Chapter 1 MANNER OF ORIGINAL INCORPORATION — ORGANIZATION
Sec.
§ 50-101. Incorporation.
The residents of any unincorporated contiguous area (village) containing not less than 125 qualified electors may present a petition signed by a majority of the said electors to the board of commissioners of the county in which said petitioners reside, praying that they be incorporated as a city, designating the name they wish to assume and the metes and bounds of the proposed city.
Upon the petition to incorporate filed as herein provided, the board of county commissioners petitioned shall have no jurisdiction to take any action thereon or enter an order of incorporation, regardless of the number of petitioners thereon, where the boundaries of the proposed new city approach any point within one (1) mile of the boundary limits of any existing city of less than five thousand (5,000) population, within two (2) miles of the boundary limits of any existing city of five thousand (5,000) but less than ten thousand (10,000) population, within three (3) miles of the boundary limits of any existing city of ten thousand (10,000) but less than twenty thousand (20,000) population, or within four (4) miles of the boundary limits of any existing city of twenty thousand (20,000) or more population, all populations as determined by the last official or special United States census, unless there is first furnished said board of county commissioners either (a) a certified copy of a resolution of the city council of any existing city within the above applicable distances of the proposed city approving said petition for incorporation, or (b) appropriate evidence that the city council of any existing city within the above applicable distances of the proposed city, if contiguous or adjacent, has rejected and refused to annex the area of the proposed city to the existing city upon the petition made as hereinafter set out. Where the proposed new city area lies within the applicable distance of one or more cities, all cities must approve the petition of incorporation. An existing city shall be deemed to have rejected and refused to annex the contiguous or adjacent area when a petition for annexation is filed prior to 90 days before the end of any fiscal year, and the city council, within 60 days after receipt of said petition has not by appropriate action, declared that such area will be a part of such existing city, effective not later than the last day of the fiscal year in which said petition was filed. Such petition shall be signed by a majority of the inhabitants paying real estate taxes within said area requesting annexation, contain a certain metes and bounds description of the area set out in the petition and certify that the area so described falls within the distance limits herein set forth. The existing city, the petitioners, as herein provided, or the board of county commissioners is granted the power to petition the district court for a declaration of the right on any disputes arising between any of the parties so named hereunder.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 1, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49, of title 50.
Compiler’s Notes.
The words enclosed in parentheses so appeared in the law as enacted.
Section 474 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 read: “If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, part or provision of this act shall be found to be invalid or ineffective by any court it shall be conclusively presumed that this act would have been passed by the legislature without such invalid section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, part or provision and this act as a whole shall not be declared invalid by reason of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, parts or provisions may be so found invalid.”
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
CASE NOTES
Requisite Filings.
When Acequia was incorporated as a village in 1952, the procedure was governed by former§ 50-701. The statutes then in effect for “villages” contained no requirement of filing a proclamation declaring incorporation of a city with the secretary of state. So, since this section and§ 50-102 were not enacted until 1967, even though Acequia has not filed with the secretary of state a proclamation declaring incorporation of a city, Acequia was a duly formed city when the ordinances in question were enacted. State v. Phillips, 118 Idaho 27, 794 P.2d 297 (Ct. App. 1990).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Appeals.
Collateral attack.
Construction.
Existence as unit.
Notice.
Order.
Petition.
Appeals.
Where board of commissioners in making an order incorporating a city found that proposed boundaries were reasonable, any person who was aggrieved thereby had his remedy by appeal, and incorporation would not be held void because boundaries were improperly fixed, in absence of any showing that boundaries so fixed included an unreasonable amount of land. Wardner v. Pelkes, 8 Idaho 333, 69 P. 64 (1902).
Order for incorporation of a village was appealable to district court by any person aggrieved thereby or by any taxpayer within territory affected by such incorporation. Gardner v. Blaine County, 15 Idaho 698, 99 P. 826 (1909). An appeal filed by city from order incorporating a village to which incorporation the city objected on the grounds that the proposed village contained fewer than 125 residents, that the proposed boundaries were irregular, bizarre and fantastic, that its incorporation would materially hamper the ordinary growth of the city would have been dismissed on the ground that the city was neither a “person aggrieved” by the order, nor a “taxpayer of the county” and therefore was not authorized to appeal under the provisions of former§ 31-1509. In re Fernan Lake Village, 80 Idaho 412, 331 P.2d 278 (1958).
Collateral Attack.
In action attacking validity of incorporation of a village on ground that petition praying for such incorporation was not signed by majority of taxable male inhabitants residing within boundaries of said village, it must affirmatively have appeared from proceedings attacking such incorporation that said petition was not signed by majority of such taxpayers. In re Francis, 7 Idaho 98, 60 P. 561 (1900).
Construction.
Provisions of former section authorizing incorporation of a village was to be liberally construed. Village of Ilo v. Ramey, 18 Idaho 642, 112 P. 126 (1910).
Existence as Unit.
Any area which was sought to be incorporated must have existed as a unit and constituted a village in fact. In re Chubbuck, 71 Idaho 60, 226 P.2d 484 (1950).
Notice.
Former section governing incorporation of villages did not provide for notice and none was required to be given to opponents of a proposed incorporation; further, the statute made it mandatory upon the county commissioners to create the village when petition therefor complied with statute and board was satisfied that a majority of the taxable inhabitants of the proposed village had signed the same and there were 125 or more inhabitants actually resident of the territory described in the petition. In re Riggins, 68 Idaho 547, 200 P.2d 1011 (1948).
Order.
Fact that order of board of commissioners declaring town incorporated failed to designate metes and bounds of town did not affect legality of incorporation, where petition for incorporation clearly designated said boundaries and order referred to petition and granted it without change or modification. State ex rel. Holcomb v. Inhabitants of Pocatello, 3 Idaho 174, 28 P. 411 (1891).
Fact that order incorporating a city did not state that 200 or more inhabitants were legal residents of territory described in petition did not render order void where same uses words “taxable inhabitants,” and shows that a sufficient number of taxable inhabitants signed petition. Wardner v. Pelkes, 8 Idaho 333, 69 P. 64 (1902).
Petition.
Attempted incorporation of a town was void where petition for incorporation failed to describe metes and bounds of any tract of land whatever. Wardner v. Pelkes, 8 Idaho 333, 69 P. 64 (1902). Former section governing incorporation of villages was satisfied if the petition for incorporation which was introduced into evidence without objection set forth the metes and bounds of the proposed village. In re Riggins, 68 Idaho 547, 200 P.2d 1011 (1948).
Withdrawal of names from a petition for incorporation of a proposed village on the plea that such signatures were made upon false information would not have been permitted where board of county commissioners had acted on such petition. In re Riggins, 68 Idaho 547, 200 P.2d 1011 (1948).
If the district court found that the board of county commissioners did not abuse its discretion in granting one of the petitions for incorporation, then their order incorporating that area as a village should have been affirmed. In re Chubbuck, 71 Idaho 60, 226 P.2d 484 (1950).
Where there were two rival petitions for incorporation, one including the area in the other, the determination of whether a village in fact exists and its extent was first for the board of county commissioners and on review, the district court. In re Chubbuck, 71 Idaho 60, 226 P.2d 484 (1950).
§ 50-102. Manner of incorporating.
When the provisions of section 50-101[, Idaho Code,] have been satisfied and the county board or a majority of the members thereof has been satisfied that 60 per cent of the qualified electors of the proposed city have signed such petition and that qualified electors to the number of 125 or more are actual residents of the territory described in the petition, the said board shall hold a public hearing upon said petition and fix a time and place therefor, not more than thirty (30) days from the filing of said petition, and cause notice thereof to be published twice prior to said hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in said county and said board shall, on or before thirty (30) days following the date of said hearing, determine, by resolution, whether or not said proposed city may be incorporated and, in the event said board determines that the proposed city is to be incorporated, they shall enter the order of incorporation upon their records, and designate the metes and bounds thereof. Thereafter the said city shall be governed as other cities by the laws of the state of Idaho. The said county board shall, at the time of the incorporation: (1) proclaim that henceforth the former area shall be known as . . . . . . .; (2) order the clerk of the board of county commissioners to certify a copy of such proclamation, which shall be filed with the office of the secretary of state; (3) appoint a mayor and either four (4) or six (6) councilmen having the qualifications provided in this act, who shall at that time subscribe to the oath, and after receiving a certificate of election, they shall assume their offices and perform all the duties required of them by law, until the next general city election succeeding their appointment and until their successors are elected and qualified.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 2, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Municipal elections,§ 50-401 et seq.
Qualifications of councilmen,§ 50-702.
Qualifications of mayor,§ 50-601.
Secretary of state,§ 67-901 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion in the first sentence was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style. The term “this act” in the last sentence refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code.
CASE NOTES
Requisite Filings.
When Acequia was incorporated as a village in 1952, the procedure was governed by former§ 50-701. The statutes then in effect for “villages” contained no requirement of filing a proclamation declaring incorporation of a city with the secretary of state. So, since this section and§ 50-101 were not enacted until 1967, even though Acequia has not filed with the secretary of state a proclamation declaring incorporation of a city, Acequia was a duly formed city when the ordinances in question were enacted. State v. Phillips, 118 Idaho 27, 794 P.2d 297 (Ct. App. 1990).
§ 50-103. Census.
Within 30 days following the proclamation of incorporation, the city council shall request that an official enumeration of the inhabitants of the newly incorporated city be taken by the bureau of census, U.S. department of commerce, for the purpose of ascertaining the population of said city, the results of which shall be certified to the offices of the county clerk and the secretary of state, and which shall then become the official census and be used for the purpose of apportioning any and all state collected moneys to said city until the next regular or subsequent census be taken.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 3, p. 1249.
§ 50-104. Proof of corporate existence.
All courts within the county in which such newly incorporated city is situated shall take judicial notice of the corporate capacity and existence of such city. In all other courts of the state the corporate capacity and existence of such city may be proved by copies of the certificate of incorporation filed with the office of the secretary of state, duly authenticated, declaring the same to be a city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 4, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
CASE NOTES
Cited
State v. Phillips, 118 Idaho 27, 794 P.2d 297 (Ct. App. 1990).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Judicial Notice.
Instruction that judicial notice could have been taken of fact that city in question in prosecution of city treasurer for embezzlement was a city of the second class was not erroneous. State v. Clark, 47 Idaho 750, 278 P. 776 (1929).
Chapter 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS — GOVERNMENT — TERRITORY
Sec.
§ 50-201. Proof of corporate existence — Effect of this act.
The corporate name of each city governed by this act shall be City of . . . . . . All courts within the county in which such city is situated shall take judicial notice of the corporate capacity and existence of such city, and of the fact that such city is identical with, and a continuation of such former corporation. In all other courts of the state the corporate capacity and existence of such city may be proved by copies of the certificate of incorporation, required to be filed with the secretary of state, duly authenticated, declaring the same to be a city.
All by-laws, ordinances and resolutions lawfully passed and in force in any city under its former organization, shall remain in full force and effect until altered or repealed by the mayor and council under the provisions of this act.
The territorial limits of each city shall remain the same as under its former organization; but such territorial limits may be extended or changed as may be provided by law; and the rights and property of every description which are vested in any city under its former organization shall remain in full force and effect.
Each city shall be the successor of its former organization and shall have perpetual succession. No right or liability of any city, either in favor of or against it, existing at the time, and no suit or prosecution of any kind shall be affected by such change. It shall have and exercise all powers, functions, rights and privileges, now or hereafter granted it, and shall be subject to all the duties, obligations, liabilities and limitations now or hereafter imposed upon such city by the constitution and laws of the state of Idaho.
Processes and notices affecting corporations shall be served upon the mayor and in his absence upon the clerk or in the absence of such officers, then by leaving a certified copy at the office of the clerk.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 5, p. 1249; am. 1982, ch. 121, § 1, p. 347.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
City reorganized under general law, proof of corporate existence,§ 50-2306.
Secretary of state,§ 67-901 et seq.
Village incorporated as city, proof of corporate existence,§ 50-104.
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” in the section heading, near the beginning of the first paragraph and at the end of the second paragraph refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Provisions of City Charter.
The Boise City charter and its amendments were special acts of the legislature and, therefore, were not included in the provision of the former law that “all by-laws, ordinances and resolutions” in force in a city under its former organization remain in force until altered or repealed. Anderson v. Boise City, 91 Idaho 527, 427 P.2d 574 (1967).
§ 50-202. Existing rights and liabilities not affected — Operation of prior incorporated cities and villages.
This act shall not impair or affect any act done, offense committed or right accruing, accrued, or acquired or liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred prior to the time this act takes effect, but the same may be enjoyed, asseted [asserted], enforced, prosecuted or inflicted, as fully and to the same extent as if this act has not been passed.
All cities of the first class and all cities of the second class, heretofore incorporated under the general laws of this state, and heretofore operating with a mayor and council, shall continue to operate with a mayor and a council under the provisions of this act. All villages, heretofore incorporated under the general laws of this state, and heretofore operating with a board of trustees, shall hereafter operate with a mayor and a council under the provisions of this act. All cities and villages, heretofore incorporated under the general laws of this state, and heretofore operating under chapters 36, 43 or 49, title 50, Idaho Code, shall hereafter operate under sections 50-805 through 50-904 [sections 50-801 through 50-812, Idaho Code], and enjoy all powers and privileges given under the provisions of this act.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 473, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” throughout the section refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code.
The phrase “the time this act takes effect” in the first paragraph refers to the effective date of S.L. 1967, Chapter 429, which was effective April 12, 1967.
The bracketed word “asserted” near the end of the first paragraph was inserted by the compiler to correct the enacting legislation.
The references to “chapters 36, 43 or 49, title 50, Idaho Code” near the end of the section are to those chapters of the former title 50 of the Idaho Code which were repealed by S.L. 1967, ch. 429, § 472. Such provisions related to the commission plan, city manager plan and council-manager-mayor plan of government, respectively.
The reference to “sections 50-805 through 50-904” near the end of this section (which appears in S.L. 1967, ch. 429, as a reference to sections 144 through 155) appears to be an error in the session law and, therefore, the bracketed reference to [sections 50-801 through 50-812, Idaho Code] has been inserted by the compiler.
§ 50-203. Officials — Compensation.
The officials of each city shall consist of a mayor and either four (4) or six (6) councilmen whose compensation shall be fixed by ordinance published at least seventy-five (75) days before any general city election, which ordinance shall be effective for all said officials commencing on January 1 following said election and continuing until changed pursuant to this section.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 33, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 45, § 8, p. 122; am. 2006, ch. 105, § 1, p. 288.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Qualifications, powers and duties of councilmen,§ 50-701 et seq.
Qualifications, powers and duties of mayor,§ 50-601 et seq.
Amendments.
The 2006 amendment, by ch. 105, substituted “published at least seventy-five (75) days” for “passed at least sixty (60) days.”
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 32 of S.L. 1976, ch. 45 read: “In order to provide an orderly sequence for implementation of the provisions of this act: (a) Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 27 and 31 shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 1977; (b) Sections 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 30 shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1977; (c) Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 28, and 29 shall be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1977.”
CASE NOTES
Cited
State v. Whelan, 103 Idaho 651, 651 P.2d 916 (1982).
§ 50-204. Appointment of officers — Oath — Bond.
The mayor, except as otherwise provided in sections 50-801 through 50-812, with the consent of the council shall appoint a city clerk, a city treasurer, a city attorney and such other officers as may be deemed necessary for the efficient operation of the city. The city clerk, city treasurer, and such other officers as are designated by the council shall, before entering upon the duties thereof, execute a bond to the city in such penal sum as the city council may by ordinance determine, conditioned on the faithful performance of his duties. All official bonds shall be approved by the city council and when so approved shall be filed with the city clerk, except the bond of the city clerk, which shall be filed with the mayor.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 68, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
CASE NOTES
Police officers.
Presumption of official action.
Police Officers.
The historical progression of the relevant statutory sections shows the legislature’s intention to limit the officers required by statute to be appointed by the mayor with the consent of the city council. Police officers, once included in the above category, are not expressly enumerated in the present version of this section, and the apparent legislative intent was to delete police officers from the requirement of mayoral appointment, with city council approval, applicable to other officers. State v. Whelan, 103 Idaho 651, 651 P.2d 916 (1982).
Presumption of Official Action.
In a prosecution for resisting an officer in the performance of his duty, in the absence of a showing by the defendant that the city required police officers to post a bond, the court had to presume that the two complaining officers had been properly appointed and were carrying out the duties of the office. State v. Whelan, 103 Idaho 651, 651 P.2d 916 (1982).
Cited Bunt v. City of Garden City, 118 Idaho 427, 797 P.2d 135 (1990). Decisions Under Prior Law
Policemen.
Removal.
Statute of limitations.
Policemen.
Under former section the mayor was authorized to appoint policemen by and with the consent of the council; this was the only method by which policemen of a city could be appointed. Moore v. Hupp, 17 Idaho 232, 105 P. 209 (1909).
Removal.
No power exists to dismiss or discharge any elective officer. All officers having anything to do with streets and sidewalks were elective officers, except street commissioner, who was appointed by and was under the direction and control of the board of trustees. Miller v. Mullan, 17 Idaho 28, 104 P. 660 (1909).
Statute of Limitations.
With respect to running of statute of limitations, cause of action on bond of city treasurer for money deposited without authority in bank which failed accrued when he failed to turn over funds of city at close of term. City of St. Anthony v. Mason, 49 Idaho 717, 291 P. 1067 (1930).
§ 50-205. Refusal to confirm appointments — Vacancies.
If the city council shall refuse to confirm any nomination, the mayor shall then within ten (10) days thereafter, nominate another person to fill the office and he may continue to nominate until his nominee is confirmed. If the mayor fails to make another nomination for the same office within ten (10) days after the rejection of a nominee, the city council shall appoint a suitable person to fill the office during the term. The affirmative vote of one half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council shall be required to confirm any nomination made by the mayor. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in an appointive office, the vacancy for the unexpired term shall be filled by appointment in the same manner as the original appointment.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 69, p. 1249.
§ 50-206. Removal of appointive officers.
Any appointive officer, unless appointed under sections 50-801 through 50-812[, Idaho Code], may be removed by the mayor for any cause by him deemed sufficient; but such removal shall be by and with the affirmative vote of one half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council; provided, that the city council, by the unanimous vote of all its members, may upon their own initiative remove any appointive officer.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 70, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion near the beginning of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
CASE NOTES
At-will employees.
Chief of police.
At-Will Employees.
A city clerk is an appointive officer who is an at-will employee who may be removed without notice or a hearing. A municipality does not alter that status by adopting a personnel manual, outlining hiring and termination procedures. Boudreau v. City of Wendell, 147 Idaho 609, 213 P.3d 394 (2009).
Chief of Police.
The office of chief of police is an appointive office subject to this section’s employment-at-will framework, and removal of the office holder was, therefore, possible at the will of the employer, with no notice or hearing required. Bunt v. City of Garden City, 118 Idaho 427, 797 P.2d 135 (1990).
§ 50-207. Duties of the clerk — Journal — Administering oaths.
The city clerk shall keep a correct journal of the proceedings of the council and shall have the custody of all laws and ordinances of the city. He may administer oaths to any person concerning any matter submitted to him or the city council. He shall also perform such other duties as may be required by ordinance.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 71, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 49, § 1, p. 148; am. 1979, ch. 30, § 1, p. 246.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Annexed land, duty to record ordinance including legal description and map,§ 50-223.
Entering call and objects of special meetings of city council on journal,§§ 50-604, 50-706.
Excluded land, duty to record ordinance including legal description and map,§ 50-225.
Filing copy of judgment separating agricultural lands,§ 50-230.
Municipal elections, powers of clerk,§ 50-403.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Duties of clerk.
Mandate to draw warrant.
Duties of Clerk.
City could have, by ordinance, added to duties of city clerk. State v. Dawe, 31 Idaho 796, 177 P. 393 (1918).
Mandate to Draw Warrant.
Where city council allowed a claim, if city clerk refused to draw a warrant in payment thereof, he could be compelled by writ of mandate to do so; he had no discretion in premises; his duty was merely ministerial. Wycoff v. Strong, 26 Idaho 502, 144 P. 341 (1914).
§ 50-208. Duties of treasurer — Record of outstanding bonds.
- The treasurer of each city shall be the custodian of all moneys belonging to the city. He shall account for each fund or appropriation made in its annual budget appropriation or otherwise directed by the city council. Such accounting shall track the debits and credits relating thereto. The treasurer shall on a monthly basis, and no more than sixty (60) days after the conclusion of each month at a regular meeting of the city council, render an accounting to the city council showing the financial condition of the treasury at the date of such accounting. The report shall state the balances of accounts maintained in the city’s treasury. The treasurer shall also make available credit and debit details of all such accounts when required by the mayor or by action of the governing board. Making the quarterly treasurer’s report available for public review on the city’s website within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of each quarter shall satisfy publication requirements established by section 50-1011, Idaho Code.
- The treasurer shall also keep a record of all outstanding bonds against the city showing the number, amount of each, and to whom said bonds were issued; and when any bonds are purchased, paid or canceled. In his annual report, the treasurer shall describe particularly the bonds issued and sold during the year and the fiscal terms of the sale including the expenses related thereto.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 72, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 49, § 2, p. 148; am. 2017, ch. 129, § 1, p. 303.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Deposit of funds as provided by ordinance,§ 50-1013.
Duty to publish quarterly financial statements,§ 50-1011.
Amendments.
The 2017 amendment, by ch. 129, rewrote the section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 4 of S.L. 2017, ch. 129 provided: “Severability. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act”.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Construction.
Statute of limitations.
Construction.
