Manookian v. Blaine County

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BAKES; SHEPARD
• Citation: Manookian v. Blaine County, 112 Idaho 697, 735 P.2d 1008 (Idaho 1987)
• Decision Date: 30 March 1987
• Docket Number: Nos. 16118,16209 and 16258,s. 16118
• Parties: David MANOOKIAN, an individual; Larry Stone, an individual; and Mark Richert, an individual, Plaintiff-respondents, v. BLAINE COUNTY; Blaine County Board of Commissioners, Rupert House, Dan Mackey, Robert Gardner, Commissioners, Defendant-appellants. and Idaho Power Company, a Maine corporation, Defendant. David MANOOKIAN, an individual, Plaintiff-appellant, and Larry Stone, an individual; and Mark Richert, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. BLAINE COUNTY; Blaine County Board of Commissioners, Rupert House, Dan Mackey, Robert Gardner, Commissioners; Idaho Power Company, an Idaho corporation, Defendant-respondents, and Idaho Power Company, a Maine corporation, Defendants. David MANOOKIAN, an individual, Plaintiff, and Larry Stone, an individual; and Mark Richert, an individual, Plaintiff- appellants, v. BLAINE COUNTY; Blaine County Board of Commissioners, Rupert House, Dan Mackey, Robert Gardner, Commissioners, Defendant-respondents, and Idaho Power Company, a Maine corporation, Defendant.

Page 1008

735 P.2d 1008

112 Idaho 697

David MANOOKIAN, an individual; Larry Stone, an individual; and Mark Richert, an individual, Plaintiff-respondents, v. BLAINE COUNTY; Blaine County Board of Commissioners, Rupert House, Dan Mackey, Robert Gardner, Commissioners, Defendant-appellants and Idaho Power Company, a Maine corporation, Defendant David MANOOKIAN, an individual, Plaintiff-appellant and Larry Stone, an individual; and Mark Richert, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. BLAINE COUNTY; Blaine County Board of Commissioners, Rupert House, Dan Mackey, Robert Gardner, Commissioners; Idaho Power Company, an Idaho corporation, Defendant-respondents and Idaho Power Company, a Maine corporation, Defendants.

David MANOOKIAN, an individual, Plaintiff, and Larry Stone, an individual; and Mark Richert, an individual, Plaintiff- appellants, v. BLAINE COUNTY; Blaine County Board of Commissioners, Rupert House, Dan Mackey, Robert Gardner, Commissioners, Defendant-respondents, and Idaho Power Company, a Maine corporation, Defendant.

Nos. 16118, 16209 and 16258.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

March 30, 1987.

Sandra L. Shaw, Blaine County Pros. Atty., Hailey, for appellant Blaine County.

Barry J. Luboviski, Ketchum, for respondents Stone and Richert.

Michael F. Donovan, Ketchum, for respondent Manookian.

BAKES, Justice.

The issue in this case is whether I.C. § 67-6506 ¹ prohibits a member of a planning and zoning commission or a member of the county board of commissioners from taking part in the zoning process set forth in the Idaho Local Planning Act, I.C. §§ 67-6501 et seq., when that member owns property that may be economically impacted by the subsequent decision. The appellants, Blaine County and the Blaine County Board of County Commissioners, appeal a district court decision which reversed the county commissioners' approval of a conditional use permit for construction of an electrical power transmission line because the court found that a conflict of interest existed between officials involved in the zoning proceedings and the subject of those proceedings. The district court concluded, on the peculiar facts of this case, that I.C. § 67-6506 had been violated. We affirm except as to costs, which we award to respondents.

The alleged conflict of interest question centered around the participation in the zoning process of two men, Robert Gardner and Nick Purdy. Robert Gardner was a member of the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission and subsequently, in January, 1983, became a member of the Blaine County Board of County Commissioners. Nick Purdy was at all times relevant herein a member and chairman of the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission.

The proceedings which precipitated this appeal are as follows. In March, 1982, Idaho Power Company applied to the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission for a conditional use permit for the construction of an electrical power substation and transmission lines along a route that we will refer to as the "Idaho Power route." The "Idaho Power route," as originally proposed, ran through property owned by the Purdys and Gardner. Idaho Power had acquired all but one of the necessary easements for this route, including one purchased from Nick Purdy. The one easement Idaho Power did not have along the original route was from Gardner. Three people objected to the "Idaho Power route." They were Nick Purdy, his father, Bud Purdy, and Gardner.

