City of Pocatello v. Peterson

POCATELLO, municipal corpora- CITY OF Idaho, Plain- State tion tiff-Respondent, Nielson,

George and Dean G. H. PETERSON joint venture, Defend- d/b/a ants-Appellants.

No. 10646.

Supreme of Idaho.

Aug. 7, 1970. (cid:127) Olson,

Racine, Huntley, Herzog & Poca tello, defendanis-appellants. Olson, Pocatello, plain- Johnson tiff-respondent. Gen., Robson, Atty. Robert M. Gen., Greener, Atty. H. Richard Asst. Boise, amici curiae. French, Atty., Bonne- H.

Seward Pros. Falls, County, curiae. amicus ville Matthews, Atty., Pros. Ada Ellison M. Boise, amicus curiae. DONALDSON, Justice.

This action was initiated Pocatello, plaintiff-respondent, pur completed pose declaratory judgment as the on the seeking a after lease structure city. purchased validity agreement to land back to the The pro- the of a lease city, by George was to posed by rejected structure to built be used the but as. Nielson, airport facility de- terminal to accommodafe H. Dean the Peterson and G. community, appellants reject- serving the travelers fendants-appellants. airlines airlines, provide agreement on they ed the a the and addition lease since had question space for Ad- legality. parties the Aeronautics as to its Federal ministration, Bureau, and stipulated the Weather the to the cause be submitted other related facilities. upon plead- district court for the decision thereto, ings and exhibits attached and fur- Nielson, Appellants doing and Peterson stipulated: ther joint-venturers, as business submitted both a bid for the and the allegations “That all the of Plain- proposal to construct the terminal build- Complaint tiff’s and Defendants’ Answer ing city. and -lease the stipu- it back to sub- true and that it correct and proposed provided stance the that the agreed lated and the reasonable building was to lessor the subject rental construct value them, city $6,000.00 property deeded con- sum of per month.” plans struction accordance with The facts pleadings, set forth specifications part and were a exhibits, stipulation disclose that on city pay bid and for the documents September the Pocatello $6,000 per twenty rental month for Council enacted an ordinance its declaring year period. intention to sell certain described unim- bid of proved On December overall lands owned it. These lands accepted by respond appellants part were was of the Municipal Air- Pocatello city ent bid. the lowest On best port and runways were situated near the February 9, city to the tendered airport. At this same time the appellants agreement a lease execution for published a notice calling competitive for appellants sign refused to since bids in accordance with certain contract they uncertain whether could documents. In calling pro- for bids the constitutionally agree into enter such an posed that pur- the successful bidder would action ment. The then initiated this unimproved chase the land and construct declaratory seeking judgment to deter building terminal thereon in ac- agreément mine whether the lease violates specifications cordance with re- Const., Article provisions quirements documents, bid and there- 3.1 county 1. “Limitations on Any liability in same. indebtedness or town, county, city, indebtedness. —No contrary provision shall curred to this township, education, board of or school provided-, shall be void: that this section district, state, or other apply subdivision of the not be construed to to the any indebtedness, liability, shall incur or necessary expenses authorized any manner, any purpose, or provided ex the state laws of ceeding year, any city village may own, in that the income and rev further that provided year, enue extend, equip, it for purchase, construct, such with within qual corporate out the assent two-thirds and without city limits voting systems sewage village, ified thereof at electors an election water purpose, to be held for that systems, [nor] no un and water treatment collection plants less, incurring sewage plants, before the time of treatment provisions indebtedness, parking facilities, public shall be made recre off street navigation facilities, the collection of an annual tax suf facil and air ation ficient ities, paying and, interest on such in due, regard may, debtedness as it falls constitute a and also to cost thereof without sinking payment imposed, fund herein with assent limitation principal thirty thereof, qualified within electors of two-thirds of the years contracting voting from the time to be for that an election held court, basing conclusions of compliance its whether there The trial was record, stipulated provisions that the láw ruled Chapter 40, on' the I.C. Title Inc., conditional Buildings, was lease and not discussed in Swensen v. a. that rentals sales contract and the liability agreement in' are not a debt or the principal presented by The issue prohibited by the Idaho 3 of Article appeal repair is the im whether and that concluded Constitution. court also The provement municipal airport by the ordinary agreement creates an ordinary of Pocatello is an neces and necessary arid expense authorized sary expense falling pertinent within laws that of such state and execution provision.2 constitutional This em authority an agreement within phasizes is meaningless that it to consider n the: prohibited by and constitu- question the broad re as to whether the tion. The court furthermore concluded pair, maintenance construction an air lawfully that the defendants could execute port is to be considered an and and, accordingly, such an en- necessary expense taking without also into judgment city. tered It is from that peculiar account the contextual framework judgment appeal that this has been taken. words, to the Pocatello. In other representing Amicus curiae Bonneville airport may whereas be considered County contends that the drafters of necessary expense for some expenses Idaho Constitution intended that municipalities, may not be for others. general authorized laws of the state repair, maintenance construction government units of local to incur are inherently airports are not the ordinary expenses expenses” falling within be excluded con- limitations of the provision. attorney stitutional “proviso 3 of clause” Article as adopted amicus has curiae the brief and dis Idaho Constitution.3 Research fails position respondent Pocatello). (City of ques cases have close considered At the pointed outset it is to that be out except North several in Carolina.4 tion no there is issue before this Court as to cases,5 analyzing without However these purpose, therefor, revenue issue bonds “proviso clause,” Article 2. The “ * * principal * be interest of Constitution, states: Idaho provided, paid solely from revenue derived from this section shall not that charges of, rates and for the use and the apply ordinary and to the construed necessary by, plants, systems, rendered such gen- expenses .service authorized prescribed may by law; ** and facilities state laws of the eral port any further dis- complete of Article F.N. 1 for the text carrying trict, into 3.§ . any powers effect all' or now F.N. 2. 3. See granted port hereafter districts may state, Durham, of this laws contract indebt- 211 N.C. v. 4. Goswick evidencing Sing v. (1937) ; revenue edness issue bonds S.E. indebtedness, necessity Charlotte, such without 195 S.E. N.C. port authorizing Airport Greensboro-Highpoint (1938) ; the voters district same, pay- v. Authority such revenue Johnson, bonds to be N.C. solely part County able from all Vance S.E.2d 803 port Royster, revenues of the district derived from 155 S.E.2d 790 271 N.C. any excepting source whatsoever those revenues derived from ad valorem taxes, Durham, Goswick 5. The cases of port commission thereof Greensboro-Highpoint n. may determine, and such revenue bonds Authority Airport Johnson, supra, n. any not to be in manner toor extent question did not raise the prohibition. of constitutional n general obligation port district

