Court Opinion

ID: 9796888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:07:37.678369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:11.969773
License: Public Domain

BUSH, J.,
pro tem, specially concurring.
I concur in the result of the majority decision, but respectfully disagree with the reasoning of that decision and therefore write separately.
I agree that the judgment of the district court should be reversed and remanded. However, it is not necessary to attempt the difficult task of sorting and reconciling the history of case law interpreting the “ordinary and necessary expense” proviso of Art. VIII, § 3 of our Constitution because the specific question of whether or not an off street parking facility is such an expense is already answered by the specific reference to “off street parking facility” in the language of Art VIII, § 3. The express reference to “off street parking facility,” in the context of making such a facility eligible for a revenue bond exception to the general rule, makes clear that such a facility cannot be an “ordinary and necessary expense.”
The pertinent language is:
§ 3. Limitations on county and municipal indebtedness.—
“Provided, that this section shall not be construed to apply to the ordinary and necessary expenses authorized by the general laws of the state and provided further that any city may own, purchase, construct, extend, or equip, within and without the corporate limits of such city, off street parking facilities, public recreation facilities, and air navigation facilities, and for the purpose of paying the cost thereof may, without regard to any limitation herein imposed, with the assent of two thirds (2/3) of the qualified electors voting at an election to be held for that purpose, issue revenues bonds therefor, the principal and interest of which to be paid solely from revenue derived from rates and charges for the use of, and the service rendered by, such facilities as may be prescribed by law....”
(Emphasis supplied.)
The words “off street parking facilities” first appeared in S.L.1949, p. 598, in the language of a proposed constitutional amendment, which was then ratified by the voters in the 1950 general election. Water systems, sewage collection systems, water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants were also specifically identified in the 1950 amendment. (In 1964, another amendment added port districts. In 1966, “public recreation facilities” were added. In 1968, “air navigation facilities” were included and rehabilitation of existing electrical generating facilities joined the list in 1976.) The 1950 amendment provided cities an alternative means of gaining voter approval of certain types of government expenses that otherwise required a 2/3 majority vote of the electorate. The 1950 amendment created a so-called “special fund” alternative for the voters to consider. The political theory behind that alternative is transparent — voters who understand that the cost of building a facility will be paid over time by fees charged for use *8of the facility, rather than with direct tax dollars, will be more likely to vote in favor of a bond referendum. Courts in some other states had created such an exception to the general rule of voter approval for large spending projects by judicial interpretation of the particular spending imitation in their state constitutions. The Idaho Supreme Court refused to do so, as described in this article on the subject:
The issue of what constitutes an “indebtedness or liability” has been a recurring subject of litigation over the century since the adoption of the Idaho Constitution. In the early case of Feil v. City of Coeur d’Alene, the Idaho Supreme Court adopted a far more restrictive view of this term than did the courts of most other states, holding that the voter approval requirement of article VIII, section 3, applied not only to general obligation debt payable from property taxes, but also to indebtedness payable solely from the revenues of revenue-producing public works. Thus, the Feil court rejected the so-called “special fund” doctrine recognized as an exception to constitution debt limitation provisions in the great majority of jurisdictions. Although the Idaho Supreme Court has recognized that some types of obligations do not constitute “indebtedness or liability” within the meaning of the constitutional provision, and has also held that the limitation does not apply to certain types of entities, it has never retreated from the holding in Feil in that special revenue debt is an “indebtedness or liability” within the meaning of article VIII, section 3 of Idaho’s constitution.
Michael C. Moore, The Idaho Constitution and Local Governments — Selected Topics, 31 Idaho L.Rev. 417, 454-455 (1980) (footnotes omitted).
