Title: Murphy v. City of Bismarck

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

109 N.W.2d 635 (1961) Wm. J. MURPHY, John B. Rhud, Laura M. Hughes, P. R. Webb, C. P. Nelson, George L. Baska, Maude Grambs, G. W. Grambs, Alice Owens, and H. M. Beall, on behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF BISMARCK, a municipal corporation, Tom Baker, as City Auditor of the City of Bismarck, Katie Peterson, as Treasurer of the City of Bismarck, and Evan E. Lips, as President of the City Commission of the said City of Bismarck, Defendants and Respondents. No. 7941. Supreme Court of North Dakota. May 29, 1961. *638 Rausch & Chapman, Bismarck, for plaintiffs and appellants. John A. Zuger, City Atty., Bismarck, for defendants and respondents. A. J. GRONNA, District Judge. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, abutting property owners, from the judgment in favor of the City of Bismarck in a civil action in the district court of Burleigh County, the Honorable H. E. Rittgers, District Judge, presiding. Plaintiffs demand a trial de novo. Such judgment determines and adjudges: (1) That Street Improvement District No. 60 was legally and properly created in March 1960 by Ordinance No. 1358, enacted by the board of city commissioners of Bismarck to widen, pave, and otherwise improve an interconnecting network of streets and avenues lying within twenty-eight contiguous blocks; (2) That protests filed by the plaintiffs and other property owners of the district were insufficient to bar the proposed improvements and special assessments; (3) That the plaintiffs' demand for an injunction against the proposed improvement of Avenue C should be and was denied, plaintiffs being the owners of properties generally lying adjacent to Avenue C between Third Street and Ninth Street (six blocks); and (4) That, inasmuch as construction work has not been commenced and no special assessments have been levied at the present time, any question of benefit or detriment to the plaintiffs is premature and, further, that no injunction can be granted to prevent a legislative act by a municipal corporation, namely, determining the benefit which the object of the assessment confers on the owner of each lot or parcel of abutting property and then laying a special assessment in the amount of such benefit. The widening of the paving will not require a widening of the right of way upon and along any of the streets and avenues in District No. 60, inasmuch as such right-of-way width now is, and has been, eighty feet. The City presently owns, in *639 trust for the public, right of way eighty feet in width; consequently, all of the proposed construction and all of the trees which will be removed are within and upon the presently owned right of way. The only trees which will be removed are those in the path of construction. Avenue C, between Third Street and Ninth Street, is paved to a width of only twenty-five feet. Such paving is over forty years old and the present curbing is broken and in need of replacement or repair, and there are no gutters. Such narrow width of twenty-five feet has required prohibition of street parking so that not even abutting owners may park. The zoning is residential, mostly multiple-family dwellings. On March 29, 1959, Ordinance No. 1308 established the following standard of paving for residential areas throughout the city of Bismarck, to wit: "(a) The standard width shall be 36 feet." Ordinance No. 1308 was enacted pursuant to the provisions of Section 40-56-02, N.D.C.C., which provides: "The governing body of any city may, by ordinance, establish standards of paving for residential areas which standards shall be uniform throughout the entire city, and said ordinance may be amended or repealed in the same manner as other ordinances of the city." On March 29, 1960, the board of city commissioners, pursuant to the provisions of Section 40-56-03, adopted a resolution declaring the necessity of an improvement in Street Improvement District No. 60, section 3 of which resolution reads: "Such portion of the cost of said paving as exceeds the cost of standard paving in residential areas, as established in Ordinance No. 1273, as amended [by Ordinance No. 1308], shall be paid by ad valorem taxes to be levied upon all taxable property within the City, subject to approval of such levy by the Board of Budget Review. The remainder of the cost of said improvement shall be specially assessed against the respective lots, tracts, and parcels of land lying within said improvement district in amounts proportionate to and not exceeding the benefits derived therefrom." Section 40-56-03, N.D.C.C., provides: "When any city has, by ordinance, established standards of paving for residential areas, the city as a whole, by action of its governing body, may pay not to exceed twenty per cent of the cost of the paving, and if because of heavy traffic upon such street or for other valid reason, the governing board determines that the established standards should be exceeded in any portion of a residential paving project such percentage of the excess cost of paving as may be determined by action of the governing body shall be borne by the city as a whole." Accordingly, although Avenue C and the other streets and avenues in the district will be widened and paved to a width of forty-eight feet, such excess of twelve feet over the standard width of thirty-six feet will be paid by ad valorem taxes levied upon all property within the city, and no special assessments will be made