(cid:127)issuing charge upon same, nor the ad n valorem revenue of such port tax district.” however, involved, fundamental, It therein- backgrounds the factual position curiae of amicus insofar as that: merely abstract state County “ representing concern Bonneville * * * has determined this Court ed, legislature in this statutes enacted of a the construction context cannot contravene expense’ that sense. ‘necessary not a words, though even limitations. other Authority Airport Point Greensboro-High various legislature have authorized Char- Johnson, supra; Sing expenditures by vil counties or cities Royster, lotte, supra.” County v. Vance contrary to lages, at 798. supra, 271 N.C. S.E.2d provision, they cannot be the constitutional “ ‘ purpose the is the maintenance of “If proviso Article 3 re made. The to § public the peace or the administration expenditure be quires the au both justice, partakes governmental it of a by general the State thorized laws by purports nature or an exercise necessary and be an and city the dele- portion of a of the state’s mere fact here is one. The that the lease if, gated brief, sovereignty, in it involves by general authorized the state laws ’ necessary governmental expense.” expenditure ipso bring facto does tested, airport When thus an not a proviso within as and an necessary expense.” Sing governmental necessary expense. of Charlotte, N.C. n. This will whether Court now consider 195 S.E. at 273. operation can airport of an be con- Thus these are help cases of little necessary” “ordinary ex- sidered as and considering in the Idaho constitution- pense provision. within al as it relates to the facts of previously, have been As stated few cases case. passed by upon involving courts By I.C. 50-321 the legislature in precise presented by § case. instant issue broad' terms has authorized ac situation, cities to an analogous However in courts quire, operate and airports. maintain Ad frequent on have occasion determined legislative ditional authority is found to be operation is of whether the in I.C. 21-401.7 public necessity such use that the state or Acquisition, “50-321. Aviation survey, plat, map, grade, ornament and facilities — operation appurte- and improve land, are maintenance. —Cities otherwise nances, approaches, such hereby empowered: acquire by pur- leading and avenues chase, gift, lease, sublease, adjacent thereto; provide or otherwise for all to or hold necessary and take over expenses such lands costs and incident or city may council deem powers within foregoing to the exercise of the or corporate or objects without foregoing limits whether the attainment county within or without in which or in out of the fund said located; things said by special do all levy, neces- its in an amount discretion sary cooperation in with the United States not to exceed three the dollar mills on government adapting any (1) year such lands one on all the taxable acquired purposes; so by to national property defense within such or issu- purpose maintaining and for avia- bonds as anee of sections facilities, pur- tion through to lease for aviation 50-1001 50-1042.” poses, any purposes or connected therewith thereto, any part provides incident all part: or I.O. 21-401 * * * lands, regula- such land or villages under “Counties cities and upon hereby tions and acquire by pur- such terms and conditions are authorized to as shall be lease, established chase, condemnation, otherwise, council or * * * law; or otherwise established to con- take over and hold lands struct, operate maintain, constructing consistent and maintain- regulations may ing fields, airports, hangars now exist aviation law, or navigation facilities; provide hereafter be established other air equipment necessary hangars, buildings equipment neces- or incidental to the sary or operation convenient to the maintenance maintenance such avia- operation * * facilities; airports; of aviation tion fields .778 room, power teletype shop, can nician’s weather