The Feil decision has remained the law in Idaho to this day, even though various attempts have been made over the years to try to persuade the Idaho Supreme Court to choose a new course on the issue, all unsuccessful, e.g.:
It is urged that we overrule Feil v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 23 Idaho 32, 129 P. 643 (1912), and apply the “special fund” doctrine in this ease. That doctrine, accepted by a great majority of cases, holds that a municipality does not contract indebtedness or incur liability, within the constitutional limitation, by undertaking an obligation which is to be paid out of a special fund consisting entirely of revenue or income from the property purchased or constructed. Feil dealt with a decision by the city of Coeur d’Alene to purchase a municipal water system, to be financed by bonds which would be repaid out of a fund containing only the revenues derived from operation of the water works. It was argued that since no indebtedness was contracted by the city itself — but rather only by the bond fund — the expenditure did not come under Idaho Const. Art. 8, § 3. The Feil court rejected that argument, reasoning that Idaho’s expansive constitutional provision (which, unlike several other states examined by the court, contained the word “liability” as well as “debt”) included an indebtedness paid out of a fund separate from the city’s general fund. The court was critical of “subtleties and refinements of reasoning” utilized to suggest that no liability is incurred where a special fund is involved. 23 Idaho at 49, 129 P. at 649. Since Feil, a series of cases have declined to apply the special fund doctrine. See, Boise Development Co. v. Boise City, 26 Idaho 347, 143 P. 531 (1914); Miller v. City of Buhl, 48 Idaho 668, 284 P. 843 (1930); Williams v. City of Emmett, 51 Idaho 500, 6 P.2d 475 (1931); Straughan v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 53 Idaho 494, 24 P.2d 321 (1932); O’Bryant v. City of Idaho Falls, 78 Idaho 313, 303 P.2d 672 (1956).
Asson v. City of Burley, 105 Idaho 432, 438-439, 670 P.2d 839, 845-846 (1983).
The Asson court went on to say:
However, Feil and its quite extensive succession of authority no longer prevent application of the special fund exception because that exception has been made a part of Idaho law by way of amendments to Art. 8, § 3. See, Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535, 548 P.2d 35 (1976). The first such amendment, passed in 1950, authorized cities to purchase or construct water and sewage sys*9terns, treatment plants, and off street parking facilities to be financed by bonds, “the principal and interest of which to be paid solely from revenue derived from rates and charges for the use, and the services rendered by, such systems, plants and facilities ...” Subsequent amendments have increased the scope of the special fund exception to include port districts (1964), public recreation facilities (1966), air navigation facilities (1968), and rehabilitation of existing electrical generating facilities (1976). We note that, with the exception of port districts, indebtedness of a city for any of the purposes listed, even though not subject to the tax assessment provision of Art. 8, § 3, is nevertheless specifically conditioned on voter approval. The intent of the framers of the constitutional amendments, and the electorate through their ratification, is clear that approval of a municipality’s qualified voters is necessary whether its Art. 8, § 3 indebtedness or liability is against the general fund of the city, and its tax revenues, or limited to a special fund of project-generated revenues.
Id., at 439, 670 P.2d at 846 (footnotes omitted).
The Asson decision on that issue was entirely consistent with an earlier decision on the same subject, issued approximately a year and a half after the passage of the 1950 amendment:
Prior to the 1950 amendment to Section 3, Article 8 of the Constitution, supra, this court had held, in a series of decisions, that bonds payable out of revenues of municipal utilities created an “indebtedness, or liability,” within the provisions of that section and that all of the original limitations imposed thereby must be complied with. Fell v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 23 Idaho 32, 129 P. 643, 43 L.R.A.N.S. 1095; Miller v. City of Buhl, 48 Idaho 668, 284 P. 843, 72 A.L.R. 682; Williams v. City of Emmett, 51 Idaho 500, 6 P.2d 475; Straughan v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 53 Idaho 494, 24 P.2d 321. Cf. Annotations, 72 A.L.R. 687, 96 A.L.R. 1385, 146 A.L.R. 328. The trend toward the use of revenue bonds to enable municipalities to acquire needed utilities has continued and in order to enable the municipalities of this state to employ that method of financing such utilities, and to remove the restrictions of the original section 3 from such financing operations, the 1950 amendment was proposed and adopted. So that henceforth, so long as the conditions contained in the amendment are observed, the municipalities of this state may issue revenue bonds for the purposes therein enumerated “without regard to any limitation” contained in the original section.
Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 60, 256 P.2d 515, 522 (1953).