for such excess cost of said improvement. It appears from the affidavit of the city auditor that the board of city commissioners had proposed that a residential home owner through special assessment should pay fifteen per cent of the cost of the improvement. Pursuant to said resolution of March 29, 1960, supra, the city auditor caused to be published notice of advertisement for bids for the work and materials required for the construction of said improvement. Thereafter, the City proceeded to accept the lowest bid and award a construction contract for the work to be done. Then, on May 5, 1960, this civil action was commenced and a restraining order was served upon the defendant city officials, and on May 20, 1960, the Honorable George Thom, Jr., District Judge, issued an order granting temporary injunction which ordered that, "during the pendency of this action, or until the Court shall otherwise order, the defendants [the City] be, and they are, enjoined and restrained *640 from taking further action toward the levy and assessment of special assessments upon the property of plaintiffs and other taxpayers similarly situated and from issuance of special assessment warrants in connection therewith." This action was tried before the Honorable H. E. Rittgers, one of the judges of the Fourth Judicial District, who had been requested to try the case by the Honorable George Thom, Jr. Judge Rittgers, after hearing and considering the evidence, issued his memorandum decision in favor of the defendants, and judgment was entered accordingly. From this judgment the plaintiffs have appealed, demanding a trial de novo. Avenue C is located in a residential area and runs east and west through the approximate center of Bismarck, and is a crossbar between the north-and-south streets. A six-blocks-long portion of Avenue C, from Third Street to Ninth Street, is the longest continuous street in District No. 60. District No. 60 covers an area lying north and west and east of the main business district of the city and is adjacent thereto on three sides. Streets from the business district leading into District No. 60 are forty-four to forty-eight feet in width (mostly forty-eight) and narrow down to twenty-five, thirty, or thirty-five feet within District No. 60. In a related, connected, and uniform manner with respect to the business district, the improvement project will widen and otherwise improve the streets in District No. 60. This local problem may be illustrated by an imaginary small funnel. Note the small spout through which liquids may flow from the hollow cone. But, small as it is, the spout is adequate for the small capacity of the cone. Suppose the cone is increased to a capacity of several gallons, say ten. Then the spout would be inadequate and it would have to be replaced by a much larger one to discharge the contents of the ten-gallon cone. More than forty years ago, when Avenue C was paved to a width of twenty-five feet, as were its interconnecting streets, it and the other streets were adequate for vehicular traffic because the volume of traffic was relatively small. Presently, in 1961, the population and the traffic, particularly out-of-town traffic, through growth during the past forty years, have become much greater. Thus, through no fault of anyone, the problem of traffic congestion has evolved, which in turn has caused the governing body of the city to create Street Improvement District No. 60 as a matter of necessity. Traffic coming from the wide, forty-eight-foot streets of the business district fans out to the north or east or west into the narrowed-down streets, generally twenty-five feet wide, of District No. 60, and the governing body of the city, in the exercise of its legislative authority, has determined that the heavy volume of such traffic necessitates the widening of the narrow streets. The streets and twenty-eight blocks embraced in the district include: one block on First Street, two blocks on Second Street, three blocks on Third Street, three blocks on Fifth Street, one block on Seventh Street, four blocks on Ninth Street, six blocks on Avenue C, three blocks on Rosser Avenue, one block on Thayer Avenue, and four blocks on Avenue D. Property owners adjacent to such streets and avenues have no parking available; otherwise, narrowness makes two-way traffic unsafe. It should be noted that only after consultations or hearings were held with the city engineer, police and fire officials, citizens groups, and property owners in District No. 60 did the board of city commissioners determine that the proposed improvements were needed. Thereafter, the improvement district was created and its boundaries were established by Ordinance No. 1358, on March 29, 1960. The district boundaries run one-half block back from each of the streets and avenues upon which the improvements are proposed. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 40-22-10 and 40-22-12, N.D.C.C., the city engineer submitted plans and specifications and an estimate of the probable cost of the *641 work to the board of city commissioners, and, pursuant to Section 40-22-11, such plans were approved by resolution on March 29, 1960. The purposes embraced in the improvement district are common to all of the streets, avenues, and areas in the district, so there is commonness, unity, and singleness in the location, purpose, and character of the improvement. The proposed work on all streets in the district is uniform and the same, and the width is forty-eight feet with the few exceptions where forty-four feet matches the streets in the business district. The present curb sections will be removed on all streets and avenues, and new combination curb-and-gutter sections, at proper width, will be constructed. Necessary excavation will be made on either side to allow for a six-inch stabilized gravel base, to which would be added a 2½-inch asphaltic-concrete leveling course which would bring it to the same concrete elevation as the present street section. Then, through the entire section, including the new section and the present section, there would be placed a two-inch asphaltic-concrete wearing course and a seal-and-cover aggregate application. The proposed construction on intersecting streets is related, connected, and uniform, as drainage design will be worked out jointly. In adopting Ordinance No. 1358, creating Street Improvement District No. 60, and in the adoption of resolutions, the city commission has in all things proceeded strictly in accordance with the statutory requirements, and the same is true with respect to the preparation of estimates of probable cost of the proposed construction and of the plans and specifications by the city engineer. The statutory provisions for filing such documents in the office of the city auditor have been observed. Since opposing attorneys in this case disagree upon the issues or questions to be decided, the contentions of each side are quoted at length, as follows: (a) At page 30 of the brief of plaintiffs and appellants, the "issues" are stated thusly: (b) At page 16 of the brief of defendants and respondents, the following "issues" are stated: In this State, cities are incorporated through general law of the Legislature. They are mere creatures of the statute. They are political subdivisions of the State, auxiliaries for purposes of local government, exercising a part of the powers of the State. Through the device of municipal corporations, a portion of the legislative power of the State is delegated to local authorities. Waslien v. City of Hillsboro, 1922, 48 N.D. 1113, 188 N.W. 738; Powers and Procedures of City and Village Governing Boards by Harold D. Shaft, City Attorney, Grand Forks, 31 North Dakota Law Review 137 (April 1955); State ex rel. Dreyer v. Brekke, 1947, 75 N.D. 468, 28 N.W.2d 598; State ex rel. City of Minot v. Gronna, 1953, 79 N.D. 673, 694, 59 N.W.2d 514, 529. In Megarry Bros. v. City of St. Thomas, N.D.1954, 66 N.W.2d 704, 709, this court said: In Lang v. City of Cavalier, 1930, 59 N.D. 75, 84, 228 N.W. 819, 822, this court said: In Powers and Procedures of Governing Boards, supra, by Harold D. Shaft, City Attorney, Grand Forks (31 N.D.L.R. 137), the limitations on powers of such boards are set forth as follows: The statutes of North Dakota grant to cities the power to widen, pave, and otherwise improve streets and avenues. Section 40-05-01, N.D.C.C., provides: In Green v. Beste, N.D.1956, 76 N.W.2d 165, 168, this court said: In Megarry Bros. v. City of St. Thomas, supra, 66 N.W.2d 704, 709 (1954), this court said: Section 40-05-01, N.D.C.C., reads as follows: Section 40-22-08, N.D.C.C., authorizes cities to create paving districts by ordinance or resolution. Will v. City of Bismarck, 1917, 36 N.D. 570, 163 N.W. 550. Section 40-22-08 refers to a paving district as a "street improvement district." Section 40-22-09, N.D.C.C., provides in part: Section 40-22-09 has expressly conferred upon the governing body of every city the legislative power and discretion to determine the size, form, and boundaries of an improvement district, and the judiciary will not interfere with the governing board's legislative determination of the size, form, and boundaries of an improvement district in the absence of jurisdictional *644 defects, fraud, or arbitrary action. The courts will not concern themselves with the wisdom of a municipal ordinance or resolution. For the courts so to do would invade the constitutional separation of powers and functions between the judiciary and the legislative branch of the government, to the extent that a portion of the legislative power of the State has been delegated to municipal corporations. Section 40-22-09 has expressly delegated such power. Boynton v. Board of City Com'rs of City of Minot, 1926, 54 N.D. 795, 798 and 799, 211 N.W. 441, 443; Reed v. City of Langdon, 1952, 78 N.D. 991, 996, 54 N.W.2d 148, 151; Merchants' National Bank of Fargo v. City of Devils Lake, 1919, 42 N.D. 445, 173 N.W. 748; State ex rel. Kettle River Quarries Co. v. Duis, 1908, 17 N.D. 319, 116 N.W. 751. Section 40-22-09, N.D.C.C., supra, further provides: "Any improvement district created by a muncipality may embrace two or more separate property areas. * *" Plaintiffs contend that Avenue C, between Third Street and Ninth Street (six blocks), which is the street on which their property is situated, is a "separate property area," and therefore their written protest against the resolution of necessity is a legal bar against the City's proceeding further with the improvement project. See Section 40-22-17, N.D.C.C., which reads in part as follows: The city commissioners found the protests to be insufficient. The city auditor had found that there were 254,500 square yards of assessable property in the entire district. The total number of square yards of protesting property was only 60,522, so the percentage of the property protesting out of the whole area was only 23.78 per cent. Then the City proceeded to accept the lowest bid and award a contract for the work to be