Title: MURPHY v McCLINTOCK

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12375 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1972 JAMES P . MURPHY, Plaintiff and Appellant, M . E . McCLINTOCK et ale, Defendants and Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : For Appellant : Arnold Huppert, Jr. argued, Livingston, Montana. For Respondents : Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana. Arnold A. Berger, Special Deputy County Attorney, argued, Billings, Montana. C . W. Jones, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Billings, Montana. Submitted: October 26, 1972 Decided : NCV 1 1 9 2 2 Filed : pi -i ; 4g;Z Mr, Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court, This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action seeking an injunction to prevent the construction of a multi-use building in Yellowstone County. The Honorable Charles Luedke presided. By the pleadings and the judgment, the injunction was denied and a declaratory judgment, in effect, rendered. Plaintiff is a resident taxpayer of Yellowstone County. Defendants are the members of the Board of County Commissioners of Yellowstone County. O n November 2, 1971, the electorate of Yellowstone County approved a bond issue for $3,000,000 to provide for a multi- use building at Midland Empire Fairgrounds. The vote was 15,777 for and 9,838 against the proposition. The ballot 11 provided for bonds for the purpose of constructing and equipping a Multi-Use Building at the Midland Empire Fairgrounds, Yellow- stone County, Montana, with a seating capacity of at least 10,000 and an arena area of approximately 250 feet by 4 0 0 feet. I f The Board of County Commissioners then appointed an Advisory Commission and an Executive Board of the Advisory Commission to study plans, view other structures, and make recommendations to the Board. The Advisory Commission made itsstudy and its recom- mendation to the Board of County Commissioners. On September 8, 1972, the Commissioners unanimously adopted a resolution which stated: "Ample study of the intent, the needs, the economics and the projected goals of the Multi-Use Building referendum having been made, we hereby direct the Advisory Commission previously appointed to supervise this project in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the referendum approved by the electorate November 2, 1971, and to proceed with the design of said building in the modified square configuration containing approximately 100,000 square feet of plane surface area within the building walls; and, designed to best fulfill the most uses for the most ~ e o ~ l e of the County as heretofore and hereafter s ' e t 'forth by the said Advisory Commission. 1 I The bonds were sold, but a controversy developed over whether the "modified square configuration", approximately 350 feet by 350 feet, sufficiently conformed as a legal matter to the referen- dum requirements approved by the people. The Advisory Commission had concluded that if the building could be built at a11 within the funds available the shape was immaterial, as long as the building contained approximately 100,000 square feet. In a practical lay sense, the controversy develops because the square configuration will not contain a rectangular football field. However, it goes without further development that Yellowstone County at its fairgrounds is not involved in football or any other sports activity as its primary function. To develop further what the actual controversy is, the plaintiff maintains that in Roman times the "arena" was the place of gladiator combat, separated from the crowds. The structure was an amphitheater. Defendants maintain that the term "arena" as used on the ballot would encompass the plane surface area in the entire structure, The provisions of the ballot are: 1 . Construction of a multi-use building; 2 . Construction cost of $3,000,000; 3. Issuance of bonds not to exceed twenty years; 4 . Equipping said building; 5, Locating the same at the Midland Empire Fairgrounds; 6 . A seating capacity of at least 10,000 persons; 7 . An arena area of approximately 250 feet by 4 0 0 feet. There can be no question about the first six of the seven provisions enumerated. Number 7, an arena area of approximately 250 feet by 400 feet, is the only problem. ~ebster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines "area" as: "1: A level piece of ground; "2: A surface included within a set of lines; specif: the number of unit squares equal in measure to the surface; "3 : J C * * "4: A p a r t i c u l a r extent of space o r surface o r one serving a special function; "5: The scope of a concept, operation, o r a c t i v i t y . 11 It defines the word "arena" as: 11 1: A n area i n a Roman amphitheater f o r g l a d i a t o r i a l combats; I I 2a: A n enclosed area used f o r public entertainment; " b: A building containing an arena. 11 Some cases have expanded upon these dictionary definitions. J . B . Blantan Company v. Lowe, Ky.