Opinion ID: 2280400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Sewer Connection Fee Ordinance Is Constitutional

Text: Article III, section 40(30) provides that [t]he general assembly shall not pass any local or special law ... where a general law can be made applicable. This prohibition against special laws also extends to city ordinances. McKaig v. Kansas City, 363 Mo. 1033, 256 S.W.2d 815, 816 (1953). A general law is a statute that relates to persons or things as a class, whereas a special law relates to particular persons or things of a class. City of Springfield v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 203 S.W.3d 177, 184 (Mo. banc 2006). Consideration for whether a law is special or general includes examination of whether the categories created under the law are open-ended or fixed, based on an immutable characteristic. Id. But whether a law implicates a geographically fixed category is not the dispositive factor in deciding if it is an unconstitutional special law. The class at issue in the sewer connection fee ordinance is fixed according to location, but this does not render the ordinance unconstitutional unless there is was no substantial justification for creating the class. See id. at 185-86. Where the designation of a class is substantially justified, the class avoids the vice in special laws referenced in Sprint Spectrum: The vice in special laws is that they do not embrace all of the class to which they are naturally related. Id. at 184 (internal quotations omitted). The question in every case is whether any appropriate object is excluded to which the law, but for its limitations, would apply. Id. (internal quotations omitted). The record in this case provides evidence that there was substantial justification for creating a class of new sewer connections that was required to pay higher connection fees before accessing new portions of the City's sewer system. The higher connection fees were imposed in a way that embraced all of the class to which the higher fees naturally related. Larson noted that the properties subjected to the higher connection fees derived a direct benefit from the City's 1996 sewer improvements: The system itself is a good or service, which is provided in return for the fee. Residents did not have the benefit of a sewer system prior to this. In return for the payment of the fee, residents now have the benefit of the system. 92 S.W.3d at 133. Other jurisdictions recognize that special laws prohibitions should not prevent necessary geographic classifications premised on legitimate distinguishing characteristics. See, e.g., Schrader v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 840 So.2d 1050, 1055-56 (Fla. 2003) (discussing that some laws necessarily apply only to fixed geographic classifications). The Florida Supreme Court recognizes that [a] law relating to ... things as a class is a valid general law if the classification is based upon proper differences which are inherent in or peculiar to the class.  Id. at 1055 (emphasis added). It highlights the importance of considering the public policy implications of the classification at issue: So long as a law materially affects the people of this state, it need not have universal application to be a general law. . . . This Court has upheld as legally valid general laws legislation that facially appeared to affect only a limited geographic area of the state but which had a primary purpose contemplating an important and necessary state function and an actual impact far exceeding the limited geographic area identified by its terms. Id. at 1055-56. The creation of the class in this case contemplated an important government function. The class's impact extended beyond the geographic bounds of the properties in the class. The sewer connection fee ordinance was an important component of the City's overall efforts to implement its sewer improvement project, which extended sanitary sewer services to more households and provided needed improvements to the City's sewer infrastructure. The imposition of higher fees for the properties connecting to the new portions of the City's sewer system contributed to the City's ability to fund the sewer project as a whole. The City's code administrator testified at trial that the connection fees were included in the overall costs of the new sewer system. He stated that it was his assumption that establishing the fee amounts was done through the cost of the project after determination of what it would take to pay for the project, [including] pay[ing] the bonds off. He concurred with the City's attorney's statement that the City had to spread [the] cost for the new sewer system across the properties that were receiving new sewer access. Considering the facts of this case, the City was justified in creating the class of new sewer connections charged higher connection fees. The trial court did not err in finding for the City in its suit against Sites. The trial court's judgment is affirmed. All concur.