done. However, plaintiffs insist that their six blocks along Avenue C constitute a "separate property area" so that the property protesting was a majority of sixty-nine per cent, in which case it would be a legal bar against proceeding further with the improvement. Section 40-22-18, N.D.C.C., reads in part: Plaintiffs define the term "separate property area" as "that portion of a proposed improvement which may be bounded and may be identified with reasonable certainty. It may be identified by ascertaining the location of the proposed improvement and the location of the protesting properties. Where more than one street *645 is included within a street-improvement district and each is identified by a specific name so as to be capable of location separate from the others, then such street and property which would be subject to assessment for the improvement thereon may be classified as a separate property area." Plaintiffs' definition of the term "separate property area" obviously is wrong because (1) Section 40-22-09 has expressly conferred upon the governing board of the city, rather than upon the property owners, the power and discretion to determine the size, form, and boundaries of an improvement district, and (2) both from the ordinary meaning of the word "separate" and from the context of the language in the statute, 40-22-09, it is clear that the term "separate property areas" means "geographically separate or noncontiguous areas." Since District No. 60 includes only property lying within a single, continuous, closed boundary, with streets and avenues that form a contiguous and interconnecting network, it is obvious that District No. 60 is one single area and does not embrace two or more separate property areas. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 40-22-18, supra, plaintiffs' written protests did not contain the required majority and consequently such protests were insufficient. The city attorney's brief makes this comment on plaintiffs' proposed definition: "* * * if the property owner or group of property owners, such as these plaintiffs, can determine that any area is a separate property area, logically each property owner could determine that his own individual lot constituted such separate property area, or a group of one, two or three lots. Such a discretion and such a determination was not delegated by the statute [40-22-09] to the individual property owners but to the Board of City Commissioners exercising its legislative discretion, subject to judicial review for bad faith or fraud." In March of 1959, the City, by Ordinance No. 1311, created a street-improvement district embracing sixteen blocks of residential area, including the six blocks on Avenue C from Third Street to Ninth Street. However, plaintiffs and other property owners of the district, being the owners of a majority of the area of the property included within the improvement district, filed written protests, as permitted by 40-22-17, supra, and consequently, under the provisions of 40-22-18, such protests constituted a legal bar against proceeding further with such 1959 improvement project. The 1960 street-improvement district, No. 60, included the same sixteen blocks that had been in the 1959 district plus fourteen additional blocks on different streets, or twenty-eight blocks in all. Plaintiffs charge the governing body of the city with the fraudulent intention and purpose of including their property on Avenue C in the 1960 improvement district notwithstanding the valid protest against the 1959 resolution of necessity. However, plaintiffs have failed to prove their charge of "fraud." The governing body of the city created the street-improvement district as a matter of necessity and not as a matter of personal spite. As previously stated, the only trees which will be removed by the City are those in the path of construction. However, plaintiffs demand injunctive relief against the removal of any of the trees from the right of way. A right of way for a city street is an easement, and an abutting lot owner, such as the plaintiffs herein, owns the fee to one-half of the street. The adjacent lot owner owns a fee in the half of the street which is contiguous to his property. Gram Construction Company v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co., 1917, 36 N.D. 164, 172, 161 N.W. 732, 734. However, the City has certain powers and privileges incident to such right of way, including the right of the City to remove or trim trees planted or maintained by an abutting lot owner when it is reasonably necessary for improvement *646 of the street. Weibel v. City of Beatrice, Nebraska, 1956, 163 Neb. 183, 79 N.W.2d 67; Rich v. City of Minneapolis, 1887, 37 Minn. 423, 35 N.W. 2, 5 Am.St.Rep. 861. The foundation of the power to lay a special assessment for a local improvement of any character, including the widening, paving, and otherwise improving a city street, is the benefit which the object of the assessment confers on the owner of the abutting property, or the owners of property in the assessment district, which is different from the general benefit which the owners enjoy in common with other inhabitants or citizens of the municipal corporation. The theory is, "* * * the owners do not, in fact, pay anything in excess of what they receive by reason of such improvement." Norwood v. Baker, 1898, 172 U.S. 269, 19 S. Ct. 187, 43 L. Ed. 443, 447; Webster v. City of Fargo, 1900, 9 N.D. 208, 82 N.W. 732, 56 L.R.A. 156, affirmed in 1901, 181 U.S. 394, 21 S. Ct. 623, 45 L. Ed. 912; wherein the North Dakota Supreme Court held: "In exercising the power of local assessment, the legislature is not limited to the actual increase in value of the property assessed, resulting from the local improvement. Rolph v. City of Fargo, 7 N.D. 640, 76 N.W. 242, 42 L.R.A. 646, followed." The United States Supreme Court, in affirming, held: "* * * we agree with the supreme court of North Dakota in holding that it is within the power of the legislature of the state to create special taxing districts, and to charge the cost of a local improvement, in whole or in part, upon the property in said district, either according to valuation or superficial area or frontage, and that it was not the intention of this court, in Norwood v. Baker, to hold otherwise." 