(1967), 415 S.W.2d 376,377, provides a comprehensive d e f i n i t i o n of the term "area" i n t h i s language : I I The word 'area' has a somewhat e l a s t i c meaning. Originally it meant a broad piece of l e v e l ground, but i n modern use i t can mean anv plane surface. the inclosed space on which a building stands, the sunken space o r court giving ingress and affording l i g h t t o the basement of a building; a p a r t i c u l a r extent of surface; an inclosed yard o r opening i n a house; an open space adjoining a house; any particu- l a r extent of surface; region; t r a c t . In geometry, the s u p e r f i c i a l contents of any figure, a s the area of a square o r t r i a n g l e ; the surface included within any given lines. " (Emphasis added) . This case, out of cases researched, was selected f o r i t s p a r t i c u l a r d e f i n i t i o n because i t includes d e f i n i t i o n s taken from several other cases and i s the most recent case found which defines the term. The term "arena" has n o t been frequently defined. However, the court i n Steinberg v, Forest H i l l s Golf Range, 303 N.Y. 577 (1952), 105 N.E.2d 93,95, undertook t n do so, and c i t e d the R.oman concept of the term i n t h i s language: h he c e n t r a l p a r t of an amphitheater, i n which the combats or spectacular displays take place, I I T h e court then used the disjuntive "or" f o r t h i s definition: "Any place of public contest o r exertion * * *." It then went on t o explain i t s meaning f o r the purposes of the case involved: "* * * the term necessarily implies an e f f o r t before spectators, and, where sports events a r e involved, the element of a public contest between competitors. I I 1 I W e find, as did the d i s t r i c t court, t h a t the term arena area" a s used on the b a l l o t means: the enclosed space upon which the building w i l l stand. Also involved here i s the term "approximately 250 f e e t by 400 feet", a s used on the b a l l o t . I I 11 Approximate" has been defined a s close t o o r near"; I t Potter v, Anderson 85 S.D. 142, 178 N,W,2d 743,746. Approxi- f I mately" has been defined a s near the amount, near t o , about; a l i t t l e more o r less"; Eastern Service Management Company v. I I United S t a t e s , D.C. S.C., 243 F. Supp. 302,305. ~ p ~ r o x i m a t e l y " has a l s o been defined a s "'nearlj, 'about', o r 'close to"'; Garre v. Geryk, 145 Conn. 669, 145 A.2d 829,831. The language of the b a l l o t "approximately 250 f e e t by 400 feet'' i s directory upon the county commissioners, not mandatory, and it i s within the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners t o order the construction of the building recommended by the Executive Board of the Advisory Commission. That building con- t a i n s approximately 100,000 square f e e t of enclosed plane surface area. The following c i t a t i o n s of authority, i n our opinion, support t h i s analysis. The applicable s t a t u t e , section 16-2306, R.C.M. 1947, pro- vides i n pertinent p a r t : "Said separate b a l l o t s s h a l l be white i n color and of convenient s i z e , being only large enough t o contain the printing herein required t o be done and placed thereon, and s h a l l have printed thereon, i n fair-sized, legible type and black ink, i n one l i n e o r more, a s required, the words 'For' said bonding proposition ( s t a t i n g it and the terms thereof e x p l i c i t l y and a t length), and thereunder the words 'Against' said bonding proposition ( s t a t i n g it and the terms thereof e x p l i c i t l y and a t length i n l i k e manner, a s above) * * *I1. In Reid v. Lincoln County, 46 Mont. 31,44,57,59,60, 125 P. 429, the b a l l o t i n question was phrased: 11 For the issuance against the general c r e d i t of Lincoln County of coupon bonds i n the amount of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, the purpose of said i s s u e being t o provide funds f o r a system of public highways, bridges, and f r e e f e r r i e s i n s a i d county, said bond being payable i n twenty years and redeemable i n f i f t e e n years, and bearing i n t e r e s t a t the r a t e of f i v e per cent per annum payable semiannually. I t The b a l l o t a l s o contained the same statement beginning with the word "Against". Challenge was made t o the b a l l o t on the ground t h a t i t did not s u f f i c i e n t l y s t a t e the proposition t o be voted on. This Court stated: "Section 2938, [section 1.6-2306 ,R.C.M. 19471, Revised Codes, r e l a t e s t o forms of b a l l o t s t o be used a t elec- tions wherein any question o r proposition o f , o r re- l a t i n g t o , bonds i s submitted t o the people, It pro- vides t h a t the b a l l o t s h a l l s t a t e the bonding proposition and the terms thereof e x p l i c i t l y and a t length. W e think the form of b a l l o t was s u f f i c i e n t l y comprehensive and e x p l i c i t . It was not necessary t o s t a t e therein the course, termini, o r exact location of the proposed high- way, o r the number o r location of the proposed bridges and f e r r i e s . The fundamental and i n i t i a l question t o be determined i n a l l cases i s whether the people a r e willing t o authorize the commissioners t o spend a d e f i - n i t e amount of money f o r a c e r t a i n public improvement. * * * I f The opportunity i s perhaps a s propitious a s any which may occur f o r a declaration by t h i s court t h a t our constitutional and statutory laws were designed t o clothe the boards of county commissioners of the s t a t e with large discretionary powers i n dealing with pro- j e c t s l i k e the one we have under consideration. Certain well-defined constitutional r e s t r i c t i o n s must a t a l l times be recognized and observed; b u t , aside from these, the policy of the law i s t h a t the mere d e t a i l s of con- templated public improvements s h a l l be l e f t t o t h e i r discretion. Where e x p l i c i t s t a t u t o r y directions a r e given, they must, of course, be complied with; but a l l t h a t i s necessary i n the i n i t i a t i o n of a plan l i k e the i n s t a n t one is, i n general, t h a t the people s h a l l be given an opportunity t o i n t e l l i g e n t l y exercise t h e i r judgment. I f county boards and similar administrative bodies a r e t o be continually harassed and hampered by the nice t e c h n i c a l i t i e s of the law, oftentimes lacking i n substance and devoid of r e a l merit, the settlement and development of t h i s v a s t northwestern empire w i l l be greatly impeded and