or its subdivisions use bureau, space storage land air- areas domain to condemn office eminent inadequate ports. all to accommodate the needs people. Furthermore power “Eminent is the domain inadequate to accommodate the needs sovereign public take use Agency. * * the Federal Aviation view *. consent without owner’s facts, these ‘public use’ element is set forth' City of Pocatello ‘general some as the definitions welfare/ “Ordinary” expenses”? “regular; means publicthe ‘public ‘welfare of usual; common; recurring; normal; often good/ ‘public 'public benefit/ * * * by peculiar or characterized utility necessity1 Nichols Dic unusual Black’s Law circumstances.” Domain, 1.11, 4-6, pp. Eminent Rev. 1968).9 “Nec tionary, p. (Rev. 4 ed. supplied). 3d (emphasis ed. 1964. essary” “indispensible.” Black’s means construction, maintenance, 1968). Dictionary, p. (Rev. Law 4 ed. operation airports generally consider expenditure, although not of a fre An ed justifying to be for a use quently nature, may recurring nonetheless power exercise of the of eminent domain “ordinary necessary.” Hickey v. be private proper the of acquiring 41, Nampa, 280 City of 22 Idaho 124 P. ty See, City for such use. of Caldwell industry ex (1912). aviation has Since the Roark, ; 99, (1968) 437 P.2d 615 perienced the growth during tremendous Ferguson Kenosha, of 5 Wis.2d decades, original airport last two 93 N.W.2d 460 Avia 8 Am.Jur.2d Pocatello, dating facilities at tion, 667; p. A.L.R. 756. Annot. 135 and have ceased have become obsolete stated, Idaho, As heretofore in the State provide necessary safety demanded pursuant 401,8 per cities are I.C. § 21— safety air air travelers. Insuring acquire, power mitted to via of eminent undoubtedly legitimate, neces travel is domain, lands for construction and performed sary, ordinary be function to airports. maintenance of has by municipality. Where airport facility for maintained an bene the construction and main Thus traveling public fit than more facility airport is valid tenance of an twenty years inadequate it and now finds justification employing power of opinion public, it is of this serve airports con eminent domain since are correctly the trial court con Court for,.the benefit, operated structed and cluded that on a new de rentals utility necessity. Examining the fac signed to fulfill the needs bar, presented by tual situation the case at traveling public are it appears that has Pocatello necessary” expenses the proviso within operated airport since the Idaho clause Article Con presently finds must stitution. expanded be if it is remain of value. passenger The Closely terminal is an 'unsound instant case analogous room, structure. Hickey The observation tech- presented the situation necessary.” 8. F.N. 7. See v. Glinde- to become man, Thomas 33 Idaho at at P. 9. This Court stated Thomas v. Glinde- man, 33 Idaho 195 P. 92 also, Hanson Idaho See that: (1968) ; Falls, Idaho expense “An if in the ordi- Jones v. Power Idaho nary course transaction of munici- P. 35 pal business, mu- maintenance of nicipal may likely property, F.N. 2. 10.. following The statement Supreme cities. made Nampa, supra, wherein the per- more Cardozo even that: reasoned Justice today: tinent “ * * * expenditure, though out to-day “Aviation is an established ordinary, is incurred * * * transportation. The method of * * * repairing prop- purpose of foresight is without to build manner erty, improving it in such ports soon be for the new traffic city, falls to render it serviceable to the competition.”' left behind in the race of proviso within 3]§ [Article al., Hesse v. Rath et at N.Y. 436 * * * It is one Constitution. 342 at 342 N.E. property ownership incidents of the * * * respondent. Judgment affirmed. Costs to kept repair that it must be serve its is to be useful and SHEPARD, JJ., McQUADE and concur. may, purpose. repairs making however, only infrequent in- occur at McFADDEN, (dissenting). Chief tervals, and still Justice Hickey expense.” opinion majority solely deals 45, 46, Nampa, supra, 22 Idaho “ordinary' the issue as constitutes to what P. at 281. necessary expenses” within clause of It con- Hickey, pipes city’s In wooden in the expended cludes that funds to be “the system wooden water had become obsolete repair im- Pocatello for the arid City Nampa and of no (they value provement airport facility ‘ordi- of its useless). burst and became the case nary necessary expenses’ incurred bar Airport the Pocatello is an obsolete falling municipality, proviso within the facility, inadequate and unsafe for the citi- to Article 3 of the Idaho Constitution. zens of the Hickey, pipes area. iron repair improvement Furthermore the and purchased were Nampa to airport facility is essential Pocatello replace the obsolete wooden ones. The Su- development proper growth and preme opinion Court was the area.” repair improvement and property a necessary was expense since At the outset it is to be noted that any “In order for this property to be of the issue pay- here is whether the rental city, value to to was for it $6,000 per years ments twenty month for kept repair.” Hickey violate the constitutional provision, and not Nampa, supra, 22 at 281. Idaho at 124 P. repair improvement whether “the facility airport ‘ordinary were opinion It is the of this necessary expenses’ incurred the munic- expended by funds to be of Poca ipality” proviso fall within clause of tello repair improvement for the provision. riot This case does airport facility its are and neces improvement” “repair deal with ' sary expenses” by municipality, incurred facilities, deal existing but does with falling within the to Article 3§ payments wholly rental terminal new of the Idaho Furthermore Constitution.11 building. repair improvement of the Poca airport tello disagree essential -for the Inasmuch -as facility is I -the con- proper growth development majority opinion, of the area. clusion reached railroads, especially This so since the additional issue must be discussed". This issue, discuss, upon and communica additional travel will first I heavily dependent yesteryear, payments provided tion is whether the-rental many twenty-year discontinuing passenger service to lease before this court

