Local Government Law

Local Government Law – Roin 2009

Intro: Why Local Government
Themes
The use of law is limited
Invoke doctrine, or
Citizen participation: lobbying, voting, drafting
Rules are indeterminate
Not clear what is right outcome
State Control Over Physical Boundaries
Incorporation
Generally: incorporation functions as a tool for a set of people who wish to govern themselves and start a new community
Problem: standards usually provided for incorporation decisions are vague
Limitations
Vote
Third-Party Tribunal
Court
Administrative Body
Combination of vote + administrative body
Community
Borough of Glen Mills: where single school petitioned to incorporate territory that would result in geographic isolation (islands) of adjacent towns, such incorporation violated factors of reasonableness in statute b/c of single petitioner and geographic nature of incorporation
Provision of Services
Rising Sun: where community attempted to incorporate, but maintain its rural character and keep city services largely the same by contracting with adjacent city, proposed municipality could not provide services within a reasonable time to the proposed territory.
Annexation & Deannexation
Generally: similar guidelines as incorporation decisions, but instead of forming a new municipality, they change the boundaries of an existing municipality
Problem: annexation standards are generally vague
Motivations for Annexation: generally municipalities annex to expand the tax base; this might be motivated by two reasons
Capture Free Riders: tax persons living in the suburbs that get benefits of city services but avoid taxes by living outside its boundaries
Tax Grab: city attempting to selfishly increase revenues
City of Jackson: where municipality w/ declining population attempted to annex surrounding territory instead of developing territory already located within the city, the annexation was deemed unreasonable b/c it would contribute to urban sprawl and was motivated primarily by a desire to expand the tax base
Reynolds, Rethinking Municipal Annexation Powers: municipalities should be able to involuntarily annex bordering residents b/c residents should not be allowed to enjoy the benefits but avoid the burdens of urban living, and municipalities can generally annex these areas anyway my crafting the territory to include a majority of people favoring annexation
Contiguity
Generally: contiguity requirement is meant to
Prevent tax grab
Reinforce the notion of community
Ensure city can provide services to annexed area
Mt.Pleasant: where municipality attempted to annex a segment of land connected to the central city only by a small corridor, the annexation was overturned b/c the land in question was not contiguous to the central city
See also, Rising Sun
Federal Control Over Physical Boundaries
Voting Rights Act of 1965: states/political subdivisions may not modify any law, practice, or procedure that affects voting unless it has first obtained clearance of the proposal from the US Attorney General or district court of DC; state must prove that practice or procedure will not have effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color
Moorman: where municipality subjected annexation decisions to the vote of the territory to be annexed, the citizens of the current city were not being denied equal protection of the laws because there is no property interest in the right to live in a specific municipality, and state had a compelling interest in designing this annexation procedure by limit the amount of people allowed to vote
Gomillion: where municipality deannexed largely black territory and gave no state interest to be served by the deannexation, such deannexation violated the voting rights act
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
State Limits
Plenary Power
Generally: state constitution is a document of limit, where state can act in any way it wants as long as it is not limited by the constitution (inversely, the fed constitution is document of grant which establishes the only action the federal government can take)
ShelbyCounty: statute allowing one local gov’t entity to usurp another was legal so long as nothing prohibited it in the state constitution
The legislature can exercise plenary power over its municipal corps subject only to specific constraints found in the state constitution
State constitution is a document of limit, not of grant
Constitutional Limits
Generally: prevent legislature from imposing unwanted burdens and conferring entitlements
Ripper clauses: prohibit state gov’t from establishing commissions that usurp power from local gov’ts
Specht: statute authorizing city to establish regional emergency services violated constitutional provision prohibiting states from delegating a municipal function to a special commission not subject to local control
Specht test
Has a local power been “ripped”
Does the function constitute a municipal function
Is the body a “special commission”
Is the body subject to local control/oversight
Special Legislation
Generally: state constitutional provision which prohibits states from passing a law which is limited to a special class determined by the presence or absence of features that are inconsequential to the object of the statute; classification must be “open” to allow others to qualify for the benefits of the law in the future
Maple Run: law which applied to a class which included only one city and was made for the purpose of including only that city was unconstitutional special legislation b/c there was no reasonable basis for classification; law must also operate equally within the class
Single Subject Rule: legislature must embrace a single object or subject in legislation
Initiation
Dillon’s Rule
Generally: local gov’t only has powers
Explicitly granted by the constitution or legislature
Necessarily implied by express powers
Essential to the accomplishment of purposes of 1 & 2
Problem: the trend has been to allow localities more power to pass laws as evidenced by the passage of general welfare statutes by states
