*1 Í.74 ; was-ample While there uncontradicted evi- UHLS, Clerk, City Edna V. Cheyenne, showing, dence numerous benefits to the Appellant (Defendant below), community by the project,
(cid:127)'plant privately was prior financed to the Wyoming STATE of ex rel. CITY OF CHEY ..time- pertinent introduction of the ENNE, Appellee (Plaintiff below). beginning suit, of this .ordinance No. 3589. justify rand order to the issuance of the ¡questioned bonds, it necessary would Supreme Wyoming. Court of public show that a purpose would be served June '.by the issuance of the bonds which would accomplished not be private financ-
ing. Our review of the record discloses
insufficient accomplish evidence this. .to Wycon President company * *’ * asked,
was “Is it not true that the
'same number employed of men will be plant,
operating quantities the same gas used,
'natural will be and the same
benefits will people accrue to the Cheyenne area and the State of ’
generally regardless plant 'of whether the through private financed sources or
'through the municipal issuance these answered,
revenue bonds?” This' official necessarily,” and then went on to ex-
/‘Not plain plant if the was financed with costs would be lowered company .compete able to more ef-
fectively products in its and that benefits accrue to public plant operate
area was able to at when capacity. At full best we think this evi- speculative,
dence both indefinite and supporting finding of the court that production resulting lower costs
the issuance of the industrial Wycon
revenue bonds would enable to ex-
pand products, the market for its result-
ing employment in increased and increased gas. However,
use of natural: notice appeal challenge findings did not fact, ques-
.of which in event were not argument
tioned in brief or appellants’ be considered in attack
now
upon being the court’s conclusions of law as provision
violative re-
lating municipal corpo- restriction acting pursuance
rations other than in We, therefore, purpose.
law for opinion.
concur the result reached
OX
*3
Godfrey,
Paul B.
Miller,
Thomas O.
Crowley, Cheyenne,
Ellen
appellant.
machinery, etc.,
buildings,
then
Wunnicke,
appel-
owned
Cheyenne, for
Brooke
being'
operated
refining
company,
lee.
project;
proceeds
suitable
McINTYRE,
PARK-
GRAY,
Before
deposited
the bond
would be
sale
SPANGLER,
ER, JJ., and
D. J.
trustee,
who would
disburse
proceeds
directed
delivered
McINTYRE
Mr. Justice
provisions of
indenture and lease
opinion of the court.
agreement;
acquisition
total
the valid-
determine
is an action to
This
$23,189,495,plus
figure
an amount
financing of
proposed
Cheyenne’s
ity of
expenses
defray
sufficient
all
in con-
Project
Refining
$25,000,000 Frontier
authorization,
nection with
sale
in-
constitutionality of
act for
*4
$18,-
of the
issuance
the sum of
8, ch.
projects,
dustrial
art.
689,495, being
paid
the amount to be
.the
(§§ 15.1-92—
Wyoming 1965
S.L. of
refining
initially
$4,500,000
company
and
1965). To
15.1-100, W.S.1957, Compiled
expended
ex-
for modernization and
determination,
the
on
the state
secure such
pansion
project,
of the
re-
essential to the
brought
Cheyenne
City
of
of
relation
the
finery’s
operation;
the
continued
that
the
action in
district
a mandamus
expansion
modernization and
of
re-
the
compel
city clerk, seeking
the
finery
hiring
will result in the
of additional
Agree-
the Asset Purchase
execution of
employees; and that Frontier
is the
Re-
Frontier
acquisition
ment for
Cheyenne;
refinery
City
oil
of
the
Project.
doing, plaintiff
fining
In so
City
project
the
would
owner of
be the
validity
sought a
of
and consti-
declaration
operation
manufacturing
suitable for
as a
act;
tutionality
(a) the mentioned
as to:
the
project
or industrial
and lease it to
ordinances, seeking un-
Cheyenne
the
(b)
Company;
pur-
Refining
Frontier
Re-
der the act
authorize
Frontier
the
agreement
realty, per-
chase
covered certain
fining Project
by revenue
and to finance it
property,
sonal
and leaseholds
held
now
sale;
purchase agreement,
(c)
bond
the
refinery
company;
the
the lease
lease,
mortgage;
(d)
the viola-
agreement
company
pay
was to
rental
6,5,
tion of
and art.
art.
§§
payments
all
revenues sufficient
to cover
financing.
