Sadler v. Lyle
| Decision Date | 21 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19072,19072 |
| Citation | 176 S.E.2d 290,254 S.C. 535 |
| Parties | David H. SADLER, individually and representing the taxpayers of the City of Rock Hill, South Carolina, Appellant, v. David LYLE, as Mayor, and C. A. Barron, Coleman G. Poag, A. B. Poe, and C. A.Reese, Jr., as members of the City Council of Rock Hill, South Carolina, DanielR. McLeod, as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, and City of RockHill,South Carolina, a municipal corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
The circuit court has declared a Rock Hill municipal bond election valid and has ruled that the city may issue $3,250,000 in bonds. Plaintiff has appealed and raised five questions.
The plaintiff, individually and as a representative of all taxpayers of the city, brought this action to enjoin the issuance of all general obligation bonds approved at the election.
The defendants are the Mayor and members of the City Council, the Attorney General of South Carolina, and the city of Rock Hill, a municipal corporation. Evidence was submitted and the matter heard on its merits by the Honorable Robert W. Hayes, circuit judge, who decreed that the city could proceed to issue bonds.
The election involved was held in the city of Rock Hill on May 29, 1969 pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Bond Act (). There was submitted to the voters (1) the question of issuing not exceeding $2,700,000 of bonds whose proceeds shall be used to pay the cost of constructing 'street improvements in and about the business area of the city of Rock Hill,' and (2) the question of issuing not exceeding $300,000 general obligation bonds to acquire additional fire protection facilities, and (3) not exceeding $250,000 general obligation bonds for additional parks and playground facilities.
The election resulted favorably on all questions presented. The vote in favor of street improvement bonds was 1,185 in favor to 1,087 against. The resolution of city council declaring the favorable results of the election was filed in the office of the Clerk of Court in York County on June 10, 1969 pursuant to the provisions of Section 47--842 of the code.
Article II, Section 13 of the constitution relating to special elections for bonding municipalities provides that 'all electors of such city or town who are duly qualified for voting under Section 12 of this Article, and who have paid all taxes, State, County and Municipal for the previous year, shall be allowed to vote;'. This court has held that persons who own no property, and accordingly paid no tax, were eligible to vote, and that persons who owned property were required to exhibit their tax receipts for the previous year as a prerequisite to voting. Moffett v. Traxler, 247 S.C. 298, 147 S.E.2d 255 (1966).
The constitution restricts municipalities generally to an 8% Debt limitation. However, this limitation does not apply to the City of Rock Hill where the proceeds are applied exclusively (inter alia) 'to the purchase, erection, improvement and maintenance of streets, sidewalks, * * *.' The exception to the general provisions relating to Rock Hill is by virtue of an amendment to Article VIII, Section 7 and Article X, Section 5 of the constitution as set forth on page 181 of Volume 16 of the South Carolina Code for 1962. This constitutional amendment on which the City of Rock Hill must rely in order to issue the proposed street improvement bonds without violating the 8% Limitation generally applicable, was submitted to the voters of South Carolina at the 1918 general election in the form of a single question which related to 'exempting Rock Hill and Florence from the foregoing provisions relating to municipal bonded indebtedness * * *.'
There is no dispute as to the material facts involved which will be outlined.
The main north-south line of the Southern Railway Company (Southern) running between Charlotte, North Carolina, and Columbia, cuts through the center of the main business district of the City of Rock Hill. At that point they intersect with eastwest railroad tracks connecting York and Lancaster which also serve industries in the vicinity of Rock Hill. In recent years two circumstances have produced a serious traffic problem in the Rock Hill business district: (1) the amount of vehicular traffic flowing through the business district has increased and, (2) as a result of new industries in and about Rock Hill, the use of the east-west railroad tracks has increased. When freight trains are switched from the main north-south line to the east-west line in order to serve the industries many of the main streets in the business area are blocked for considerable periods of time and much traffic congestion results.