21 S. Ct. 624, 45 L. Ed. 912, 914. See 14 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 3d Ed., Sec. 38.02. Special assessments for the payment of local improvements are sustained under the exercise of the power of taxation. "* * * the foundation of the right to assess exists in the taxing power, and it is not necessary that in imposing an assessment there must be a hearing before a court provided by the law in order to give validity to such assessment." Ellison v. City of La Moure, 30 N.D. 43, 48, 151 N.W. 988, 989; 14 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 3d Ed., Sec. 38.01. The North Dakota Legislature has enacted the following statutes, and others, vesting the board of city commissioners and the special-assessment commission with certain powers and authority: namely, Sections 40-22-15, 40-23-01, 40-23-04, 40-23-05, 40-23-07, 40-23-09, 40-23-10, 40-23-11, 40-23-12, 40-23-14, and 40-23-15, N.D.C.C., which provide in part as follow: In Ellison v. La Moure, supra, 1915, 30 N.D. 43, 50, 151 N.W. 988, 990, this court said: In Boynton v. Board of City Com'rs of City of Minot, 1926, 54 N.D. 795, 211 N.W. 441, this court said: 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 349, p. 679 classifies the levy of a tax, including a local tax or special assessment, as a "legislative function," thus: 48 Am.Jur. 588, Special or Local Assessments, section 29, reads in part as follows: A judicial review of the work of the special-assessment commission may not be had until after its completion and until after it shall have made a complete list of the benefits and assessments, setting forth each lot or tract of land assessed, the amount each lot or tract is benefited by such improvement, and the amount assessed against each. The special-assessment commission then causes the assessment list to be published, together with notice of time when and place where it will hear objections to the same. Section 40-23-10, N.D.C.C. At such hearing, the special-assessment commission may make such alterations in the assessments as, in its opinion, may be just or necessary to correct any errors in the assessment list, having the power to increase or lower any assessment to make the aggregate of all assessments equal to the amount required to pay the entire cost of the improvement. No assessments, however, shall exceed the benefits to the land assessed. Section 40-23-11, N.D.C.C. After such hearing, the special-assessment commission shall confirm the list, shall certify it as correct, and shall file it with the city auditor or village clerk, as the case may be. Section 40-23-12, N.D.C.C. In Hufford v. Flynn, 1921, 48 N.D. 33, 182 N.W. 941, 943 this court said: After the special-assessment commission confirms the list, certifies it, and files it with the city auditor or village clerk, as the case may be, the auditor or clerk shall publish a notice in the official newspaper stating that the assessment list has been confirmed by the special-assessment commission, is filed in the office of the auditor or clerk, and is open for inspection. Section 40-23-13, N.D.C.C. Such assessment list then shall be acted upon by the governing body at its first regular meeting which occurs more than fifteen days after the publication of such notice. Prior to the meeting at which the governing body acts upon the assessment, any person aggrieved may appeal from the action of the special-assessment commission, as provided by Section 40-23-14, N.D.C.C. If no appeal is taken from the findings of the special-assessment commission as to the property benefited and the amount of benefit to each parcel or tract, and after the finding of such commission is confirmed by the governing board of the city, the determination of the commission as to such benefits is final and will not be disturbed by the courts in the absence of fraud or other grounds entitling the property owner to equitable relief. Hale v. City of Minot, 52 N.D. 39, 201 N.W. 848; Reed v. City of Langdon, 78 N.D. 991, 54 N.W.2d 148. Therefore, to review at this time the question of whether the plaintiffs' property would be benefited and the extent of such benefits, or to review the special assessments to be levied upon the plaintiffs' property, would be premature for the reason that the special-assessment commission has not yet acted. In other words, there can be no determination at this time as to whether the property of the plaintiffs will be benefited, and to what extent. For reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. SATHRE, C. J., and MORRIS, STRUTZ and TEIGEN, JJ., concur. Honorable THOMAS J. BURKE deeming himself disqualified did not participate; Honorable A. J. GRONNA, one of the Judges of the Fifth Judicial District, sitting in his stead.