City of New Bern v. New Bern-Craven County Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 923SC730,BERN-CRAVEN,923SC730 |
| Citation | 113 N.C.App. 98,437 S.E.2d 655 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CITY OF NEW BERN, a North Carolina municipal corporation, Plaintiff, v. The NEWCOUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate under the laws of the State of North Carolina; The Trustees of Craven Community College, a body corporate under the laws of the State of North Carolina; Craven Regional Medical Authority, a public body and a body corporate and politic which has its principal office and place of business in the City of New Bern, Craven County, North Carolina; The County of Craven, a body corporate under the laws of the State of North Carolina; and Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Defendants. |
Ward, Ward, Willey & Ward by A.D. Ward, New Bern, for plaintiff cross-appellant-appellee.
Henderson, Baxter & Alford, P.A. by David S. Henderson and Benjamin G. Alford, New Bern, for defendant appellant-appellee, New Bern-Craven County Bd. of Educ.
Ward and Smith, P.A. by Kenneth R. Wooten and Anne D. Edwards, New Bern, for defendant appellant-appellee, Craven Community College.
Sumrell, Sugg, Carmichael & Ashton, P.A. by Fred M. Carmichael and Rudolph A. Ashton, III, New Bern, for defendant appellant-appellee, Craven Regional Medical Authority.
Sumrell, Sugg, Carmichael & Ashton, P.A. by James R. Sugg and Jimmie B. Hicks, Jr., New Bern, for defendant appellant-appellee, Craven County.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in declaring unconstitutional three statutes which transfer exclusive jurisdiction of the enforcement of various building codes from the City of New Bern, North Carolina, to Craven County. We find the statutes to be unconstitutional pursuant to N.C. Const. art. II, § 24. We thus affirm. The facts and procedural history follow.
On 26 June 1986, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted Chapter 805 of the 1985 Session Laws entitled "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING AND OTHER CODES BY THE COUNTY OF CRAVEN AS TO PROPERTY OF THE NEW BERN-CRAVEN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION RATHER THAN BY CITIES IN THAT COUNTY." The act vested Craven County with exclusive jurisdiction over the inspection of buildings of the New Bern-Craven County Board of Education. Previously, inspections of school facilities in New Bern were handled by city inspectors; school buildings outside the city limits were inspected by county officials. A similar provision, Chapter 341 of the 1987 Session Laws, was passed in 1987 regarding Craven Community College, which is located within the city limits of New Bern. A third provision, Chapter 934 of the 1987 Session Laws, was passed in 1988 with respect to the local hospital, Craven Regional Medical Authority, which is also located inside the city limits of New Bern. The provisions read:
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
Section 1. Craven County shall have the exclusive jurisdiction as against any city as defined by G.S. 160A-1 for the administration and enforcement of all laws, statutes, code requirements and all other applicable regulations promulgated by the State or any city respecting building, construction, fire and safety codes as the same relate to or are legally applicable to the New Bern-Craven County Board of Education.
Sec. 2. This act is effective upon ratification.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified, this the 26th day of June, 1986.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
Section 1. Craven County shall have exclusive jurisdiction as against any city as defined by G.S. 160A-1 for the administration and enforcement of all laws, statutes, code requirements, and all other applicable regulations adopted by the State or any city respecting building, construction, fire and safety codes as the same relate to or are legally applicable to the Board of Trustees of Craven Community College.
Sec. 2. This act is effective upon ratification.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this 12th day of June, 1987.
Sec. 2. This act is effective upon ratification.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 23rd day of June, 1988.
The City of New Bern filed a declaratory judgment action on 8 November 1988 to have the three statutes governing the inspections of buildings declared unconstitutional. The trial court entered an order on 16 January 1989 dismissing the action with prejudice, holding that no justiciable controversy existed which would permit the court to take jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiff appealed. The North Carolina Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's petition for discretionary review prior to determination by the Court of Appeals. On 3 April 1991, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the lawsuit and remanded it to the Superior Court of Craven County for further proceedings. City of New Bern v. New Bern-Craven County Bd. of Educ., 328 N.C. 557, 402 S.E.2d 623 (1991). The case was heard without a jury on 4 November 1991. In a judgment filed 24 February 1992, the trial court held that the three statutes in controversy were unconstitutional. The defendants, except for the Attorney General of North Carolina, appealed.