Wyoming Constitution, by the
principal
of
and
on the
interest
revenue
specifically denied
Defendant’s answer
bonds,
costs, fees, expenses,
premi-
all
and
validity
constitutionality
laws
and
issuance,
incident to
ums
administra-
and
under which consumma-
instruments
prior redemption
payment
and
tion
of
tion of
and
undertaken
bonds,
special
the revenue
and all taxes,
defenses, including
raised other
additional
assessments,
insurance,
repairs,
utilities
challenges.
constitutional
proj-
maintenance and ground rents of the
ect;
There was
actual trial but after cer-
mortgage
and that
the indenture
stipulations
interrogatories
and
had'
tain
provided
and deed of trust
estab-
deposition taken, the
been entered and a
separate
lishment of four
accounts with
court, apparently
pro
acting
forma,
account,
trustee,
entered
acquisition
special
fact,
findings
reciting generally
Project
principal
the Frontier
bond
and
City
passed by
that under an ordinance
fund,
Project
interest
Frontier
adminis-
proposed
to issue revenue bonds for
fund,
fund
maintenance
and
tration
and
purpose
Refining
acquiring
the Frontier
might
additional
be
series of bonds
Project
promote
(which
eco-
would
prescribed earnings
issued
limitaT
Cheyenne
increasing
nomic welfare of
tions.
activity,
employment, stimulating industrial
stipulations, and
revenues,
pleadings,
augmenting sources of tax
fos-
From
various
findings
fact, the court made
tering
stability,
improving
economic
land,
summary
law,
City’s
conclusions
which
economy),
the balance in the
holding
been a
property
to "have
that all
Wyo.
said
contravene Art.
12§
steps
Cheyenne,
Const.,
exempts
taken
property
Company
proposes
(who
Boettcher and'
?”
taxation
'
bonds),
underwrite the
and the Frontier
appealed
portion
The defendant
from that
Refining Company in
consummation of
findings
of fact
held the
.which
proposéd financing project,
been
had
proposed project
promote
proper, subject
legal and
to five constitu-
economic welfare of
and its
questions which
tional
were reserved
residents and from the mentioned conclu-
sent to this court for answer:
sions of law.
Chapter
“1. Do the
Question
No.
Wyoming,
8 of
196S
Art.
ch.
S.L.
plaintiff’s
Ordinances Nos. 1535
companion,
Since neither this case nor its
1538,including
Agree-
the Asset Purchase
Reed v.
Cheyenne, Wyo.,
'
ment,
Agreement,
Lease
and Indenture
69, can
completely
fully
disposed of
Mortgage
au-
Deed
Trust
questions
without
resort
thorized
Ordinance No.
contain
presented,
immediately
we turn
to them. In
'
delegations
power
contravention
doing
impressed
signifi-
so
we are
with the
3, 37, Wyo.Const.
?
Art.
and Art.
Question 3, dealing
cance of
*5
suggested
16, 6, Wyoming-
violation of art.
§
Is,
“2.
industrial
revenue bond
Constitution,
provides
which
that “Neither
Chapter 1,
financing
by
Art.
authorized-
any
county, city, township,
state nor
112,
Wyoming,
8 of
1965
S.L.
ch.
town,
district,
any
political
school
or
by plaintiff’s
Nos. 1535 and
Ordinances
sub-division,
shall loan
credit
public purpose
by
for
required
a
any
or make
in
donations to
aid of
in-
13, 3, Wyo.Const.?
Art.
§
dividual,
corporation”.1
association or
n
Does
“3.
the industrial
revenue bond
by
The concept
government
should.
financing
by Chapter 1,
authorized
Art. 8
private
development
assist
industrial
112,
Wyoming,
of ch.
S.L. of
1965and
new,
having
means
in
once flourished
plaintiff’s
1535 and 1538
Ordinances Nos.
the railroad bond era of the nineteenth
lending
public
constitute the
credit for
century and been later revived with the
private purpose
in contravention Art.
Mississippi
Agriculture
“Balance
In-
6,
16, Wyo.Const. ?
dustry” plan
1936,
from which time
“4. Does the industrial
revenue bond
spread throughout
country
idea has
until
financing
by Chapter 1,
authorized
Art.
in 1965 some form or other of
been
it has
of ch.
of Wyoming,
S.L.
1965and
adopted
twenty-three
in
states.2 The Mis-
plaintiff’s Ordinances Nos. 1535 and 1538 sissippi
development
Act declared the
contravene the
debt limitations
public
provided
policy,
(1)
a matter of
for
prescribed by
5, Wyo.
Art.
4 and
policy
commission to effectuate such
?”
