Manwaring Investments, L.C. v. City of Blackfoot
162 Idaho 763
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Manwaring Investments owns a ~5,000 sq. ft. commercial building in Blackfoot rented to multiple tenants; wastewater fees are assessed by Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs).
- Blackfoot Ordinance No. 9-3-20 assigns EDU multipliers by class (originally e.g., "office up to 20 employees = 1 EDU"); City amended the ordinance in June 2014 to add more classifications and base assessments on factors including building size and use.
- The Building was billed 1 EDU (2001–2007), reassessed to 2 EDUs after a 2007 review (effective ~2008), and remained at 2 EDUs after the 2014 amendment; base rate per EDU also increased in 2014.
- Manwaring filed a claim and suit alleging the 2-EDU assessment (and resulting charges) violated the Idaho Revenue Bond Act (IRBA), constituted an unconstitutional tax, and violated due process; sought damages (~$1,803.66), declaratory relief and injunction.
- Magistrate granted summary judgment for the City; the district court affirmed on appeal. This appeal followed. The Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment should be denied because the 2-EDU assessment violates IRBA (unreasonable or arbitrary fee) | Manwaring: EDU assessment (esp. square-foot based approach) does not reasonably approximate actual wastewater discharge; expert affidavit proposed more precise metrics | City: Ordinance estimates class contribution (BOD/COD, solids, type/size/use); exact measurement unnecessary and costly; ordinance based on engineering study and municipal practices | Court: Fee structure is a reasonable approximation under IRBA; not arbitrary; summary judgment for City affirmed |
| Whether the wastewater charge is an unconstitutional tax | Manwaring: Fees exceed actual cost and thus are a disguised tax requiring legislative authority | City: Charges conform to IRBA and are used to operate/maintain a self-supporting system; no evidence of using funds for general revenue | Court: Charges are fees, not a tax; no evidence they are used primarily for revenue raising; upheld |
| Whether Manwaring's procedural due process rights were violated by reassessment to 2 EDUs without notice | Manwaring: Reassessment deprived property interest without adequate process | City: Ordinance creates no vested entitlement to a fixed EDU; mayor/council retain discretion and reassessments are contemplated | Court: Manwaring lacks a protected property interest in a specific EDU assessment; due process claim fails |
| Whether the motion for reconsideration and attorney-fee requests on appeal were mishandled | Manwaring: (reconsideration) new arguments/evidence; (fees) sought fees | City: No new evidence; prevailing party may seek fees but statute requires finding of unreasonable action by nonprevailing party | Court: Reconsideration denial proper (no new evidence); no appellate attorney fees awarded because Manwaring acted with reasonable basis; costs awarded to City |
Key Cases Cited
- Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991) (IRBA requires rates be reasonable and reasonably related to benefit conveyed)
- Kootenai County Property Ass’n v. Kootenai County, 115 Idaho 676, 769 P.2d 553 (1989) (flat fees upheld where precise measurement would be impractical and costly)
- Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953) (support for reasonableness of flat residential sewage fees despite variance in actual use)
- City of Chubbuck v. City of Pocatello, 127 Idaho 198, 899 P.2d 411 (1995) (fees may fund operation, maintenance, replacement and reserves for public works)
- North Idaho Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. City of Hayden, 158 Idaho 79, 343 P.3d 1086 (2015) (fee that does not approximate actual use and is imposed to raise revenue may be an unconstitutional tax)
- Borley v. Smith, 149 Idaho 171, 233 P.3d 102 (2010) (standard of review for district court acting in appellate capacity)
- Viking Constr. v. Hayden Lake Irrigation Dist., 149 Idaho 187, 233 P.3d 118 (2010) (municipalities have discretion in adopting fee structures)
- Pinnacle Eng’rs, Inc. v. Heron Brook, LLC, 139 Idaho 756, 86 P.3d 470 (2004) (trial court may reject uncontradicted expert opinion if not persuasive)