retarded. A s we read the s t a t u t e s , the policy of the law-making bodies has been, r a t h e r , t o make proceedings l i k e t h e one i n question a s expeditious, simple, and inexpensive a s possible, t o accomplish the desired r e s u l t , always bearing i n mind, a s heretofore suggested, t h a t the consent of the people must be founded i n an i n t e l l i g e n t understanding on t h e i r part of the general purpose f o r which the money i s t o be expended. I n preparing the b a l l o t it was only necessary t o substan- t i a l l y follow the directions of the s t a t u t e . (Tinkel v. Griffin, 26 Mont. 426, 68 Pac. 859.)" Also i n R.eid it was contended t h a t the order and notice of e l e c t i o n were i n s u f f i c i e n t because they referred only t o high- ways and bridges but not t o f r e e f e r r i e s . O n t h i s point, the Court stated: "Section 2935 [section 16-2303, R,C.M. 1947 3 , Revised Codes, merely provides that the notice of election s h a l l c l e a r l y s t a t e the object of the loan, This means a ~ e n e r a l object of the loan. It i s not necessary t o ,3) specify a l l of the d e t a i l s . So long a s a reasonably comprehensive notice i s given, the courts have no power t o declare it i n s u f f i c i e n t . I t Tn Xorse v, Granite County, 44 Mont. 78, 87, 93, 119 P, 286, the b a l l o t s t a t e d t h a t the bonds were "for the purpose of the construction of a county courthouse f o r the said county and the purchase of additional ground therefor, and the furnishing and equipment thereof." Concerning the sufficiency of the b a l l o t , t h i s Court stated: "While the form of bond adopted incorporated the proposition a s printed upon the b a l l o t , i t was not incumbent upon the board t o have i t so. The amount and purpose of the loan, a s s t a t e d i n the b a l l o t , was a l l t h a t was required t o be stated," In County of San Diego v, Perrigo, 155 Cal.App.2d 644, 318 P,2d 542,545,546, a case similar t o the i n s t a n t case, the b a l l o t provided : If San Diego County Bond Proposition. Shall the County of San Diego incur a bonded indebtedness i n t h e princi- pal s u m of $8,400,000 f o r the purpose of the construc- tion, furnishing and equipping of buildings (including clearing of the s i t e f o r the proposed buildings) t o c o n s t i t u t e a county courthouse and county j a i l , s a i d buildings t o provide quarters f o r the Superior and Municipal Courts, the county j a i l , and county departments and o f f i c i a l s , and t o be located on the s i t e of the present courthouse and county j a i l and on land adjacent thereto?" The bond issue was approved by more than two-thirds of the voters of San Diego County i n 1954. During the delay necessary f o r the usual a r c h i t e c t u r a l and engineering work, the need f o r additional f a c i l i t i e s arose, In 1957, p r i o r t o construction of the building, the board of supervisors of San Diego County adopted a resolu- tion t o redesign the courthouse and j a i l buildings t o provide for the additional needs of the superior and municipal courts, including one additional t r a f f i c court, one additional arraign- ment court, a separate juvenile court, and quarters f o r the grand jury, The resolution s t a t e d t h a t the additional f a c i l i t i e s would cost $3,517,680 i n addition t o the bond issue and t h a t the additional funds could be supplied from the general fund of the county, The matter was cha.llenged on the ground that the bond issue constituted a contract between the board and the electors, and therefore the board must build the type of buildings specified on the ballot proposition. The court agreed that a contractual relationship was created but disagreed that the contract was violated by stating: "The description of the buildings t o be constructed is broad and general and contains no fixed plan or building program. The proposed changes specified i n the resolution of the Board of Supervisors dated September 10, 1957, do not violate the terms of the contract i n that respect. (Citing cases)" Similarly, here, no specific building plan existed a t the time of the election. From a practical standpoint, huge sums of money would be wasted i f detailed plans for construction of the building were drawn i n advance of the election and the voters disapproved the bond issue. It was argued i n Perrigo that the voters may not have approved the bond issue i n 1954, i f they had known the facts of which the board of supervisors was aware i n 1957. On t h i s point, the court stated: I I N o one knows how the voters would have reacted under such circunstances. Whether the election would have carried i n l i g h t of the facts which could be known only by events which develop sub- sequent t o the election i s a question upon which the courts w i l l not speculate, I t W e note that the arena area contemplated on the ballot i n the instant case i s 100,000 square feet. The same square footage w i l l exist i n the proposed arena area. Considering that the Board of County Commissioners acted i n good f a i t h and necessarily without detailed construction plans a t the t i m e of the election, the proposed modification i s minor. It i s especially minor when viewed i n l i g h t of the modifications approved i n Perrigo. Here, the ballot i s not so misleading a s t o make a vote meaningless and the contemplated change i n the dimensions of the arena area is not a substantial modification of the contract between the voters and the county commissioners. The proposed modification is, rather, a legitimate exercise of the discretionary powers of the county commissioners, as noted in - Reid. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ~ssoc($te Justice C W e f Justice