Opinion ID: 2583875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: absence of a conflict with the general laws

Text: The Plummers argue that the City's exclusive solid waste disposal franchise ordinance is in conflict with Sections 48-104 and 48-105 of the Idaho Code. Section 48-104 states: A contract, combination, or conspiracy between two (2) or more persons in unreasonable restraint of Idaho commerce is unlawful. Section 48-105 provides: It is unlawful to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire to monopolize any line of Idaho commerce. The Plummers assert that such exclusive franchises would act as an unreasonable restraint on commerce and are prohibited monopolies. Idaho law, however, precludes these arguments. I.C. § 48-107(c) exempts a municipality and its officers from any section of the Idaho Competition Act when they are acting in an official capacity, to the extent that those activities are authorized or directed by state law. As the City has argued, this exemption is an express codification of Denman v. City of Idaho Falls, 51 Idaho 118, 4 P.2d 361 (1931), in which this Court found that antitrust laws are inapplicable to valid exercises of a municipality's power. Where the City was properly exercising its police power in regulating the collection of solid waste, it is accordingly afforded the statutory exemption from the Idaho Competition Act because such an exercise of police power is authorized by the state constitution. In light of our first decision in this case, it is also necessary to determine whether I.C. § 50-344 provides a conflict with the grant of exclusive solid waste collection franchises. In our first decision we found that this statute did not of itself provide a municipality the derivative power to grant such franchises. Our task here is not to find derivative power from the statute, where that power comes from the Constitution itself, but rather to determine if this statute would conflict with the exercise of police power in granting such exclusive franchises and therefore make such an exercise of police power invalid. We find that I.C. § 50-344 does not conflict with granting such exclusive franchises. Section 50-344 provides general powers to a city to maintain and operate solid waste collection systems. These powers, though not specifically authorizing exclusive franchises to collect garbage, do not prohibit exclusive franchises either. There is nothing in the text of the statute which conflicts with such an exercise of police power. Accordingly, any exercise of a city's police power to grant exclusive franchises here would not be in conflict with this statute. We therefore find that the exercise of a municipality's constitutional police power in granting exclusive solid waste collection franchises is not in conflict with the general laws of the state of Idaho, and accordingly such an exercise is valid.