Walinske v. Detroit-Wayne Joint Bldg. Auth.

• Decision Date: 08 September 1949
• Docket Number: No. 69.,69.
• Citation: 39 N.W.2d 73,325 Mich. 562
• Parties: WALINSKE v. DETROIT-WAYNE JOINT BLDG. AUTHORITY et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

325 Mich. 562

39 N.W.2d 73

WALINSKE

v.DETROIT-WAYNE JOINT BLDG. AUTHORITY et al.

No. 69.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 8, 1949.

Edward A. Walinske sued Detroit-Wayne Joint Building Authority, a non-profit quasi corporation, County of Wayne, a corporate body politic, and City of Detroit, a municipal corporation, for declaratory judgment and to prevent defendants from further proceeding, under an Act enabling Detroit and Wayne County to incorporate an Authority to construct joint city and county building.

The Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, in Chancery, Thomas J. Murphy, J., held the Enabling Act to be valid, found proceedings taken and proposed to be taken to be regular, and dismissed bill, and plaintiff appealed.

The Supreme Court, Butzel, J., affirmed decree except for holding that plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of right, so that bill should not have been dismissed.Before the Entire Bench.

Helen W. Miller, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.

Gerald K. O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, Arthur L. Robbins, Philip A. McHugh, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, Detroit, for Wayne County.

John G. Dunn, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Detroit, for defendants and appellees Detroit-Wayne Joint Building Authority and City of Detroit.

BUTZEL, Justice.

The facts in this case are not controverted, most of them having been stipulated by the parties. The city hall of Detroit, the county seat of Wayne county, was built over three-quarters of a century ago, when the city had only 80,000 inhabitants. It was a comparatively small building, four stories in height, but at the time it was erected it was spacious enough to take care of city needs and provide office space for the various county offices and also court rooms for the Wayne circuit court.^* Evidently the advantage of the joint use of one building by both the city and the county was already recognized years ago. However, the building soon became too small and inadequate to care for the growing needs of the city and county, and in 1898 a county building, primarily designed as a courthouse, was erected.

The city has constantly grown. It now has a population of over 1,800,000 inhabitants. The city hall has become too small to take care of the city needs. The public offices are scattered in thirty-one locations, and much time is wasted by the public in going from place to place to consult city and county officers and records. The population of the county has also increased. In addition to Detroit, the cities of Highland Park, Hamtramck, Dearborn, several small municipalities as well as rural districts are situated within its borders. The county building also has become too small to care for the county needs. At the present time the annually is paying $100,397.59 to private owners for office space. The county is likewise paying to private owners approximately $233,132.61 per year for like purposes. The annual cost of city office space, including rent paid to private owners, the expense of operation and maintenance of city property, a fair rental from buildings owned and used by the city, exclusive of the city hall, and the annual cost of renting 60,000 square feet of additional space needed by the city, amounts to $791,963.41. The annual rent paid by the county for space outside the county building together with the cost of maintenanc and operation of its building amounts to approximately $687,373.97. Together they aggregate $1,479,346.38.

It is estimated that the annual cost to be city for adequate space in a joint county and city building will be approximately $175,351.59 in excess of the present cost, while that to the county will be less than at present. This estimate is on the basis of plans for a new joint county-city building to be erected by an Authority and principally financed by a revenue bond issue of $10,000,000 bearing interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum, to be retired over a period of thirty years. The city is to occupy approximately 60 per cent of the space, and the county about 40 per cent of the space in such new joint building. A joint building would also result in economy of space and time, save many duplications of certain activities, properly safeguard irreplaceable and most important public records, and provide much needed court rooms and proper offices in which to conduct governmental activities. We need not elaborate on the benefits that all parties concede would result a joint county-city building.

A majority of the electors of Wayne county, at the November 1947 election, voted for propositions in favor of a building for the joint use of county and city, and an $8,000,000 bond issue to defray its cost. A like majority voted to increase the millage, but the proposition was not carried as it did not receive the required two-thirds vote.

