Request By:
Mr. W. Pelham McMurry
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 148
Citizens Bank Building
Paducah, Kentucky 42001
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in response to your letter of December 4, in which you relate that many years ago a sanitation district was established pursuant to KRS Chapter 220 that is now adjacent to the city of Paducah. The bond indebtedness of the district has been reduced to approximately $98,000 and it has no other outstanding obligations. Recently the city annexed a large portion of the sanitation district and is now interested in acquiring the entire district including the disposal plant located just outside the new city limits. There is no controversy between the city and the district commissioners concerning the annexation and the acquisition of the district and a proposed contract has been drafted setting forth the details of the transition. You further relate that the city's assumption of the indebtedness in conjunction with all other indebtedness of the city will not violate Section 157 of the Constitution. Under the circumstances you raise the following questions
"(1) What, if any, permission must we obtain from the Public Service Commission?
"(2) Will it be necessary for there to be an official dissolution of the District, and if so, by what means?
"(3) Do we have a problem with KRS 220.530 as interpreted in
Sanitation District No. 1 v. Louisville, 213 S.W.2d 995?"
In response to your initial question we find nothing under KRS Chapter 278 which details the powers and duties of the State Energy Regulatory Commission or Utility Commission that would require their prior permission in order for the provisions of KRS 220.530 to be activated upon the annexation of the sanitation district by the city, particularly in view of the provision of KRS 220.540 detailing the effect of the act on other statutes. This has been confirmed by the Commission's attorney.
We might also point out that KRS 220.530 clearly provides that where a city has existing sewers constructed and maintained by general tax funds and the city annexes an entire sanitation district or a portion of the district, it acquires control over all or that portion annexed.
In response to your second question, KRS 220.530 also specifically provides that when the entire sanitation district is annexed, said district is thereupon automatically dissolved and as a consequence there is no required procedure necessary in order to accomplish said dissolution. In this respect, we are enclosing a copy of OAG 72-407 discussing this and other related questions.
Our response to your third question would be in the negative since the 1948 amendment to KRS 220.530 which was declared unconstitutional in the case of