upr000268 168

LAS VEGAS EVBNpf REVIEW-JOURNAL March 9th 1936 J Lockhart Issues Ruling o n C i t y P ow er P roposal I In a decision handed down to­day by Judge J. M. Lockhart of j Ely, the city of Las Vegas was : held to have the power and au­thority to purchase or construct ? and operate a municipal power I plant-for the purpose of lighting | its own streets,; alleys and public | ground, but not to furnish arid j supply lights to private individ-l uals. ?' | The' procedure of' th e city |J|j board to date, baSed on the pres- ' 1 ent provisions • of I the • charter, was approved by tile court, but it falls because of the lack of necessary delegation' of authority to distribute the power to thej people of the community, the de­cision holds. The: Lockhart findings Were handed down on demurrers filed Jay. the city to the action of C. C. Ronnow as a taxpayer-, who chal- j lenged the right of the munici- Ipality to proceed to acquire,, a | power,plant and distribute power, i Ronnow alleged that the ordi-l 1 nance providing for the sale of j j bonds to finance the program did not conform to the original proc- | lamation setting forth the in ter-; tion of the city to proceed, and l, charged also that because the city failed to comply with- the 1933 ( state bond statute that 'its acts 1 The Buy Men Hrojui*etsvtn a ll i three causes of action. Judge I Lockhart overruled the first, thereby deciding in effect that the City could not distribute pow­er for other than municipal pur­poses. ' He sustained the city’s contention in the other two, hold­ing that the ordinance providing for the bond issue conformed to the proclamation and is therefore valid in Itself, and (holding' fur­ther that the 1933 bond act does not apply in the case of the city charter provisions concerning municipal ownership of utilities. At the proper time, the city w ill carry an appeal to the su­preme court from the Lockhart decision, City Attorney Ryland Taylor said this afternoon. v„ -------- 0 Fc . V m LI City Commission Reveals Future Plans For Municipal Power Setup if Outlining the position of the city commission concerning the establishment of a municipal power plant, a statement was is­sued this afternoon covering the activities of the board to date and plans; for the future. This statement follows in full: “We believe the people are en­titled to know what’ progress is being made toward the establish­ment Of a municipal power plant. “Heretofore your board of com­missioners .took steps pursuant to the authority of the city char­ter to establish a municipal pow­er plant. “To that end a proclamation was issued to the effect that an ordinance would be passed pro­viding for a bond issue, “An action was brought by S. J. Lawson seeking to restrain the' city from passing that ordinance. Upon the hearing of a demurrer to the complaint of Lawson, the City’s position was sustained. Thereafter, and on December 4th, an ordinance was passed provid­ing' for a bond issue to raise money to establish a municipal power plant. “On December 5th a suit was then brought by C. C. Ronnow to again restrain the city from putting into effect the ordinance5 so passed. A temporary injunc­tion was issued against the, city proceeding to issue and sell bonds pursuant to such ordin­ance. The complaint alleged three causes of action, (1) that the city did not have authority under its charter to build a plant to furnish the inhabitants with electricity; (2) that the ordin­ance so passed did not conform to the proclamation'; and (3) that th e’bonds could not be issued be­cause the . city had not complied with the 1933 bond act requiring the matter to be put to a vote of the people. “Demurrers to the respective causes of action were heard on January 2nd and 3rd, 1936, and the same Was finally submitted to the court. “On March 6ih the. Honorable (Continued on page three) Y a I S \!V City Commission (Continued from Page One) J. M. Lockhart, the judge before rendered his decision in writing, to the effect /h a t the, second arid third causes o £ ; action did not state” facts constituting causes: of action'' against, the city or the city commissioners; that the first cause of action Was good in so far as it prevented the city from supplying power?’' t o i n h a b i ­tants. In other ' words, it held that: the city could lawfully es­tablish a plant to- supply its own furnish power to’ :itk inhabitants. ' “The following is a quotation from the court’s decision: “ ‘There is no question but that the city of Las Vegris has the power and, authority given to it by direfct legislative action to purchase or construct and oper­ate a municipal power plant for the purpose of lighting - its own streets, alleys and public grounds, the sole question being its power and authority to furnish and sup­ply lights to private persons.’ , . “4 complete copy o f , this court’s-decision is being filed in the office of the city clerk for j the information o f the public. 1 “The effect. of this decision ap­pears to be that w e may proceed to establish a plant for the sup­ply of power for city purposes but not to furnish power to the inhabitants. § “We desire to inform you that our policy has not changed. That it i.is, . still the purpose of your commissioners to establish a mu­nicipal power plant for all pur­poses, and. you are assured that Jthis w ill be done just as soon as legal obstacles can be overcome.” '^Respectfully, j%L:': L. ARNETT, Mayor. Commissioners: : ’ JAMES . H. DOWN H. IP. MARBLE, DAVE FARNSWORTH.