Public hearings were held in May of 1982 on Idaho Power's proposed route for the transmission line. On July 10, 1982, the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission approved Idaho Power's request to build the line, but came up with a different route from the one proposed by Idaho Power. This new route, referred to as the "desert route," was proposed to the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission by Gardner and followed a line which runs through the sagebrush desert away from his and the Purdys' property. The Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission approved Gardner's suggested route, with Gardner voting. Nick Purdy did not vote, but participated in the proceedings and strongly advocated the "desert route."

This "desert route" approved by the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission allegedly created problems for wildlife and endangered plants, as well as $470,000 in additional costs. As a result Idaho Power, the Idaho Conservation League, and the Sierra Club appealed that decision to the Blaine County Board of County Commissioners. The commissioners affirmed part of the "desert route" as proposed by the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission, but refused to allow the transmission lines to pass through the desert. The commissioners proposed a third route, known as the "toe of the hills route," which passes along the foothills in the Silver Creek area of Blaine County. This third route crossed through property owned by the respondents Manookian, Stone, and Richert.

In subsequent proceedings before the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission the "toe of the hills route" was approved, and Manookian, Stone and Richert appealed the approval to the Blaine County Board of County Commissioners. By this time, Gardner was a member of the board of commissioners, and he acknowledged that he had a possible conflict of interest. While he did not vote, he did participate in the proceedings. Nick Purdy had also participated in the proceedings before the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission, before declining to vote, citing a possible conflict of interest. On July 18, 1983, the commissioners rejected the respondents' appeal and approved the "toe of the hills route." Manookian, Stone and Richert then appealed to the district court pursuant to I.C. § 67-5215.

After reviewing the record and hearing the argument of counsel, the district court filed a memorandum decision and order on June 3, 1985, finding that Purdy and Gardner had an economic interest in the proceedings before them. The district court went on to hold that that participation was in violation of I.C. § 67-6506 and, therefore, the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners was illegal and without force and effect. The district court reversed the decision of the Blaine County Board of Commissioners and remanded the case to the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission for further proceedings.

The Blaine County Board of County Commissioners appealed the district court's decision to this Court. The respondents Manookian and Stone filed a cross appeal for costs incurred in the proceedings before the Blaine County Planning & Zoning Commission and the board of county commissioners (which were denied by the district court in the original proceeding) and for attorney fees for this appeal.

The issue which we must decide is whether the district court erred in concluding from the record that Nick Purdy and Robert Gardner's participation in the zoning process conflicted with I.C. § 67-6506, which prohibits members of a planning and zoning commission or a board of county commissioners from taking part in proceedings in which they have an economic interest. For the following reasons we affirm the district court.

I

As a preliminary matter we must address appellants' argument that, because the issue of the "conflict of interest" was not raised before the Blaine County Board of County Commissioners under the Administrative Procedure Act, I.C. §§ 67-5201 et seq., it could not be raised for the first time on appeal to the district court. After reviewing the record of the proceedings before the commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission, it is clear that the "conflict of interest" issue was before both of those bodies. While the issue may not have been presented by a formal motion, the issue was raised and considered below, and both Purdy and Gardner ultimately disqualified themselves from further participation based upon that issue and the statute.

The distinction must be made between an issue not formally raised below and an issue that was never raised below. Where an issue never surfaced below, it is not proper for it to be raised on appeal. See, e.g., Balser v. Kootenai County Bd. of Comm'rs, 110 Idaho 37, 714 P.2d 6 (1986). However, I.R.C.P. 15(b) states, "When issues not raised ... are tried by specific or implied consent of the parties, they shall in all respects be treated as if they were raised in the pleadings." (Emphasis added.) See Kolp v. Bd. of Trustees, 102 Idaho 320, 629 P.2d 1153 (1981). Because the issue of Gardner's and Purdy's "conflict of interest" was implicitly before the Board of County Commissioners, and was considered and passed upon by Gardner and Purdy when they disqualified themselves, that issue is appropriately considered by the district court.

II

The district court concluded from the record:

"that Nick Purdy and Robert Gardner had an economic interest in the matters presented to them for decision and that their participation in the hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission constituted a violation of I.C. § 67-6506, which participation renders the decision of the Blaine County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners illegal and without force and effect."

After reviewing the record it is clear that this conclusion is supported by the record. Appellants argue that the placement of the power lines on their property would not create an economic impact sufficient to invoke I.C. § 67-6506. The statute is not ambiguous. The legislature intended to prohibit economic conflicts of interest. In adopting 67-6506, the legislature acted to assure that, consistent with our democratic principles, only impartial and objective persons make decisions affecting other persons' liberty and property.

The policy behind the statute is essential because, under the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act, I.C. §§ 67-5201 et seq., the findings of fact of an administrative agency are...