11. 2. See BUST. liability” pro- Angeles Offner, create a “debt or within the lease. Los hibition of Idaho art. 8 Cal .2d 14 (1942) P.2d Heb erer v. Com’rs of Board of Chaffee Respondent, the cases in the citing set out (1930); 88 Colo. 293 P. Bair v. footnote below, plan contends that the Layton City Corp., 6 2d Utah whereby appellants sells land to Eveleth, Ambrozich v. who construct the terminal 200 Minn. But N.W. and lease it back the city to is one that has Financing Magnusson, see “Lease Mu generally accepted been jurisdic other Way nicipal Corporations Around Throughout tions. these cases runs the Limitations,” Debt 25 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. thought that where the is in lease fact (1957) at 391 where it is stated lease rentals are intended as duty pay long “The future rent in a rentals, rather subterfuge than as a for in ‘present’ as the just term stallment payments purchase price on the duty debt each installment of lease, contract, under conditional sales rent. service on the bonds back of the if it option purchase contains an even The lease terminated with- could not be the property, does create an indebted payment damages out the or without meaning ness within the a constitutional being subject to mandamus injunction or on indebtedness.1 limitation See 71 A.L.R. keep paying. agree- Breaches of 1321; 1364; Me 145 A.L.R. perform ments or failure to would Quillin, Municipal Corporations 41.38, pp. subject having posses- take a trustee ed.). (3d reasoning 392-393 used carry per- required sion out support calling this result is that a lease formance.” periodic in rentals does not create aggregate future debtedness con- Although fact that a lease the mere rentals, rather indebtedness creates option tains an owing, currently installment of rent in- upon expiration of the lease will obligation evitably rent is not current a condi- because the lease into transform option agreement, the terms of where until it has accrued under tional sales Smallwood, (1953) ; of Jackson 225 Ark. Fiscal Court McArthur 328 Kuchel, Ky. , Education, ; County (1955) Dean v. Board of 268 428 v. S.W.2d 281 (1950) ; 336, (1937), 444, 269 521 1103 aff. 218 P.2d 104 S.W.2d 35 Cal.2d Ky. 990, Prop County Byram, 258, Angeles Cal. 36 106 cf: State v. S.W.2d Los erty Bldg. Hays, (1951) City 694, ; La v. of & Comm. 346 S.W.2d 4 227 P.2d 2d City Baltimore, Cal.App.2d 99, ; (Ky.1961) Pellerin, 3 Hall v. 30 of v. 216 Habra Cal.Rptr. (1969) City 416, (1963) ; ; Wa of An 252 Md. 250 A.2d 233 Los 752 Auth., Bldg. Detroit-Wayne 14, geles Offner, A.L.R. linske v. Joint P.2d 145 122 v. (1949) ; People Doyle City (Cal.1942); of San 39 N.W.2d v. Ruane v. 73 1358 Cal.Rptr. Associates, Inc., 222, 548, Cal.App.2d 132 Diego, 374 Mich. 73 267 Angeles (1965) ; County ; (1968) v. N.W.2d 99 Ambrozich v. Los 316 Cal.Rptr. Eveleth, 473, Cal.App.2d 603, Nesvig, Minn. 274 N.W. 41 200 231 635, (1937) ; (1965) ; 112 Petition Board of Coun A.L.R. 269 Heberer v. 918 County, Bldgs. Crowe, ty of Public 363 88 Bd. v. Chaffee Commissioners ; (Mo.1962) ; (1930) 159, Sheffield S.W.2d 598 405 Monroe Co. 293 P. 349 Colo. Asbury Auth., 575, Park, 457, Bldg. 193 Ga. v. 40 208 N.J. v. State School Howlett, ; Berger (1963) Application (1952) ; A.2d 115 of Okl. v. S.E.2d 590 68 Capitol Imp. Auth., (Okl. ; (1962) 128, P.2d 1028 673 355 N.E.2d Ill.2d 182 25 Kelley 337, 1960) ; Earle, 337, Keehn, N.E. 190 80 v. 325 Pa. 400 Ill. Loomis v. Tp. ; (1937) Greenhalgh (1948); A. v. School 140 Wool Jefferson 368 2d 543, ; Bldg. Co., worth, Tp. 212 361 Pa. 64 A.2d 659 School v. Jefferson Layton City 138, Corp., (1937) ; 542, Bair v. Prots 6 Utah 2d 608 10 N.E.2d Ind. (1957) Jefferson-Craig 307 rel. P.2d 895 State Thom Consolidated ex v. man Giessel, Corp. N.W.2d son v. 267 Wis. 65 109 of Switzerland School (1954); (Ind.1953) ; 529 v. v. State ex rel. Thomson Book State N.E.2d 889 Giessel, Building Comm., 149 Ind. 271 Wis. 72 N.W.2d 577 238 Office (1955)). (1958) ; Fatzer ex rel. State N.E.2d 273 Bd., Armory 256 P.2d Kan. v. 7gl tory statutory "provide a build- duty the rentals court price decreases for that reason the ing, and held are sufficient the rentals paid, or where building leasing was the cost purchase price that at so cover prohibition acquires not within constitutional the lease the termination liability. paym against incurring a debt or any additional property without sum, ent,2 only payment a nominal originally con The Missouri constitution does indicate the lease the authorities “debt” “lia both tained reference to aggregate create an indebtedness bility,” was later amended to delete but 71 A.L.R. amount of rentals. See “debt,” reference to the word leaving 1374; 1323; p. p. A.L.R. 1362 by re “liability.” case The Missouri cited County, 137 Or. Brewster v. Deschutes Bldgs. spondent, Public Petition of Bd. Invest. 