STATE OF NEVADA on Relation of JAMES A. BRENNAN, JAMES G. RYAN, TOM WIESNER, ROBERT N. BROADBENT and MYRON E. LEAVITT, Members of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA BOWMAN, COUNTY CLERK OF CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA, and EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
State ex rel. Brennan v. Bowman
Mowbray, Batjer, and Zenoff, JJ., concur.
STATE OF NEVADA on Relation of JAMES A. BRENNAN, JAMES G. RYAN, TOM WIESNER, ROBERT N. BROADBENT and MYRON E. LEAVITT, Members of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA BOWMAN, COUNTY CLERK OF CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA, and EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
STATE OF NEVADA on Relation of JAMES A. BRENNAN, JAMES G. RYAN, TOM WIESNER, ROBERT N. BROADBENT and MYRON E. LEAVITT, Members of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA BOWMAN, COUNTY CLERK OF CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA, and EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
No. 7097
August 10, 1973
512 P.2d 1321
Jones, Jones, Close, Bilbray, Kaufman & Olsen, Ltd., of Las Vegas, for Petitioner.
Robert List, Attorney General, Carson City; Roy A. Woofter, District Attorney, and George F. Ogiivie, Jr., Chief Civil Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
OPINION
By the Court,
Thompson, C. J.:
This original proceeding for a writ of mandamus tests the constitutionality of the County Economic Development Revenue Bond Law. Clark County proposes to issue revenue bonds in the principal amount of $5,500,000 to assist The Flintkote Company in the acquisition and construction of pollution control facilities for its plants in Clark County. The Board of County Commissioners voted to enact Ordinance No. 396 to effectuate that purpose, but the County Clerk, acting pursuant to legal advice, has refused to publish the same. Consequently, this proceeding was commenced to compel her to do so.
The ordinance followed a memorandum of agreement between the County and Flintkote. That agreement was made and executed pursuant to the authority of the County Economic Development Revenue Bond Law, as was the ordinance which followed. Capsulized, the agreement provides that Clark County shall hold title to the pollution control facilities to be acquired and constructed at the Flintkote plants, which facilities, Flintkote, in turn, shall lease from the County and remit as lease rental payments an amount sufficient to meet all monetary requirements of the bonds to be issued by the County. Upon full payment of the bonds and other expenses connected therewith, Flintkote may exercise an option to purchase the improvements and facilities from the County for the sum of $1.
It is evident that the method of financing contemplated by the Revenue Bond Law may, in proper circumstances, materially reduce the cost of financing essential industrial improvements since the interest on the bonds issued by the political subdivision may be exempt from taxation as well as from the registration requirements of securities acts.
The Revenue Bond Law is designed to, encourage industry to locate or remain in this State in order to relieve unemployment and to secure and maintain a stable economy. NRS 244.9197. We turn to consider the challenges to that law.
1. Public funds may not be spent for private purposes. It is asserted that the Revenue Bond Law here in issue somehow violates that doctrine. Of course, if the County were to levy a tax to retire the bonds and if the purpose of the bond issue was private rather than public in nature, the law would be struck down. Nev. Const, art. 1, § 8; State v. Churchill County, 43 Nev. 290, 185 P. 459 (1919); cf. Cauble v. Beemer, 64 Nev. 77, 82, 177 P.2d 677 (1947).
The Revenue Bond Law, however, forbids pecuniary liability of the County, or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers. NRS 244.9201(2). Neither can it reasonably be contended that the legislative purpose is other than public. The Revenue Bond Law may be expected to encourage industry to either locate or remain in this State and, thereby, aid in relieving unemployment and maintaining a stable economy. City of Gaylord v. Beckett, 144 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. 1966). This inures to the public benefit. That Law also will work to realize the purposes of the Nevada Air Pollution Control Law, NRS 445.401 et seq., which proposes to require the use of "reasonably available methods to prevent, reduce or control air pollution." That such a purpose is a public purpose cannot be denied. Fickes v. Missoula County, 470 P.2d 287 (Mont. 1970); Nemelka v. Salt Lake County, 499 P.2d 862 (Utah 1972); Harper v. Schooler, 189 S.E.2d 284 (S.C. 1972); Knight v. West Alabama Environmental Imp. Auth., 246 So.2d 903 (Ala. 1971); Opinion of the Justices, 268 N.E.2d 149 (Mass. 1971).