Const.
investigation
(2)
and action and
for a vote
“5. Does the industrial
revenue bond
people
community
be af-
financing
by Chapter 1,
Winona,
authorized
Art.
fected.
In Albritton v.
ch.
Wyoming,
S.L.
1965and
181 Miss.
178 So.
115 A.L.R.
plaintiff’s
appeal
Ordinances Nos.
dismissed 303
U.S.
S.Ct.
by providing
for taxation of
82 L.Ed.
has been since
case which
Although
any individual,
the submitted
or in
asks
of credit- “to
aid of
financing
lending
corporation.”
if the
constitutes “the
association or
public
private purpose”
credit for
section',
background
contravention
no direct
2. Informative
are
discussions
is,
25;
. reference
made in the constitutional
found in
L.
19 Vand.L.Rev.
18 Maine
provision
“private purpose,”
25;
265;
and we
Rev. 1 and
111 U. of P.L.Rev.
quéstioá'
take the
to relate to the loan
15 U.Ma.L.Rév. 264.
ida, although
approval,
has not
by criticism and
enact-
both
spotlighted
authorizing
develop-
legislation
ed a statute
industrial
constitu-
court held the
bonds,
legisla-
tional,
right
ment
a number of communities have
emphasizing
especially
sought
accomplish financing
purpose,
not unlike
ture to declare a
effectuating
espoused
here
provided means for
has con-
when
sistently rejected any
plan
where
distinguishing the
such
as uncon-
situation
others,
ground,
prop-
among
stitutional on the
had control of the
owned and
lease.
erty
prohibition
there
was a
violate
one wherein
credit,
lending
g.,
propriety
legality, including consti-
e.
Fla.,
Miami,
North
tutionality,
specific scheme does
Town of
county general article purchaser, be bond eyes open, with his wide obligations municipality or coun- fit purchase sees revenue bonds of the ty.” Project Frontier for the sake of a Federal advantage, tax certainly he will be on notice coupons, 2. “Bonds and interest do of the fact that any pe- there never pecuniary constitute nor rise to a cuniary liability against Chey- liability municipality county or or enne, and only that he will be able to look charge against a general its credit or the revenues of the and the taxing powers.” project property payment itself for of his .3. “These limitations shall stated expressed clearly bonds. itWith in the law clearly on the face each bond.” and on the face of each bond that neither 95(a) Section of the act authorizes taxing power the credit nor of the munici- security devices “that do not constitute a pality pledged, no bondholder will ever general obligation municipality or say be heard to he was deceived that he or county.” provides Section 95(b) a munici- thought otherwise. pality county obligate or shall not ex- itself provision The constitutional arewe cept respect ap- discussing precludes loaning a from or plication revenues, of its and “shall not giving its credit to or in aid of an individual pecuniary liability incur a charge upon or a corporation. or prohibit This does not general its against taxing pow- credit or aiding benefiting corpora or er.” 95(d) again And states no breach tion, if its credit is not involved. Licenses any mortgage agreement may impose any frequently granted by franchises are “pecuniary liability” upon a municipality or cities counties to individuals and cor county any charge upon general their porations. recipients No doubt the receive credit taxing power. their aid and benefit, but no credit is In a case, similar revenue bond in Green involved. Pleasant, Mt. 256 Iowa supreme N.W.2d court of already Iowa We have reviewed the cases said: pri- assumes neither from other important states which “[h]ere we deem mary secondary liability nor way.” on of whether Also, supreme Nebraska, industiral revenue bonds con- *10 84 n stitutes Baker, Wyo. 273, 323 P. tion. Braten v. giving credit. lending or of 931, 929, rehearing denied 325 P.2d opinion. 2d unanimity There- is no
There rule in 880. fore, following the well-established legisla- an act of the jurisdiction that this why ac- no reason we should not We see declared unconstitutional ture will not say cept reasoning of these cases ap- unconstitutionality clearly unless its optional provisions lease of the Frontier legislature the
pears, to the will leave an donation of do not constitute unlawful deciding type whether this responsibility of city property. public interest. the best financing is in negative brings to a answer to This us 286, Kinne, Wyo., 395 P.2d Kuntz v. See question by 3 as reserved to us the district Company 288; v. Zale Bulova Watch Jew- ques- court, means we answer such Cheyenne, Wyo., P.2d elry Company of by saying tion authorized Casper, Wyo., 409, 417, Steffey v. 8, 1, 112, Wyoming ch. art. Ch. S.L. of rehearing 456, 468, modified on 1965, by Cheyenne 1535and Ordinances P.2d 951. lending pub- 1538 does not constitute the private purpose lic credit for a in contra- project property in The lease on the 16, 6, Wyoming Constitu- vention of art. § Refining Frontier grants case this tion. option Company to an renew lessee five-year periods lease for four consecutive No. 1 Question n project prop option purchase the to to us The first reserved required pay to erty for the amount industrial de- district court is whether the full, expenses incident all costs city velopment projects act and ordinances thereto, nominal sum of and an additional consideration, together with the in- $100. carrying out struments executed city clerk, Appellant, suggests