1 P.2d Iron Products Crowe, (Mo.1962), dis v. 363 S.W.2d 598 (10th Picher, F.2d 443 Co. in detail difference between cussed Phoenix 1936); of Phoenix v. Cir. upheld “liability” and a revenue “debt” and Auditorium and Convention Center Civic in that bond issue. factual situation Ass’n, P.2d 99 Ariz. however, case, quite different was Emmett, 51 City of also Williams the case before this court. by respondent, cited The Minnesota case those Examination the constitutions Eveleth, Minn. Ambrozich opinions states from which are cited upholds (1937), 274 N.W. 635 respondent (supra 1) reveals that their con here, is involved arrangement such as phrase in stitutions do not contain a “shall “lia- a “debt” or that rent is not stating indebtedness, liability" (em cur inter- bility,” it does involve the Const, phasis art. added) as used in Idaho pretation debt limitation. Rather, most of those constitutions only with a debt limitation That case dealt only prohibit governmental in bodies from contained in charter. Only curring “debts” or “indebtedness.”3 had previously has occasion This court California, Jersey Missouri and New terms “indebted- to consider use “liability.”4 constitutions the word contain “liability” in Idaho ness” Jersey prohibition applicable The New Emmett, supra, 3. Williams only against the state and does not mention agreement under which dealt with municipalities. counties or sprinklers for the use had of street noteworthy Angeles It is also that Los pay- which it contracted to make annual County Byram, P.2d Cal.2d gave the ments. The sustaining respondent cited by equipment pro- option purchase the arrangement a lease violation in the these payments, vided limitation, the constitutional debt dealt with approximately to aggregate amounted case in which the under a applied option was to option price, manda- would be language porations Way 2.The in bid Lim submitted AAs Around Debt appellants “We, 377, itations,” effect that citi 25 Geo.Wask.L.Rev. Pocatello, in zens feel it is in best City terests of the of Pocatello to eventu Ga.Const, ally regain ownership 11, 6; art. terminal. 3. art. Colo.Const. § part proposal 9, 7, 7; We 12; submit as a art. Ind. § this Ill.Const. § Kan.Const, Const, 6, twenty year 13; 11, that at the §§ end of the lease art. art.. term, property -157-158; Ky.Const. 7; we art. will deed and ter Md.Const. §§ building 7; 7, 11; 11, minal § back to the Poca art. Okla. Mick.Const. § Const, tello, 9, gift,” suggests 10, 23; at no §§ cost as a that art. Pa.Const. art. § 3; 9, 10, P.S.; 14, the “lease” involved here is than art. § more Utah facility. a mere lease of the air terminal art. § 3. Wis.Const. Emmett, See Williams v. 51 Idah o Calif.Const, Magnus 1; art. 6 P.2d art Mo.Const. N..T.Const, son, Financing by Municipal 37; “Lease 3.§ Cor liability be incurred at would other numerous that price. Recognizing entered into.” the contract was time had held that a states at 535. 143 P. 26 Idaho indebtedness for present did not create a rentals, this aggregate amount of McBean v. Although the discussion may have there court held that while dictum, Fresno, it is in ac- was present indebtedness within been no in later made cord with the statements constitution, there was meaning of the by this in court Williams payment and liability aggregate for Emmett, court supra, in stated: which violated therefore Dietrich, T. “Judge in Dexter Horton thus provision. The court County Bank & v. Clearwater Sav. “lia- to the term gave a definition broader this, 743, 754, discussing in (D.C.) 235 F. bility” than to “indebtedness.” Constitution, provision said: Co., Development Ltd. v. Boise In Boise “ ‘The Idaho Constitution is imbued City, (1914), 26 Idaho P. 531 spirit economy, far with the so be- first the distinction court considered possible imposes upon political' “liability” as used tween “indebtedness” and pay-as-you-go- of the state a subdivisions that case our constitution. In that,, system of finance. The rule agreements agreed, had in consideration of express quali- without the assent of Company for Development from the Boise electors, fied officers are land, expend at least the use of the they have not incur debts $5,000 annually years improve for five pay. policy funds entails Such court the channel of the Boise River. This inefficiency crudity measure of 3, of the Idaho considered art. Con- government, local but doubtless the men although there was stitution and held that Constitution, having in who drafted the by the "present created indebtedness” examples optimism mind disastrous liability” “present agreement, there awas extravagance part on the year for the total over the five officials, thought best sacrifice a period. reaching this conclusion efficiency degree of measure of for a indis- court discussed a case California careful, safety. thrifty some- citizen principle the case at tinguishable in gets along times with a crude instrumen- Fresno, 112 Cal. bar. McBean v. tality pay until he is able to P. involved a contract likewise, something un- And better. McBean between under Constitution, county der officers city’s agreed dispose of the McBean they making must use the means have for $4,900 per year. years for sewage five they equitable fair until assessments upheld the contract California something are able to more ef- pay- grounds the annual on the ficient, the consent of those obtain lia- $4,900 present debt or ment was supposed whose to- they interests however, severely bility. court, criti- This ” act.’ Idaho at although holding, stating cized that ag- debt for the present there was not a d’Alene, See also Feil v. of Coeur lia- present gregate payments, there was P. 643 School Dist court set forth for them. This bility County No. v. Twin Falls Mut. Fire Ins.. hypothetical and stated: case Co., (1917). 164 P. 1174 Re gardless of whether this B. by employs A. contract “If valid aggregate an indebtedness year created to work for him for the term of one upon execution rentals, that it is evident month, per payable at of at the end $50 created within agreement there was of the every month, this con- would each the Idaho constitution meaning of soon the liability on A. as tract not be a to be “liability” aggregate rentals ac- as executed? A debt of would $50 month, due. come each crue thereon at the end of

