Title: City of Phoenix v. PHOENIX CIVIC AUD. & CONV. CTR.
Citation: 100 Ariz. 101, 412 P.2d 43
Docket Number: 8394
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: March 3, 1966

100 Ariz. 101 (1966) 412 P.2d 43 CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. PHOENIX CIVIC AUDITORIUM &amp; CONVENTION CENTER ASSOCIATION, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Appellee. No. 8394. Supreme Court of Arizona. En Banc. March 3, 1966. *102 Merle L. Hanson, City Atty., Phoenix, by Robert J. Backstein, Asst. City Atty., Joseph A. Matter, Chapman &amp; Cutler, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellant. Snell &amp; Wilmer, by Burr Sutter, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee. Calvin Webster, City Atty., Tucson, by Harrison G. Dickey III, Asst. City Atty., for amicus curiae City of Tucson. Kramer, Roche, Burch &amp; Streich by Frank Haze Burch, and Richard R. Filler, Phoenix, for amicus curiae Hotel-Motel Industry. McFARLAND, Justice. The parties to this litigation request that we clarify our opinion in regard to these points involved in our decision: We made it clear in our decision that we were not passing upon the question of whether the constitutional debt limitation and the statutory budget limitations would be violated where the ad valorem taxes would not be required to be subjected to the payments of the rent due under the lease; and that the lease as submitted to us was not affected by the 1965 Session Laws, Chapter 22. We pointed out, in our decision, instances in which we have held that bonds which were not payable from general funds were not affected by the constitutional debt limitation of the municipalities or the statutory budget limitations. In Switzer v. City of Phoenix, 86 Ariz. 121, 341 P.2d 427, we stated: We made plain the position of this court that obligations payable from revenues from improvements, the payment of which the general taxing authority is not pledged, are not a debt within the meaning of the constitutional debt limitation or the statutory budget limitations. Obligations payable from such sources, and from proper and valid excise taxes, providing no part of such obligation is payable from the general *104 funds, are not within the meaning of constitutional debt limitations or statutory tax limitations. In the Switzer case, we limited the holding to some extent, since the funds from which the obligations were to be paid were created by voluntary contributions of the state to the city. The validity of the agreement must necessarily depend upon the validity of the proposed excise taxes, or any other new revenues. Our answers to the questions presented in the motion for rehearing under Numbers One and Two would be "No, providing the excise taxes were proper and valid." In regard to Question No. 3, we have already pointed out that the proposed lease is not affected by the 1965 Session Laws, Chapter 22. This naturally includes amendments which would merely change the method of payment. We do not further enlarge upon our decision for the reason there may be matters which should be regularly presented to the court as to the source of revenues from which payments are to be made, including excise taxes, so that the court may then pass upon the validity of the tax. Those who would be affected by any proposed revenue or tax should have the opportunity of presenting their objections thereto. The motion for rehearing is denied. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., BERNSTEIN, V.C.J., and UDALL and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.