the delegations of project, Frontier contain option prop constitutes a donation of 7, 1, power contravention of art. § 16, 6, erty contrary to art. § 3, 37, Wyoming art. Constitution. § admits, however, Constitution. She absolute, simply arbi- declares Art. issue been decided in favor of the has lives, trary power liberty and over the jurisdictions held that those which have property freemen exist nowhere in a re- lending the transaction does not amount to proposed public.' suggestion exer- No credit, option inclusion of an power is made the defend- cise of such any purchase make does not difference. ant, any authority or rea- nor are we shown Ky., Mayfield, Bennett S.W. delegation of arbi- son to believe there is a 2d 576. trary power. usually upheld Courts have indeed such 3, 37,-it respect art. reads: With options theory options on any delegate “The shall not appropriate integral part .an of the en commissioner, special private corporation tire transaction between lessor and lessee. make, super- association, power City Andalusia, Newberry v. 257 Ala. municipal im- interfere with vise or 637; Meyer 57 So.2d ex rel. effects, provements, moneys, property or County Lancaster, 173 N. Neb. otherwise, whether held in trust or 63, 68;. County of W.2d Darnell v. Mont levy taxes, perform any municipal or to gomery, 202 Tenn. 308 S.W.2d functions whatever.” 375; County Fairfax Industrial Devel 374 - delegation suggestion of a opment Authority Coyner, 207 Va. power in contravention of art. There, course, can be S.E.2d receive, power have trustee’s purchase option no doubt that a renewal or n containedin a lease is custody de- of and disburse revenues supported ade in- quate from the is an rived original considera- consideration —the
85 delegation. argues delegation valid Defendant legislative power of although by rule announced this court in Rodin v. authorized issuance of any bonds at rate State, Wyo., interest, 417 P.2d is not here any period time, over and applicable develop any Also, because industrial for amount. in the Stewart case projects any just said, ment act does not direc cited our performance if any nor guide municipal tions establish standards functions is under the control and municipal control the elected trustee. authorities, the con- stitutional provision legisla- prohibiting the The recognize may act does be a there ture from delegating any special commis- mortgage.” "trustee under a find it We power sioner supervise or interfere with clear, very however, pro- from numerous any municipal function is not violated. act, ordinances, agree- visions of the and parties, powers ments As performance whether re- such trustee would -be limited to functions in the case at hand is under ceiving apply- revenues from the and the control of municipal elected author- ities, point ing them to a the bonds in retirement of out issues mortgage agree- accordance with sells pro- revenue bonds. The parties. deposited ment ceeds are Project In the Rodin case we in the Ac- quisition powers trustee, said no were conferred nor duties Account with the who pursuant imposed upon disburses city’s bank other than escrow instructions. inherently by deposi- Counter-signatures those undertaken all of two officials required. are tories of funds. The same here —no Rental and other is true revenues powers from delegated deposited the leased duties are to a trustee are in the Fund, Bond inherently Account, than other those undertaken Administration mortgage. a trustee Maintenance Fund. The funds are in the custody, trustee’s but disbursements there- prohibition The specifically are limited purely against delegation power is intended to administrative. protect against taxing exercise Gregory City In Lewisport, Ky., 369 power purely municipal functions 133, 136-137, upheld S.W.2d the court people’s officials not con validity of an industrial revenue bond Tp. trol. Evans v. Norriton West Munici similar to the one considered pal Authority, 150, 474, 479; 370 Pa. 87 A.2d us and held delega- there was no unlawful Philadelphia, Wilson v. School Dist. of powers tion of because governmental 225, 90, 1401; 99, 328 Pa. 195 A. 133 A.L.R. powers were surrendered. in- What was County Board Albany Commissioners of volved, said, the court simply was details County White, Wyo. 335 P.2d proprietary transaction. 433, 442. Matters administrative light In of these considerations we delegated violating without the con question would answer reserved prohibition against legisla stitutional negative, by saying of the in delegating special ture to a commissioner act, dustrial projects power supervise or interfere with Ordinances 1535 and and instruments function. Stewart v. parties executed Frontier Cheyenne, Wyo. 497, 356; Project, delegations power do not contain County Kleiber v. of San Fran contravention of art. or art. cisco, 18 Cal.2d P.2d 37, Wyoming Constitution. Ferguson City State ex rel. of Pitts Question 2No. burg, 78-79, 188 Kan. P.2d specifically authorizing held that an act second to us is reserved specified cities to issue revenue bonds for whether the financing authorized purposes did development projects not amount to an unlawful act and *12 requir- public purpose Cheyenne operation for a as continuance of the