Former section governing duties of treasurer was not mandatory and self-executing to extent that it could have determined and declared existence of fact upon which law operates. Board must have first found fact to exist that treasurer had failed or neglected to make reports as required by law before they could have declared office vacant. Kendrick v. Nelson, 13 Idaho 244, 89 P. 755 (1907).
Statute of Limitations.
With respect to running of statute of limitations, cause of action on bond of city treasurer, for money deposited without authority in bank which failed, accrued when he failed to turn over funds of city at close of term. City of St. Anthony v. Mason, 49 Idaho 717, 291 P. 1067 (1930).
§ 50-208A. Duties of city attorney.
- The city attorney shall be the legal advisor of the municipal corporation, may represent the city in all suits or proceedings in which the city is interested, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by ordinances and resolutions duly passed. Nothing herein, however, shall preclude any city from employing alternative additional counsel when deemed advisable.
- The city attorney, his deputies, or contract counsel shall prosecute those violations of county or city ordinances, state traffic infractions, and state misdemeanors committed within the municipal limits. In so doing, the city attorney, his deputies, or contract counsel shall exercise the same powers as the county prosecutor including, but not limited to, granting immunity to witnesses.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-208A, as added by 1989, ch. 292, § 2, p. 719.
CASE NOTES
Plea Agreement.
Authority to bind another prosecutor requires that the bargaining prosecutor have the authority to prosecute the charge being bargained away or otherwise affected; therefore, convictions for violating a no contact order in Kootenai County were vacated because defendant relied on the promise of a city prosecutor in Ada County when he entered into a plea agreement, that included a promise of not being prosecuted for additional charges. This plea agreement was binding on other prosecutors as agents of the state of Idaho. State v. Baker, 156 Idaho 209, 322 P.3d 291 (2014).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Unlawful Abortions.
Prosecutions for unlawful abortions under§§ 18-605 and 18-606, which are declared to be felonies, would be the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney.OAG 93-1.
Local Marijuana Laws.
Provision of local initiative pertaining to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes that directs the municipal prosecuting attorney to dismiss certain misdemeanor drug charges is in direct conflict with state law and is invalid.OAG 07-02.
§ 50-209. Powers of policemen.
The policemen of every city, should any be appointed, shall have power to arrest all offenders against the law of the state, or of the city, by day or by night, in the same manner as the sheriff or constable. Whenever such policemen shall be in fresh pursuit of any offender against any law of the state, including traffic infractions, or of the city and the offense has been committed within the corporate limits of such city, such policemen, while in such fresh pursuit may go beyond the corporate or geographical limits of such city subject to the provisions of chapter 7, title 19, Idaho Code, for the purpose of making such arrest or citation.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 73, p. 1249; am. 1980, ch. 152, § 2, p. 322; am. 1987, ch. 85, § 1, p. 160.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Policeman’s retirement fund,§ 50-1501 et seq.
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 1980, ch. 152 declared an emergency. Approved March 25, 1980.
Section 3 of S.L. 1987, ch. 85 declared an emergency. Approved March 24, 1987.
CASE NOTES
Fresh pursuit.
Liability for intoxicated person.
Misuse of public money.
Oath of office.
Fresh Pursuit.
The only evidence necessary to show fresh pursuit is that the officer had knowledge that a crime or infraction was committed within his jurisdiction and that the officer pursued the suspect beyond the jurisdiction with the purpose of making an arrest, citing the suspect, or investigating the offense. Whether the officer’s lights are flashing and siren is blaring is objective evidence of the officer’s pursuit, but it is not necessary. It is well within an officer’s discretion to wait for a safe point to stop a vehicle. State v. Scott, 150 Idaho 123, 244 P.3d 622 (Ct. App. 2010).
Liability for Intoxicated Person.
Misuse of Public Money.
Where police officers did not have control over vehicle of driver who was taken to hospital by police officers after being struck in the nose by bouncer at local bar, and doctor who treated driver told officers that driver was too intoxicated to drive and officers advised driver not to drive and to have someone pick him up and take him home, since no statute imposes a duty on police officers to arrest an intoxicated person who possesses the keys to a vehicle the person might drive, and who has not committed some other crime for which the officer might arrest the person, they were not liable in tort to person injured when driver attempted to drive himself in the vehicle after officers had returned his keys to him and departed. Olguin v. City of Burley, 119 Idaho 721, 810 P.2d 255 (1991). Misuse of Public Money.
Dismissal of charge of misuse of public money was affirmed because defendant, a police officer, was not within the class of persons who were charged with the receipt, safe keeping, transfer or disbursement of public moneys. State v. Pruett, 143 Idaho 151, 139 P.3d 753 (Ct. App. 2006).
Oath of Office.
This section indicates that the decision to appoint police officers is entirely discretionary with the municipality and, thus, although police officers are public officers whose duties relate to governmental functions of a municipality, a police officer does not fill an office created by the laws of the state of Idaho. Even though a city may require a police officer to take an oath before assuming the obligations and responsibilities of office, police officers are not required by§ 59-401 to take an oath, and, where defendant was charged with resisting an officer in the performance of his duty, the state was not required to prove that an oath of office was taken pursuant to§ 59-401. State v. Whelan, 103 Idaho 651, 651 P.2d 916 (1982).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Actions against police officers.
Ejection of person from police station.
Time and limit of authority.
Actions Against Police Officers.
Where police officers were sued for battery by citizens they should have notified the city and had the city made party defendant, if they desired the city to furnish counsel and defend the action. City of Nampa v. Kibler, 62 Idaho 511, 113 P.2d 411 (1941).
Reimbursement for attorney’s fees and expenses for defending an action against police officers could not be given by a city where the officers gave no notice to the city nor applied to the court to make the city a party defendant. City of Nampa v. Kibler, 62 Idaho 511, 113 P.2d 411 (1941).
Ejection of Person From Police Station.
If a wife was guilty of misconduct, which required her removal from a room at police headquarters, where the chief of police was questioning her husband, who had been arrested, chief of police was authorized, after requesting the wife to desist or leave the room, and after giving her time to leave, to eject her without becoming liable for assault and battery, provided he used no more force than was necessary. Cornell v. Harris, 60 Idaho 87, 88 P.2d 498 (1939).
Time and Limit of Authority.
Former similar section did not enumerate powers, or place exact limits on authority, which a police officer may lawfully exercise in performance of his duties. Cornell v. Harris, 60 Idaho 87, 88 P.2d 498 (1939).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Local Marriage Laws.
Provision of local initiative pertaining to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes that restricts enforcement of state law by summons only is in direct conflict with this section and therefore is invalid.OAG 07-02.
Private Peace Officers.
No authority exists for a city to appoint the employees of a private company to serve as “peace officers.”OAG 08-02.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
§ 50-210. Boards — Commissions.
The mayor and council shall have authority to appoint such boards, commissions and committees as may be deemed necessary or expedient to assist the mayor and council in better carrying out the responsibilities of their offices. The responsibilities, duties and authority granted permanent boards or commissions, shall be enumerated by ordinance. All appointments to permanent boards, commissions or committees shall be made by the mayor with the advice and approval of the council, and members of permanent boards, commissions or committees may in like manner be removed. Members of all such boards, commissions or committees shall serve without compensation, but actual and necessary expenses may be allowed by ordinance in the case of permanent boards, commissions or committees, or with prior approval of the mayor and city council for all other boards, commissions or committees. Unless otherwise specifically provided, each such board, commission or committee shall provide its own manner of organizing, but shall maintain such records and make such reports as the mayor and city council may require or request.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 74, p. 1249; am. 1987, ch. 24, § 1, p. 33.
§ 50-211. Supervision of elections. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 101, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-211, as added by 2007, ch. 202, § 10, p. 619.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-211, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 34, p. 1249, was repealed by S.L. 2007, ch. 202, § 9.
§ 50-212. Official depository. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised S. L. 1967, ch. 429, § 35, p. 1249, was repealed by S. L. 1969, ch. 255, § 6.
§ 50-213. Official newspaper.
The city council of each city shall, by ordinance, designate a newspaper within the provisions of title 60, Idaho Code, to be the official newspaper of that city. Said newspaper shall be one published within said city, or if none there be, then a newspaper published within the county in which said city is situated, or the nearest Idaho newspaper of general circulation within the city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 36, p. 1249; am. 1977, ch. 194, § 1, p. 528.
CASE NOTES
Branch office.
Place of publication.
Branch Office.
The newspaper’s maintenance of a branch or satellite office in the city was not sufficient to make it the official newspaper of that city under this section, where its principal office was located in another city. Express Publishing, Inc. v. City of Ketchum, 114 Idaho 114, 753 P.2d 1260 (1988).
Place of Publication.
Where a newspaper maintained its principal office in a city and had a second-class mailing permit from that city’s post office, the type was set, photographs and advertising copy, and all of the other accouterments of putting out a newspaper (except for the actual printing) took place in the principal office, the newspaper was “published” in the city for official newspaper purposes. Express Publishing, Inc. v. City of Ketchum, 114 Idaho 114, 753 P.2d 1260 (1988).
The language of this section manifests a legislative intent to distinguish a newspaper’s place of publication from its place of circulation. Express Publishing, Inc. v. City of Ketchum, 114 Idaho 114, 753 P.2d 1260 (1988).
§ 50-214. Census authorized.
Any city council may provide, by resolution, for taking census or enumeration of the inhabitants thereof, and in such resolution shall provide for engaging the services of the bureau of census, U.S. department of commerce, to take said census or enumeration. Whenever it shall have been duly ascertained by any census or enumeration taken as hereinbefore provided, such fact shall thereupon by the clerk of said city, be certified to the secretary of state and to the county clerk wherein said city is situated. Provided further, that the population of any city determined by a special census shall thereafter be used in apportionment of state revenues in which the city may share.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 7, p. 1249; am. 1973, ch. 21, § 1, p. 42.
§ 50-215. Prosecutions against corporations under city ordinance.
In all prosecutions of any corporation for a violation of any city ordinance or any forfeiture or penalty provided by ordinance of such city, it shall be sufficient to make the corporation in its corporate name a defendant and service may be procured by serving of summons upon the president, secretary, or other managing agent of such corporation; and after the return of such service, the court shall be deemed to have acquired jurisdiction of the defendant and may proceed to try said cause; and any judgment imposed by said court shall have the force and effect of a judgment in a civil suit action and execution may issue thereon, and the corporate property, rights and franchises of said defendant may be sold thereunder in satisfaction of the same. The summons herein authorized to be served upon a defendant corporation shall contain a statement that the corporation shall appear forthwith and defend said action, and in case of failure to so appear and defend, a plea of not guilty will be entered by the court and the trial will proceed as if said defendant shall have appeared. A copy of the complaint shall be attached to and served with said summons.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 8, p. 1249.
§ 50-216. Compelling attendance of witnesses before council.
The council of any city shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses before the mayor and council or any committee thereof in any investigation ordered by the council: provided, that all process shall be issued by the mayor, and the attendance of such witnesses may be compelled by attachment, fine, or imprisonment; provided, further, that the mayor or president of the council shall preside at such hearing and administer all oaths and any person testifying falsely at such investigation shall be deemed guilty of perjury.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 9, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Penalty for perjury,§ 18-5409.
§ 50-217. Payment of judgments.
The city council shall have power to order paid any final judgment against such city, but none of its lands or property of any kind or nature, taxes, revenues, franchises, rates or interest shall be attached, levied upon or sold in or under any process whatsoever.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 10, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Writ of Execution.
In a breach of contract action, a writ of execution was not allowed against city funds. City of Idaho Falls v. Beco Constr. Co., 123 Idaho 516, 850 P.2d 165 (1993).
§ 50-218. Prohibition against recognition of invalid or stale claims.
The city council of any city shall never allow, make valid, or in any manner recognize any demand against the city, which was not at the time of its creation a valid claim against the same; nor shall it authorize to be paid any demand which, without such action, would be invalid or which shall then be barred by any statute of limitation or for which the city was never liable, and any such action shall be void.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 11, p. 1249.
§ 50-219. Damage claims.
All claims for damages against a city must be filed as prescribed by chapter 9, title 6, Idaho Code.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 12, p. 1249; am. 1983, ch. 93, § 1, p. 206.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Filing claims against political subdivision,§ 6-906.
CASE NOTES
Applicability.
Dismissal of suit.
Notice of claim.
Statute of limitations.
Applicability.
The notice provision of this section applies to actions against a city for breach of contract as well as to tort claims. Enterprise, Inc. v. Nampa City, 96 Idaho 734, 536 P.2d 729 (1975) (decision prior to 1983 amendment).
Where a party sought to recover $7,568.10 for labor and materials it furnished as a subcontractor under a public works contract, the provisions of this section, requiring “claims for damages” to be submitted to a city within 60 days of the time the “damages” occurred, were not applicable. H-K Contractors v. City of Firth, 101 Idaho 224, 611 P.2d 1009 (1979) (decision prior to 1983 amendment).
Dismissal of Suit.
Where trash hauler filed a complaint for damages resulting from an alleged breach of a municipal garbage and refuse service contract before the lapse of sixty days after trash hauler informed the city clerk, city councilmen and mayor by letter of trash hauler’s intent to pursue litigation on the breach of contract, the action against the city was properly dismissed. Enterprise, Inc. v. Nampa City, 96 Idaho 734, 536 P.2d 729 (1975) (decision prior to 1983 amendment).
Notice of Claim.
Where a trash hauler, who knew that a public hearing was to be held to determine whether trash hauler’s contract to provide garbage and refuse service for the city should be forfeited, sent a letter to the city clerk, city councilmen, and mayor informing them that any attempt to award the contract to any other party would result in litigation for breach of contract, the city had notice of a probable claim for damages. Enterprise, Inc. v. Nampa City, 96 Idaho 734, 536 P.2d 729 (1975) (decision prior to 1983 amendment). A city’s actual notice of plaintiff’s damages which resulted from the city’s alleged failure to properly operate its municipal water system did not take plaintiff’s complaint out of the notice of claim requirements. Calkins v. Fruitland, 97 Idaho 263, 543 P.2d 166 (1975) (decision prior to 1983 amendment).
The language contained in this section requires that a claimant must file a notice of claim for all damage claims, tort or otherwise, as directed by the filing procedure set forth in§ 6-906 of the Idaho Tort Claims Act. Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho 568, 798 P.2d 27 (1990).
Where employee failed to file a notice of claim after being terminated by the city, the employee’s claims for wrongful termination and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were barred. Bryant v. City of Blackfoot, 137 Idaho 307, 48 P.3d 636 (2002).
Section§ 50-219 did not violate the unity requirement of Idaho Const., Art. III, § 16 because its title encompassed the subject matter of damage claims against cities and served to fairly identify the content of the act. Cox v. City of Sandpoint, 140 Idaho 127, 90 P.3d 352 (Ct. App. 2003).
Where developer did not file notice of a claim of unjust enrichment against a city, regarding construction of a water supply line to a new subdivision, until almost one year after he had completed the construction, his claim was not timely under§ 6-906 and this section. Scott Beckstead Real Estate Co. v. City of Preston, 147 Idaho 852, 216 P.3d 141 (2009).
Fire chief’s claim for breach of contract was dismissed because that claim was subject to the notice requirement under this section; neither the fire chief’s demand letters providing written notice of his whistleblower claim nor his initial complaint met the notice requirements of§ 6-906 and this section. Brown v. City of Caldwell, 769 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (D. Idaho 2011).
Statute of Limitations.
This section is not a statute of limitations; its requirement of notice of claim is additional to the requirement of the applicable statute of limitations. Harkness v. City of Burley, 110 Idaho 353, 715 P.2d 1283 (1986) (decision prior to 1983 amendment).
In an action for additional fees, the time limit in§ 6-906 began to run, not when the construction performance manager performed his additional services, but when the city denied the manager’s fee request for those services. City of Meridian v. Petra Inc., 154 Idaho 425, 299 P.3d 232 (2013).
District court did not err when it dismissed the property owner’s state claims for unlawful taking, as they were time-barred by§ 6-908, because they were filed more than 180 days after their cause of action accrued. Alpine Vill. Co. v. City of McCall, 154 Idaho 930, 303 P.3d 617 (2013).
Cited
J.P. Stravens Planning Assocs. v. City of Wallace, 129 Idaho 542, 928 P.2d 46 (Ct. App. 1996); Magnuson Props. P’ship v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 138 Idaho 166, 59 P.3d 971 (2002); Hehr v. City of McCall, 155 Idaho 92, 305 P.3d 536 (2013).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Cause of injury.
Construction.
Notice.
Place of injury.
Purpose of section. Services of private detectives.
Sufficiency of compliance.
Suit against councilmen.
Cause of Injury.
In stating the cause of injury it was not necessary to set forth negligence of the city that resulted in damages, but only the cause of the damages. Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 (1927).
Construction.
Former section governing claims against first-class cities should not have been construed so as to defeat justice. Cox v. City of Pocatello, 77 Idaho 225, 291 P.2d 282 (1955).
Notice.
Former section governing claims against first-class cities was substantially complied with where attorney for property owners by letter demanded that the city continue delivery of irrigation water to the property owners pursuant to contract of specified date, set out the damages sustained by reason of city’s failure to deliver the irrigation waters, stated that the city would be held accountable for resulting damages, and set forth the place, character, and cause of the damages. Cox v. City of Pocatello, 77 Idaho 225, 291 P.2d 282 (1955).
While it was incumbent upon a claimant to plead and prove the giving of notice as required by former law, the giving of such notice was removed from the issues of the cause by the defendant’s admission in open court that the city had received such notice. McLean v. City of Spirit Lake, 91 Idaho 779, 430 P.2d 670 (1967).
A property owner’s letter to the village board calling attention to “this year’s flood” and the subsequent removal of culverts and enlargement by the village of the ditch which extended the full length of the boundary between his land and the highway was sufficient notice to the village of the property owner’s claim for damages resulting from the complete isolation of his real estate from vehicular access to any highway. Weaver v. Village of Bancroft, 92 Idaho 189, 439 P.2d 697 (1968).
Place of Injury.
In action for injury to property, city address of plaintiff was sufficient to direct attention of city to premises located at that address. Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 (1927).
Purpose of Section.
Main purpose of former statute was not to require such statement of circumstances as to show absolute liability, but rather such information that authorities might have been able to make full investigation of cause of injury and determine city’s liability therefor. Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 (1927).
Purpose of former section governing claims against first-class cities was to give city notice of claim and opportunity “to ascertain the extent of the injury, investigate its cause and determine the liability of the city.” Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 (1927); Dunn v. Boise City, 48 Idaho 550, 283 P. 606 (1929).
Services of Private Detectives.
The purpose of former section governing claims against first-class cities was to give the city prompt notice of the claim and a sufficient time in which to investigate the cause of the claim and the liability of the city. Cox v. City of Pocatello, 77 Idaho 225, 291 P.2d 282 (1955). Services of Private Detectives.
The action of a city council in attempting to ratify the act of the mayor in engaging the services of private detectives and in ordering the payment of such services was void. Tate v. Johnson, 32 Idaho 251, 181 P. 523 (1919).
Sufficiency of Compliance.
Substantial compliance with statute was all that law required. Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 (1927).
Issue as to whether plaintiff’s claim for damages had been properly served on city determined by Supreme Court in prior appeal remained the law of the case. Yearsley v. City of Pocatello, 71 Idaho 347, 231 P.2d 743 (1951).
Suit Against Councilmen.
Plaintiff who sustained personal injuries as the result of a dead end street accident in a city was not barred from suing councilmen based on their alleged negligence to maintain warning signs merely because the plaintiff failed to file a claim against the city. Lemmon v. Clayton, 128 F. Supp. 771 (D. Idaho 1955).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
Municipal liability for property damage under mob violence statutes. 26 A.L.R.3d 1198.
Incapacity caused by accident in suit as affecting notice of claim required as condition of holding local governmental unit liable for personal injury. 44 A.L.R.3d 1108.
Consideration of fact that landowner’s remaining land will be subject to assessment in fixing severance damages. 59 A.L.R.3d 534.
Liability of governmental entity for issuance of permit for construction which caused or accelerated flooding. 62 A.L.R.3d 514.
Liability of state or municipality in tort action for damages arising out of sale of intoxicating liquor by state or municipally operated liquor store or establishment. 95 A.L.R.3d 1243.
Recovery of exemplary or punitive damages from municipal corporation. 1 A.L.R.4th 448.
Governmental liability for failure to reduce vegetation obscuring view at railroad crossing or at street or highway intersection. 22 A.L.R.4th 624.
Amount of appropriation as limitation on damages for breach of contract recoverable by one contracting with government agency. 40 A.L.R.4th 998.
Local government tort liability: minority as affecting notice of claim requirement. 58 A.L.R.4th 402.
Punitive damages: power of equity court to award. 58 A.L.R.4th 844.
Liability of municipal corporation for negligent performance of building inspector’s duties. 24 A.L.R.5th 200.
§ 50-220. Acquisition and control of lands outside corporate limits — Purpose.
Cities are hereby authorized to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise, lands outside of their respective corporate limits and to own, control, regulate and administer lands so acquired, either directly by said corporations or through any governmental agency or other agency.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 13, p. 1249.
§ 50-221. Cities situated on navigable lakes and streams — Extension of boundaries into waters.
Cities situated on navigable lakes and streams, when the corporate boundaries or limits of such cities extend to the shorelines of such lakes or streams, shall have power by ordinance to fix, determine or extend its corporate boundaries or limits over the waters of such lakes or streams for a distance of one fourth (1/4) of a mile from the low-water mark of such navigable lakes, and for a distance of seventy-five (75) feet from the low-water mark of such navigable streams.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 14, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Use of Lake May Be Regulated.