In other words, this Court has repeatedly rejected opportunities to treat certain kinds of projects — proposed to be funded out of their own revenues — as some sort of “special fund” exception to the general prohibition of Art. VIII, § 3 against long-term indebtedness. However, this Court has also recognized that certain amendments made to Art. VIII, § 3 have created a “special fund” exception for some types of projects and that such amendments were enacted by the people to give cities the constitutional power to seek voter approval in an alternative manner. Projects such as off street parking facilities, which are given such favored treatment, are clearly not “ordinary and necessary” under the meaning of Art. VIII, § 3. If an off street parking facility is an ordinary and necessary expense, then there was no reason for the legislature to propose, and the electorate to approve, an amendment to Art. VIII, § 3 that had as its sole purpose the creation of a “special fund” exception to the general rule that prohibited the incurrence of a long term debt or liability for such projects without voter approval.
It might be argued that the use of the conjunctive “and” in the language of the 1950 amendment means that an off street parking facility could be an ordinary and necessary expense funded by revenue bonds, regardless of the fact that such a facility was included by name in the “exception” language of the 1950 amendment. However, such an argument runs afoul of this Court’s description of the 1950 amendment in the Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly decision, which identified *10the purpose of the amendment as allowing “the municipalities of this state [to] issue revenue bonds for the purposes therein enumerated ‘without regard to any limitation’ contained in the original section.” Schmidt, 74 Idaho at 60, 256 P.2d 515. If an off street parking facility is an ordinary and necessary expense, then there is no limitation on the municipality’s ability to incur long term indebtedness to build such a facility and, similarly, no need for special treatment for such facilities in the provisions of Art. VIII, § 3. In other words, the 1950 amendment has no meaning if it is a “separate” exception, independent and apart from the “ordinary and necessary expense” proviso.
Therefore, even though this issue was not the subject of briefing or argument by the parties, this constitutional question should be decided in the narrowest fashion possible, by focusing upon the inclusion of “off street parking facilities” in the existing language of Art. VIII, § 3. It is not necessary to retravel the difficult path of prior decisions dealing with what constitutes an “ordinary and necessary” expense under our Constitution. Those prior decisions have created a settled landscape in the law, albeit an arguably rub-bled one. Hence, because it is not necessary to the proper result in this case, the majority decision amounts to an unnecessary reassembling of that settled law and runs counter to our accepted rules of interpretation concerning our Constitution. This Court has previously held that “when a case can be decided upon a ground other than a constitutional basis, the Court will not address the constitutional issue unless it is necessary for a determination of the case.” Olsen v. J.A. Freeman Co., 117 Idaho 706, 710, 791 P.2d 1285, 1289 (1990). The corollary should also hold true — that we should not attempt to decide more of a constitutional issue than is necessary for a determination of the case.
Additionally, as a general matter, the statutory rales of construction apply to the interpretation of constitutional provisions. Sweeney v. Otter, 119 Idaho 135, 138, 804 P.2d 308, 311 (1990). Those rales — when applied to the appropriate construction of Art. VIII, § 3 — support my view of the appropriate reasoning for the result in this case, e.g.:
The cardinal rale of statutory construction is that where a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, we are constrained to follow that plain meaning and neither add to the statute nor take away by judicial construction. Moon v. Investment Board, 97 Idaho 595, 596, 548 P.2d 861, 862 (1976). Statutory interpretation always begins with an examination of the literal words of the statute. In re Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho 819, 822, 828 P.2d 848, 851 (1992). Unless the result is palpably absurd, we must assume that the legislature means what is clearly stated in the statute. Id. We must give the words their plain, usual and ordinary meaning, and there is no occasion for construction where the language of a statute is unambiguous. Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 254, 805 P.2d 452, 460 (1991). We furthermore must give every word, clause and sentence effect, if possible. In re Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho at 822, 828 P.2d at 851.
Poison Creek Pub., Inc. v. Cent. Idaho Pub., Inc., 134 Idaho 426, 429, 3 P.3d 1254, 1257 (Ct.App.2000).
Accordingly, because the trial court should be reversed on the ultimate issue but for different reasons, I concur only in the result.