ordinances is to be by Wyoming warranted, improvements Constitution. substantial ed and art. § course, essential; additions question assumes art. Of that most § public part purchase price $18,000,000' requires to be for some such may discharge will purpose. other states be used to Constitutions of indebtedness find impose requirement, Refining prop- but we entire Frontier Company such a ; 13, 3, $4,500,000 erties and nothing expend- of our constitution that if the is art. ed requirement, expansion unless for modernization imposes which such a proj it thirty is to be ect is we assume a tax or assessment “estimated” an additional persons employed Cheyenne be collected, or that a debt is to would be in the levied- operations. contracted. Although pertinent language testimony meager, in art. it'
The contained was concerned, defendant,- by question 2 is not controverted as far as authority proposition is and there is this: for judicial that notice will be taken of the “ * * * shall no tax or assessment public flowing economic benefits new collected, or be levied or debts contracted expanded industry. City or See of Frost by municipal except pur- corporations Jenkins, burg Md. 136 A.2d la;w purposes speci- public for suance 856; County De Fairfax Industrial fied law’.” velopment Authority Coyner, 207 Va. tell, As near .as we can there has been no event, 150 S.E.2d 92. In in the ab suggestion arguments in the briefs or oral will, contrary, showing sence of a we - any is effect that tax assessment respect' finding disturb the court’s with - contemplated. public purpose, finding to a was as which debt n follows: concerned, far our an- As' as a that swer to 3 is to the effect acquisition “Plaintiff’s of The Frontier located, Cheyenne’s given. credit is not loaned or refinery Company’s Refining oil holding Inherent that that answer is promote the City Cheyenne, Cheyenne City debt -the of- is no' economic welfare of the being say, If we are contracted.' as respects: following and its residents ’ saying, being that no debt is contracted employment, Increase stimulate industrial ques- municipality, then- we have revenues,' activity, augment tax sources of con- tion to answer as to 'whether a debt is stability, improve foster economic purfeuance public tracted .in- law for a economy.” City’s the balance in the purpose specified by law. Moreover, apparent the' it is to us legislature by authorizing the exact munici- However, it is may argued it be involved, impliedly pal function here has elementary municipal corporations present is determined that there whatever pro engage governmental or in either public purpose may essential. be Subse- public prietary which have no functions quent author- being to the Frontier Dan purpose. Faulconer See ized, the in- has amended ville, Ky. 468, 82-83. 232 S.W.2d spe- development projects dustrial act this, In view of we think we should cifically projects declared finding some attention to the of a public purposes. 1(b), S.- stitute Ch. purpose by the trial court. This amendment L. of evidence can concrete ratify the former im- tends to confirm pointed deposition be of the Senior legislature. plied determination of Operations Fron- Vice President or con particular act Company. tier the 25- Whether Refining He states “public purpose” is a of law duct is a matter year-old plant’s physical are bor- facilities question. judicial and not a dering and, for competitive determination on obsolescence fact; however, legislative true, .of where now considered us. This purpose” appar indicated, judgment “public as to a ds the court even if was a there ent, judgment (cid:127)mortgage, long pay- will not interfered mortgage as the judicial wholly mind prop- unless the able out courts of the income of the erty purchased rela reasonable property. 'conceives without resort to such *13 public tion interest and welfare. ample There is authority other from Eagle Point, Polanski v. Town of 30 Wis.2d jurisdictions saying self-liquidating for 507, 285; 281, City Tulsa 141 N.W.2d projects involving such industrial revenue 214; Williamson, Okl., 209, v. 276 P.2d as are bonds here involved create do not County Development Fairfax Industrial an meaning indebtedness within the Coyner, 351, Authority v. Va. 150 S.E. 207 Newberry constitutional debt limitations. 93; 87, City 2d and Dan Faulconer v. City Andalusia, 49, 57 257 Ala. Ky. 468, 80, ville, 313 82-83. 232 S.W.2d 629, 636; County So.2d ex rel. Court Regardless County Demus, de- of Marion of whether base our we 148 W.Va. 398, 135 offered, 352, 359; testimony Wayland cision a Snapp, on the or on S.E.2d 57, judicial determination, 633, 637; 232 Ark. apparent Opinion or on an 334 S.W.2d 683, by legislature, Justices, determination of the we are 161 Me. 210 A.2d conclusion, stated, brought already to the 699. as respect the court’s a finding with
.that answering previous In questions, have public purpose should not disturbed. already taken position debt no being by City Cheyenne contracted said, light In the of what we have in connection with the issuance revenue question answer 2 in the affirmative .we development bonds the industrial say and financing by authorized projects act. this, It follows from without development projects industrial and act explanations, further is not public (cid:127)ordinances purpose fulfills whatever an creating indebtedness excess of required by .may be law. stitutional limitations. Question No. 4 question We therefore answer 4 in the negative say and The question by industrial .revenue fourth reserved financing bond authorized and 'district court act is whether the industrial ordinances referred do not contravene financing revenue' bond authorized to' municipal .prescribed legislation debt limitations we have under consideration and.5, art. Wyoming Consti- contravenes the §§ debt limitations tution. prescribed by Wyoming art. and §§ pro- Constitution. The sections referred to Question No. 5 generally that debt in wide excess questions last of the reserved year