A municipal corporation situated on a lake could, by ordinance, have prevented persons from living in a houseboat upon such lake, where the ordinance was for the promotion of the general health and welfare of the citizens of the municipality. State v. Finney, 65 Idaho 630, 150 P.2d 130 (1944).
§ 50-222. Annexation by cities.
- Legislative intent. The legislature hereby declares and determines that it is the policy of the state of Idaho that cities of the state should be able to annex lands which are reasonably necessary to assure the orderly development of Idaho’s cities in order to allow efficient and economically viable provision of tax-supported and fee-supported municipal services, to enable the orderly development of private lands which benefit from the cost-effective availability of municipal services in urbanizing areas and to equitably allocate the costs of public services in management of development on the urban fringe.
- General authority. Cities have the authority to annex land into a city upon compliance with the procedures required in this section. In any annexation proceeding, all portions of highways lying wholly or partially within an area to be annexed shall be included within the area annexed unless expressly agreed between the annexing city and the governing board of the highway agency providing road maintenance at the time of annexation. Provided further, that said city council shall not have the power to declare such land, lots or blocks a part of said city if they will be connected to such city only by a shoestring or strip of land which comprises a railroad or highway right-of-way.
-
Annexation classifications. Annexations shall be classified and processed according to the standards for each respective category set forth herein. The three (3) categories of annexation are:
-
Category A: Annexations wherein:
- All private landowners have consented to annexation. Annexation where all landowners have consented may extend beyond the city area of impact provided that the land is contiguous to the city and that the comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation;
- Any residential enclaved lands of less than one hundred (100) privately owned parcels, irrespective of surface area, which are surrounded on all sides by land within a city or which are bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by the boundary of the city’s area of impact; or
- The lands are those for which owner approval must be given pursuant to subsection (5)(b)(v) of this section.
-
Category B: Annexations wherein:
- The subject lands contain less than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where not all such landowners have consented to annexation; or
- The subject lands contain more than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where landowners owning more than fifty percent (50%) of the area of the subject private lands have consented to annexation prior to the commencement of the annexation process; or
- The lands are the subject of a development moratorium or a water or sewer connection restriction imposed by state or local health or environmental agencies; provided such lands shall not be counted for purposes of determining the number of separate private ownerships and platted lots of record aggregated to determine the appropriate category.
-
Category C: Annexations wherein the subject lands contain more than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where landowners owning more than fifty percent (50%) of the area of the subject private lands have not consented to annexation prior to commencement of the annexation process.
(4)(a) Evidence of consent to annexation. For purposes of this section, and unless excepted in paragraph (b) of this subsection, consent to annex shall be valid only when evidenced by written instrument consenting to annexation executed by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent. Written consent to annex lands must be recorded in the county recorder’s office to be binding upon subsequent purchasers, heirs, or assigns of lands addressed in the consent. Lands need not be contiguous or adjacent to the city limits at the time the landowner consents to annexation for the property to be subject to a valid consent to annex; provided however, no annexation of lands shall occur, irrespective of consent, until such land becomes contiguous or adjacent to such city.
- Enclaved lands: In category A annexations, no consent is necessary for enclaved lands meeting the requirements of subsection (3)(a)(ii) of this section;
-
Implied consent: In category B and C annexations, valid consent to annex is implied for the area of all lands connected to a water or wastewater collection system operated by the city if the connection was requested in writing by the owner, or the owner’s authorized agent, or completed before July 1, 2008.
- The lands are contiguous or adjacent to the city and lie within the city’s area of city impact;
-
The land is laid off into lots or blocks containing not more than five (5) acres of land each, whether the same shall have been or shall be laid off, subdivided or platted in accordance with any statute of this state or otherwise, or whenever the owner or proprietor or any person by or with his authority has sold or begun to sell off such contiguous or adjacent lands by metes and bounds in tracts not exceeding five (5) acres, or whenever the land is surrounded by the city. Splits of ownership which occurred prior to January 1, 1975, and which were the result of placement of public utilities, public roads or highways, or railroad lines through the property shall not be considered as evidence of an intent to develop such land and shall not be sufficient evidence that the land has been laid off or subdivided in lots or blocks. A single sale after January 1, 1975, of five (5) acres or less to a family member of the owner for the purpose of constructing a residence shall not constitute a sale within the meaning of this section. For purposes of this section, “family member” means a natural person or the spouse of a natural person who is related to the owner by blood, adoption or marriage within the first degree of consanguinity;
(iii) Preparation and publication of a written annexation plan, appropriate to the scale of the annexation contemplated, which includes, at a minimum, the following elements:
- The manner of providing tax-supported municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed;
- The changes in taxation and other costs, using examples, which would result if the subject lands were to be annexed;
- The means of providing fee-supported municipal services, if any, to the lands proposed to be annexed;
- A brief analysis of the potential effects of annexation upon other units of local government which currently provide tax-supported or fee-supported services to the lands proposed to be annexed; and
- The proposed future land use plan and zoning designation or designations, subject to public hearing, for the lands proposed to be annexed;
- Compliance with the notice and hearing procedures governing a zoning district boundary change as set forth in section 67-6511, Idaho Code, on the question of whether the property should be annexed and, if annexed, the zoning designation to be applied thereto; provided however, the initial notice of public hearing concerning the question of annexation and zoning shall be published in the official newspaper of the city and mailed by first class mail to every property owner with lands included in such annexation proposal not less than twenty-eight (28) days prior to the initial public hearing. All public hearing notices shall establish a time and procedure by which comments concerning the proposed annexation may be received in writing and heard and, additionally, public hearing notices delivered by mail shall include a one (1) page summary of the contents of the city’s proposed annexation plan and shall provide information regarding where the annexation plan may be obtained without charge by any property owner whose property would be subject to the annexation proposal.
-
In addition to the standards set forth elsewhere in this section, annexation of the following lands must meet the following requirements:
- Property owned by a county or any entity within the county that is used as a fairgrounds area under the provisions of chapter 8, title 31, Idaho Code, or chapter 2, title 22, Idaho Code, must have the consent of a majority of the board of county commissioners of the county in which the property lies;
- Property owned by a nongovernmental entity that is used to provide outdoor recreational activities to the public, and that has been designated as a planned unit development of fifty (50) acres or more and does not require or utilize any city services, must have the express written permission of the nongovernmental entity owner;
- Land, if five (5) acres or greater, actively devoted to agriculture, as defined in section 63-604(1), Idaho Code, regardless of whether it is surrounded or bounded on all sides by lands within a city, must have the express written permission of the owner; and
- Land, if five (5) acres or greater, actively devoted to forest land, as defined in section 63-1701, Idaho Code, regardless of whether it is surrounded or bounded on all sides by lands within a city, must have the express written permission of the owner.
- After considering the written and oral comments of property owners whose land would be annexed and other affected persons, the city council may proceed with the enactment of an ordinance of annexation and zoning. In the course of the consideration of any such ordinance, the city must make express findings, to be set forth in the minutes of the city council meeting at which the annexation is approved, as follows: (A) The land to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of this section and does not fall within the exceptions or conditional exceptions contained in this section;
-
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, railroad right-of-way property may be annexed pursuant to this section only when property within the city adjoins or will adjoin both sides of the right-of-way.
- Compliance with the procedures governing category B annexations; and
-
Evidence of consent to annexation based upon the following procedures:
- Following completion of all procedures required for consideration of a category B annexation, but prior to enactment of an annexation ordinance and upon an affirmative action by the city council, the city shall mail notice to all private landowners owning lands within the area to be annexed, exclusive of the owners of lands that are subject to a consent to annex which complies with subsection (4)(a) of this section defining consent. Such notice shall invite property owners to give written consent to the annexation, include a description of how that consent can be made and where it can be filed, and inform the landowners where the entire record of the subject annexation may be examined. Such mailed notice shall also include a legal description of the lands proposed for annexation and a simple map depicting the location of the subject lands.
- Each landowner desiring to consent to the proposed annexation must submit the consent in writing to the city clerk by a date specified in the notice, which date shall not be later than forty-five (45) days after the date of the mailing of such notice.
- After the date specified in the notice for receipt of written consent, the city clerk shall compile and present to the city council a report setting forth: (i) the total physical area sought to be annexed, and (ii) the total physical area of the lands, as expressed in acres or square feet, whose owners have newly consented in writing to the annexation, plus the area of all lands subject to a prior consent to annex which complies with subsection (4)(a) of this section defining consent. The clerk shall immediately report the results to the city council.
- Upon receiving such report, the city council shall review the results and may thereafter confirm whether consent was received from the owners of a majority of the land. The results of the report shall be reflected in the minutes of the city council. If the report as accepted by the city council confirms that owners of a majority of the land area have consented to annexation, the city council may enact an ordinance of annexation, which thereafter shall be published and become effective according to the terms of the ordinance. If the report confirms that owners of a majority of the land area have not consented to the annexation, the category C annexation shall not be authorized.
-
Category A: Annexations wherein:
(b) Exceptions to the requirement of written consent to annexation. The following exceptions apply to the requirement of written consent to annexation provided for in paragraph (a) of this subsection:
(5) Annexation procedures. Annexation of lands into a city shall follow the procedures applicable to the category of lands as established by this section. The implementation of any annexation proposal wherein the city council determines that annexation is appropriate shall be concluded with the passage of an ordinance of annexation.
(a) Procedures for category A annexations: Lands lying contiguous or adjacent to any city in the state of Idaho may be annexed by the city if the proposed annexation meets the requirements of category A. Upon determining that a proposed annexation meets such requirements, a city may initiate the planning and zoning procedures set forth in chapter 65, title 67, Idaho Code, to establish the comprehensive planning policies, where necessary, and zoning classification of the lands to be annexed.
(b) Procedures for category B annexations: A city may annex lands that would qualify under the requirements of category B annexation if the following requirements are met:
(B) The annexation would be consistent with the public purposes addressed in the annexation plan prepared by the city;
(C) The annexation is reasonably necessary for the orderly development of the city;
(c) Procedures for category C annexations: A city may annex lands that would qualify under the requirements of category C annexation if the following requirements are met:
(6) The decision of a city council to annex and zone lands as a category B or category C annexation shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with the procedures provided in chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the standards set forth in section 67-5279, Idaho Code. Any such appeal shall be filed by an affected person in the appropriate district court no later than twenty-eight (28) days after the date of publication of the annexation ordinance. All cases in which there may arise a question of the validity of any annexation under this section shall be advanced as a matter of immediate public interest and concern and shall be heard by the district court at the earliest practicable time. (7) Annexation of noncontiguous municipal airfield. A city may annex land that is not contiguous to the city and is occupied by a municipally owned or operated airport or landing field. However, a city may not annex any other land adjacent to such noncontiguous facilities which is not otherwise annexable pursuant to this section.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-222, as added by 2002, ch. 333, § 2, p. 939; am. 2008, ch. 118, § 1, p. 327; am. 2009, ch. 53, § 1, p. 145; am. 2019, ch. 22, § 1, p. 22; am. 2020, ch. 240, § 1, p. 702.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-522, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 15, p. 1249; am. 1969, ch. 404, § 1, p. 1124; am. 1971, ch. 16, § 1, p. 29; am. 1972, ch. 37, § 1, p. 58; am. 1978, ch. 332, § 1, p. 861; am. 1979, ch. 89, § 1, p. 215, was repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 55, § 2, effective January 1, 1995.
Another former§ 50-222, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-222, as added by 1993, ch. 55, § 3, p. 150; am. 1994, ch. 375, § 1, p. 1208; am. 1996, ch. 116, § 1, p. 427; am. 1998, ch. 191, § 1, p. 695, was repealed by S.L. 2002, ch. 333, § 1, p. 939.
Amendments.
The 2008 amendment, by ch. 118, subdivided and rewrote paragraph (3)(a) to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable; in paragraphs (3)(b)(i) and (3)(c), substituted “have not consented to annexation prior to the commencement” for “have evidenced their consent to annexation at the outset”; in subsection (4), substituted “shall be valid only when evidenced by written instrument” for “shall be deemed given when evidenced by written authorization or approval” in the first sentence, substituted “operated by the city only if the connection was requested or completed prior to July 1, 2008” for “operated by the city and for lands subject to a written consent to annex recorded in the county recorder’s office” in the second sentence, and substituted “Written consent to annex lands must be recorded in the county recorder’s office to be binding” for “Written consent to annex lands, if recorded in the county recorder’s office, shall be binding” in the third sentence; and rewrote paragraph (5)(c)(ii) to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 53, added the subsection (4)(a) designation, and therein, in the first sentence, inserted “and unless excepted in paragraph (b) of this subsection (4)” and “consenting to annexation” and deleted the former second sentence, which read: “Consent shall be implied for the area of all lands connected to a water or wastewater collection system operated by the city only if the connection was requested or completed prior to July 1, 2008”; and added subsection (4)(b). The 2019 amendment, by ch. 22, substituted “paragraph (a) of this subsection” for “subsection (4)(a) of this section” at the end of paragraph (4)(b); and added paragraph (5)(b)(v)(C).
The 2020 amendment, by ch. 240, added paragraph (5)(b)(v)(D).
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 1996, ch. 116 declared an emergency. Approved March 6, 1996.
Section 4 of S.L. 1993, ch. 55 read: “An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, Section 1 of this act shall be in full force and effect on and after passage and approval. Sections 2 and 3 of this act shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 1995.” Approved March 17, 1993.
Section 2 of S.L. 2019, ch. 22 declared an emergency. Approved February 14, 2019.
Section 2 of S.L. 2020, ch. 240 declared an emergency. Approved March 24, 2020.
CASE NOTES
Annexation.
Costs.
Judicial review.
Validity of annexation.
Annexation.
City’s argument that a property owner’s action to have an annexation agreement declared unenforceable because it was not pursued at the “earliest practicable time” and was, therefore, barred under subsection (6) of this section lacked merit; the “earliest practicable time” language is not intended to restrict the party’s right. Old Cutters, Inc. v. City of Hailey (In re Old Cutters, Inc.), 488 B.R. 130 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2012), aff’d, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45787 (D. Idaho Mar. 31, 2014).
Costs.
Idaho cities have the essential power to contract for annexation and to charge an annexation fee, if such fee is necessary to “equitably allocate the costs of public services in management of development on the urban fringe.” However, nothing in this phrase or in any other provision of this section can be read to empower a city to charge more than an amount necessary to equitably allocate the costs of the public services. City of Hailey v. Old Cutters, Inc. (In re Old Cutters, Inc), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45787 (D. Idaho Mar. 31, 2014).
Judicial Review.
This section does not authorize judicial review of denial of a developer’s application for annexation because it does not authorize judicial review of a category A annexation under the administrative procedures act. The right of judicial review depends upon an affirmative decision to annex property, and the legislature did not provide for judicial review when a city decides not to annex property. Black Labrador Investing, LLC v. Kuna City Council, 147 Idaho 92, 205 P.3d 1228 (2009).
Under this section, judicial review is not authorized for category A annexations. In re City of Shelley, 151 Idaho 289, 255 P.3d 1175 (2011). City ordinance annexing a subdivision pursuant to category A was based on substantial evidence where the city produced a surveyed map showing the subdivision was contiguous to existing city property, and established that the subdivision had been using city water system for many years, thereby impliedly consenting to annexation. In re City of Shelley, 151 Idaho 289, 255 P.3d 1175 (2011).
Court was not precluded from reviewing the terms of an annexation agreement between a city and a property owner. Old Cutters, Inc. v. City of Hailey (In re Old Cutters, Inc.), 488 B.R. 130 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2012), aff’d, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45787 (D. Idaho Mar. 31, 2014).
Validity of Annexation.
Property owner’s obligation in an annexation agreement to pay a fee unquestionably in excess of that required to compensate the city for actual costs resulting from the annexation was unenforceable because nothing in the grant of power to cities under subsection (1) of this section authorized the city to condition annexation upon payment by the owner of more than its equitable share of the costs to be incurred by the city in annexing the property. Old Cutters, Inc. v. City of Hailey (In re Old Cutters, Inc.), 488 B.R. 130 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2012), aff’d, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45787 (D. Idaho Mar. 31, 2014).
Cited
Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 145 Idaho 958, 188 P.3d 900 (2008).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Annexation.
Contiguous or adjacent land.
Description of property.
Equity.
Land subject to annexation.
Public street by dedication.
Railroad right of way.
Res judicata.
Validity of annexation.
Annexation.
Where adjacent land had been annexed to a city under former section governing annexation by second-class cities, and all parties concerned had acquiesced therein, the authority of the city in such annexation could not have been collaterally attacked. Hatch v. Consumers’ Co., 17 Idaho 204, 104 P. 670 (1909), aff’d, 224 U.S. 148, 32 S. Ct. 465, 56 L. Ed. 703 (1912).
Even when annexation was authorized, it must have been reasonable and the dividing of a drive-in theater business through the projection booth by the city limits line would have created problems, resulting in confusion in the levy of taxes, therefore such annexation of a part of the drive-in theater property would have been unreasonable. Batchelder v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 85 Idaho 90, 375 P.2d 1001 (1962).
Annexation is a legislative act of the city government accomplished by the enactment of an ordinance. Crane Creek Country Club v. City of Boise, 121 Idaho 485, 826 P.2d 446 (1990).
Contiguous or Adjacent Land.
Meaning of “contiguous or adjacent” land. Hatch v. Consumers’ Co., 17 Idaho 204, 104 P. 670 (1909), aff’d, 224 U.S. 148, 32 S. Ct. 465, 56 L. Ed. 703 (1912). Only contiguous or adjacent lands which owner had laid off in lots or blocks, or sold or begun to sell off in tracts not excluding five acres each, could have been annexed. Oregon Short Line R.R. v. Village of Chubbuck, 83 Idaho 62, 357 P.2d 1101 (1960).
An intervening river did not constitute a barrier to complete amalgamation of the communities upon its opposite banks and the construction applied to “contiguous or adjacent” to include both sides of the river, the river not being deemed a break to contiguity, was completely in accord with the legislative intent in the enactment of former§ 50-303. People ex rel. Redford v. Burley, 86 Idaho 519, 388 P.2d 996 (1964).
Description of Property.
The statutory notice requirements were satisfied if the notice fairly and accurately described the real property in question. Former statute could not be read to require more. City of Lewiston v. Bergamo, 119 Idaho 221, 804 P.2d 1352 (Ct. App. 1990).
Equity.
Appellant was not estopped by laches to question the validity of the ordinance annexing his land to the village where the record reflects that appellant had not received any special benefit as a result of the annexation and there was no showing of prejudice to the village, such as expenditures by it for the benefit of appellant’s property such as street improvements and sewer systems, etc., which would require the application of the doctrine of estoppel by laches, the fact that the symmetry of the village would be marred if appellant’s realty be disannexed being of small consideration, further the lapse of time, although important was not, standing alone, a determining factor. Finucane v. Hayden, 86 Idaho 199, 384 P.2d 236 (1963).
While annexation may be authorized under this section, it also must pass the test of reasonableness. Hendricks v. City of Nampa, 93 Idaho 95, 456 P.2d 262 (1969).
Land Subject to Annexation.
Land sought to be annexed must have been laid off by owner or under his authority into lots or blocks of not more than five acres each or he must have sold or begun to sell such lands by metes and bounds in tracts not exceeding five acres. Boise City v. Boise City Dev. Co., 41 Idaho 294, 238 P. 1006 (1925).
Land to be annexed under former annexation statute must have been contiguous or adjacent to city, town, or village. Boise City v. Boise City Dev. Co., 41 Idaho 294, 238 P. 1006 (1925).
Portions of owner’s original holdings still remaining in his possession could have been annexed, where he had subjected part of his land to annexation by the plattings and sales provided for by statute. Boise City v. Boise City Dev. Co., 41 Idaho 294, 238 P. 1006 (1925).
Ordinance annexing tract of land was void where 1,500 feet of land laid between city and the tract sought to be annexed. Hillman v. City of Pocatello, 74 Idaho 69, 256 P.2d 1072 (1953).
Territory to be annexed pursuant to former annexation statute must have been adjoining, contiguous, coterminous or abutting. Hillman v. City of Pocatello, 74 Idaho 69, 256 P.2d 1072 (1953).
Village ordinance which attempted to annex a strip of five acres of land connected to the village by a corridor strip or shoestring about three miles long and five feet wide mostly within a public highway was not valid, since the territory sought to be annexed was not contiguous or adjacent to the village. Potvin v. Chubbuck, 76 Idaho 453, 284 P.2d 414 (1955). Former annexation statute indicated by the words “shall have been” and “has sold” that the platting or sale by previous owners subjected the property to annexation. Batchelder v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 85 Idaho 90, 375 P.2d 1001 (1962).
Whenever land lying contiguous and adjacent to a municipality had been subdivided into lots or blocks containing not more than five acres, or had been subdivided or platted according to the laws of this state, or had been sold in tracts not exceeding five acres by the person or his authorized agent who was the owner of the land at the time of the subdividing, platting or selling, said land was thereafter subject to annexation under former annexation statute although the ownership of the land may have changed after the subdividing, platting or selling. Batchelder v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 85 Idaho 90, 375 P.2d 1001 (1962).
Once there has been a single sale of five acres or less from the tract, whether subdivided, platted or laid off or not, then the entire tract may be ripe for annexation, even though the remainder is greater than five acres. Hendricks v. City of Nampa, 93 Idaho 95, 456 P.2d 262 (1969).
Public Street by Dedication.
Alleged public street designated as such on a recorded plat was not a public street by dedication where strip of land designated as public street was not owned by the party recording the plat at the time the plat was filed. Worthington v. Koss, 72 Idaho 132, 237 P.2d 1050 (1951).