Early Estates: where state general welfare statute authorized locality to pass laws making homes fit for human habitation, the general welfare statute was not explicit enough to allow locality to abrogate common law rules relating to the provision of hot water
Southern Constructors: where state grants locality power to enter into contracts, it is implied that the locality also has the power to enforce those contracts by submitting them to arbitration
Hutchinson: local law requiring disclosure of campaign funds was not a violation of Dillon’s Rule where state passed general welfare statute
Home Rule
Generally: two types of home rule
I in I: if something is local issue, state gov’t cannot interfere; locality has power of initiation & immunity
NLC: localities can intervene in any issue that is either local or mixed (state/local), and state can intervene to make something a state issue; locality has power of initiation but NOT immunity
Haynes: where local statute in home rule jurisdiction establishing the number of commissioners to govern locally was inconsistent with state statute touching the same subject, local statute was superior b/c the subject was of local concern
Telluride: where state prohibited rent control, local ordinance that required developers to build a certain amount of low-income housing constituted rent control; rent control is a mixed state/local issue that was preempted by the state legislature
Immunity
Conflict and Preemption
Generally: when determining whether an issue of mixed state/local character is preempted, must determine if there is
Conflict: is the law a default rule or a rule meant as a floor/ceiling
Preemption: did state intend to occupy entire field
FabiusTownship: state rule restricting waterskiing at night is a floor, and does not preclude a further restriction of waterskiing hours by locality
Envirosafe Services of Idaho: where uniform statewide statutory scheme regulates disposal of toxic waste, county regulation was preempted by the uniform statutory scheme
Exercising Jurisdiction
Defining Community
Generally
Tiebout, A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures: the ability of individuals to move to other jurisdictions replaces the market test for buying or failing to buy goods, thus jurisdictions should be allowed free reign to establish rules so as to create diversity.
Problem: people are not perfectly mobile, even like-minded individuals should be restricted in the type of community they can establish, like-minded localities may wish to pursue activities outside of their boundaries
Restricting Activities in the Community
MountEphraim: first amendment prohibited city from passing a complete ban on live nude dancing
Kyrias Joel: school district which established school to serve children of only one religion violated establishment clause
Restricting Membership in the Community
Romriell: covenants restricting the use of homes in an area to single families is valid and enforceable b/c private communities generally allowed to covenant unless state restricts
Effects on Outsiders
Holt Civic Club: where state authorized city to conduct police patrols w/in 3 mile area outside its borders and taxed outsiders at half the rate of residents, city did not violate voting rights or equal protection
Uniform Services Doctrine
Generally: cities must distribute services equally and cannot discriminate against similarly situated citizens
Public Utilities
Reid Development: where city conditioned the provision of water services on the construction of a developer of certain sized lots, such condition was unreasonable and arbitrary because such conditions did not relate to the provision of the services; municipal corps are under same duty to provide services on the same terms to all individuals as public utilities
Veach: where municipality holds itself out as the provider of a service in a particular area, the municipality owes a legal duty to the residents of that area to provide those services under similar circumstances, though a municipality has the ability to exercise reasonable discretion based on need, cost, & other economic considerations
Redistributions of Wealth
Village of Kirkland: where city contracted with provider to have trash collected at single family residents at the exclusion of mobile homes, such service denial did not violate equal protection b/c garbage collection is not a fundamental right and city had rational basis for not collection trash from mobile homes (problems of access, need for greater capacity, mobile home park was more commercial in nature than residential)
DadeCity: where there was a disparity of service provision in locality based on race, such discrimination was a violation of equal protection
City of N.O.: where city raised minimum wage in contradiction to state statute that prohibited cities from establishing minimum wage rates, state ordinance controlled b/c it was a reasonable exercise of state police power
Spending Power
Public Purpose Doctrine
Generally: local gov’t spending generally limited to activities that serve a public purpose
City of Sumter: where locality issued bonds to create a redevelopment zone in downtown, such bond issuance did not violate public purpose merely b/c the entire public was not benefitted and because some private parties made a profit; defer to legislature on public purpose issues
CLEAN: publicly financed construction of a baseball stadium to be leased to private parties conferred benefits of a reasonably general character to a significant part of the public
Procedural Protections
Generally: local gov’t spending generally restricted by the following procedural requirements
Ordinance/contractual formalities – proper signature/authorization
Bidding requirements – city must generally accept lowest responsible bidder
Bozied: where additional improvements were made to city project w/o a submission of bids, such improvements did not have to be submitted to the bidding process if the events leading to the improvements were not reasonably foreseeable and they were necessary; contractors not compelled to fully refund money