'the taxes for the current shall is this: Does the industrial revenue bond by any city, creáted and that no shall n creáte authorized art. and Ordi exceeding per indebtedness four 1538, by providing nances and for cent of the assessed value of taxable property,, taxation contravene property city. within the art. Wyoming Constitution, which Cheyenne, Laverents v. exempts municipal property from taxation? Wyo. 877, 880-881, this generally purchase held property provision The constitutional referred'to by municipality, paid wholly to be for was amended in and out according joint income and proposing revenue from resolution property amendment, and liability without purpose on the was.-to allow part public of the municipality, property governmental did not not for a used rise purpose to an Therefore,, “indebtedness” within the mean- taxed. as art. ing reads, of the constitutional debt prpperty-of limitations now the United towns, counties, state, cities, following paragraphs sufficient for
States, municipal corporations purpose: school districts taxation, “when exempt shall be industrial revenue 1. The purpose.” governmental primarily used here the act and ordinances authorized pro municipality has both A contends, not, appellant considered do powers, and prietary governmental property Cheyenne taxpayers of deprive acquires when the process of law do without due leases the Frontier industrial equal protection Courts deny of the laws. exercising a property, he authorizing generally held acts have governmental proprietary and not bonds do revenue Big Horn Canal function. Seaman v. See process provisions violate constitutional due 940; Ass’n., Wyo. 213 P. laws, deny equal protection *14 Danville, City Ky. 313 Faulconer v. of nothing in the act or ordi we are shown 468, 80, 232 84. S.W.2d could being nances considered which project property process It follows that the will legitimate question due rise to a of primarily governmental equal not be used for a ex rel. protection. See purpose, consequently quite proper City it is Kan. Ferguson Pittsburg, of 188 subject 612, 80; City 71, it to taxation Albritton v. 364 P.2d 15, pursuant 75, 799, Winona, to the 1956 amendment art. 178 So. of 181 Miss. 1436, 803-804, on A.L.R. dismissed 12. § 627, 766, appeal L.Ed. 58 S.Ct. U.S. Therefore, question 5 our answer 1088; Frostburg Jenkins, City of negative is in effect that the the to the 9, 852, 854-855. 215 Md. 136 A.2d financing by the de- authorized industrial velopment projects act and ordinances development The industrial 2. of does contravene art. litigation projects questioned in act 12, Wyoming Constitution. § provides, project subject in is § taxation, project leased but if the is District Court Conclusions by private to or held interests on both appeal, In her clerk asserts levy any year. assessment date and date in finding of the district court to effect Appellant challenges being in this as con acquisition property of the Frontier 15, 11, Wyoming Con travention of art. § promote the economic of welfare overlooks, appellant how stitution. What City Cheyenne of is erroneous. In our con- ever, require the is that 99 does not question sideration of we said we would project same to be leased to or held finding disturb the of the district “private date interests” on the assessment regard to the Frontier levy date. are essential Two acts public being purpose. for a The conclusion fixing (1) in of a the assessment tax — point disposes reached at appellant’s levy. ordinarily Properties (2) assignment finding of error on the court’s private ownership regardless taxable in of fact pertaining public purpose, to a changes ownership be taxed and will and we need not comment further on such person if one time and owns' at assessment finding. levy. another owns at the time of the are, however, projects
There the case of such as we are con certain conclusions however, sidering, law which cannot be defendant-clerk has objected by private to and taxed it appeal. now unless is leased to or held raises on Although nothing dates, argu- although more interests on both than token as we have ment has been support private made in said can different of these interests. objections, considered, we think This situation lack we should list them there is no only briefly uniformity comment on each in assessment for taxation conclusion challenged required by law appellant’s brief. constitution. pro Appellant suggests general
3. codification and revision of posed laws. revenue bond 15, 7, Wyo violates the of art. suggestion 5. There is a Constitution,