Strip of land did not become a public street by use where evidence showed only a small portion of strip used for spasmodic travel for period of two years, and presence of bush, trees, and fence on strip for long period of time. Worthington v. Koss, 72 Idaho 132, 237 P.2d 1050 (1951).
Railroad Right of Way.
The only restrictions on city’s annexation of railroad property under former similar section were that it must be reasonably assumed to be necessary for orderly city development and that it must be land connected to city by more than just “shoe string or strip of land upon a public highway,” therefore when the railroads failed to produce proof that the annexation was not necessary for the orderly development of the city, the presumption of the validity of the duly enacted municipal ordinance continued to prevail. Oregon S.L.R.R. v. City of Chubbuck, 93 Idaho 815, 474 P.2d 244 (1970).
Res Judicata.
Findings and judgment of the court in a prior case were not res judicata though same parties and issues were before the court because the controlling statute was substantially different as compared with the one under consideration before, and the record contained ample evidence that the city had changed substantially since the prior litigation. Oregon S.L.R.R. v. City of Chubbuck, 93 Idaho 815, 474 P.2d 244 (1970).
Validity of Annexation.
Where a village located in one county passed an ordinance annexing territory in another county, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the land sought to be annexed was located, who filed an action for a declaratory judgment to determine validity of ordinance was entitled to maintain same as a quo warranto proceeding, though quo warranto was not the exclusive remedy for testing validity of annexation. Potvin v. Chubbuck, 76 Idaho 453, 284 P.2d 414 (1955). Municipal corporations had power to annex additional territory only under the conditions, restrictions and limitations which the legislature imposes; therefore if the essentials of the statute were lacking, annexation ordinance was void. Oregon Short Line R.R. v. Village of Chubbuck, 83 Idaho 62, 357 P.2d 1101 (1960).
The stipulation of the parties upon which the trial court based findings, showed without dispute that appellant’s agricultural lands had never been laid off, nor sold, nor bargained for sale, in lots, blocks or tracts of not exceeding five acres, therefore the annexation there under consideration, not having been accomplished in compliance with the statutory requirements, was void and the ordinance of the village so far as it attempted such annexation, was void. Finucane v. Hayden, 86 Idaho 199, 384 P.2d 236 (1963).
The requirement of former annexation statute to the effect that the “land” should have been platted or segregated as specified therein before it could be annexed did not apply to river beds or channels, specifically referring to land that was readily susceptible to such platting and subdividing. People ex rel. Redford v. Burley, 86 Idaho 519, 388 P.2d 996 (1964).
Plaintiffs, owners of lands annexed to city by ordinance enacted pursuant to former law with notice to plaintiffs, were estopped from questioning validity of ordinance despite fact that at least some of their annexed lands were unsubdivided portions larger than five acres, devoted to agricultural uses; where plaintiffs failed to protest at the time of enactment of the ordinance and delayed bringing suit for more than two years, and where, as a result of the annexation, the value of plaintiffs’ lands were enhanced by work and expenditures of the city. Alexander v. Trustees of Village of Middleton, 92 Idaho 823, 452 P.2d 50 (1969).
If the complaining party comes forward with sufficient evidence that the tract is greater than five acres, and that the land by present owner has not been laid off or subdivided into lots or blocks of more than five acres each, and that the present owner has not sold or begun to sell the land by metes and bounds in tracts not exceeding five acres, then such party will have satisfied the burden of coming forward with sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of the validity of the ordinance. Hendricks v. City of Nampa, 93 Idaho 95, 456 P.2d 262 (1969).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
Right of one governmental subdivision to challenge annexation proceedings by another such subdivision. 17 A.L.R.5th 195.
Boundaries, capacity to attack the fixing or extension of municipal limits or boundary. 17 A.L.R.5th 195.
Refusal of municipality to annex impoverished area as violative of federal law. 22 A.L.R. Fed. 272.
§ 50-222A. Annexation of noncontiguous territory. [Repealed].
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-222A, as added by 1989, ch. 134, § 1, p. 300, was repealed by S. L. 2002, ch. 333, § 3.
§ 50-223. Annexation ordinance to be filed.
It shall be the duty of the clerk of any city, within ten (10) days following the effective date of any annexation ordinance: to file a certified copy of such ordinance with the county auditor, the county treasurer and the county assessor of the county in which the city is located, and with the Idaho state tax commission; to comply with the provisions of section 63-215, Idaho Code; and to order the annexed area surveyed if the council shall so direct; the cost of said survey to be prorated according to the amount of land surveyed and assessed to the then owners of said lands as provided in section 50-1008, Idaho Code, and thereupon and thereafter the corporate limits of such city shall extend to and include such land, and thereafter all property and persons within the limits of such annexed tract of land shall be subject to the provisions of all by-laws and ordinances of the said city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 16, p. 1249; am. 1971, ch. 7, § 1, p. 17; am. 1996, ch. 322, § 47, p. 1029.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
State tax commission,§ 63-101.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1971, ch. 7, provided that the act should be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1971.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Collateral attack.
Zoning effect of annexation.
Collateral Attack.
Collateral attack could not be made on annexation under former statute. Hatch v. Consumers’ Co., 17 Idaho 204, 104 P. 670 (1909), aff’d, 224 U.S. 148, 32 S. Ct. 465, 56 L. Ed. 703 (1912).
Zoning Effect of Annexation.
Former law, somewhat similar to this section, did not cause property annexed to the city to automatically fall within the most restrictive classification under a zoning ordinance placing in such classification “all those parts of the city not specifically included in other zones,” but such ordinance referred only to property within the city at the time of its enactment. Gaige v. City of Boise, 91 Idaho 481, 425 P.2d 52 (1967).
§ 50-224. Effect of annexation — Cemetery districts exempted.
Upon compliance with the provisions of section 63-215, Idaho Code, all the property situated within the said annexed territory shall be subject to taxation as other property and persons within the corporate limits of such city, as though said annexed portion had been a part of the said city from the date of its incorporation.
When the annexed area or any part thereof is situated in any district, organized under the laws of this state, and said district is supported in whole or in part by taxes levied upon the annexed territory or any part thereof, and said district provides the same or similar services as that provided by the annexing city, the annexed area shall, upon the filing of the certified copy of said ordinance, be relieved of all liability for levies, taxes and assessments made by said district after the calendar year in which said annexation occurred. The purpose of this section is to prevent duplicate taxation of said annexed area for the same or similar services by such district and the annexing city.
The filing of the certified copy of said ordinance shall constitute a withdrawal of said annexed territory from the district, offering the same or similar services to the annexed territory as the annexing city, which withdrawal shall be effective as of December 31 of the calendar year of annexation, such withdrawal shall have the same effect as if the withdrawal had been made by the statutory procedure for withdrawing from such district.
However, this section shall not apply to public cemetery districts created prior to the date of the annexation ordinance, and that the annexing city may not levy taxes for cemetery maintenance within the bounds of an existing cemetery district. Cities which have heretofore levied taxes for cemetery maintenance on property within an existing cemetery district shall discontinue that practice from and after the date this act becomes effective.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 17, p. 1249; am. 1967, ch. 432, § 1, p. 1418; am. 1970, ch. 47, § 1, p. 97; am. 1996, ch. 322, § 48, p. 1029.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Cemetery maintenance district law,§ 27-101 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
The phrase “the date this act becomes effective” at the end of the section refers to the effective date of S.L. 1970, Chapter 47, which was effective May 6, 1970.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1967, ch. 432 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Zoning of Annexed Territory.
Although former section, while treating only of taxation, implied abstractly that, upon annexation, a new addition to the municipality would be automatically worthy of all benefits and subject to all liabilities of city government subject only to the rule that existing property rights cannot willy-nilly be abrogated, such implication did not place annexed property automatically in the most restrictive classification under a zoning ordinance placing in such classification “all those parts of the city not specifically included in other zones.” Gaige v. City of Boise, 91 Idaho 481, 425 P.2d 52 (1967).
§ 50-225. Exclusion of territory.
The boundaries of any city in this state may be altered and a portion of the territory thereof excluded therefrom, and the councils of such cities are hereby granted power to enact ordinances for that purpose. Such alteration shall not relieve any territory excluded from the limits of a city from its liability on account of any outstanding bonded or other indebtedness of such city or of any bonded or other indebtedness of any improvement district of which the excluded territory is an existing part at the time of the passage of such ordinance. For the purpose of collecting any of the indebtedness specified in this section, the territory so excluded shall be and remain under the jurisdiction of such city. Immediately after the passage, approval and publication of said ordinance, a copy thereof duly certified by the clerk of said city shall be filed in compliance with the provisions of section 63-215, Idaho Code. Thereafter, the boundaries of said city shall be as set forth in said ordinance.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 18, p. 1249; am. 1996, ch. 322, § 49, p. 1029.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Taxpayer’s Objection.
The insignificant increase in a citizen and taxpayer’s tax burden, due to the loss of taxes and license fees by reason of the ordinance disannexing certain property from the city, was not sufficient to establish his right to maintain an action to invalidate a city ordinance disannexing certain property. His remedy by way of referendum, as provided by the charter and ordinance in question, was adequate and complete. Greer v. Lewiston Golf & Country Club, 81 Idaho 393, 342 P.2d 719 (1959).
§ 50-226. Separation of agricultural lands — Petition.
The owner or adjoining owners of any platted or unplatted tract or tracts of land containing not less than five (5) acres, included within the corporate limits of any city in this state and used exclusively for agricultural purposes, provided, however, if there is upon or over such tract or tracts of land a railroad or canal right of way, such tract or tracts shall, if no other reason exists, be deemed to be used exclusively for agricultural purposes, within the meaning of this section, may petition the district court of the county in which such tract or tracts of land are situated for a judgment and decree of the court detaching such tract or tracts of land from such city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 97, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Hammond v. City of Chubbuck, 95 Idaho 618, 515 P.2d 565 (1973); Williamson v. City of McCall, 135 Idaho 452, 19 P.3d 766 (2001).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Agreement not to detach lands.
Construction and validity.
Petition.
Agreement Not to Detach Lands.
A landowner was not bound by an agreement providing that he would not insist on having his land detached from a village if the village would change a road which crossed the land to another location thereon, where the village built another road on the landowner’s property and thereafter maintained both roads thereon instead of one. Chaney v. Middleton, 58 Idaho 289, 72 P.2d 850 (1937).
Construction and Validity.
Former sections governing separation of agricultural lands only gave court discretion to determine existence of facts upon which judgment of detachment may have been based and was not delegation of legislative power to judicial officer. Lyon v. Payette, 38 Idaho 705, 224 P. 793 (1924).
Facts that gave court power to determine enumerated. Ball v. Parma, 49 Idaho 40, 286 P. 24 (1930).
Petition.
In proceeding to detach agricultural lands from a city, allegations that the plaintiff was the owner of such lands and that they were used exclusively for agricultural purposes, were included in corporate limits of city and exceeded five acres in extent were sufficient, other allegations being merely surplusage. Hasbrouck v. City of Nampa, 56 Idaho 353, 55 P.2d 141 (1936). In proceeding to detach land from a village, the petition sufficiently alleged corporate existence of the village so as to conform to the statute authorizing such action where the village could not have been misled, notwithstanding the corporate existence was only inferentially alleged. Chaney v. Middleton, 58 Idaho 289, 72 P.2d 850 (1937).
§ 50-227. Separation of agricultural lands — Notice of petition and hearing thereon.
Upon the filing of such petition with the clerk of such court and paying a fee of ten dollars ($10.00), which fee shall be in full for all clerk’s fees except the regular fees provided by law on the appeals, the said court shall fix a time for the hearing thereupon, which shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the filing of such petition, and the petitioners shall serve or cause to be served a notice of such hearing upon the mayor or clerk of such city at least twenty (20) days before the time fixed for such hearing.
The said petitioner or petitioners shall also cause to be published once a week in two (2) consecutive weekly issues in some newspaper published in said city where the land sought to be detached is situated, or, in case no newspaper is published in said city, cause notices to be posted in at least three (3) conspicuous places in said city, said notice stating the time and place of such hearing and that any person desiring to protest or object to the granting of the prayer of said petition may do so by filing with the clerk of said court at least two (2) days before the day set for the hearing of said petition his objections or protests in writing. Such notice shall state generally the purpose of the petition and the location and description of the land sought to be detached from the corporate limits of said city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 98, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Hammond v. City of Chubbuck, 95 Idaho 618, 515 P.2d 565 (1973).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Pleadings.
Former similar section was merely directory, and, where municipality had challenged sufficiency of petition and service, judgment of detachment should not have been entered until sufficiency had been determined. In re Smith, 38 Idaho 746, 225 P. 495 (1924).
Under procedure provided for in former similar section where a protestant has filed a motion to dismiss petition, a general and special demurrer and a protest, even though latter pleading was not filed two days before day set for hearing on petition, court had jurisdiction to hear issues tendered by such pleadings and could not properly strike or dismiss the same and default protestant because the protest was not filed within such time. In re Smith, 38 Idaho 746, 225 P. 495 (1924).
In proceeding to detach agricultural lands from a city, allegations that the plaintiff was the owner of such lands and that they were used exclusively for agricultural purposes, were included in corporate limits of city and exceeded five acres in extent were sufficient, other allegations being merely surplusage. Hasbrouck v. City of Nampa, 56 Idaho 353, 55 P.2d 141 (1936).
§ 50-228. Separation of agricultural lands — Reply to protests — Verification.
The petitioner or petitioners may, after any such petitions or objections are filed with the clerk at any time before the hour of the hearing on said petition, in their discretion, file with the judge or clerk replies in writing to said protests or objections. Neither said petition nor objections, protests nor reply need be verified.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 99, p. 1249.
§ 50-229. Separation of agricultural lands — Hearing.
The hearing herein provided on said petition shall be held within the corporate limits of the city in which said lands sought to be detached are situated. The regular district court reporter shall reduce to writing the testimony and evidence introduced, the same as in trial of civil actions. The judge of such court, either before or after said hearing, may view the lands and premises sought to be detached, as well as other lands or property within the corporate limits of such city, which might in any way be affected by the granting of such petition, and lands on the outside of such city in the same vicinity or locality in which the lands sought to be detached are situated, and may consider such conditions as he finds in connection with the evidence introduced on the hearing, in making and arriving at his final decision and determination of the matter.
No tract or tracts of land shall be detached from any city which by such detachment, would materially mar the symmetry of such city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 100, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
View of Premises.
A judge’s view of the premises considered in connection with the map of the city and respondents’ properties and the testimony relating to the lands surrounding respondents’ properties was sufficient to support the court’s finding that the overall symmetry of the city would not be materially marred by detachment of respondents’ properties from the city. Hammond v. City of Chubbuck, 95 Idaho 618, 515 P.2d 565 (1973).
Cited
Williamson v. City of McCall, 135 Idaho 452, 19 P.3d 766 (2001); Marcia T. Turner, L.L.C. v. City of Twin Falls, 144 Idaho 203, 159 P.3d 840 (2007).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Purpose of view.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
In proceeding by landowners to withdraw lands from a village, a failure of the trial court to find on an issue tendered by an allegation in the village’s answer and protest was not error under the statute providing that the making of written findings of fact or conclusions of law was not necessary. Chaney v. Middleton, 58 Idaho 289, 72 P.2d 850 (1937).
Purpose of View.
Former similar section authorized a view of the land merely to enable the court more correctly to determine the existence of the facts required by another section to be found before there could be a judgment detaching the land, and therefore constituted no delegation of legislative power to the court. Lyon v. Payette, 38 Idaho 705, 224 P. 793 (1924).
§ 50-230. Separation of agricultural lands — Judgment of separation.
If, upon the hearing, the court shall find that such tract or tracts of land are tracts containing at least five (5) acres and are included within the corporate limits of such city and the lands included within such tract or tracts are used exclusively for agricultural purposes, provided, however, if there is upon or over such tract or tracts of land a railroad or canal right of way, such tract or tracts shall, if no other reason exists, be deemed to be used exclusively for agricultural purposes, within the meaning of this section; that such lands do not receive sufficient special benefits to justify the retention of said lands within the corporate limits of such city, and that by the detachment of said lands the symmetry of the city would not be materially marred, then the judge of said court shall grant the prayer of said petition and shall enter judgment and decree accordingly: Provided, however, that if said petition prays for detaching several tracts of land the court may enter judgment granting the prayer of the petition as to such tract or tracts as come within his findings as aforesaid and deny such petition as to such tract or tracts which do not come within his findings as aforesaid.
And said tract or tracts of land sought to be detached and for which the said judgment is entered detaching the same shall, upon the entering of said judgment, become detached from such city and the corporate boundary line or limits of said city shall be deemed changed accordingly, and said tract or tracts so detached shall be free from the government of such corporation from said date.
It shall not be necessary for the judge of the court, prior to entering his judgment, or at any time, to make written findings of fact or conclusions of law. Within twenty (20) days after the filing of said decree the petitioner shall file or cause to be filed with the county recorder and with the city clerk a certified copy thereof.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 101, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Detachment inappropriate.
Special benefits.
Symmetry.
Detachment Inappropriate.
Where pastureland was surrounded by land being used in a variety of ways, from stockyards to homes, but all of the uses related to the existence of the community, detachment of the land was inappropriate. Ramey v. City of Blackfoot, 99 Idaho 264, 580 P.2d 1289 (1978). The landowners did not meet their burden to support the separation of their land from the corporate limits by proving land use exclusively for agricultural purposes, because although some trees had been taken from the property and some seedlings were planted at one time, there had been no ongoing cultivation of the soil, harvesting of crops, or production of plants. Williamson v. City of McCall, 135 Idaho 452, 19 P.3d 766 (2001).
Special Benefits.
Where police and fire protection were the only “special benefits” relied on by city to justify retention of tract of land within the city, the court did not abuse discretion in finding that such were not special benefits. Hammond v. City of Chubbuck, 95 Idaho 618, 515 P.2d 565 (1973).
Symmetry.
Where respondents introduced a map of the city and the surrounding area showing the relationship between the city and respondents’ properties and respondents both testified concerning the various properties bordering their land, such evidence was competent relating to the question of symmetry. Hammond v. City of Chubbuck, 95 Idaho 618, 515 P.2d 565 (1973).
Symmetry means more than due proportion of the parts of a body, conformance and consistency, and correspondence or similarity of form on opposite sides of an axis or center, it also involves the ability of the municipality to regulate adjoining lands whose use affects the quality of life in residential and business districts of the community; thus, symmetry requires not only regularity in the shape of the city, but also a measure of consistency, harmony and uniformity of regulation. Ramey v. City of Blackfoot, 99 Idaho 264, 580 P.2d 1289 (1978).
The finding that the symmetry of the city would be materially marred by the detachment of the property was supported by substantial and competent evidence based on the district judge’s personal observations, maps, testimony and observations regarding the use of the surrounding properties, and the city’s ability to regulate adjoining lands whose use would affect the quality of life in residential districts. Williamson v. City of McCall, 135 Idaho 452, 19 P.3d 766 (2001).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Construction.
Date of detachment.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law not necessary.
Questions of fact.
Symmetry.
Construction.
Former similar section vested the court with no discretion except that of determining the existence of the facts therein specified and did not constitute a delegation of legislative power to the court, the duty of the court to render the judgment therein mentioned being mandatory. Lyon v. Payette, 38 Idaho 705, 224 P. 793 (1924).
Date of Detachment.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Not Necessary.
Matter of detachment of lands from municipality was purely legislative, and legislature may fix date of judgment as date of detachment. Oakley v. Wilson, 50 Idaho 334, 296 P. 185 (1931). Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Not Necessary.
In proceeding by landowners to withdraw land from a village, a failure of the trial court to find on an issue tendered by an allegation in the village’s answer and protest was not error under the statute providing that the making of written findings of fact or conclusions of law was not necessary. Chaney v. Middleton, 58 Idaho 289, 72 P.2d 850 (1937).
Questions of Fact.
In proceeding by landowners to withdraw land from a village, whether land received sufficient special benefit to justify its retention within the corporate limits of the village was a question of fact for the trial court. Chaney v. Middleton, 58 Idaho 289, 72 P.2d 850 (1937).
Symmetry.
Where detachment of all tracts covered by petition would mar symmetry of municipality, detachment may have been awarded as to one or more tracts which would not do so. Maxwell v. Buhl, 40 Idaho 644, 236 P. 122 (1925).
Word “symmetry” as used in former similar section had not been judicially defined. In determining whether or not symmetry of city would be materially marred by detachment, regard must have been had to contours of land covered by city. Gullies and hills, while geometrically marring symmetry, may still have left city symmetrical in terms of former section. Maxwell v. Buhl, 40 Idaho 644, 236 P. 122 (1925).
Symmetry was discussed, and evidence in case was held sufficient to sustain finding that land in question was not entitled to detachment. Ball v. Parma, 49 Idaho 40, 286 P. 24 (1930).
Evidence justified judgment detaching lands from city on the ground that the plaintiff owned lands in excess of five acres within the corporate limits of the city, which were being used exclusively for agricultural purposes, and which did not receive sufficient special benefits, and that symmetry of city would not have been materially marred by their detachment. Hasbrouck v. City of Nampa, 56 Idaho 353, 55 P.2d 141 (1936).
§ 50-231. Separation of agricultural lands — Liability for bonded indebtedness.
Such separation shall not relieve any such tract of land from its liability on account of any outstanding bonded indebtedness of such city existing at the time of its separation therefrom.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 102, p. 1429.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Liability for Bond Payments.
Lands detached from municipality were taxable for payment of bonds issued after petition for detachment was filed but before judgment of detachment was rendered. Oakley v. Wilson, 50 Idaho 334, 296 P. 185 (1931).
§ 50-232. Separation of agricultural lands — Streets not affected by separation.
