Board of Commissioners of City of Newark v. Local Government Board of State

• Decision Date: 27 December 1945
• Citation: 133 N.J.L. 513,45 A.2d 139
• Docket Number: 249
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, PROSECUTOR, v. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND WALTER R. DARBY, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS

133 N.J.L. 513

45 A.2d 139

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF NEWARK

v.LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD OF NEW JERSEY et al.

No. 249.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 27, 1945.

Certiorari proceeding by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Newark against the Local Government Board of the State of New Jersey and Walter R. Darby, Director of the Division of Local Government of the State of New Jersey, to review a decision of the Local Government Board affirming a determination of the Director of the Division of Local Government ordering the elimination of two items from an appropriation contained in the Budget of the City of Newark.

Decision of Local Government Board affirmed.

October term, 1945, before DONGES, HEHER, and COLIE, JJ.

Thomas Parsonnet, of Newark (George B. Astley, of Newark, of counsel), for prosecutor.

Walter D. Van Riper, Atty. Gen., and John F. Bruther, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendants.

HEHER, Justice.

The State's Director of the Division of Local Government ordered the elimination of two items from the ‘Appropriations for Dedicated Parking Meter Purposes' contained in the budget of the City of Newark for the year 1945, i.e. $7,000 for traffic signals and equipment, and $3,350 for motorcycles, as ‘not, under the provisions of R.S. 40:2-33, N.J.S.A., applicable to revenues dedicated to parking meter purposes'; and on appeal the Local Government Board affirmed that determination.It directed that ‘all revenues and appropriations relating to parking meters be included in the general budget for 1945.’The grounds of the affirmance were that ‘parking meters' are not comprehended in the legislative category of ‘utilities or enterprises' as defined in R.S. 40:2-18, 40:2-24, 40:2-33, 40:62-2 and 40:63-30, N.J.S.A., and the moneys thus received are ‘general revenues of the municipality and all appropriations in connection therewith are general appropriations and should be set up in the general budget’; and that, since the appropriations for ‘general traffic regulation’ in the municipality ‘far exceed the revenues from parking meters,’ and the city is disposed ‘to use some of the parking meter revenues for general traffic regulation, a dedicated budget strictly for parking meters would serve no useful purpose.’Certiorari was granted to review this action.

The argument advanced on behalf of the municipal governing body is that the use of parking meters is ‘incidental’ to the exercise of the granted municipal power ‘to regulate and control traffic,’ and the moneys derived therefrom by their very nature constitute ‘a special fund dedicated’ to the function of traffic regulation and therefore ‘can only be used and budgeted as a dedicated revenue.’R.S. 40:2-18 N.J.S.A., is cited as authority for this proposition.It is conceded that the operation of such meters is not fairly classable as a ‘publicly owned and operated utility or enterprise’ within the intendment either of that provision or of sec. 40:2-33.

A summary of the pertinent local legislation follows: On September 24, 1941, the governing body enacted an ordinance regulating traffic and the use of the city's streets, and providing for the installation and management of parking meters; and the moneys to be derived from the meters were thereby ‘levied and assessed as fees to provide for the proper regulation and control of traffic upon the public streets, and also the cost of supervising and regulating the parking of vehicles in the parking meter zones' therein created, and the cost of installation, maintenance and operation of the meters.The deposit of a five-cent coin permits parking within the established zones for a fixed time, without the right of renewal.And on August 11, 1943, an ordinance was adopted creating the ‘Division of Parking Meters' in the Department of Public Safety to enforce the provisions of the first-cited ordinance, and providing for the payment of the salaries of the personnel from a ‘fund to be set up’ by the city from the moneys ‘received for use of parking meters.’

Thus, the parking meters were designed to aid in controlling the use of the public streets in the exercise of the police power; and it is fundamental that, while the meters may be employed to defray the expense of the general regulatory service, a municipality may not, under the guise of regulation, lay a license or privilege tax upon the use of the streets.The devotion of the meters to the raising of revenue is not a proper exercise of the police power.State, Benson, pros. v. Mayor and Council of Hoboken, 33 N.J.L. 280;North Hudson Co. Railway v. Hoboken, 41 N.J.L. 71;Muhlenbrinck v. Commissioners, 42...