783 provi- court involved many issue before with is conversant This court C.S.1919, 50-1003) (I.C. 4053 sions of jurisdictions which from other decisions part: which of court- upheld long term leases have buildings on houses, jails and other made appropriation be further shall “No opposed as theory that current rent year such fiscal time within other present aggregate future rents is to the ap- proposition to make each unless liability. City Angeles Los debt or of first sanctioned propriation has been Offner, 14 v. 19 Cal.2d by legal of majority voters of (1942); Board of Com’rs Heberer v. by signed village, petition city or either P. 349 Chaffee 88 Colo. duly general them or at election ; Layton City Corp., (1930) Bair v. 6 Utah therefor, appropriations all called v. 2d 307 P.2d 895 Ambrozich year shall end the fiscal for which Eveleth, Minn. 274 N.W. they were made.” Baltimore, Hall Glindeman, my opin- Thomas (1969). 252 Md. How- 250 A.2d there, ion, the issues limited as it was to ever, previously pointed out, the con- as hardly to authoritative be considered provisions stitutional under which those position taken counsel. cases were dif- many decided instances Falls, supra, In Hanson v. of Idaho my fer from the Idaho constitution. It is payments this held future court “liability” conclusion that a opposed as fund, policeman’s made retirement under a to a part “debt” was created on the liability, ordinary neces- while a were city upon agreement. execution this sary expenses government. Therein The next issue for consideration it is stated: one which is the majority rationale “ or- expense ordinary ‘An if in the opinion accepts contention business, dinary course of parties,