The detaching of any lands from the corporate limits of any city under the provisions of this chapter shall not affect or change the status of any public streets or highways as the same are laid out, constructed or dedicated at the time of such detachment, but any public streets or highways included within the territory detached shall cease to be a part of such city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 103, p. 1429.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The words “this chapter” probably refer to§§ 50-226 — 50-233, which concern separation of agricultural lands.
§ 50-233. Separation of agricultural lands — Appeal.
Any city or any person aggrieved by the judgment of the court entered as herein provided may appeal from such decision and judgment to the Supreme Court. The procedure of said appeal shall be the same as the procedure on appeal from final judgment in civil actions.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 104, p. 1249.
§ 50-234. Lease of mining property by city.
Except as otherwise provided by law, whenever it has been determined or appears probable that any property of a city has become valuable by reason of veins, lodes, or other deposits of mineral underlying said property, the corporate authority of any city, upon the affirmative vote of one half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council, shall have the power, by ordinance, to grant a lease in and to such minerals, with the right to mine for and extract the same, provided, that the surface of said property shall be in no wise interfered with or disturbed. Such lease shall provide for such royalties and shall contain such other terms and provisions as said council may deem proper, but in no case shall any such lease be made for a greater period than twenty-five (25) years.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 19, p. 1249.
§ 50-235. Tax levy for general and special purposes.
The city council of each city is hereby empowered to levy taxes for general revenue purposes not to exceed nine tenths percent (.9%) of the market value for assessment purposes on all taxable property within the limits of the city in any one (1) year, and such levies for special purposes as are or may hereafter be provided, on all property within the limits of the city, taxable according to the laws of the state of Idaho, the valuation of such properties to be ascertained from the assessment rolls of the proper county.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 37, p. 1249; am. 1974, ch. 186, § 2, p. 1491; am. 1995, ch. 82, § 21, p. 218.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Airports, tax levy,§ 21-404.
Capital improvement fund levy,§ 50-236.
Certification and collection of city taxes,§ 50-1007.
Policemen’s pension, tax levy,§ 50-1512.
Recreation and culture, special levy,§ 50-303.
Special assessments for local improvements,§ 50-1701 et seq.
Special tax assessments,§ 50-1004.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Construction.
License tax.
Property road tax.
Construction.
Previous preparation and publication of estimate of probable amount of money necessary to be raised for all purposes, and passage of appropriation bill, constituted condition precedent to action under former section governing tax levies for general purposes. Graves v. Berry, 35 Idaho 498, 207 P. 718 (1922).
License Tax.
Property Road Tax.
Municipal corporations could not, in the exercise of their police power, levy and collect a license tax upon individuals or businesses for purposes of revenue (distinction between revenue and regulatory purposes). State v. Nelson, 36 Idaho 713, 213 P. 358 (1923). Property Road Tax.
Power of towns and villages to levy a tax for general revenue purposes did not authorize them to levy a property road tax. City of Genesee v. Latah County, 4 Idaho 141, 36 P. 701 (1894).
§ 50-236. Capital improvement fund levy — Limitations.
Cities are hereby empowered to establish a “Capital Improvements Fund”, by ordinance, and levy a special tax not to exceed in the aggregate four-hundredths per cent (.04%) of market value for assessment purposes in any one (1) year. Said fund shall never exceed in the aggregate four-tenths per cent (.4%) of the market value for assessment purposes of the city. Such funds shall not be subject to the provisions of section 50-1014, Idaho Code. Said ordinance shall identify the specific purpose for which the capital improvements fund shall be used.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 43, p. 1249; am. 1980, ch. 350, § 21, p. 877.
§ 50-237. Borrow money.
All cities may borrow money and pledge the credit, revenue and public property of the corporation for the payment thereof, in the manner provided by law, and to evidence the same by issuance of bonds, notes or warrants.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 38, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Bond issues,§ 50-1019 et seq.
Chapter 3 POWERS
Sec.
§ 50-301. Corporate and local self-government powers.
Cities governed by this act shall be bodies corporate and politic; may sue and be sued; contract and be contracted with; accept grants-in-aid and gifts of property, both real and personal, in the name of the city; acquire, hold, lease, and convey property, real and personal; have a common seal, which they may change and alter at pleasure; may erect buildings or structures of any kind, needful for the uses or purposes of the city; and exercise all powers and perform all functions of local self-government in city affairs as are not specifically prohibited by or in conflict with the general laws or the constitution of the state of Idaho.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 6, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 214, § 1, p. 784.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Contracts with water companies for municipal water supply,§ 30-801.
Corporations, municipal corporation may not become stockholder, Idaho Const., Art. XII, § 4.
Declaratory Judgment Act, “municipal corporation” included in term “person,”§ 10-1213.
Declaratory judgments, rights affected by municipal ordinance,§ 10-1202.
Eminent domain,§ 7-701 et seq.
Garnishee, liability of municipal officers as,§ 11-727.
Hospital services, contract for,§ 39-1416.
Interest rate on warrants after presentment for payment,§ 31-2124; indorsement when not paid upon presentation,§ 31-2125.
Joint city and county sites and buildings,§ 31-1005.
Libraries, establishment,§ 33-2614.
Municipal corporations may contract indebtedness and own property for school, water, sanitary, and illuminating purposes, Idaho Const., Art. XII, § 4.
Rights of way for water and canal corporations,§ 30-802; works not to obstruct public highways,§ 30-803.
Venereal diseases, examination and treatment of inmates of city prisons,§ 39-604.
Water for domestic purposes, sanitary regulations,§ 37-2102.
Worker’s compensation law applies to municipal officers and employees,§ 72-205.
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” near the beginning of the section refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code.
CASE NOTES
Construction of Powers.
Because the authority to impose annexation fees in excess of an equitable allocation of costs is not authorized under§ 50-222, a city cannot rely upon this section as authority for the imposition of such fees. City of Hailey v. Old Cutters, Inc. (In re Old Cutters, Inc), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45787 (D. Idaho Mar. 31, 2014).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Construction of powers.
Filling stations.
Franchise ordinance subject to rate supervision.
Houseboats.
Municipal police power.
Nature of powers.
Right to sue.
Tort liability.
Construction of Powers.
Where statutory power of municipality was ambiguous, courts lean strongly toward doctrine of permitting municipalities to control their own local affairs. Hodges v. Tucker, 25 Idaho 563, 138 P. 1139 (1914).
Municipal corporations possessed only such powers as state conferred upon them, and only such rights could be exercised by them as were clearly conferred by state or were necessarily implied; any ambiguity or doubt must have been resolved in favor of the granting power, and regard must also have been had to constitutional provisions to secure liberty and protect rights of citizens. State v. Frederic, 28 Idaho 709, 155 P. 977 (1916).
Where power or authority was given to municipalities, it carried with it by implication the doing of those things necessary to make such things effective and complete, and a discretion as to manner in which power was to be carried out, if not specifically provided. Veatch v. Gibson, 29 Idaho 609, 160 P. 1112 (1916).
Filling Stations.
City could have passed ordinance governing erection of filling stations. Continental Oil Co. v. City of Twin Falls, 49 Idaho 89, 286 P. 353 (1930).
Franchise Ordinance Subject to Rate Supervision.
Under former law a city had power to pass an ordinance and franchise contract for establishment of water system, but any such contract was subject always to power of legislature to prescribe a method of determining reasonable maximum rates to be charged as rental. City of Pocatello v. Murray, 21 Idaho 180, 120 P. 812, aff’d, 226 U.S. 318, 33 S. Ct. 107, 57 L. Ed. 239 (1912).
Houseboats.
Prohibiting anchoring or maintaining crafts used as residences as within city ordinance power in the interest of general health and welfare. State v. Finney, 65 Idaho 630, 150 P.2d 130 (1944).
Municipal Police Power.
The vested right of a riparian owner to use a lake for mooring houseboat was subject to municipal police power and could be prohibited by ordinance. State v. Finney, 65 Idaho 630, 150 P.2d 130 (1944).
Nature of Powers.
In granting a franchise by which rates are fixed or determined, municipal corporation was not exercising its own powers, but only such powers as have been conferred upon it by state. These powers could have been withdrawn at any time. It had no vested right to continued exercise of them, nor could it thereby obtain a vested right in any contract entered into or property acquired as against right of state. Sandpoint Water & Light Co. v. City of Sandpoint, 31 Idaho 498, 173 P. 972 (1918).
Right to Sue.
A village was a corporate entity, with right to sue in a proper court. While a village itself might have abated nuisance within its limits, in order to have abated public nuisance outside its boundaries, it was probably necessary, and undoubtedly proper, for it to apply to a court of equity for aid in protecting it from such harmful influence. Village of Am. Falls v. West, 26 Idaho 301, 142 P. 42 (1914).
Tort Liability.
Cities and villages organized under general laws were liable in damages for a negligent discharge of the duty of keeping such streets and alleys in a reasonably safe condition for use by travelers. Carson v. City of Genesee, 9 Idaho 244, 74 P. 862 (1903).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Membership in Associations.
Payment of dues to municipal leagues or associations by cities and counties is an expenditure for a public purpose permitted by the Idaho constitution and statutes. The use of those dues for lobbying efforts is permissible if the lobbying is for an appropriate public purpose.OAG 89-7.
Elected officials may discuss potential public policy issues and determine association policy at meetings of the association of Idaho cities and Idaho association of counties. But local public policy must be determined and adopted only after compliance with Idaho law, including the Idaho Open Meetings Law [§ 74-201 et seq.], and all other applicable laws in title 31 or 50, Idaho Code.OAG 89-7.
Private Peace Officers.
No authority exists for a city to appoint the employees of a private company to serve as “peace officers.”OAG 08-02.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
Validity of municipal regulation of aircraft flight paths or altitudes. 36 A.L.R.3d 1314.
Power of municipal corporation to limit exclusive use of designated lanes or streets to buses and taxicabs. 43 A.L.R.3d 1394.
Power of municipal corporation to lease or sublet property owned or leased by it. 47 A.L.R.3d 19.
Validity of municipal regulation more restrictive than state regulation as to time for selling or serving intoxicating liquor. 51 A.L.R.3d 1061.
Power of municipality to charge nonresidents higher fees than residents for use of municipal facilities. 57 A.L.R.3d 998.
Right of municipality to refuse services provided by it to resident for failure of resident to pay for other unrelated services. 60 A.L.R.3d 714.
Validity of state or local regulation dealing with resale of tickets to theatrical or sporting events. 81 A.L.R.3d 655.
Validity, construction, and effect of juvenile curfew regulations. 83 A.L.R.4th 1056.
§ 50-302. Promotion of general welfare — Prescribing penalties.
- Cities shall make all such ordinances, bylaws, rules, regulations and resolutions not inconsistent with the laws of the state of Idaho as may be expedient, in addition to the special powers in this act granted, to maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce and industry. Cities may enforce all ordinances by fine, including an infraction penalty, or incarceration; provided, however, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, that the maximum punishment of any offense shall be by fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment not to exceed six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
- Any city which is participating in a federally mandated program, wherein penalties or enforcement remedies are required by the terms of participation in the program, may enforce such requirements by ordinance, to include a criminal or civil monetary penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or imprisonment for criminal offenses not to exceed six (6) months, or to include both a fine and imprisonment for criminal offenses.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 27, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 145, § 2, p. 530; am. 1978, ch. 260, § 2, p. 566; am. 1990, ch. 201, § 1, p. 452; am. 2000, ch. 35, § 2, p. 63; am. 2005, ch. 359, § 15, p. 1133.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Municipal corporations may make and enforce local police regulations, Const., Art. XII, § 2.
Ordinances,§ 50-901 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” in the first sentence in subsection (1) refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code.
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 2000, ch. 35 provided that the act shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 2000.
CASE NOTES
Control of public intoxication.
Control of Public Intoxication.
Where a city ordinance, which made it a misdemeanor for a person to be intoxicated while in a private motor vehicle located in a public place, was directed toward the control of public intoxication, the ordinance was a valid exercise of the authority delegated to the city by this section to maintain the peace, good government, and welfare of the city. Voyles v. City of Nampa, 97 Idaho 597, 548 P.2d 1217 (1976).
Municipal Ordinance Must Yield to State Statute.
The provisions of a city ordinance must yield to the provisions of a state statute under Idaho Const., Art. XII, § 2. Accordingly, where defendant, upon approach of police car, which displayed flashing lights but did not sound siren, turned left in front of police car causing collision rather than pulling to right-hand side of road or stopping, conviction under§ 49-645 [now§ 49-625], which requires that drivers yield for either an audible or visual signal, was upheld even though the Boise City Code requires both an audible and visible signal. State v. Barsness, 102 Idaho 210, 628 P.2d 1044, appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 958, 102 S. Ct. 495, 70 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1981).
Cited
Condie v. Mansor, 96 Idaho 345, 528 P.2d 907 (1974).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Construction of grants of power.
Filling stations.
Full police power over local concern.
Indictable misdemeanors.
Trials for violation.
Void ordinance.
Construction of Grants of Power.
Under grants of power by legislature to municipal corporations, only such powers and rights could be exercised as were clearly comprehended within words of granting act or derived therefrom by necessary implication, regard being had to object of grant. Any ambiguity or doubt arising out of terms used by legislature must be resolved in favor of granting power. Regard must also have been had to constitutional provisions intended to secure liberty and to protect rights of citizens, to the end that no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. State v. Frederic, 28 Idaho 709, 155 P. 977 (1916).
Provisions of former similar section were broad powers, but were to be looked to as limitations upon, rather than grants of power to, the municipalities. Rowe v. City of Pocatello, 70 Idaho 343, 218 P.2d 695 (1950).
Filling Stations.
Municipal corporations may adopt ordinances regulating establishment of filling stations. Continental Oil Co. v. City of Twin Falls, 49 Idaho 89, 286 P. 353 (1930).
Full Police Power over Local Concern.
Indictable Misdemeanors.
Where a city ordinance of Boise City classified dogs in a different manner than state statute and forbade owners to allow a vicious dog to run at large, the conviction of the owner for a violation of the city ordinance was not improper because Boise City possesses full police power over affairs of local concern. State v. White, 67 Idaho 309, 177 P.2d 472 (1947). Indictable Misdemeanors.
Municipality had no power to confer upon police judges jurisdiction summarily to hear and determine acts denominated by general law of state as indictable misdemeanors by enactment of an ordinance prohibiting such acts and prescribing a punishment therefor. State v. Frederic, 28 Idaho 709, 155 P. 977 (1916).
Trials for Violation.
Defendant convicted in municipal court of driving car on city street while intoxicated in violation of city ordinance on appeal to district court was entitled to trial by jury, since defendant was entitled to a trial de novo as though started or commenced in district court, and in district court the defendant was entitled to jury trial. Miller v. Winstead, 75 Idaho 262, 270 P.2d 1010 (1954).
Void Ordinance.
That portion of an ordinance attempting to provide for imprisonment in village jail, except for default in payment of fine and costs, was held void. State v. Bird, 29 Idaho 47, 156 P. 1140 (1916).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Disaster Preparedness.
Although§ 46-1009 requires the counties to prepare a disaster emergency plan, there is no comparable statute explicitly requiring the cities to participate. Thus, unlike counties, cities are not required to plan for disaster emergencies. Once a disaster emergency occurs within the city’s limits, however, the city government has the responsibility to handle the situation.OAG 89-9.
The cities have the ultimate authority to plan for disaster emergencies. Although not statutorily required to plan for disaster emergencies, cities are strongly urged to do so in order to minimize the risk of injury to their citizens.OAG 89-9.
§ 50-302A. Confinement in city or county jail for violating ordinance.
Any person charged with or convicted of violation of a city ordinance and subject to imprisonment shall be confined in the city jail; provided, however, that any city shall have the right to use the jail of the county for the confinement of such persons but it shall be liable to the county for the cost of keeping such prisoners.
History.
1970, ch. 30, § 1, p. 60.
STATUTORY NOTES
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1970, ch. 30 provided that the act should be effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 11, 1971.
CASE NOTES
Liability for Costs of Jailing.
While this section does make the city liable to the county for the cost of jailing prisoners charged with or convicted of a city ordinance and§ 20-605 places on the city liability for the cost of keeping prisoners in other counties if that offending person was either initially arrested by a city police officer for violation of a city ordinance or for violation of the state motor vehicle laws. Nevertheless, a city is not liable for the cost of keeping prisoners in the county jail if the prisoner has been arrested by a city police officer for violation of a state motor vehicle law. The county has “the duty” to pay for the incarceration of such prisoners. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986).
This section requires the city to pay the county for the cost of confining any person charged with or convicted of violation of a city ordinance; it does not require the city to pay for city ordinance violators who were confined in contiguous counties. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Sheriff’s Duty.
Counties are responsible for the cost incurred by the county jail in housing a prisoner who has been charged with a state law violation committed within city limits and investigated by city police officers, and, while counties may bring legal action to recoup jail costs incurred for city prisoners charged under city ordinances or state motor vehicle laws, sheriffs cannot refuse to accept city prisoners.OAG 84-4.
§ 50-303. Recreation and culture.
Cities are hereby empowered to create, purchase, operate and maintain recreation and cultural facilities and activities within or without the city limits and regulate the same, and to levy a special tax not to exceed six hundredths percent (.06%) of the market value for assessment purposes on all taxable property within the limits of the city for recreational programs.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 28, p. 1249; am. 1995, ch. 82, § 22, p. 218.
§ 50-304. Preservation of public health.
Cities may establish a board of health and prescribe its powers and duties; pass all ordinances and make all regulations necessary to preserve the public health; prevent the introduction of contagious diseases into the city; make quarantine laws for that purpose and enforce the same within five (5) miles of the city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 29, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Coeur d’Alene Garbage Serv. v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 114 Idaho 588, 759 P.2d 879 (1988).
§ 50-305. Hospitals — Maintenance.
-
Any city may acquire, in the manner provided for acquiring other property, by purchase or otherwise, hospital grounds, buildings and equipment, and clinics or other health care facilities, and maintain and operate the same and to provide by general ordinance, rules and regulations for governing the same. Cities acting through their respective city councils may convey or lease city hospitals, and the equipment therein, subject to the following conditions:
- The entity to which the hospital is to be transferred shall be a nonprofit corporation;
- No lease term shall exceed ninety-nine (99) years;
-
The governing body of the nonprofit corporation must be composed initially of the incumbent members of the board of hospital trustees, as individuals. The articles of incorporation must provide for a membership of the corporation which is:
- Broadly representative of the public and includes residents of the city; or
- A single nonprofit corporate member having articles of incorporation which provide for a membership of that corporation which is broadly representative of the public and includes residents of the city.
- The nonprofit corporation must provide care for indigent patients, and receive any person falling sick or maimed within the county.
- The transfer agreement must provide for the transfer of patients, staff and employees, and for the continuing administration of any trusts or bequests or maintenance of records pertaining to the existing public hospital.
-
The transfer or lease agreement shall provide for a transfer or lease price which shall be either of the following:
- The acceptance of all assets and assumption of all liabilities; or
- Such other price as the city council and the nonprofit corporation may agree.
- If any hospital which has been conveyed pursuant to this section ceases to be used as a nonprofit hospital, unless the premises so conveyed are sold and the proceeds used to erect or enlarge another nonprofit hospital for the city, the hospital so conveyed reverts to the ownership of the city. If any hospital which has been leased pursuant to this section ceases to be used as a nonprofit hospital, the lease shall terminate.
The articles must further provide for the selection of the governing body by the membership of the corporation, or exclusively by a parent corporation which is the corporate member, with voting power, and not by the governing body itself, except to fill a vacancy for the unexpired term. The articles must further provide that no member of the governing body shall serve more than two (2) consecutive three (3) year terms.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 45, p. 1249; am. 1990, ch. 409, § 1, p. 1136; am. 1995, ch. 222, § 1, p. 768; am. 1996, ch. 106, § 1, p. 408; am. 2001, ch. 331, § 9, p. 1161.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Hospital licensing and inspection,§ 39-1301 et seq.
Health facilities construction act,§ 39-1401 et seq.
Joint city and county hospitals,§ 31-3701 et seq.
Joint municipal health facilities authorized,§ 39-1416.
Liens in favor of hospitals,§ 45-701 et seq.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1990, ch. 409 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1990.
Section 2 of S.L. 1995, ch. 222 declared an emergency. Approved March 20, 1995.
§ 50-306. Public carriers.
Cities shall have authority to regulate by ordinance and prescribe rules relating to levies [levees], crossings, grounds, facilities for storing freight and goods, and the running of trains and public carriers within the limits of said city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 30, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Public utilities commission may order improvements,§ 61-508.
Railroads in general, Title 62, Idaho Code.
Railroads not to use streets without two-thirds vote by municipal authorities, Idaho Const., Art. XI, § 11;§ 62-205.
Safety regulations,§ 61-515.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed word “levees” was inserted near the middle of the section by the compiler to correct the enacting legislation.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Constitutionality.
Extent of protection of ordinance.
Interstate commerce.
Power to regulate.
Railroad annexation.
What constitutes depot.
Constitutionality.
A court should have declared an ordinance enacted pursuant to former section governing regulation of railroads, limiting the speed of trains within a city, invalid only if it clearly appeared to be unnecessary and unreasonable for the safety of the public. Frazier v. Northern Pac. R.R., 28 F. Supp. 20 (D. Idaho 1939).
A municipal ordinance enacted pursuant to former section governing regulation of railroads, limiting the speed of trains to 8 miles per hour within a city, was not invalid on the ground of discrimination between railroad and bus lines within the city. Frazier v. Northern Pac. R.R., 28 F. Supp. 20 (D. Idaho 1939).
Extent of Protection of Ordinance.