Caps on spending/revenue
Problem: courts don’t like to enforce these procedural requirements b/c it hurts third party contractors who are essentially innocent parties
Recovery by Contractor on Illegal Contract
ST Grand: criminal conviction of vendor for violating bribery statute was conclusive proof of illegality of contract; contractor may not recover for balance of payment under general rule
Funding Limitations
Property Taxes
Generally: easiest to tax property b/c of its visibility and resulting ease of administration
Town of St. John: tax value of assessed property is not necessarily required to be FMV under state constitution
Challenge to Property Tax Regimes – most constitutions allow for direct attack on property tax regimes
Uniform valuation
Categories of property w/ cap on difference
Fractional Assessment: taxing the property at only a fraction of the assessed value
The Uniformity Doctrine
Generally: taxes must be uniform w/in a taxed class
Significant difference b/w taxed and untaxed
Classification bears reasonable relationship to legislation or pub policy
Allegro Services: where tax for city project imposed upon all taxi drivers at airport including those not traveling to the city, such class was reasonable b/c of the non-city destination that travelers coming for the city project would be transported to; emphasis on findings made by the city
Federal Uniformity Challenges
AmadorValley: “rollback” property tax scheme does not violate equal protection; distinction b/w new and old purchasers is reasonable b/c new purchasers are on notice of the higher tax and are presumed to be able to pay
Problem: rollback tax schemes favor established members of the community at the expense of newcomers
Special Assessments
Generally
Assessed property must have special benefit
Fair apportionment relative to benefits
Roger Clothing for Men: where common area maintenance program and marketing program were established for downtown business area, special assessments based on square footage were not unconstitutional because statute authorizes such calculation; special assessments could be levied upon services provided; the programs specially benefited the area being assessed despite some spillover into surrounding areas which were also subsequently taxed for the benefit; no evidence that assessments exceeded benefits
Tax vs Special Assessment
City of Boca Raton: special assessment imposed by city not prohibited as a tax b/c the special assessment provided a special benefit to the property being taxed; special assessment could be apportioned based on property values of the assessed land b/c city made findings
User & Impact Fees
User Fees, Generally
Charged for specific gov’t benefit w/ specific benefit to payor
Voluntary
Reasonable relation to cost of service
User Fee vs Tax
City of Port Orange: tax on developed property used for purpose of maintaining and developing roads was not a user fee b/c it was involuntary and not related to the cost of service
Impact Fees, Generally: fees imposed upon developers for off-site impacts created by new development
New Jersey Builders: statute requiring new developers to pay pro rata share of “reasonable and necessary” street and other facility improvements could not be used to justify charges for improvement of roads across entire county
Outsiders
Extraterritorial Powers & Activities
Statutory Authorization for Extraterritoriality
Holt: extraterritorial exercise of power is not unconstitutional when authorized by the state
Ridgewood: statutory power to condemn gives city power to construct facility on neighboring city’s border; city must act reasonably if violating neighboring city’s zoning scheme
Snohomish: where state legislative intent is to bind the city by the counties zoning regulations, city cannot supersede the county’s zoning authority; zoning ordinances must be reasonable
Discrimination Against Outsiders
Melton: where city ceased offering water services to residents outside the city limits to control sprawl at it periphery, such a denial of service was not unreasonable discrimination
Dean Sausage: where city disconnected water service to business outside corp limits, city was not under a duty to provide water service to business if it did not collect taxes from the business
Texarkana: where municipality charged residents outside its corp limits more for water services, increased fees were unreasonably discriminatory b/c based on nothing but the territorial line and city did not contend that cost of providing service to outsiders was more expensive; where city takes over for public utility, it may not unreasonably discriminate
Residential Preferences
Zaroogian: where municipality restricted access to beach lockers by outsiders there was no violation of equal protection b/c recreation is not a fundamental right, and the restriction did not violate the enabling act b/c statutory reference to “public” could refer to residents
United Building: where city instituted hiring preference to private contractors for city residents in public works projects, such hiring preference was a violation of a protected right to pursue one’s calling under the privileges and immunities clause
Joint Enterprises
Generally: require legislative approval even in home rule jurisdictions b/c city acts outside its jurisdiction
Joint contracting
MMWEC: where VT municipality contracted w/ MA entity created and controlled by MA gov’t, VT unlawfully delegated its authority and any contracts resulting from such delegation were void and unenforceable
Joint ventures (special purpose gov’t entities)
Goreham: delegation of powers to waste agency did not violate non-delegation doctrine b/c it was merely a redelegation of powers originally granted to the municipality, and there were appropriate guidelines constraining the delegation
Burden Sharing
Edgewood: Texas system of funding public schools violates constitutions b/c it was inefficient and did not “generally diffuse” knowledge
The problems of wealth distribution are especially prevalent in the context of public schools