2. It is asserted that the Revenue Bond Law contravenes the prohibitions of Nev. Const, art. 8, § 9 and 10, relative to loans of public credit. Since the Revenue Bond Law specifically forbids a charge against the County's credit or taxing powers, precludes County liability for the bonds and interest coupons, and bars County contribution towards the acquisition cost of the project, this challenge to the Law also must fail. McLaughlin v. L.V.H.A., 68 Nev. 84, 227 P.2d 206 (1951); State ex rel. Brennan v. Bowman, 88 Nev. 582, 503 P.2d 454 (1972). Inasmuch as the bonds are payable only from income to be derived from leasing the pollution control facilities, and no resort can be had against the County or its taxpayers, the County is not lending its credit in breach of the constitutional proscription. Allen v. Tooele County, 445 P.2d 994 (Utah 1968).
3. Nev. Const, art. 4, § 17, provides that "[ejach law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, and matter, properly connected therewith, which subject shall be. briefly expressed in the title. . . ." The title of the Revenue Bond Law is said to violate that provision of our Constitution since it does not contain a reference to pollution control.
The title of the Act: "An act relating to public securities and obligations; authorizing counties and cities to issue revenue bonds to finance industrial development projects and to lease such projects; prescribing details in connection therewith; and providing other matters properly relating thereto." As we see it, this title encompasses one subject, economic development revenue bonds. It is similar in character to the title of the Housing Authorities Law which we upheld against the same challenge in McLaughlin v. L.V.H.A., supra. This attack upon the Law is without substance.
4. Nev. Const, art. 4, § 21, proscribes local or special laws in the cases therein enumerated. The Revenue Bond Law does not offend that proscription since it is statewide in application, and is neither local nor special. State ex rel. Brennan v. Bowman, 88 Nev. 582, 503 P.2d 454 (1972). The Law is general and of uniform operation throughout the State as required by § 22 of art. 4. It may be utilized by all counties within the State without classification. Cf. Reid v. Woofter, 88 Nev. 378, 498 P.2d 361 (1972).
5. The respondent asserts that the Revende Bond Law unlawfully delegates legislative authority in contravention of Nev. Const, art. 3, § 1. This assertion is without force. Adequate standards are specified in the Law. Its purpose [NRS 244.9197], the powers of the county NRS [244.9198], procedures for notice and hearing [NRS 244.9199], the nature and form of the bonds to be issued [NRS 244.9204], the investment of revenues [NRS 244.9205], rights upon default [NRS 244.9208], and several other matters are particularly set forth. The legislative guides are clear for the counties to follow. No. Las Vegas v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 83 Nev. 278, 429 P.2d 66 (1967); State ex rel. Brennan v. Bowman, supra.
The same is true with respect to the contention that the Law impermissibly allows the counties to delegate authority. McLaughlin v. L.V.H.A., supra.
6. Next, it is contended that art. 10, § 1, regarding uniform taxation, and art. 8, § 2, requiring corporate property to be taxed in the same manner as the property of an individual, are violated by the Law.
Lands and other property owned by the county are exempt from taxation, NRS 361.060, and NRS 244.9216 of the Revenue Bond Law expressly provides that property acquired by the county pursuant to that law shall remain exempt from taxation. Thus, the pollution control facilities will be owned by the county until the bonds are retired and Flintkote has exercised its option to purchase. Notwithstanding this fact, Flintkote, by reason of the provisions of NRS 361.157 and 361.159, will be taxed for the pollution control facilities, as the lessee thereof, and to the same extent as though it was the owner. Consequently, there is no footing for the claim that a discrimination or inequality arises from the statutory scheme. Allen v. Tooele County, 445 P.2d 994, 997 (Utah 1968).
7. The remaining challenges to the Revenue Bond Law have been carefully examined and are without validity.
A peremptory writ of mandamus shall issue directing the respondent to publish Clark County Ordinance No. 396.
Mowbray, Batjer, and Zenoff, JJ., concur.