A nine year old boy, flying a kite on a railroad track within a city’s limits, was entitled to the protection of a municipal ordinance, enacted pursuant to former section governing regulation of railroads, limiting the speed of trains to 8 miles per hour within the city’s limits. Frazier v. Northern Pac. R.R., 28 F. Supp. 20 (D. Idaho 1939).
Interstate Commerce.
A municipal ordinance enacted under the authority of former section governing regulation of railroads, limiting the speed of trains within a city to 8 miles per hour, was not an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce, as applied to a train operated in interstate commerce. Frazier v. Northern Pac. R.R., 28 F. Supp. 20 (D. Idaho 1939).
Power to Regulate.
Under the law, the fact that the legislature had given power to the public utilities commission to regulate the speed of railway trains did not prevent a city from doing so in the absence of a showing that the commission had taken action. Frazier v. Northern Pac. R.R., 28 F. Supp. 20 (D. Idaho 1939).
Railroad Annexation.
Former section concerning transportation terminals did not give village power to annex railroad land. Oregon Short Line R.R. v. Village of Chubbuck, 83 Idaho 62, 357 P.2d 1101 (1960).
What Constitutes Depot.
Depot and station grounds included all grounds necessary for switching and making up trains together with sufficient space beyond switches to permit trains to clear and to allow train crews to walk from train to switch without passing over cattle guards. Ferrell v. Oregon Short Line R.R., 44 Idaho 217, 256 P. 104 (1927).
§ 50-307. License occupations and businesses.
Cities shall have authority to levy and collect a license fee on any occupation or business within the limits of the city and to regulate the same by ordinance. All such fees shall be uniform in respect to the classes upon which they are imposed.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 31, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Condie v. Mansor, 96 Idaho 345, 528 P.2d 907 (1974).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Limitation on Power.
Former similar section was not intended to give authority to municipalities to raise any amount of revenue they may decide necessary by imposition of license or per capita tax upon its citizens. State v. Nelson, 36 Idaho 713, 213 P. 358 (1923).
Municipal corporations could not, in the exercise of their police power, levy and collect a license tax upon individuals or businesses for purposes of revenue. State v. Nelson, 36 Idaho 713, 213 P. 358 (1923).
§ 50-308. Maintenance of peace — Licensing and regulating amusements.
Cities shall have power: to prevent and restrain riots, routs, noises, disturbances or disorderly assemblies; to arrest, regulate, punish, fine or set at work on the streets or elsewhere, vagrants or persons found without visible means of support or legitimate business; license and regulate theaters, halls, concerts, dances, theatrics, circuses, carnivals, exhibitions, amusements and other performances, where an admission fee may or may not be charged.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 32, p. 1249; am. 2013, ch. 223, § 1, p. 524.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Preemption by state of firearms regulation,§ 18-3302J.
Amendments.
The 2013 amendment, by ch. 223, deleted “to regulate, prevent and punish for the carrying of concealed weapons” following “disorderly assemblies.”
§ 50-309. Fire department — Fire zones.
- Any city, in order to prevent and extinguish fires, shall have the power to erect engine houses, purchase or lease fire engines and all other apparatus to maintain a fire department, to provide water for fire purposes in the city, in such manner as the council may by ordinance prescribe.
- Cities may prescribe and alter the limits within which no building shall be constructed except of brick, stone or other incombustible material and fire retardant roof and after such limits are established, no special permits shall be given for the erection of buildings of combustible material within said limits, except as provided in sections 50-1201 through 50-1210, Idaho Code.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 41, p. 1249; am. 1974, ch. 186, § 1, p. 1491.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Collective bargaining by municipal firefighters,§ 44-1801 et seq.
County fire-fighting districts, cooperating and reciprocating use of fire-fighting apparatus,§ 31-1430.
Municipalities authorized to extend police and fire protection to county fair,§ 22-209.
Nonliability of agency for delay in reporting fire, exception,§ 31-1436.
Worker’s compensation law applies to firemen,§ 72-205.
Compiler’s Notes.
Sections 50-1201 through 50-1210, referred to in subsection B, were repealed by S.L. 1975, ch. 188, § 1. For present comparable law, see§ 67-6501 et seq.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Authorization for maintenance.
Fire departments.
Fire limits.
Governmental function.
Liability for torts.
Authorization for Maintenance.
Fire Departments.
Municipal corporations without classification as to class, and cities of the second class, in their corporate capacities were legislatively authorized to prevent and extinguish fires and to acquire all necessary apparatus and equipment, including engine houses, to maintain a fire department. Ford v. City of Caldwell, 79 Idaho 499, 321 P.2d 589 (1958). Fire Departments.
Municipal corporations without classification as to class, and cities of the second class, in their corporate capacities were legislatively authorized to prevent and extinguish fires and to acquire all necessary apparatus and equipment, including engine houses, to maintain a fire department. Ford v. City of Caldwell, 79 Idaho 499, 321 P.2d 589 (1958).
Fire Limits.
Power to provide for demolition of buildings constructed in violation of an ordinance establishing fire limits within a village was necessarily implied in order to make ordinance effective. Beem v. Davis, 31 Idaho 730, 175 P. 959 (1918).
Governmental Function.
A municipal corporation was not liable for negligence in maintaining a pole extending through a hole in the floor from the firemen’s quarters to the fire fighting apparatus on the floor below since such was in the exercise of a governmental function. Ford v. City of Caldwell, 79 Idaho 499, 321 P.2d 589 (1958).
Since a municipality in the maintenance of its fire department exercised governmental functions, it had been held generally that a municipality was not liable for the negligence of officers and servants in connection with its fire department. Ford v. City of Caldwell, 79 Idaho 499, 321 P.2d 589 (1958).
While the legislative grant authorizing municipal corporations to establish fire departments was couched in permissive language, nevertheless a municipal corporation was exercising a governmental function when maintaining and operating a fire department pursuant to legislative authority. Ford v. City of Caldwell, 79 Idaho 499, 321 P.2d 589 (1958).
Liability for Torts.
The overwhelming weight of authority was to the effect that the municipal corporation was not liable for torts arising from a defective condition or negligent construction or operation of its fire fighting facilities and apparatus. Ford v. City of Caldwell, 79 Idaho 499, 321 P.2d 589 (1958).
§ 50-310. Hazardous materials.
Cities are empowered: to regulate or prohibit the loading or storage of any material deemed hazardous, or transporting the same over the streets or waters in the city, or within three (3) miles of the limits thereof; to prevent the discharge of firearms, rockets, powder, fireworks or other dangerous, combustible or explosive material in the streets, lots, grounds, alleys or in and about the vicinity of any building and punish violators therefor.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 51, p. 1249.
§ 50-311. Creation — Vacation of streets — Eminent domain — Reversion of vacated streets.
Cities are empowered to: create, open, widen or extend any street, avenue, alley or lane, annul, vacate or discontinue the same whenever deemed expedient for the public good; to take private property for such purposes when deemed necessary, or for the purpose of giving right of way or other privileges to railroad companies, or for the purpose of erecting malls or commons; provided, however, that in all cases the city shall make adequate compensation therefor to the person or persons whose property shall be taken or injured thereby. The taking of property shall be as provided in title 7, chapter 7, Idaho Code. The amount of damages resulting from the vacation of any street, avenue, alley or lane shall be determined, under such terms and conditions as may be provided by the city council. Provided further that whenever any street, avenue, alley or lane shall be vacated, the same shall revert to the owner of the adjacent real estate, one-half (1/2) on each side thereof, or as the city council deems in the best interests of the adjoining properties, but the right of way, easements and franchise rights of any lot owner or public utility shall not be impaired thereby. In cities of fifty thousand (50,000) population or more in which a dedicated alley has not been used as an alley for a period of fifty (50) years [such alley] shall revert to the owner of the adjacent real estate, one-half (1/2) on each side thereof, by operation of the law, but the existing rights of way, easements and franchise rights of any lot owner or public utility shall not be impaired thereby.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 42, p. 1249; am. 1973, ch. 268, § 1, p. 563.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed words “such alley” were inserted in the last sentence by the compiler to correct the enacting legislation.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1973, ch. 268 provided the act should take effect on and after July 1, 1973, and should be effective with respect to dedicated alleys which had heretofore been unused as alleys.
CASE NOTES
Alley.
Construction with other law.
Legislative intent.
Ordinance.
Reversion.
Alley.
The legislature has provided this section as the method for municipal corporations to follow when vacating an alley; this section does not empower a municipal corporation to impose any conditions upon the vacation of an alley except for the proviso regarding impairment of the right of way, easements, and franchise rights of lot owners and public utilities. Black v. Young, 122 Idaho 302, 834 P.2d 304 (1992).
Where the evidence did not rebut the presumption that one-half of a vacated alley was conveyed with a first conveyance, even though the alley was not expressly mentioned, the decision of the district judge in favor of the grantee of that conveyance was affirmed. Carney v. Heinson, 133 Idaho 275, 985 P.2d 1137 (1999).
There is no substantive limitation on the power of a city to vacate under this provision, since the language merely indicates that reversion of ownership to adjacent landowners does not affect the rights of those who hold existing rights-of-way or easements independent of the public right-of-way that is vacated. Allison v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 133 Idaho 560, 990 P.2d 141 (1999).
A lot owner whose property has been taken pursuant to this provision may seek compensation or challenge a city’s procedures or findings, but may not challenge the validity of the city’s actions solely because his rights have been impaired. Allison v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 133 Idaho 560, 990 P.2d 141 (1999).
Construction With Other Law.
There is a clear distinction between a city vacating a city street and a city exchanging a portion of a city street for other property. The vacation of a city street is governed by this section and, if the street is part of a plat or subdivided tract, by§ 50-1321. The exchange of city real property for other property is governed by§ 50-1403. Moreover, under Idaho law, a city has no authority to convey a portion of a city street. Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45, 44 P.3d 1100 (2002).
Legislative Intent.
The primary intent of this section is to settle ownership of property after vacation and provide that a newly vacated parcel becomes part of the adjoining property rather than becoming an independent parcel owned by the landowner. Carney v. Heinson, 133 Idaho 275, 985 P.2d 1137 (1999).
Ordinance.
Reversion.
A city ordinance that is in conflict with a state law of general application is invalid; this section, which applies to all municipal corporations in the State of Idaho and is an act of the state legislature, is clearly a state law of general application. It provides the method for municipal corporations to follow in vacating alleys. The two conditions that city imposed upon vacation of the alley, as well as the right of reversion should a certificate of occupancy not be issued, were not expressly granted powers, fairly implied powers from the clear language of this section, nor powers essential to the vacation of the alley; the only condition that this section allows upon a finding of expedience for the public good is that the vacation cannot impair “the right of way, easements and franchise rights of any lot owner or public utility.” Thus, the two conditions, as well as the right of reversion, were ultra vires acts by city because they conflicted with this section. Black v. Young, 122 Idaho 302, 834 P.2d 304 (1992). Reversion.
Reversion provision only applies to an alley, not a road. Christensen v. City of Pocatello, 142 Idaho 132, 124 P.3d 1008 (2005).
Cited
Boise City ex rel. Amyx v. Fails, 94 Idaho 840, 499 P.2d 326 (1972); Clark v. Olsen, 110 Idaho 323, 715 P.2d 993 (1986).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Appraisal of damages.
Bridges.
Construction.
Construction with eminent domain law.
Damages for vacation.
Discretion.
Discretionary power.
Discrimination.
Effect of recording plat.
Irrigation districts.
Jurisdiction exclusive.
Liability for negligence.
Procedure.
Road levy.
Sewers.
Vacation for private uses.
When conveyance unnecessary.
Appraisal of Damages.
Damages to be appraised under former similar section were damages and injuries resulting from vacation of a street and taking of same either by city for its exclusive use, or granting of right to take same to a railway company or any other company making exclusive use of same. Under constitution and statute, a city had no right to condemn or vacate a street for private use of a railway company until full compensation had been made for all injury which would result from such taking. Trueman v. Village of St. Maries, 21 Idaho 632, 123 P. 508 (1912).
Bridges.
Counties were not required to construct and maintain bridges exceeding sixty feet in length, at expense of county, over streams crossing highway within limits of municipal corporations. City of Kellogg v. McRae, 26 Idaho 73, 141 P. 86 (1914).
Construction.
Under existing statutes, city council or village trustees of incorporated cities and towns had exclusive control of streets and highways within their corporate limits, which includes full power to construct bridges and maintain same. City of Kellogg v. McRae, 26 Idaho 73, 141 P. 86 (1914). Construction.
Former statutes clearly conferred full power and authority upon mayor and common council of all cities within state to enact ordinances providing for paving and improvement of streets and buildings of storm sewers and drains and for construction of sidewalks. Byrns v. City of Moscow, 21 Idaho 398, 121 P. 1034 (1912).
Terms “special assessments,” “special tax,” and “taxes” were used interchangeably. Hunt v. City of St. Maries, 44 Idaho 700, 260 P. 155 (1927).
Construction With Eminent Domain Law.
Neither former similar section nor former section concerning eminent domain required any notice and left all matters to an ordinance, and ordinance was required to comply with provisions of constitution and statutes of this state in exercising right of eminent domain. Trueman v. Village of St. Maries, 21 Idaho 632, 123 P. 508 (1912); Thomas v. Boise City, 25 Idaho 522, 138 P. 1110 (1914).
Damages for Vacation.
One whose property did not abut on the part of the street so vacated could not maintain an action to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance, though he, in common with others, may have been inconvenienced by such vacation. Canady v. Coeur d’Alene Lumber Co., 21 Idaho 77, 120 P. 830 (1911).
Where the authorities, by vacating a street, cut off the property owner’s ingress to or egress from his property, they caused a loss or damage to him not common to the rest of the community and he had a right of action for such injury. Canady v. Coeur d’Alene Lumber Co., 21 Idaho 77, 120 P. 830 (1911).
A municipal corporation granting a right of way in its governmental capacity was not liable for damages occasioned by the grantee’s use of the easement. Trueman v. Village of St. Maries, 21 Idaho 632, 123 P. 508 (1912).
Discretion.
Right to vacate a street or a part thereof was largely in discretion of body possessing that power, and such body may determine as to public convenience and necessity of such discontinuance, and where there had been no glaring informality or illegality in proceedings, its judgment should not have been disturbed. Canady v. Coeur d’Alene Lumber Co., 21 Idaho 77, 120 P. 830 (1911).
Discretionary Power.
Municipality was vested with certain discretion in respect to grading and preparing full width of street so as to render same fit for travel. Smith v. City of Rexburg, 24 Idaho 176, 132 P. 1153 (1913).
Discrimination.
The closure of designated curb cuts and reconstruction of the curb ordered by the common council of Boise City, on the ground that the curb cuts in question were not being used and were unnecessary, was sustained by the evidence and disclosed no unreasonable exercise of discretion on the part of the city. Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 390 P.2d 291 (1964). Discrimination.
Paving assessment against abutting property was held not discriminatory because city paved street in front of other property abutting on line of improvement at its own expense. Noble Estate v. City of Boise City, 19 F.2d 927 (D. Idaho 1927).
Effect of Recording Plat.
Effect of recording plat was to vest in city determinable fee for public use of surface of street. Mochel v. Cleveland, 51 Idaho 468, 5 P.2d 549 (1930).
Irrigation Districts.
In exercising its right to grade its streets, city could, if necessary, remove ditches and require their reconstruction by pipelines laid beneath surface by company possessing franchise and easement for such ditches. City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979 (1911).
Former sections concerning street improvements and bond issuance gave cities power to destroy an irrigation ditch where necessary in the reconstruction of roadbeds and grades. City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979 (1911).
Power conferred upon irrigation districts to enter streets and alleys of municipalities did not repeal or interfere with power of such municipalities to exercise control of their streets and alleys and to regulate manner of their use, and to direct manner in which such irrigation district shall construct and maintain its ditches, canals, and laterals within such municipalities. Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist., 23 Idaho 422, 131 P. 8, appeal dismissed, 238 U.S. 643, 35 S. Ct. 602, 59 L. Ed. 1502 (1913).
In suit by property owners for an injunction and damages for failure of city to deliver irrigation water to their properties pursuant to contract by means of ditch running through townsite, the city could not contend on appeal that it was authorized to control alleys, streets, sewers and drains to the exclusion of any permissive use, since the property owners did not allege any permissive use, but only asserted a right under contract to the transmission of irrigation waters through the townsite. Cox v. City of Pocatello, 77 Idaho 225, 291 P.2d 282 (1955).
Jurisdiction Exclusive.
Right of towns and villages to repair highways, streets and alleys was exclusive, and county commissioners could not authorize a road overseer to go within limits of any organized town or village to repair, or interfere with, its streets or alleys. City of Genesee v. Latah County, 4 Idaho 141, 36 P. 701 (1894).
Liability for Negligence.
Cities and villages incorporated under general laws of state were liable in damages for a negligent discharge of duty of keeping streets and alleys in a reasonably safe condition for use by travelers in usual modes. Miller v. Mullan, 17 Idaho 28, 104 P. 660 (1909).
If abutting property was injured by a city, while it was lawfully exercising its power in grading streets and in reconstructing the roadbed, city was not answerable in damages, in absence of a statute expressly imposing such liability. City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979 (1911); Crane v. Harrison, 40 Idaho 229, 232 P. 578 (1925), overruled on other grounds, Hughes v. State, 80 Idaho 286, 328 P.2d 397 (1958). City officials must have understood that if they neglected to keep streets and alleys in proper repair, and injury resulted from such negligence, city was liable for damages, and the officer who neglected his duty in making proper inspection of streets and sidewalks, by reason whereof personal injury resulted, was liable to city. Powers v. Boise City, 22 Idaho 286, 125 P. 194 (1912).
City council had to keep streets, alleys, bridges, etc., of city open, in repair and free from nuisance, and could require persons to remove encroachments on same at expense of such persons, and were liable in damages for injuries resulting from neglect of such duty, as to obstructions on and above the streets, etc. Baillie v. City of Wallace, 24 Idaho 706, 135 P. 850 (1913).
To charge city with liability for damages, it was not necessary that it had notice of a nuisance. City was charged with the duty of keeping streets and sidewalks free for use and passage without danger. Baillie v. City of Wallace, 24 Idaho 706, 135 P. 850 (1913).
Incorporated cities and village were liable in damages for negligence in failing to maintain streets and alleys in reasonably safe conditions for travel. City of Kellogg v. McRae, 26 Idaho 73, 141 P. 86 (1914).
Procedure.
Court should decide as matter of law that use for which condemnation was sought was public use; after that, question of extent of enterprise and necessity for taking should have been in large measure left to judgment and discretion of public agency seeking to make condemnation. Washington Water Power Co. v. Waters, 19 Idaho 595, 115 P. 682 (1911); Boise City v. Boise City Dev. Co., 41 Idaho 294, 238 P. 1006 (1925).
After additional territory had been annexed, city had authority to condemn parcels for street improvements. Boise City v. Boise City Dev. Co., 41 Idaho 294, 238 P. 1006 (1925).
Road Levy.
Levy authorized under former section governing street improvements to be made by municipality was in addition to road levy authorized to be made by the county commissioners under§ 40-501, a portion of which was apportioned to city. Hettinger v. Good Rd. Dist. No. 1, 19 Idaho 313, 113 P. 721 (1911); Shoshone Hwy. Dist. v. Anderson, 22 Idaho 109, 125 P. 219 (1912).
Sewers.
Cities and villages had power to construct all necessary and incidental works for a complete sewerage system. Veatch v. Gibson, 29 Idaho 609, 160 P. 1112 (1916).
Vacation for Private Uses.
Under former similar section it was immaterial that vacation was made for purpose of devoting vacated street or alley to private uses. Canady v. Coeur d’Alene Lumber Co., 21 Idaho 77, 120 P. 830 (1911).
When Conveyance Unnecessary.
Where portion of street was vacated in recorded plat, city could not have conveyed fee therein to owner of abutting land not in plat. Mochel v. Cleveland, 51 Idaho 468, 5 P.2d 549 (1930). When Conveyance Unnecessary.
Where a street was vacated in interest of a company that owns all lands on both sides of street, a conveyance to it was unnecessary; vacated street reverted to abutting property owner. Canady v. Coeur d’Alene Lumber Co., 21 Idaho 77, 120 P. 830 (1911).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
Estoppel of municipality as to encroachments upon public streets. 44 A.L.R.3d 257.
Widening of city street as local improvement justifying special assessment of adjacent property. 46 A.L.R.3d 127.
Authority of zoning commission to impose, as condition of allowance of special zoning exception, permit, or variance, requirements as to highway and traffic changes. 49 A.L.R.3d 492.
§ 50-312. Improvement of streets — Special levy.
Cities may levy and collect a special tax upon all of the taxable property within the city limits to establish, lay out, alter, open any streets or alleys and improve, repair, light, grade, sprinkle, flush, gravel, oil, or drain the same and remove any and all obstructions therefrom; establish grades and construct bridges, crosswalks, culverts, drainage systems thereon and repair and maintain the same; cause to be planted, set out and cultivated, shade trees along the lines thereof or therein; extend its street lighting system to a maximum distance of two (2) miles outside its corporate limits, along approaches to its street system, subject to the approval of the agency having legal jurisdiction of the highway, road or street involved; provided, however, that no public utility, city[,] quasi-municipal corporation or cooperative association serving electric energy to such street lighting system outside the corporate limits of such city shall, by so serving such electric energy, acquire any rights to serve any other property or any present or future consumer, by virtue of, or in violation of, any provisions of title 61, chapter 3, Idaho Code.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 44, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed comma near the end of the section was inserted by the compiler to correct the enacting legislation.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Assessments against municipal property.
Construction.
Validity and construction.
Assessments Against Municipal Property.
