Opinion ID: 2514006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Because the Legislature intended to allow a municipality to operate parking facilities at a municipal airport as an arm of the state for the public good, a municipality may, like the state itself, fix the rate for airport parking service even though it may have anti-competitive effects.

Text: ¶ 24 The overriding issue in this case is the reconciliation of two ostensibly conflicting enactments of a single sovereignthe State of Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act makes it unlawful for a person, including a municipality, to monopolize or attempt to monopolize any part of trade or commerce in a relevant market. 79 O.S. 2001, § 203(B). On the other hand, the Municipal Airports Act allows a municipality to operate and regulate parking facilities and fix the rate for parking services at the municipal airport without regard to the anti-competitive effects. 3 O.S.2001, § 65.5(a)(3). In resolving this apparent inconsistency between a state law dealing with municipalities and the state antitrust law, the job quite simply is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. City of Durant v. Cicio, 2002 OK 52, ¶ 13, 50 P.3d 218, 221. See also, Milton Handler, Antitrust, 78 Columbia L.R. 1363,1378 (1978). ¶ 25 In resolving this statutory conflict, we are mindful that the exercise of municipal authority is subject to the general laws of the state. City of Sapulpa v. Land, 223 P. at 646. Where municipal conduct is challenged under a general statute, the statutory grant of municipal authority must be strictly construed in favor of the general statute. Y & Y Cab Service v. City of Oklahoma City, 1933 OK 547, 167 Okla. 134, 28 P.2d 551, 552-53. Absent an express exemption, a municipality's conduct cannot be exempted from the proscriptive reach of a general statute unless the express provisions of a conflicting state statute permits or authorizes the municipality to engage in conduct that is inconsistent with or contrary to the general statute. ¶ 26 The Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act is a general statute of statewide concern that uniformly applies to every municipality. It is designed to prohibit anti-competitive conduct that is harmful to the public. Board of Regents v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, supra ., and Krebsbach v. Henley, supra . Accordingly, unless it can be said that the Municipal Airport Act authorizes Tulsa to fix parking rates for the good of the public, Tulsa has, if Fine's allegations are proved, violated Oklahoma's antitrust law. ¶ 27 Prior to enactment of the Municipal Airports Act, municipalities with 2000 inhabitants had statutory authority to engage in the operation of an airport. [10] We viewed the operation of a municipal airport as a proprietary function. [11] In enacting the Municipal Airports Act, the Legislature authorized municipalities to plan, develop and operate public airports and declared these activities to be public and governmental functions. 3 O.S.2001, § 65.16. It also granted municipalities various powers, including the power to fix the charges, rentals or fees for the privileges or services at a municipal airport, 3 O.S.2001, § 65.5(a)(3), and declared these powers to be exercised for a public purpose, and matters of public necessity. 3 O.S.2001, § 65.16. A reading of these provisions leads us to but a single conclusionWhen a municipality operates an airport pursuant to the Municipal Airports Act, it is acting in a governmental capacity as an arm of the state to meet a public need and not solely for its own benefit. ¶ 28 Because the Legislature intended to allow a municipality to operate parking facilities at a municipal airport as an arm of the state for the public good, a municipality may, like the state itself, fix the rate for the airport parking service even though it may have anti-competitive effects. [12] Accordingly, we determine that Tulsa's operation of an airport parking facility as authorized by the Municipal Airports Act, 3 O.S.2001, §§ 65.1, et seq. is not subject to the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, 79 O.S.2001, §§ 201, et seq.