ming depositories relating to appellant the industrial However, identical funds. projects public policy act contravenes contrary question was raised and settled delegates invalid because unreasonable appellant’s contention in Rodin v. State discretionary powers city, in that to the Cheyenne, Wyo., P.2d ex rel. provide the act fails for maximum holding the Rodin 189-190. Our rate of interest on or a minimum the bonds question dispose case is sufficient to price at which such bonds be sold. We here. already have held there is no unreasonable delegation powers. unlawful More question raised Another over, in previous our discussion of appellant Chapter whether the title to 1 pertaining delegation powers, (Original House S.L. Ferguson referred to State ex rel. 9), Bill No. is sufficient to embrace Pittsburg, 188 Kan. development projects of industrial 71, 78-79, wherein it was held a similar Chapter as contained in ch. art. act did delegation not amount to an unlawful requirements in accordance with the powers, though even act that case 24, Wyoming Constitution, art. *15 any authorized the issuance of bonds at pertinent part: reads in interest, period time, any rate of over of bill, except appropriation general “No and for amount. and bills bills for the codification and 6. In the first six of law conclusions laws, general revision shall of findings the trial court were made to passed containing subject, more than one city the effect the all and ordinances clearly expressed shall be in its agreements pertaining and instruments * * title project, the including Frontier those for In Wyoming 1963 the Statute Revision purchase, the leasing mortgaging and of legis- Commission was authorized the project, the legal. Appellant are valid and compile Wyo- lature to all the statutes of challenges claiming these conclusions of law ming relating to or concerned cities with (a) Ordinance 1538 is invalid because the Wyoming and towns. Ch. S.L. of published; exhibits annexed to it were not complied 1963. The Commission with this (b) and development projects the industrial enacted, legislature directive and the 1965 act acquisition does not authorize the of municipal code, Chapter 112, as a S.L. of already facilities in existence. Wyoming in this 1965. The act involved 15.1-16, (a) Section W.S. appears 8, Chapter suit as ch. art. requires (Complied 1965) every ordinance Chapter pertinent The title to in reads published newspaper at in a least once part: city, general of circulation within provide organiza- “AN ACT to becoming before effective. Ordinance tion, operation, government and of attached published, so but exhibits cities and towns State published. exhibits These thereto were * * *_» copies agreement, purchase were of the asset Therefore, having do Chapter indenture, (Original and the lease House 9) having project. Bill with the The ordinance No. been a Frontier bill for the codi- general copies fication these instru and itself did state that revision of the laws relating office of to or ments were on file in the concerned with cities towns, inspection. It art. clerk and available for had constitution § clear, course, application purpose no of the. is to it because it came exception fulfilled. pertaining requiring publication was statute to bills for ¿f property acquired where in the' nature of is the first The public was ádvi'Sé'd ordinance, procedures con- copies the instruments instance to those - erred, templated (as stated in the act. In this case the- ref to therein were available (cid:127) ruling acquisition purchase ordinance). accept agree- asset We. the-publication comply respects was ment all act of the trial court that legally Municipal legally McQuillin, must therefore be considered sufficient. 5 16.80, p. 304, say Ed.), sufficient. This not to future con- Corporations (3rd project might having with the Department Highways tracts do Pallasta v. Colorado, general hot come under certain 153 Colo. are, 25, 26-27, ruling. statutes, contracts is not authority for such where contract part original acquisition transaction.' (b) does au We think act Summary already acquisition thorize the facilities 92(a) “project” In art. existence.' 1, 3, 4, questions We have answered ' any land, building defined or other as court,’ as reserved to us the district improvement, personal and all real and negative; and we answered have - properties necessary in there connection question 2 in the affirmative. existence,” with, “whether' or not words, questions our all answer to is to the- manufacturing suitable or industrial effect the industrial enterprises. Also, grants a munic projects act related ordinances' ipality power acquire, whether do not contravene construction, devise, “purchase,” gift, or Therefore, far to. referred as lease, Thus, projects. one or more the act questions the constitutional raised eminently makes clear the concerned, áre act and ordinances acquire intended a should be able to constitutional and valid. already Massey facilities in existence. See We also have found reversible error Franklin, Ky., 384 S.W.2d *16 any findings of the or conclusions fact 506. appealed of law from. af~; Appellant the further attacks findings Such are and conclusions validity of the by claiming firmed, Frontier questions with reserved answered- acquisition of the and the asset opinion, as indicated in the casé- this purchase agreement general entry violate judgment- is remanded for the '' Wyoming. contracts statutes opinion. with consistent this statutes referred to have.to do with such HARNSBERGER, participate J.,C.