Rock Hill and Southern have had extended negotiations attempting to eliminate this traffic problem. The resulting agreement dated August 16, 1968, contemplates a project recommended by the consulting engineers employed by the city and includes the relocation of railroad tracks, the construction and remodeling of railroad bridges, the construction of underpasses and the construction of a new railroad freight depot. Under this agreement, when the project is completed all of the properties necessary to sustain the railroad operation, including the relocated tracks, the new freight depot and new rights-of-way for railroad purposes will be conveyed to Southern, and all other project properties, including the residual properties and rights-of-way now owned by Southern but no longer required for its operation will become the property of the city. The city and Southern concluded that the overall effect of the 'swap' of properties will benefit the city to the extent of $380,000. Southern had agreed to contribute $250,000 toward the cost of the project. Thus, the city will reimburse Southern for the balance by a cash payment of $130,000.
This aspect of the project is estimated to cost $2,500,000 and is only one part of an overall street improvement program proposed by Rock Hill at an estimated total cost of $7,554,000, to be funded by Federal, State and local money. After reaching the agreement with Southern, the city then entered into an agreement with the State Highway Department dated September 22, 1969, covering the entire street improvement program and a separate engineering agreement relating to the necessary design and engineering work. The city's share of the cost of the total program is $2,700,000.
The appellant first contends that the constitutional amendment exempting Rock Hill from the 8% Constitutional debt limit was not properly submitted to the people and approved and is not now a part of the constitution because the One question submitted exempted both Rock Hill and Florence. Article XVI, Section 2 of the constitution as relates to proposed amendments provides:
'If two or more amendments shall be submitted at the same time, they shall be submitted in such manner that the elector shall vote for or against each of such amendments separately.'
Although constitutional amendments relaxing debt limitations which relate to more than one city and which also relate to more than one purpose in a single amendment have been before this court previously, this is apparently the first occasion that the question here raised by appellant has been expressly presented. This particular amendment was litigated in the case of Lucas v. Barringer, 120 S.C. 68, 112 S.E. 746 (1922), but there was no contention there that the amendment was adopted in violation of Article XVI, Section 2. Another amendment which undertook to relax the debt limitation of more than one political subdivision was unsuccessfully attacked in the case of Stevenson v. Carrison, 122 S.C. 212, 115 S.E. 251 (1922), and although the form of the question submitted to the voters was set forth in the court's opinion, there was no question raised that it violated Section 2, Article XVI, of the South Carolina Constitution. An amendment to Article VIII, Section 7 and Article X, Section 5 relaxing the debt limitation of the Town of Dillon when bonds are issued for water, sewer or lighting purposes was attacked in the case of Bethea v. The Town of Dillon, 91 S.C. 413, 74 S.E. 983 (1912), on the grounds that it violated Section 2 of Article XVI because it undertook to amend both Section 7 of Article VIII and Section 5 of Article X of the South Carolina Constitution and therefore should have been submitted as two separate questions. However, no issue was made that each purpose for which the debt limitation was to be relaxed should have likewise been submitted as a separate question and the court in sustaining the amendment stated that 'there was really only one amendment submitted and that had reference to only one subject--the limitation upon the bonded debt of a municipal corporation.'
The court has, therefore, consistently treated the question at issue here as one dealing solely with the subject matter of debt limitations rather than two independent questions, one relating to relaxing the debt limit of one political entity, and the other relating to relaxing the debt limit of another political entity.
An examination of the many amendments relaxing debt limitations proposed and ratified since the constitution was adopted in 1895 establishes a similar legislative interpretation that the submission of a constitutional amendment relaxing the debt limit of several municipalities for several...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 1428
... ... Our Supreme Court in the case of Sadler v. Lyle, 254 S.C. 535, 176 S.E.2d 290 (1970) approved the exchange of land and relocation of a railroad track where the public safety and welfare ... ...
-
Gould v. Barton
... ... Sadler v. Lyle, 254 S.C. 535, 176 S.E.2d 290 ... The next questions concern the power of the General Assembly to create the special ... ...