A city was without authority to levy special assessments against its own property for the cost of local improvements. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 53 Idaho 62, 21 P.2d 527 (1933).
Construction.
Validity and Construction.
The terms “special assessments,” “special tax,” and “taxes” were used interchangeably. Hunt v. City of St. Maries, 44 Idaho 700, 260 P. 155 (1927). Validity and Construction.
Former similar section, where the necessity to repair the streets exists, violated no constitutional right of the owners of property assessed, as long as the benefits continued respectively to equal the individual assessments. Noble Estate v. City of Boise City, 19 F.2d 927 (D. Idaho 1927).
§ 50-313. Public ways — Supervision.
The city councils of cities shall have the care, supervision, and control of all public highways and bridges within the corporate limits, and shall cause them to be kept open and in repair and free from nuisances. Where any highway within the corporate limits has been designated a part of the state highway system, the provisions of section 40-502, Idaho Code, shall be applicable.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 47, p. 1249; am. 1985, ch. 253, § 8, p. 586.
CASE NOTES
Liability for injuries.
Regulation of traffic.
Liability for Injuries.
In an action by a motorist, who sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident at an intersection, to recover against the city on the theory that it was negligent in its construction and maintenance of a stop sign which was not seen by the motorist before the accident, summary judgment for the city was precluded by issues of fact as to whether the sign was obscured by foliage, whether the city had actual or constructive notice of obscured visibility of the sign, and whether the poorly constructed sign was the proximate cause of the accident. Smith v. Preston, 97 Idaho 295, 543 P.2d 848 (1975).
Regulation of Traffic.
Where a city ordinance, which made it a misdemeanor for a person to be intoxicated while in a private motor vehicle located in a public place, did not attempt to control traffic or to control roadways, the ordinance was not in conflict with this section which provides cities with authority to control traffic and roadways within their corporate limits. Voyles v. City of Nampa, 97 Idaho 597, 548 P.2d 1217 (1976).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Agent of state.
Barrier at end of street.
Barriers.
Bridges.
Construction.
Control.
Dead-end streets.
Ice and snow.
Liability for injuries.
Pipes of water company. Private driveways.
Proprietary functions.
Reasonable care.
Regulation of traffic.
Right to irrigation ditch.
Right to taxi stand.
Signs over sidewalks.
Validity of assessments.
Agent of State.
Municipality in exercising its power over its streets and alleys acted as agent of the state. Village of Lapwai v. Alligier, 78 Idaho 124, 299 P.2d 475 (1956).
Barrier at End of Street.
Maintenance of a street with its terminus upon the bank of a river with a barrier erected thereat was not a nuisance for there was no defect which obstructed free passage or use of the street in the customary manner. Smith v. Sharp, 82 Idaho 420, 354 P.2d 172 (1960).
Barriers.
Former similar section imposed a duty upon a city to keep the streets within its limits in a reasonably safe condition for use by travelers in the usual modes, and, arising out of this duty and as a corollary thereof, the duty to erect and maintain barriers or warning devices where necessary to make the street reasonably safe for travelers using ordinary care and at such places as would be unsafe for usual and ordinary travel without such barriers or warning devices. Smith v. Sharp, 82 Idaho 420, 354 P.2d 172 (1960).
There was no duty resting upon a municipality to erect barriers sufficient to withstand the impact of an auto out of control or recklessly driven. Smith v. Sharp, 82 Idaho 420, 354 P.2d 172 (1960).
Bridges.
Bridge connecting two streets within corporate limits of a village, was under exclusive control of village and village, was bound to keep it in repair and safe for accommodation of traveling public, and was liable for any injury resulting to a traveler from its neglect of duty in that respect. Village of Sand Point v. Doyle, 11 Idaho 642, 83 P. 598 (1905).
Construction.
Board of county commissioners had not the control of the roads and bridges within corporate limits of a city or village, and they were not required, under law, to construct and maintain bridges exceeding sixty feet in length at expense of county over streams crossing highways within such corporate limits. City of Kellogg v. McRae, 26 Idaho 73, 141 P. 86 (1914).
County authorities could not be compelled by mandamus to construct or repair bridge in city but could do so. City of Kellogg v. McRae, 26 Idaho 73, 141 P. 86 (1914).
The legislature had by former similar section delegated to the civil municipalities of this state the authority, subject to constitutional limitations, to police the streets of the municipalities and to regulate traffic thereon. Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 390 P.2d 291 (1964).
Control.
Council or trustees had exclusive control of streets, including bridges, within corporate limits. City of Kellogg v. McRae, 26 Idaho 73, 141 P. 86 (1914).
Dead-End Streets.
It was not unlawful for the city to maintain a street with its terminus on the bank of a river; dead-end streets were not unlawful. Smith v. Sharp, 82 Idaho 420, 354 P.2d 172 (1960).
Ice and Snow.
Where ice and snow have not accumulated upon a sidewalk so as to create an obstruction, mere slipperiness and unevenness caused by tramping, thawing, and freezing, in case of an accident, would not render municipality liable. Wilson v. City of Idaho Falls, 17 Idaho 425, 105 P. 1057 (1909).
Liability for Injuries.
Municipalities had exclusive control over streets, etc., within their limits and were liable to a traveler on such streets who was injured by a negligent discharge by municipality of duties imposed by former similar section. Carson v. City of Genesee, 9 Idaho 244, 74 P. 862 (1903); Eaton v. City of Weiser, 12 Idaho 544, 86 P. 541 (1906).
Municipalities had complete and exclusive control of the streets and alleys, and where city permitted and participated in placing a tank, containing explosive gas, in an alley, and it was reasonably foreseeable that damage would result from the tank, the city was liable for damages sustained as a result of the injury to travelers on the streets as well as to property adjacent to the tank. Splinter v. City of Nampa, 70 Idaho 287, 215 P.2d 999 (1950).
Complaint for personal injuries arising out of dead-end street accident, which alleged that injuries were proximately caused by the failure of the councilmen to maintain warning signs, stated a cause of action against the councilmen. Lemmon v. Clayton, 128 F. Supp. 771 (D. Idaho 1955).
Mayor of a city of a second class was not individually liable for maintenance of street in a reasonably safe condition and could not be sued individually for damages for injuries sustained as the result of alleged failure of city to maintain warning sign of a dead-end street. Lemmon v. Clayton, 128 F. Supp. 771 (D. Idaho 1955).
Plaintiff who sustained personal injuries as the result of a dead-end street accident in a city was not barred from suing councilmen based on their alleged negligence to maintain warning signs merely because the plaintiff failed to file a claim against the city. Lemmon v. Clayton, 128 F. Supp. 771 (D. Idaho 1955).
Pipes of Water Company.
Pipes of water company lying beneath the surface did not constitute a nuisance and water company could either have removed them or not have removed them, and if the company elected to remove the pipes, it was entitled to a period of 90 days in which to remove the pipes. Village of Lapwai v. Alligier, 78 Idaho 124, 299 P.2d 475 (1956).
Private Driveways.
Unincorporated village was not required to obtain consent of public utilities commission before requiring removal of pipes and apparatus of a private water company, though water company as a public utility was subject to regulation by the commission, since municipalities retain the right to control and maintain its streets and alleys. Village of Lapwai v. Alligier, 78 Idaho 124, 299 P.2d 475 (1956). Private Driveways.
Under its exercise of the police power and authority over the streets and in furtherance of the public good, the common council, for sufficient reason, could eliminate curb cuts and driveways without incurring liability to the abutting owner for the resulting injury. Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 390 P.2d 291 (1964).
Proprietary Functions.
Granting of permits to place structures in, under, on, or about the streets and alleys was a proprietary and not governmental function. Splinter v. City of Nampa, 70 Idaho 287, 215 P.2d 999 (1950).
Municipalities, in the exercise of proprietary functions, were under the same obligations and liabilities as a private owner, and the latter was liable to those outside his premises though not presently or prospectively using the facilities. Splinter v. City of Nampa, 70 Idaho 287, 215 P.2d 999 (1950).
Reasonable Care.
Former similar section required only that a city exercise reasonable and ordinary care to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel. Smith v. Sharp, 82 Idaho 420, 354 P.2d 172 (1960).
Regulation of Traffic.
When a street was acquired, either by dedication or condemnation, and opened for traffic, the city had the power and authority to police the same and regulate the traffic thereon. Foster’s, Inc. v. Boise City, 63 Idaho 201, 118 P.2d 721 (1941).
City in the exercise of its police power over, and its control of, streets had the right to regulate the use thereof by all vehicles, commercial, and noncommercial, and this power included the right to designate and regulate the stands of taxicabs. Yellow Cab Taxi Serv. v. City of Twin Falls, 68 Idaho 145, 190 P.2d 681 (1948).
The city had the supervision and control of the public highways and streets within its limits. Yellow Cab Taxi Serv. v. City of Twin Falls, 68 Idaho 145, 190 P.2d 681 (1948).
Right to Irrigation Ditch.
In a suit by property owners for an injunction and damages for failure of city to deliver irrigation water to their properties pursuant to contract by means of a ditch running through townsite, the city could not contend on appeal that it was authorized to control alleys, streets, sewers, and drains to the exclusion of any permissive use, since the property owners did not allege any permissive use, but only asserted a right under contract to the transmission of irrigation waters through the townsite. Cox v. City of Pocatello, 77 Idaho 225, 291 P.2d 282 (1955).
Right to Taxi Stand.
Signs Over Sidewalks.
Taxicab service operator who alleged occupation of a taxicab stand for a 16-year period was not entitled to have his rights to the use of the street quieted in him and such right protected by injunction. Yellow Cab Taxi Serv. v. City of Twin Falls, 68 Idaho 145, 190 P.2d 681 (1948). Signs Over Sidewalks.
Municipality was liable in first instance for permitting private persons negligently to place signs over sidewalk or streets and persons who placed such obstructions over sidewalk were liable to city for whatever damages it had to pay for such unlawful acts. Baillie v. City of Wallace, 24 Idaho 706, 135 P. 850 (1913).
Validity of Assessments.
Assessments made under authority granted in former section governing street improvements violated no constitutional rights of the owners of the property so assessed, as long as the benefits continue respectively to equal the individual assessments. Noble Estate v. City of Boise City, 19 F.2d 927 (D. Idaho 1927).
§ 50-314. Streets and public places — Regulations.
Cities shall have power to: control and limit the traffic on streets, avenues and public places; regulate and control all encroachments upon and into all sidewalks, streets, avenues, and alleys in said city; remove all obstructions from the sidewalks, curbs, gutters and crosswalks at the expense of the person placing them there.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 49, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Disposition of funds derived from regulation of parking on city streets,§ 50-1015A.
CASE NOTES
Installation of stop sign.
Regulation of traffic.
Installation of Stop Sign.
Neither the Idaho statutes nor the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices required a traffic engineering study by a city prior to installation of a stop sign. Lisher v. City of Potlatch, 101 Idaho 343, 612 P.2d 1190 (1980).
Regulation of Traffic.
Where a city ordinance, which made it a misdemeanor for a person to be intoxicated while in a private motor vehicle located in a public place, did not attempt to control traffic or to control roadways, the ordinance was not in conflict with this section which provides cities with authority to control traffic and roadways within their corporate limits. Voyles v. City of Nampa, 97 Idaho 597, 548 P.2d 1217 (1976).
City has authority to limit the traffic on a public road to bicycles and pedestrians. Christensen v. City of Pocatello, 142 Idaho 132, 124 P.3d 1008 (2005).
Cited
City of Nampa v. Swayne, 97 Idaho 530, 547 P.2d 1135 (1976).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Irrigation ditch.
Liability for condition of streets.
Liability for permitting encroachments.
Obstruction in street.
Private driveways.
Regulation of filling stations. Structures overhanging street.
Irrigation Ditch.
In a suit by property owners for an injunction and damages for failure of city to deliver irrigation water to their properties pursuant to contract by means of a ditch running through townsite, the city could not contend on appeal that it was authorized to control alleys, streets, sewers, and drains to the exclusion of any permissive use, since the property owners did not allege any permissive use, but only asserted a right under contract to the transmission of irrigation waters through the townsite. Cox v. City of Pocatello, 77 Idaho 225, 291 P.2d 282 (1955).
Liability for Condition of Streets.
Cities and villages which were granted exclusive control over their streets, avenues, lanes, and alleys were liable in damages for negligent discharge of the duty of keeping such streets and alleys in a reasonably safe condition for use by travelers in the usual modes. Carson v. City of Genesee, 9 Idaho 244, 74 P. 862 (1903).
Liability for Permitting Encroachments.
The fact that city did not by ordinance regulate or prohibit encroachments did not relieve it from liability for negligently permitting such encroachments. Baillie v. City of Wallace, 24 Idaho 706, 135 P. 850 (1913).
Obstruction in Street.
Holder of permit to install an obstruction in street acquired no property or contractual right by reason of such permit, and, whenever city authorities revoked such permit, holder had no alternative. Keyser v. City of Boise, 30 Idaho 440, 165 P. 1121 (1917).
Private Driveways.
The closure of designated curb cuts and reconstruction of the curb ordered by the common council of Boise City, on the ground that the curb cuts in question were not being used and were unnecessary, was sustained by the evidence and disclosed no unreasonable exercise of discretion on the part of the city. Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 390 P.2d 291 (1964).
Regulation of Filling Stations.
Municipal corporations may adopt ordinances regulating establishment of filling stations. Continental Oil Co. v. City of Twin Falls, 49 Idaho 89, 286 P. 353 (1930).
Structures Overhanging Street.
Municipality was liable for damages for injuries resulting from neglect of its duty to keep its streets in reasonably safe condition for travel. Rule extended not only to surface of street or sidewalk but also to structures over them. Baillie v. City of Wallace, 24 Idaho 706, 135 P. 850 (1913).
§ 50-315. Rehabilitation improvements.
Cities may provide for the repairing, rebuilding and relaying of pavement, curb, gutter, sewer or other improvements, the procedure and manner of payment to be the same as provided by law for making such improvements in the first instance.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 53, p. 1249.
§ 50-316. Sidewalks — General regulations.
Cities may provide by general ordinance for the construction, repair or removal of sidewalks which are deemed by the council to be dangerous and unsafe, and for the replacing thereof, assess the cost as provided in section 50-1008[, Idaho Code,] to the property in front of which the same shall be constructed, repaired or laid.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 56, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Local improvement assessments,§ 50-1701 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Construction contracts.
Private driveways.
Construction Contracts.
Former similar section authorized a city to make contracts for the construction of sidewalks. Byrns v. City of Moscow, 21 Idaho 398, 121 P. 1034 (1912).
Private Driveways.
The closure of designated curb cuts and reconstruction of the curb ordered by the common council of Boise City, on the ground that the curb cuts in question were not being used and were unnecessary, was sustained by the evidence and disclosed no unreasonable exercise of discretion on the part of the city. Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 390 P.2d 291 (1964).
§ 50-317. Removal of snow, ice, rubbish and weeds.
Cities are empowered to cause all sidewalks and alleys to be cleared of snow, ice and rubbish, and the cutting and removal of trees, weeds and grass, and the removal of rubbish upon and from all private property within the city and the parking within the curbing abutting same, and to assess the cost thereof against the private property so cleared, and against the property abutting the parking, sidewalks and alleys so cleaned. Such assessment shall be collected as provided in section 50-1008[, Idaho Code].
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 57, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion at the end of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Roell v. Boise City, 130 Idaho 199, 938 P.2d 1237 (1997).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Filling stations.
Private driveways.
Filling Stations.
Municipal corporations could adopt ordinances regulating establishment of filling stations. Continental Oil Co. v. City of Twin Falls, 49 Idaho 89, 286 P. 353 (1930).
Private Driveways.
The closure of designated curb cuts and reconstruction of the curb ordered by the common council of Boise City, on the ground that the curb cuts in question were not being used and were unnecessary, was sustained by the evidence and disclosed no unreasonable exercise of discretion on the part of the city. Johnston v. Boise City, 87 Idaho 44, 390 P.2d 291 (1964).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
§ 50-318. Identification of streets and houses.
Cities may provide by ordinance for the naming of streets and avenues and the numbering of houses adjacent thereto.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 54, p. 1249.
§ 50-319. Animals at large — Regulation.
The mayor and council of each city shall have authority: to regulate the running at large of domesticated animals; to cause such as may be running at large to be impounded and sold to discharge the penalties and costs of impounding, keeping and sale; to impose a license tax upon the owners and harborers and enforce the same by appropriate penalties; to authorize the destruction or sale of any domesticated animal, the owner or harborer of which shall neglect or refuse to pay such license tax; to provide for the erection of all needful pens and pounds within or without the city limits; and to appoint and compensate keepers thereof, and to establish and enforce rules governing the same.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 55, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
County dog license tax,§ 25-2801.
§ 50-320. Cemeteries.
All cities shall have the following powers in regard to cemeteries:
- Acquisition. — Purchase, hold and pay for, in the manner herein provided, lands not exceeding eighty (80) acres in one (1) body outside of the corporate limits, and all necessary grounds including any lands as have heretofore been laid out or platted and offered for sale for cemetery purposes, excepting such portions thereof as have been heretofore sold for cemetery purposes, hospital grounds or waterworks. For the purpose of purchasing such lands and maintaining the same, any city may levy a tax of not more than four hundredths percent (.04%) of the market value for assessment purposes in any one (1) year on all taxable property within the limits of the city, and exercise the right of eminent domain under the provisions of chapter 7 of title 7, Idaho Code, in the taking or securing of such grounds and property.
- Improvement. — Survey, plat, map, grade, fence, ornament and otherwise improve all burial and cemetery grounds and streets owned by the city leading thereto; construct walks and protect ornamental trees therein and provide for paying the costs thereof.
- Conveyance of lots. — Convey cemetery lots by certificates signed by the mayor and countersigned by the clerk, under the seal of the city, specifying that the person to whom the same is issued is the owner of the lot or lots, described therein by number as laid down on such map or plat. Such certificates shall vest in the proprietor, his or her heirs or assigns, a right in fee simple to said lots for the sole purpose of interment, under the regulations of the city council. Such certificates shall be entitled to be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the proper county without further acknowledgment, and such description of lots shall be deemed and recognized as a sufficient description thereof.
- Regulation. — Limit the number of cemetery lots which may be owned by any person; prescribe rules for inclosing, adorning, and erecting monuments and tombstones on cemetery lots; prohibit any diversion of the use of such lots and any improper adornment thereof; but no religious test shall be made as to the ownership of lots, the burial therein or the ornamentation of graves or of such lots.
- Penalties. — Pass rules and ordinances imposing penalties and fines not exceeding the amount permissible in probate and justice courts, regulating, protecting and governing the cemetery, the owners of lots therein, visitors thereto and trespassers therein; and the officials of the city shall have as full jurisdiction and power in the enforcing of such rules as though they related to the corporation itself.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 39, p. 1249; am. 1995, ch. 82, § 23, p. 218.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Cemetery maintenance districts,§ 27-101 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
Probate and justice courts, referred to in subsection E, no longer exist. Their functions have been assumed by the district and magistrate courts, pursuant to S.L. 1969, Chapter 100. See§ 1-103.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Alliance v. City of Idaho Falls, 742 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2013).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Establishment and maintenance.
Taxation.
Establishment and Maintenance.
A cemetery may be established and conducted for profit, and the establishment and maintenance thereof by the public has also been authorized by the legislature. Sunset Mem. Gardens, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 80 Idaho 206, 327 P.2d 766 (1958).
Taxation.
None of the property of the corporation involved, neither the lots sold for burial purposes nor the unplatted acreage, was exempt from the tax levied and assessed since such corporation was not a public cemetery within the intent and meaning of former§ 63-105M (now§ 63-602F) so as to entitle it to be exempted from taxation. Sunset Mem. Gardens, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 80 Idaho 206, 327 P.2d 766 (1958).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
§ 50-321. Aviation facilities — Acquisition, operation and maintenance.
Cities are hereby empowered: to acquire by purchase, gift, lease, sublease, or otherwise hold and take over such lands as the city council may deem necessary within or without the corporate limits whether within or without the county in which said city is located; do all things necessary in cooperation with the United States government in adapting any such lands so acquired to national defense purposes; and for the purpose of maintaining aviation facilities, to lease for aviation purposes, or any purposes connected therewith and incident thereto, all or any part of such land or lands, under such regulations and upon such terms and conditions as shall be established by the city council or otherwise established by law; to construct, operate and maintain, consistent with such regulations as may now exist or may hereafter be established by law, hangars, buildings and equipment necessary or convenient to the maintenance and operation of aviation facilities; to survey, plat, map, grade, ornament and otherwise improve such land, appurtenances, approaches, and avenues leading to or adjacent thereto; to provide for all costs and expenses incident or necessary to the exercise of the foregoing powers or the attainment of the foregoing objects out of the general fund of said city or in its discretion by special levy, in an amount not to exceed six hundredths percent (.06%) of the market value for assessment purposes in any one (1) year on all the taxable property within such city or by the issuance of bonds as provided by sections 50-1001 through 50-1042, Idaho Code.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 40, p. 1249; am. 1995, ch. 82, § 24, p. 218.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Aeronautics and aeronautic facilities, municipalities to cooperate with transportation department in development,§ 21-104.
Aeronautics laws, duty to aid in enforcement of,§ 21-119.
Airports as part of national defense system, counties and municipalities may share in cost,§§ 21-403 to 21-406.
Airports, counties and municipalities authorized to cooperate,§ 21-401 et seq.
Airport Zoning Act,§ 21-501 et seq.
Airport zoning authorized,§ 21-106.
Aviation fields, airports, hangars and other air navigation facilities authority to acquire or construct, bond issues authorized,§ 21-401. Municipal airports,§ 21-105.