both curiae, as well amicus mimicipal property, the maintenance of in this case are to be likely and is to become neces- “ordinary considered ex- Glindeman, sary.’ Thomas v. penses” meaning within the of the con- 195 P. 92 One stitutional which states: necessary expenses most fundamental and “provided, that this section shall not be is that municipal government

construed to apply adequate provision incurred in the expenses prop- authorized police protection persons erty.” laws the state.” Idaho 446 P.2d at 92 Idaho 3.§ necessary” words contention support cite in of this have Counsel used in constitutional context their Glindeman, 33 Idaho in several Thomas v. considered this court been of Idaho Em- (1921), Hanson other In Williams cases. P. Falls, this mett, (1931), P.2d 92 Idaho 51 Idaho payments held that Glindeman, ap- supra, was Thomas ato acquire use of and title agreement to of man- a writ plication to this court for neces- sprinkler street d’Alene compel mayor of Coeur date sary expenses. v. Board In Dunbar of a payment sign warrant Com’rs, P. for work by the counsel authorized claim building bridge and of a court held had claim done on the streets. not within payment scalp bounties were ap- previously paid funds not been because Therein terms. contemplation of those petition A expended. propriated had been court stated: legal voters majority signed by a terms are ap- that the two “It be seen city requesting an additional will hence, to come with- conjunctively; had been used propriation be made filed. 784 63, County, 12 84 1054 exception, Lemhi Idaho P.