The demand for an adequate building for the joint use of city and county continued. The city condemned an entire city block centrally located at the intersection of two main thoroughfares. The award was $1,574,950 for the land and $53,850 for moving and incidental expenses and damages. The city now owns the property. At the 1948 Extra Session of the State legislature, the governor sent to the legislature two messages in which he stated:

‘17. County-city Buildings. It is claimed in certain Michigan communities that enabling legislation should be enacted to permit county and city governments to construct buildings for their joint use. It is further claimed that it will add to the convenience of the public; will increase to a marked degree the efficiency of both county and city government, and will provide an economy of operation. I therefore submit the matter for your consideration.’ (March 30, 1948.)

‘To the members of the State Legislature:

‘I have previously submitted a message intended to allow enabling legislation for the construction of buildings for joint city-county use. A question has now arisen as to whether this would permit construction of a building for the separate use of a county, a city, or a village, either jointly or separately. I intend this subject to be open for consideration.’ (April 16, 1948).

The legislature at this session enacted Act No. 31 P.A.1948, Ext.Sess., C.L.1948, § 123.951 et seq., referred to herein as the Enabling Act. We quote some of its provisions:

‘Sec. 2. Any county and any city or village which is the county seat thereof, may incorporate an authority for the purpose of acquiring, furnishing, equipping, owning, improving, enlarging, operating and/or maintaining a building or buildings and the necessary site or sites therefor, for the use of such county and city or village.

‘Sec. 4. The incorporation of such an authority shall be accomplished by the adoption of articles of incorporation by the legislative body of each incorporating unit. For such adoption, the affirmative vote of the majority of the members elect of each such legislative body shall be required. The articles of incorporation shall be executed for and on behalf of each incorporating unit by the following officers, to-wit: for the county, by the chairman of the board of supervisors and county clerk; for the city, by its mayor and city clerk and for the village by its president and clerk. The clerk of each incorporating unit shall also affix to said articles of incorporation following the signatures thereto, a certificate in form substantially as follows: (gives the form used by the parties in the record.)

‘Sec. 7. Such authority shall be a body corporate with power to sue and be sued in any court of this state. It shall possess all the powers necessary to carry out the purpose of its incorporation and those incident thereto. The enumeration of any powers in this act shall not be construed as a limitation upon such general powers.

‘Sec. 8. The authority and any incorporating unit or units shall have power to enter into a contract or contracts whereby the authority will acquire property contemplated by the terms of this act and lease the same to the incorporating unit or units for a period not to exceed 40 years. The consideration specified in such contract for such use shall be subject to increase by the authority if necessary in order to provide funds to meet its obligations.

‘Sec. 11. For the purpose of acquiring, improving and/or enlarging any such building or buildings and the necessary site or sites therefor, and furnishing and equipping the same, the authority may issue self-liquidating revenue bonds in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Act No. 94 of the Public Acts of 1933, as now or hereafter amended: Provided, That such bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues of such property, which revenues shall be deemed to include payments made under any lease or other contract for the use of such property: And provided further, That no such bonds shall be issued unless the property whose revenues are pledged has been leased by the authority for a period extending beyond the last maturity of the bonds. For the purpose of section 33 of said act, the limits of the authority shall be deemed to coincide with those of the county creating or joining in the creation thereof. If a sufficient referendum petition shall be filed as provided in said section requesting a referendum upon the question of the issuance of revenue bonds by the authority, then such question may be submitted commission of the authority at any general or special election to be held in the county.

‘Sec. 13. When all bonds issued pursuant to the provisions of this act shall have been retired, then the authority may convey the title to the property acquired thereunder to the incorporating unit or units in accordance with the provisions therefor contained in the articles of incorporation, or, if there be no such provisions, then in accordance with any agreement adopted by the respective governing bodies of the incorporating units.’

It also sets forth the procedure which was duly followed by the ...