Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Zimmerman

• Decision Date: 11 July 1958
• Docket Number: No. 37568,37568
• Citation: 253 Minn. 164,91 N.W.2d 642
• Parties: , 25 P.U.R.3d 297 MINNEAPOLIS GAS COMPANY, Respondent, v. L. P. ZIMMERMAN, Commissioner of Highways for State of Minnesota, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 642

91 N.W.2d 642

253 Minn. 164, 25 P.U.R.3d 297

MINNEAPOLIS GAS COMPANY, Respondent, v. L. P. ZIMMERMAN, Commissioner of Highways for State of Minnesota, Appellant.

No. 37568.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 11, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive language, the provisions of Minn.Const. art. 16, §§ 2 and 6, are not to be construed as expressing an intent to limit the expenditure of funds thereunder to only one, or less than all, of the purposes for which highways exist in our society of today.

2. Since 1895 Minnesota has been definitely committed to the view that the use of rights-of-way by utilities for locating their facilities is one of the proper and primary purposes for which highways are designed even though their principal use is for travel and the transportation of persons and property.

3. In view of the fact that the transmission of utility services is one of the general and primary purposes for which highways are designed, it would be unrealistic to construe the broad language of Minn.Const. art. 16, §§ 2 and 6, so narrowly as to prohibit the legislature from authorizing the use fo highway funds for the nonbetterment location of utility services as a proper cost of highway construction, reconstruction, improvement, and maintenance.

4. An act of the legislature is presumed to be constitutional and it will not be declared unconstitutional unless its invalidity appears clearly or unless there is a showing that beyond a reasonable doubt it violates some constitutional provision.

5. What is a public purpose that will justify the expenditure of public money is not capable of a precise definition, but the courts generally construe it to mean such an activity as will serve as a benefit to the community as a body and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government.

6. The mere fact that some private interest may derive an incidental benefit from the activity does not deprive the activity of its public nature if its primary purpose is public.

7. Where it becomes reasonably necessary to relocate utility facilities upon a highway in order to improve the highway for public travel (and especially so, as to a highway designed to facilitate interstate travel and commerce and to further the common defense) and expenditure of funds to effect such relocation is properly a governmental function exercised for a public purpose of primary benefit to the entire community.

8. Although gratuities and benevolences of public moneys in aid of private undertakings are prohibited, Minn.Const art. 9, §§ 1 and 10, does not prohibit the legislature from, by prospective action (that is by an enactment prior to the ordering of a relocation of utility facilities or prior to the commencement of a great public work requiring such relocation), fixing the conditions of performance and making provisions for the future recognition of claims for damages founded on equity and justice, although such claims would otherwise be damnum absque injuria and unenforceable against the state.

9. Minn.Const. art. 9, § 5, expressly excepts highway construction work under art. 16 from the provision prohibiting the state from contracting debts for, or engaging in, works of internal improvement.

10. The Reimbursement Act (Ex.Sess.L.1957, c. 4) is not special legislation in contravention of Minn.Const. art. 4, § 33.

Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., Robert W. Mattson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sydney Berde, and Jerome F. Chapman, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

John C. Benson, Wright W. Brooks, Ralph H. Lee, George C. Mastor, Farnand, Lee & Mastor and Daniel R. Hart, Minneapolis (Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, of counsel), for respondent.

G. Aaron Youngquist, Youngquist, Comaford, Danforth, Fassett & Clarkson, Minneapolis, amicus curiae, for Minn. Valley Natural Gas Co.

Garfield E. Lovaas, Minneapolis, amicus curiae, for Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Cyrus Erickson, Arthur R. Renquist, Roland W. Comstock, Minneapolis, amicus curiae, for Northern States Power Co.

Louis B. Brechet, Minneapolis, amicus curiae, for Minn. Telephone Ass'n, Inc.

Richard E. Kyle and Frank Hammond, St. Paul, Briggs, Gilbert, Morton Kyle & Macartney, St. Paul, of counsel, amicus curiae, for Minn. Municipal Utilities Ass'n.

Gustav C. Axelrod, St. Paul, amicus curiae, for Minn. State Automobile Ass'n.

Charles A. Sawyer, City Atty., Minneapolis, amicus curiae, for City of Minneapolis.

Harry Weinberg, City Atty., Duluth, amicus curiae, for City of Duluth.

