Montgomery County v. DRPT
719 S.E.2d 294
Va.2011Background
- DRPT funded Norfolk Southern for Heartland Corridor intermodal facility in Montgomery County under Code § 33.1-221.1:1.1.
- County challenged the statute as applied under Article X, §10 (internal improvements and credit clauses) and sought to enjoin the agreement.
- Agreement provided DRPT grant of $22,350,000 (plus later $4,410,000) to NS for facility and tunnel improvements; NS ownership/operation implied.
- CTB approved funding; DRPT and CTB conditioned performance metrics requiring truck-to-rail traffic diversion with a 15-year performance period and potential DRPT remedies if goals aren’t met.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for appellees, finding statute as applied consistent with public purposes and highway system objectives.
- Issue on appeal: whether applying Code § 33.1-221.1:1.1 to fund the Montgomery County facility violates internal improvements or credit clauses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the application violate the internal improvements clause? | County: project is not a governmental function; unlawful Commonwealth interest in a privately owned terminal. | Appellees: intermodal facility serves public highway purposes; falls within public roads exception; ownership by NS permissible. | No violation; falls within public roads exception and governmental function. |
| Does the application violate the credit clause by lending Commonwealth credit to a private entity? | County: funding scheme constitutes lending/credit to NS. | NS grant is a purchase of capacity, not lending of credit; does not extend Commonwealth credit. | No violation; no extension of Commonwealth credit. |
| Is ownership/operation by Norfolk Southern a constitutional obstacle under the internal improvements clause? | Private ownership defeats the public roads exception. | Ownership structure permissible if governmental function and public purpose are served. | Ownership by NS does not defeat the public roads exception. |
| Did the General Assembly’s delegation and legislative policy support justify the funding scheme? | County argues statute is not aligned with internal improvements/public road aims. | Legislative history and Heartland Corridor policies support intermodal funding to relieve highway congestion. | Legislative intent supports the statute as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Almond v. Day (Almond I), 197 Va. 782, 91 S.E.2d 660 (Va. 1957) (internal improvements history and roads exception framework)
- Almond v. Gilmer (Almond II), 199 Va. 1, 97 S.E.2d 824 (Va. 1957) (public roads exception and governmental function analysis)
- Button v. Day, 208 Va. 494, 158 S.E.2d 735 (Va. 1968) (credit clause related to guaranty/loan schemes)
- Volkswagen of Am.,Inc. v. Smit, 279 Va. 327, 689 S.E.2d 679 (Va. 2010) (as-applied constitutional challenges and standards of review)