matters as the municipal property sale of - ing. generally; public improve contracts for contractors; generally;' ments bonds for PARKER, (dissents GRAY and commission; Justices functions planning ing). competitive bidding letting on the of con contracts; competitive bidding any prevail- struction adopting Without view in the city property. ing sale opinion except part We think that which relates procedures properties general analysis to acquiring for historical bonds, issuing specific reluctantly aré that and definite revenue we concede ques- act. there is to projects insufficient basis hold Special statutory legislation tioned be authorizations contained to unconstitutional supersede conceivably necessarily general might apply permissible,, act will to statutory provisions, situations, negative especially (as factual and on the where happened approach instance) general pro in this that an act prior adopted visions were to or at not be declared unconstitutional unless unconstitutionality clearly appears, do special same time authorizations. Moreover, given dealing challenge to reserved we are with situation the answers do, ness,” -questions through City five. how- when we one We said in Laverents v. ever, Cheyenne, opinion particularly Wyo. find the fallacious P.2d two, that answering its statement to constitute a debt within provisions [Cheyenne’s that credit “Inherent in answer of Art. “it must be payable part, given] holding is not or loaned is a in whole or in out n general municipality.” debt resources of the being contracted.” This court has not necessity at Although we see no pass upon heretofore had occasion to premise addressing time ourselves to the meaning of “debts” as used in Art. judicial notice be taken of Const., Wyo. but that word has been public flowing from new economic benefits obligations arising defined as or demands expanded industry, we recoil contracts, express, out of implied quasi. given legislature has intimation that Ballentine, Dictionary, p. (2 ed.). Law authority municipalities carte blanche case, In the instant 11 of Ordinance 1538 millions of borrow dollars provides : pro of benefits. forma determination “new” Obviously, in the case no instant “The of this ordinance shall be Cheyenne, industry being brought into
deemed to be and shall constitute any fail find real indication tract between the and holders from industry. “expanded” that this is to be an time time coupons Bonds and the Operations President The Senior Vice appertaining thereto and of said Refining Company stated of the Frontier may sue, any action, holders in manda- mus, twenty-five-year-old plant’s physical injunction, proceedings, or other competitive bordering on facilities are either equity at law or in to enforce or compel obsolescence and for continuance performance of all duties or an n obligation warranted,, Cheyenne operation sub- required by this ordinance improvements stantial and additions performed City. done or said n » * ** essential; part the most $18,000,000 purchase price will be of some Perhaps the opinion writer of the here discharge used the indebtedness of lias accorded thinking his on this Company prop- Refining entire Frontier with that of the Alabama and Iowa courts ; erties if the is consummat- n when they have said that the constitutional $4,500,000 ed, ex- approximately use of “loan suretyship of credit” meant pended Cheyenne refinery to im- on the *17 by n reasoning saying is “debt” prove it and an ad- and modernize estimated is not a debt if there understanding thirty persons required in ditional then repayment which the of the amount Cheyenne. presented Nothing was to show involve the use of tax revenues. the obsolescence would be cured However, we are legal unaware of expenditure proposed sum or basis for such reasoning, and to us it is plant going would be a successful or unquestionable that framers of cern if fail to the bonds were issued. We recognized Constitution an ele- comparable see a situation such this as as mentary principle when in Art. expanded industry, a new or and since they powers restricted the evidence to constitute a showing fails clear corporations contracting of debts public purpose served, that a is to be pursuance except of law accordingly charge hold defendant’s purposes specified by law. Such restriction finding of error to the court’s to be well interpretation is consistent with court’s taken and judgment reverse the on this Const., ground. Wyo. of Art. “Public Indebted-