Marshall Hurley, Corp. Counsel, St. Paul, amicus curiae, for City of St. Paul.

MATSON, Justice.

Defendant appeals from a summary judgment granted to plaintiff upon the pleadings and stipulated facts.

This action was initiated by plaintiff's petition asking for declaratory relief adjudging Ex.Sess.L.1957, c. 4 ¹ (hereinafter referred to as the Reimbursement Act) to be constitutional, and further praying for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendant, as commissioner of highways for the State of Minnesota, (a) to ascertain, as required by said act, the cost of relocating plaintiff's utility facilities, (b) to certify the cost thereof to the Bureau of Public Roads, and (c) to pay the same out of state highway funds in a sum which shall not exceed the amount on which the Federal government bases its reimbursement to the state for such relocation.

This case arises out of Minnesota's participation in the Federal road building program authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act. The crux of the litigation involves the validity of an act passed by the 1957 legislature which purports to authorize the state to pay from highway funds the cost of relocating utility facilities on Federal-aid roads subject, however, to a 90-percent reimbursement from Federal funds.

Plaintiff, a 'utility' as defined in the Reimbursement Act, is a private corporation engaged primarily in purchasing, distributing, and selling natural gas in Minneapolis and surrounding communities. The Reimbursement Act (Ex.Sess.L.1957, c. 4) was enacted by the Minnesota Legislature to implement a provision of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 383, 23 U.S.C.A. § 162, which provides for the payment to utilities of the nonbetterment cost ² of relocating their facilities when such relocation is made necessary in furtherance of the Federal road construction program.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act ³ enacted by Congress in 1956 creates a network of 41,000 miles of interstate and defense highways to be constructed by the several states, but paid for by Federal funds in the minimum amount of 90 percent of the total construction cost. As a part of the construction cost, the Federal act specifically provides that a utility--whether publicly, privately, or cooperative owned ⁴--which, in the course of such highway construction, is required to change the location of any of its facilities on the right-of-way shall be paid the nonbetterment cost ⁵ of such relocation out of Federal funds Provided the state initially makes the payment to the utility in accord with 70 Stat. 383, 23 U.S.C.A. § 162(a) of the Federal act which reads:

'(a) Subject to the conditions contained in this section, Whenever a State shall pay for the cost of relocation of utility facilities necessitated by the construction of a project on the Federal-aid primary or secondary systems or on the Interstate System, including extensions thereof within urban areas, Federal funds may be used to reimburse the State for such cost in the same proportion as Federal funds are expended on the project: Provided, That Federal funds shall not be apportioned to the States under this section when the payment to the utility violates the law of the State or violates a legal contract between the utility and the State.' (Italics supplied.)

Many states, in order to qualify for Federal reimbursement for relocation costs upon Federal-aid highways within their borders, have found it necessary to enact enabling legislation to meet the conditions and terms prescribed by Congress. This has been true of Minnesota. Our state legislature, in recognition of this need, passed the Reimbursement Act (Ex.Sess.L.1957, c. 4) to implement the abovequoted provision of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. In so far as here immediately pertinent, the Reimbursement Act provides:

'Sec. 5. Whenever the commissioner of highways shall determine that the relocation of any utility facility is necessitated by the construction of a project on the routes of Federally-aided state trunk highways, including urban extensions thereof, which routes are included within the National System of Interstate Highways, the owner or operator of such utility facility shall relocate the same in accordance with the order of the commissioner. After the completion of such relocation the cost thereof shall be ascertained and paid by the state out of trunk highway funds; provided, however, The amount to be paid by the state for such reimbursement shall not exceed the amount on which the federal government bases its reimbursement for said interstate system.

'sec. 6. There is hereby appropriated out of the trunk highway fund a sum of money sufficient to carry out the provisions of this act.' (Italics supplied.)

Prior to the enactment of Ex.Sess.L.1957, c. 4, plaintiff, as a public utility, occupied with its gas mains the rights-of-way of Trunk Highways Nos. 394 and 65 (now designated as Interstate Highway No. 394) under a written permit issued by the commissioner of highways for the state. Under the terms of the permit plaintiff agreed that, in the event the state deemed it necessary to make any improvements or changes on all or any part of the right-of-way occupied by its gas mains, it would, Without any cost whatsoever to the State of Minnesota, alter, change, vacate, or remove from the trunk highway right-of-way said gas mains so as to conform to such road changes or improvements....