in the or courthouse, bridge or building of expenditures (1906), in excess of the reve- made road; only wagon No. 8 v. Twin year of not School Dist. nues current must Co., County Idaho Mutual Ins. 30 ordinary as are Falls Fire expenses, be for 400, membership county (1917), 164 usual to P. 1174 the maintenance of company; county fire insurance government, necessary mutual the conduct of its 668, Buhl, City 48 Idaho 284 business, protection prop- Miller v. of and the of its system purchase of erty, necessity (1930), P. 843 electric but there must exist a of payable from sale making expenditure during pledge orders at or d’Alene, power; City of 23 year.”' 412, Feil Coeur 5 v. Idaho at 49 P. at 411. 32, purchase of (1912), P. 643 Idaho 129 Co., County Bannock 4 Bunting C. & v. system, payable from bonds to be water 156, Idaho (1894), construing 37 P. 277 Develop receipts; Boise redeemed Revised (dealing Statutes 1762 347, Co., City, 26 Idaho ment Ltd. v. Boise public buildings improve- construction of land; (1914), payments for 143 P. 531 ments) held that and build- 306, County, Mittry 38 Idaho Bonneville v. ing county clearly aof courthouse “is expense above 222 excess' (1923), P. 292 among ordinary necessary expenses courthouse; completion of bonded limits county.”' Doumecq High- Allen v. 500, Emmett, Idaho of 51 Williams v. way Dist., 33 Idaho (1920), 192 P. 662 payments sprinkler (1931), held bridge construction was not City Grange truck; Hospital General v. necessary expense. ville, debt on 69 Idaho Cases decided recognizing this court pro payable out of hospital construction expenditures to be hospital. operation In none ceeds of expenses” Lewiston, are: Butler v. cases, however, con these did this court 11 Idaho 83 P. (1905) validity 234 have expenditures — could sider whether the of bond issue' to redeem warrants is- “ordinary and neces considered as been sued for salaries of officials and em- sary.” ployees, the having passed by bond issue rea- majority opinion discards the majority; Hickey two-thirds in the soning of the North Carolina Nampa, 124 (1912), P. 280 Durham, 211 of Goswick v. cases approved which passed bond issue Sing v. N.C. S.E. 728 retire warrants used to for reconstruc- Charlotte, 213 N.C. S.E. tion of a water main collapsed while ; Airport Greensboro-Highpoint Au- (1938) fire; firemen fighting were Jones thority Johnson, N.C. S.E.2d Power Idaho 150 P. 35 County Royster, N.C. ; (1946) Vance (1915), transcribing county held series in which 155 S.E.2d 790 records, providing fixtures, furniture record that court held of cases erecting books and jail newly for a created “or- municipal airport facilities were county ex- necessary” under that expenses dinary and penses within proviso, the constitutional debt limitations. state’s constitutional such items could be contracted for without Wilmington, 191 Henderson v. submitting the issue to the vote Supreme 132 S.E. N.C. people. stated: Carolina North noted, however, It is to be that this court rendered “The decisions heretofore held in the cases that following where ex ‘necessary the court make the test of penditures, liabilities exceed income for which the ex- expense’ purpose year, they the current If the pense are in is to be incurred. violation peace- constitution; Ball v. Bannock is the maintenance County it, justice, (1897), purchase 51 P. or the administration courthouse; governmental real nature partakes estate for McNutt Const, city provided year. for in that purports be Idaho an exercise art. 8, 3. a city obligates sover- portion delegated of the When itself to state’s $1,440,000 necessary $6,000 brief, per twenty eignty, in it at month involves year it is governmental expense these cases term difficult to see an how is —in pur- required necessary” expense. expense to effect the When * * pose necessary facility 132 S.E. the rent is contracted paid yet constructed, to be has not been 30-31. impetus and where the for the construction reasoning the North Carolina facility originated such new from the court terminal seems valid. An city, more than ever am I convinced that facility integral part of is not such an “extraordinary” expense, regard- this is an governmental expenditure function that facility might less of how facility renting terminal Particularly be. this in so the instant a wide “necessary” expense. There are case, as the of Pocatello inasmuch variety sup- frequently are of facilities that held a general obligation bond election in by city plied government, purpose 1968 for the construc- libraries, courses, auditoriums, muse- golf tion of aviation including facilities mu- many ums Yet is difficult more. nicipal airport building (Bogert terminal say precisely an ex- which instance Kinzer, P.2d 639 penditure such facilities would (1970)), pass which did not “necessary.” majority. usual; “Ordinary” nor- “regular; means type arrangement proposed mal; common; recurring; accord- often attempt indirectly is an to do what case settled; order; ing custom- established prohibition proscribes the constitutional ary ; reasonable; not characterized —(cid:127) “indebtedness, any or lia- the creation of circumstances; belong- peculiar or unusual bility, manner, any purpose or for to, by, ing exercised characteristic year, exceeding in that income average normal Black’s individual.” year, revenue for it for such with- Dictionary (rev. “Nec- 1968). Law 4th ed. qualified out the assent of two-thirds of the essary” may meaning: has a “It flexible voting electors thereof election to necessity import physical or in- absolute * * held for that may import evitability, or it that which only convenient, useful, appropriate, suitable, proper, to the end or conducive prob Sympathetic as be for we sought.” Dictionary (rev. Black’s Law understanding facing lem 1968). 4th ed. good de need council in its faith yet arrangement, sires alleviate “or- In the clause the terms two regular proceeding for ac method of dinary necessary” conjunc- are used large expensive quisition of such a tively “expenses.” modifying the word judgment should be followed.5 The context used, only they exceptional circum- should be reversed. trial city, stances can

town, etc., SPEAR, J., exceed the income or revenue herein. concurs argument in this the time of L.Ed. hold- Since 90 S.Ct. Supreme ing case the United limitations invalid Phoenix, right decided the ease of States obli- electors to vote at Arizona, Kolodziejski, gation et U.S. al. bond elections.

Case Details

Case Name: City of Pocatello v. Peterson

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 7, 1970

Citation: 473 P.2d 644

Docket Number: 10646

Court Abbreviation: Idaho