Printable Format10-1102. Citation of act; cash basis for municipalities. (a) K.S.A. 10-1101 through 10-1122, and amendments thereto, shall be known and may be cited as the cash-basis law.
(b) All municipalities are required to pay or refinance their valid indebtedness as provided in the cash-basis law, in the manner and at the times herein set forth, and to contract no indebtedness after May 1, 1933, except as provided by the cash-basis law. It is hereby declared that the purpose of this act is to provide for the funding and payment of all legal debts and obligations except present bonded indebtedness of all municipalities and for the future conduct of the financial affairs of such municipality upon a cash basis.
History: L. 1933, ch. 319, § 2; L. 2003, ch. 25, § 1; April 10.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"City Home Rule in Kansas," Wright W. Crummett, 9 W.L.J. 1, 18 (1969).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Public airport authority; cash-basis law; power to borrow money. 82-158.
Airports; revolving funds; cash-basis law; excess indebtedness. 88-1.
Municipal libraries; bonds and warrants; cash-basis law. 93-45.
Conservation district is subject to cash-basis law; lease purchase agreements, authority. 96-2.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Refunding of overdrawn funds held proper; purpose of act discussed. State, ex rel., v. Toy, 138 Kan. 166, 171, 23 P.2d 601.
2. Refinancing of indebtedness is mandatory under act. Citizens Bank of Weir v. Cherokee Township, 138 Kan. 282, 284, 25 P.2d 1019.
3. Act applies to claim of one municipality against another. Levant Consolidated Dist. v. Colby Comm. High School, 140 Kan. 561, 562, 563, 38 P.2d 684.
4. Refinancing not necessary where funds on hand sufficient to pay claims. Harlow v. School District, 143 Kan. 162, 163, 53 P.2d 467.
5. Purpose of act discussed; applies to statutory claims. Shouse v. Cherokee County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 458, 462, 99 P.2d 779. Affirmed: 152 Kan. 41, 102 P.2d 1043.
6. Act does not prevent city from acting as self-insurer under workmen's compensation act. City of Wichita v. Wyman, 158 Kan. 709, 711, 150 P.2d 154.
7. County employee has no tort action against commissioners for violation of cash-basis law. Greenlee v. Board of Clay County Comm'rs, 241 Kan. 802, 808, 740 P.2d 606 (1987).
8. Whether lease-purchase agreement executed by municipality which violates cash-basis law (K.S.A. 10-1101 et seq.) is void examined. U.S.D. No. 207 v. Northland Nat'l Bank, 20 Kan. App. 2d 321, 325, 887 P.2d 1138 (1994).
9. Kansas superintendent plausibly alleged a protected property interest based on the termination of his contract; a possibly illegal benefits clause did not strip the school board of all power to enter into a contract with the superintendent; the post-termination benefits clause did not violate the Kansas cash basis law. Gilhaus v. Gardner Edgerton Unified Sch. Dist. No. 231, 138 F. Supp. 3d 1228, 1238 (D. Kan. 2015).