Our scope of reviewing the constitutionality of acts passed by the General Assembly is:
It is well settled in this State that the Courts have the power, and it is their duty in proper cases, to declare an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional--but it must be plainly and clearly the case. If there is any reasonable doubt, it will be resolved in favor of the lawful exercise of their powers by the representatives of the people.
Glenn v. Board of Educ., 210 N.C. 525, 529-30, 187 S.E. 781, 784 (1936).
The presumption is that an act passed by the Legislature is constitutional, and it must be so held by the courts unless it appears to be in conflict with some constitutional provision. The legislative department is the judge, within reasonable limits, of what the public welfare requires, and the wisdom of its enactments is not the concern of the courts. As to whether an act is good or bad law, wise or unwise, is a question for the Legislature and not for the courts--it is a political question. The mere expediency of legislation is a matter for the Legislature, when it is acting entirely within constitutional limitations, but whether it is so acting is a matter for the courts.
State v. Warren, 252 N.C. 690, 696, 114 S.E.2d 660, 666 (1960) (citations omitted). The trial court determined that the acts were violative of § 24 of Article II of the North Carolina Constitution, which reads in pertinent part:
Prohibited subjects. The General Assembly shall not enact any local, private, or special act or resolution:
(a) Relating to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances[.]
Because we conclude the three acts in question are "local," and related to "health" and "sanitation," we agree with the trial court's determination that the acts are prohibited subjects of legislation and therefore unconstitutional.
A statute is either "general" or "local," there being no middle ground. Smith v. County of Mecklenburg, 280 N.C. 497, 506, 187 S.E.2d 67, 73 (1972). In McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254 N.C. 510, 518, 119 S.E.2d 888, 893-94 (1961), our Supreme Court held:
Within the meaning of constitutional prohibitions against local laws, a law is local where, by force of an inherent limitation, it arbitrarily separates some places from others upon which, but for such limitation, it would operate, where it embraces less than the entire class of places to which such legislation would be necessary or appropriate having regard to the purpose for which the legislation was designed, and where the classification does not rest on circumstances distinguishing the places included from those excluded.
Until recently, the "reasonable classification" test outlined in McIntyre was applied consistently to issues surrounding constitutional prohibitions against the enactment of local, special, or private legislation. The McIntyre test required that the classification be based on a "reasonable and tangible distinction and operate the same on all parts of the state under the same conditions and circumstances." Id. at 519, 119 S.E.2d at 894. See also, Adams v. Dep't of N.E.R., 295 N.C. 683, 249 S.E.2d 402 (1978).
In Town of Emerald Isle v. State of N.C., 320 N.C. 640, 360 S.E.2d 756 (1987), however, our Supreme Court articulated a somewhat different test to determine whether legislation is local or general. The act in Emerald Isle provided that the Department of Natural Resources would acquire certain property adjacent to a vehicular area with beach access in order to build a parking area, walkways and other public facilities which had beach access. The town was to be responsible for maintaining the area following its construction. The statute established a single beach access area in one locality to be maintained by a local unit of government. In finding the act was not "local," the Court stated:
[W]e find that, instead of applying a reasonable classification analysis, our attention should focus on the extent to which the act in question affects the general public interests and concerns. In doing so, we are aware that "a statute will not be deemed private merely because it extends to particular localities or classes of persons." Yarborough v. Park Commission, 196 N.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Baccus v. Dept. of Crime Control
-
Hackett v. Bonta
... ... Bailey, Morehead City, for defendant-appellee Theresa J. Bonta ... ...
-
City of New Bern v. New Bern-Craven County Bd. of Educ.
...Medical. David Henderson, New Bern, for New Bern-Craven Bd. of Educ. James R. Sugg, New Bern, for Craven County. Prior report: 113 N.C.App. 98, 437 S.E.2d 655. ORDER Upon consideration of the petition filed by Several Defendants for Writ of Supersedeas and Temporary Stay of the judgment of ......
-
City of New Bern v. New Bern-Craven County Bd. of Educ.
...Medical. David Henderson, New Bern, for New Bern-Craven Bd. of Educ. James R. Sugg, New Bern, for Craven County. Prior report: 113 N.C.App. 98, 437 S.E.2d 655. ORDER Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by several Defendants in this matt......