the city therefrom. It was then ordained that for the purpose of aiding the Housing Commission in the development the City shall cooperate with it by furnishing municipal service and facilities for the projects and the tenants of the building and that the city enter into a contract with the Housing Commission which is embodied in the ordinance. The contract also contains a preamble of several paragraphs. One of them is: "Whereas, the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended [42 U.S.C.A. § 1401 et seq.], provides that no part of such annual contribution by the USHA shall be made available for any project unless and until the state, city, county, or other political subdivision in which such project is situated, shall contribute in the form of cash or tax remissions, general or special, or tax exemptions, at least twenty per centum (20%) of such annual contributions."

Another "Whereas" paragraph refers to the Kentucky Constitution and statutes, particularly with respect to tax exemptions and to the benefits to be derived by the city from the projects and improvements. In consideration of those premises, the agreement was made between the city and the commission. In the contract the city agreed that it would not levy, impose or charge any taxes of any kind against the projects or for or with respect to them "during the period of physical usefulness and in no event less than the number of years during which any of the obligations issued to assist the development of the projects shall remain outstanding." Only the other sections of the contract which are challenged in appellant's brief need be considered.

Paragraph 4 provides that the city shall furnish and maintain in good repair without cost or charge to the Housing Commission or the tenants of the building "municipal services improvements and facilities for the projects and the tenants thereof of the same character as those furnished for other dwellings," some of which are specified. This is but a declaration of what the...