AGO 1993-006.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Attorney General Opinions 1993. AGO 1993-006. ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 93-6 Leonard L. Buddenbohm Atchison County Counselor 6405 Metcalf, Suite 515 Overland Park, Kansas 66202 Re: Cities and Municipalities--Emergency Telephone Services--Validity of Oral Agreement Synopsis: Atchison county is not required to refund its $.75 per month per exchange tax for emergency telephone services. The deduction was requested by the county pursuant to K.S.A. 12-5302. The county then entered into an oral contract with the phone company pursuant to K.S.A. 12-5304. Since the statute does not require the contract to be written, it is valid if there is evidence that it was to be a formal agreement. Therefore, upon a showing that it was a formal agreement there need be no refund of the monies received prior to the writing of the agreement. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-5302; 12-5304. * * * Dear Mr. Buddenbohm: As Atchison county counselor, you request our opinion as to whether it is necessary for Atchison county to refund the access line fee that has been exacted pursuant to an oral agreement that has only recently been reduced to writing. Counties are permitted to impose a tax pursuant to K.S.A. 12-5302 for emergency telephone services. However, as stated in Attorney General Opinion No. 92-36, the governing body must have entered into a contract with an emergency telephone service utility or company before the tax can be imposed. The problem that has now arisen is the nature or type of contract that must be formed for the tax to be imposed. K.S.A. 12-5304(a) provides that "any governing body ... may contract directly with the provider of the emergency telephone service." Here there is no specific requirement that the contract be in writing. Although Kansas case law has not directly addressed whether or not the contracts made by a county must be in writing, it has been stated that a contract made by a county, pursuant to statutory authorization, need not be in writing unless there is a...