Regional airports,§ 21-801 et seq.
Tax levy authorized,§ 21-404.
CASE NOTES
In general.
Firefighters.
In General.
Where repair and improvement of airport facility is essential for proper growth and development of area, funds expended for repair and improvement of airport facility are ordinary and necessary expenses within the proviso of Idaho Const., Art. VIII, § 3. City of Pocatello v. Peterson, 93 Idaho 774, 473 P.2d 644 (1970).
Firefighters.
The contract the city of Boise made with the Idaho national guard (IDANG) to provide air rescue fire fighting (ARFF) services at the Boise municipal airport did not violate the Idaho constitution or the Idaho civil service act; however, the firefighters were entitled to collectively bargain in anticipation of the city’s actions to replace union employees with IDANG firefighters to perform the work previously performed by union members, and by refusing to negotiate with the union, the city violated the collective bargaining act,§ 44-701 et seq. International Ass’n of Firefighters Local No. 672 v. Boise City, 136 Idaho 162, 30 P.3d 940 (2001).
Cited
Tomich v. City of Pocatello, 127 Idaho 394, 901 P.2d 501 (1995); City of Boise v. Frazier, 143 Idaho 1, 137 P.3d 388 (2006), overruled on other grounds, City of Challis v. Consent of the Governed Caucus, 159 Idaho 398, 361 P.3d 485 (2015).
§ 50-322. Transit systems.
Any city may, in the manner provided for acquiring other property, purchase, lease, or otherwise procure transit systems and provide by general ordinance for rules and regulations governing the maintenance and operation of the same.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 46, p. 1249.
§ 50-323. Domestic water systems.
Cities are hereby empowered to establish, create, develop, maintain and operate domestic water systems; provide for domestic water from wells, streams, water sheds or any other source; provide for storage, treatment and transmission of the same to the inhabitants of the city; and to do all things necessary to protect the source of water from contamination. The term “domestic water systems” and “domestic water” includes by way of example but not by way of limitation, a public water system providing water at any temperature for space heating or cooling, culinary, sanitary, recreational or therapeutic uses.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 20, p. 1249; am. 1979, ch. 304, § 1, p. 825.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Bond issues for water plants,§ 50-1020.
CASE NOTES
Franchise authority.
Increase of rates.
Liability for charges incurred by tenants.
Franchise Authority.
It is undisputed that municipal corporations have the power to operate their own utility systems and provide water, power, light, gas and other utility services within the city limits, and the constitutional and statutory grant of franchise authority to the cities in this respect is not nullified or altered by§ 40-1406. Alpert v. Boise Water Corp., 118 Idaho 136, 795 P.2d 298 (1990).
Increase of Rates.
In the absence of any statutory or constitutional provision expressly or implicitly requiring that a municipality act by ordinance in the establishment and amendment of rates charged for extending the city’s water system, it was proper for a city to adopt the rate increase by resolution. Snake River Homebuilders Ass’n v. City of Caldwell, 101 Idaho 47, 607 P.2d 1321 (1980).
Liability for Charges Incurred by Tenants.
Cited
A city did not have implied power to collect from a property owner for charges incurred by tenants for water, sewer and garbage services. City of Grangeville v. Haskin, 116 Idaho 535, 777 P.2d 1208 (1989). Cited Village of Peck v. Denison, 92 Idaho 747, 450 P.2d 310 (1969).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ordinary and Necessary.
Under current law as expressed in Asson v. City of Burley , 105 Idaho 432, 670 P.2d 839 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 870 (1984), and City of Pocatello v. Peterson , 93 Idaho 774, 473 P.2d 644 (1970), proposed improvements to the Cascade water system would be ordinary and necessary expenses; therefore, art. 8, § 3, Idaho Const., would not require voter ratification of the debt.OAG 88-3.
§ 50-324. Cities authorized to jointly purchase or lease, maintain or operate a joint water system.
All cities of this state are empowered by ordinance to negotiate for and purchase or lease, and to maintain and operate, in cooperation with adjoining cities of states bordering this state, the out of state water distribution system, plant and equipment of privately owned utilities used for the purpose of supplying water to the purchasing or leasing cities from an out of state source; provided, the legislature of the state in which such water distribution system, plant, equipment and supply are located, by enabling legislation, authorizes its cities to join in such purchase or lease, maintenance and operation. The city council of the cities acting jointly under this section shall have authority, by mutual agreement, to exercise jointly all powers granted to each individual city in the purchase or lease, maintenance and operation of a water supply system.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 21, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Joint service functions,§§ 67-2326 — 67-2333.
Joint water, power, or sewerage services,§§ 50-1022 — 50-1025.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Proprietary Capacity.
A municipal corporation, in the ownership, maintenance and operation of a municipal water system supplying water to its inhabitants for pay, acted in a proprietary, not in a governmental, capacity. Gilbert v. Bancroft, 80 Idaho 186, 327 P.2d 378 (1958).
§ 50-325. Power plants — Power distribution.
- Cities shall have authority: to acquire, own, maintain and operate electric power plants, purchase electric power, and provide for distribution to the residents of the city, and to sell excess power subject to the provisions of section 50-327, Idaho Code.
- Any consumer of a municipal electric system may apply to the district court of the county where the consumer’s service entrance is located for a determination that the municipality’s charges for electric service to that consumer are fair, just and reasonable and are not discriminatory or preferential. In the event that the court determines that the rate is not fair, just and reasonable or is discriminatory or preferential, the court shall remand the matter to the municipality to alter or amend such rate in conformance with the determination of the court.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 22, p. 1249; am. 2001, ch. 29, § 15, p. 35.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Bond issues for light and power plants,§ 50-1020.
Effective Dates.
Section 16 of S.L. 2001, ch. 29 declared an emergency. Approved February 28, 2001.
CASE NOTES
Franchise authority.
Liability for charges incurred by tenants.
Purchase of project capability.
Franchise Authority.
It is undisputed that municipal corporations have the power to operate their own utility systems and provide water, power, light, gas and other utility services within the city limits, and the constitutional and statutory grant of franchise authority to the cities in this respect is not nullified or altered by§ 40-1406. Alpert v. Boise Water Corp., 118 Idaho 136, 795 P.2d 298 (1990).
Liability for Charges Incurred by Tenants.
A city did not have implied power to collect from a property owner for charges incurred by tenants for water, sewer and garbage services. City of Grangeville v. Haskin, 116 Idaho 535, 777 P.2d 1208 (1989).
Purchase of Project Capability.
There is no statutory authorization for the purchase of “project capability” where such purchase comprehends the payment of long-term indebtedness for which no power may be supplied, and for which no ownership interest is acquired; the municipality is neither acquiring, owning, maintaining, or operating a plant, nor purchasing electrical power, but is underwriting another entity’s indebtedness in return for merely the possibility of electricity. Asson v. City of Burley, 105 Idaho 432, 670 P.2d 839 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 870, 105 S. Ct. 219, 83 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1984).
Agreement between cities and power company by which company agreed to try to arrange financing, obtain permits and issue bonds for nuclear power plants while city agreed to pay costs, including debt service on bonds, regardless of whether company failed to secure financing or complete the projects, did not come within ordinary and necessary proviso of Const., Art. VIII, § 3 and consequently was void as to cities who acted ultra vires by obligating their residents without an election and without compliance with the Constitution. Asson v. City of Burley, 105 Idaho 432, 670 P.2d 839 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 870, 105 S. Ct. 219, 83 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1984).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Limitation.
The legislature has not given Idaho counties authority to produce and sell electric power. Therefore, Idaho counties lack authority to enter into an agreement with counties of other states to develop a joint water project for the production and sale of hydroelectric power.OAG 89-1.
§ 50-326. Water, light, power and gas plants — Leasing — Selling — Procedure.
Whenever any city in this state shall own its own water plant, water system, electric power plant or electric light and power transmission and electric distribution system or natural gas distribution system, the city council of such city may lease and sell such systems, provided, however, that before doing so, the question of leasing or selling such property shall be submitted to the qualified electors who pay taxes on real property within said city, at a special election held for that purpose, and if a majority of the votes cast at such election are in favor of leasing or selling such property, the city council may then lease or sell the same; but in case the majority of the votes cast at such special election shall be against the leasing or selling of such property, the city council shall have no power to lease or sell the same. The election to be called shall be held only after notice thereof has been published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks, before the election, in the official newspaper of said city. Notice of such special election shall also be posted by the city clerk in three (3) public places in such city, at least ten (10) days before such special election. A city council may enter into agreements pursuant to this section to lease with the option to sell any plant or system described in this section. A city council may only terminate such lease/option to sell agreements during the term of the agreement for default by the entity leasing such plant or system. Such lease/option to sell agreements are subject to the voter approval requirements of this section.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 23, p. 1249; am. 1999, ch. 216, § 1, p. 576.
§ 50-327. Sale of excess power.
Any city of the state of Idaho owning or controlling a power plant may sell its excess power to persons and corporations for any lawful purpose. The term “excess power” means all electricity not needed by the city or the inhabitants thereof. All charges or rates for the excess power shall be fixed by ordinance and shall be uniform and fair to all consumers and no discrimination shall be allowed or practiced by any city; provided, that any city which may desire to take advantage of the provisions of this section may only contract with consumers as to excess power. Under this section all contracts with consumers are to be drafted subject to the foregoing provision and no contract shall be for a period longer than five (5) years.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 24, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Asson v. City of Burley, 105 Idaho 432, 670 P.2d 839 (1983).
§ 50-328. Utility transmission systems — Regulations.
All cities shall have power to permit, authorize, provide for and regulate the erection, maintenance and removal of utility transmission systems, and the laying and use of underground conduits or subways for the same in, under, upon or over the streets, alleys, public parks and public places of said city; and in, under, over and upon any lands owned or under the control of such city, whether they may be within or without the city limits.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 50, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Authority over All Lands.
This section, which expressly addresses the regulation of utility transmission systems, gives a city the authority over all lands, not solely the public streets, which are owned or under control of such city. Alpert v. Boise Water Corp., 118 Idaho 136, 795 P.2d 298 (1990).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Regulation of Cable TV.
Cities in Idaho almost certainly have authority under current state law to franchise cable television companies. With general franchising authority under state law, federal law allows cities to regulate the basic cable television service rate and charge a franchise fee, both subject to the conditions of federal law.OAG 94-5.
§ 50-329. Franchise ordinances — Regulations.
No ordinance granting a franchise in any city shall be passed on the day of its introduction, nor for thirty (30) days thereafter, nor until such ordinance shall have been published in at least one (1) issue of the official newspaper of the city; and after such publication, such proposed ordinance shall not thereafter and before its passage be amended in any particular wherein the amendment shall impose terms, conditions or privileges less favorable to the city than the proposed ordinance as published; but amendments favorable to the city may be made at any time and after publication; provided that an ordinance granting a franchise to lay a spur, railroad track or tracks connecting manufacturing plants, warehouses or other private property with a main railroad line, need not be published before the same is passed by the council. No franchise shall be created or granted by the city council otherwise than by ordinance, and the passage of any such ordinance shall require the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council. Franchises created or granted by the city council for electric, natural gas or water public utilities, as defined in chapter 1, title 61, Idaho Code, or to cooperative electrical associations, as defined in section 63-3501(a), Idaho Code, shall be for terms of not less than ten (10) years and not greater than fifty (50) years unless otherwise agreed to by the utility or cooperative electrical association. All publications of ordinances granting a franchise, both before and after passage, shall be made at the expense of the applicant or grantee. Where an ordinance granting a franchise is sought to be amended after the same has been in force, the provisions of this section as to publication, before final action upon such amendment, shall apply as in cases of proposed ordinances granting original franchises.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 25, p. 1249; am. 1995, ch. 226, § 1, p. 777.
CASE NOTES
Objection to franchise, estoppel.
Presumptions.
Relation to highway district legislation.
Objection to Franchise, Estoppel.
Presumptions.
Where plaintiffs participated in the bidding and award of cable television franchise process by city and no protest was made by the plaintiffs when the several city governments banded together to form the committee to investigate the award and recommend the franchise, nor any objection was lodged against the prospect of the various cities granting franchises, the trial court did not err in holding that the plaintiffs were estopped from pursuing collateral attacks upon grant of franchise to others or upon ordinance or upon any other known defect. KTVB, Inc. v. Boise City, 94 Idaho 279, 486 P.2d 992 (1971). Presumptions.
Franchise ordinances are presumed valid with the burden on those challenging the ordinance to prove their invalidity. Alpert v. Boise Water Corp., 118 Idaho 136, 795 P.2d 298 (1990).
Relation to Highway District Legislation.
The highway district legislation contained in title 40, chapters 13 and 14, does not supersede the well-established law vesting power to grant franchises to utilities in the cities. Alpert v. Boise Water Corp., 118 Idaho 136, 795 P.2d 298 (1990).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Regulation of Cable TV.
Cities in Idaho almost certainly have authority under current state law to franchise cable television companies. With general franchising authority under state law, federal law allows cities to regulate the basic cable television service rate and charge a franchise fee, both subject to the conditions of federal law.OAG 94-5.
§ 50-329A. Franchise ordinances — Fees.
-
This section applies to franchises granted by cities to electric, natural gas and water public utilities, as defined in chapter 1, title 61, Idaho Code, and to cooperative electrical associations, as defined in subsection (a) of section 63-3501, Idaho Code, which provide service to customers in Idaho and which shall also be known as “public service providers” for purposes of this section. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, cities may include franchise fees in franchises granted to public service providers, only in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
- Franchise fees assessed by cities upon a public service provider shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the public service provider’s “gross revenues” received within the city without the consent of the public service provider or the approval of a majority of voters of the city voting on the question at an election held in accordance with chapter 4, title 50, Idaho Code. In no case shall the franchise fee exceed three percent (3%), unless a greater franchise fee is being paid under an existing franchise agreement, in which case the franchise agreement may be renewed at up to the greater percentage, with the consent of the public service provider or the approval of a majority of voters of the city voting on the question at an election held in accordance with chapter 4, title 50, Idaho Code. For purposes of this section, “gross revenues” shall mean the amount of money billed by the public service provider for the sale, transmission and/or distribution of electricity, natural gas or water within the city to customers less uncollectibles.
- Franchise fees shall be collected by the public service provider from its customers within the city, by assessing the franchise fee percentage on the amounts billed to customers for the sale, transmission and/or distribution of electricity, natural gas or water by the public service provider within the city. The franchise fee shall be separately itemized on the public service provider’s billings to customers.
- Cities collecting franchise fees shall also be allowed to collect user fees from consumers located within the city in the event such consumers purchase electricity, natural gas or water commodities and services from a party other than the public service provider. The user fee shall be assessed on the purchase price of the commodities or services, including transportation or other charges, paid by the consumer to the seller and shall be collected by the city from the consumer. Except as provided in this subsection, user fees shall be subject to all of the same terms, rates, conditions and limitations as the franchise fee in effect in the city and as provided for in this section. This subsection shall not apply to a consumer to the extent that consumer is purchasing commodities and services from a party other than the public service provider on the effective date of this act, only until such time that the existing franchise agreement for the city in which the consumer is located either expires or is renegotiated.
- Franchise fees shall be paid by public service providers within thirty (30) days of the end of each calendar quarter.
- Franchise fees paid by public service providers will be in lieu of and as payment for any tax or fee imposed by a city on a public service provider by virtue of its status as a public service provider including, but not limited to, taxes, fees or charges related to easements, franchises, rights-of-way, utility lines and equipment installation, maintenance and removal during the term of the public service provider’s franchise with the city. (2) This section shall not affect franchise agreements which are executed and agreed to by cities and public service providers with an effective date prior to the effective date of this act.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-329A, as added by 1995, ch. 226, § 2, p. 777; am. 1996, ch. 246, § 1, p. 776.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The phrase “the effective date of this act” in paragraph (1)(c) refers to the effective date of S.L. 1996, Chapter 246, which was effective January 1, 1996.
The phrase “the effective date of this act” in subsection (2) refers to the effective date of S.L. 1995, Chapter 226, which was effective March 20, 1995.
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 1995, ch. 226 declared an emergency. Approved March 20, 1995.
Section 2 of S.L. 1996, ch. 246 declared an emergency and provided that the act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval and retroactive to January 1, 1996. Approved March 14, 1996.
§ 50-330. Rates of franchise holders — Regulations.
Cities shall have power to regulate the fares, rates, rentals or charges made for the service rendered under any franchise granted in such city, except such as are subject to regulation by the public utilities commission.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 26, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Public utilities commission,§ 61-201 et seq.
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Regulation of Cable TV.
Cities in Idaho almost certainly have authority under current state law to franchise cable television companies. With general franchising authority under state law, federal law allows cities to regulate the basic cable television service rate and charge a franchise fee, both subject to the conditions of federal law.OAG 94-5.
§ 50-331. Control of waters.
Cities may establish, alter and change the channels of watercourses and wall or cover the same within the boundaries of the city and outside the corporate limits to the extent necessary to preserve the watercourse.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 52, p. 1249.
§ 50-332. Control of sewers and drains.
Cities are authorized to clear, cleanse, alter, straighten, widen, pipe, wall, fill or close any waterway, drain or sewer or any watercourse in such city when not declared, by law, to be navigable and, as provided in section 50-1008[, Idaho Code], assess the expense thereof in whole or in part to the property specially benefited thereby.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 58, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Eminent domain, drainage of cities and villages,§ 7-701.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Changing ditch channels.
Extension of street across lawful ditch.
Irrigation ditch.
Changing Ditch Channels.
A city was entitled to alter or change the channel of a ditch carrying irrigation waters through the townsite at its own expense and sole discretion. Cox v. City of Pocatello, 77 Idaho 225, 291 P.2d 282 (1955).
Extension of Street Across Lawful Ditch.
It was duty of city to cover ditch running alongside street if it was considered dangerous, or otherwise to protect people from such danger. City of Twin Falls v. Harlan, 27 Idaho 769, 151 P. 1191 (1915).
Where ditch had been constructed and operated in accordance with law, it was not nuisance, and could become one only by reason of manner in which it had been maintained and operated. Fact that municipality subsequently extended street along and included in it right of way for such ditch did not convert such ditch into a nuisance. City of Twin Falls v. Harlan, 27 Idaho 769, 151 P. 1191 (1915).
Irrigation Ditch.
In a suit by property owners for an injunction and damages for failure of city to deliver irrigation water to their properties pursuant to contract by means of a ditch running through townsite, the city could not contend on appeal that it was authorized to control alleys, streets, sewers and drains to the exclusion of any permissive use, since the property owners did not allege any permissive use, but only asserted a right under contract to the transmission of irrigation waters through the townsite. Cox v. City of Pocatello, 77 Idaho 225, 291 P.2d 282 (1955).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
Compensation for diminution in value of the remainder of property resulting from taking or use of adjoining land of others for the same undertaking. 59 A.L.R.3d 488.
Validity and construction of regulation by municipal corporation fixing sewer-use rates. 61 A.L.R.3d 1236.
§ 50-333. Flood prevention — Drainage.
Cities are authorized to prevent the flooding of the city or to secure its drainage, to assess the cost thereof to the property benefited, and for such purpose may make any improvement or perform any labor on any stream or waterway, either within or without the city limits, when necessary to protect the safety of life and property of the city. Any city shall have power to cause any parcel of land within its limits on which water may at any time become stagnant to be filled or drained in such manner as may be directed by a resolution of the council, and such owner or his agent shall, after service of a copy of such resolution, comply with the directions of such resolution within the time therein specified; and in case of failure or refusal to do so, it may be done by said city and the amount of money so expended shall be assessed against such property and the amount thereof collected as special assessments under section 50-1008[, Idaho Code].
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 59, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion at the end of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-334. Abatement of nuisances.
Cities are empowered to declare what shall be deemed nuisances, to prevent, remove and abate nuisances at the expense of the parties creating, causing, committing or maintaining the same, to levy a special assessment as provided in section 50-1008, Idaho Code, on the land or premises whereon the nuisance is situated to defray the cost or to reimburse the city for the cost of abating the same, and this power shall extend three (3) miles beyond the city limits, provided however, that the expense of declaring, preventing, removing and abating nuisances outside the city limits shall rest with the city when the nuisance comes within the three (3) mile area by reason of expansion of city boundaries.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 60, p. 1249; am. 1967, ch. 431, § 1, p. 1417; am. 2010, ch. 79, § 18, p. 133.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Abatement of moral nuisances,§ 52-401 et seq.
Nuisances generally, title 52, Idaho Code.
Repression of prostitution under health laws,§ 39-603.
Amendments.
The 2010 amendment, by ch. 79, updated the section reference.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Roell v. Boise City, 130 Idaho 199, 938 P.2d 1237 (1997).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Abatement of nuisances.
Declaring a nuisance.
Abatement of Nuisances.
While village might have abated nuisance within its limits, if it wished to abate nuisance outside its boundaries, it was proper and probably necessary for it to apply to a court of equity. Village of Am. Falls v. West, 26 Idaho 301, 142 P. 42 (1914).
Declaring a Nuisance.
City may have declared anything a nuisance which was such in fact or per accidens , as well as that which was a nuisance per se. Rowe v. City of Pocatello, 70 Idaho 343, 218 P.2d 695 (1950).
§ 50-335. Destruction of buildings inimical to safety and health.
All cities in the state of Idaho shall have power to declare any building or structure to be a nuisance which, in the opinion of the city council, is so dilapidated or is in such condition as to menace the public health or the safety of persons or property on account of increased fire hazard or otherwise; and any council may cause the destruction or removal of any such building or structure at the expense of the person or persons, associations, corporations or copartnerships holding, owning or maintaining the same, and to levy a special assessment as provided in section 50-1008[, Idaho Code], on the land or premises whereon the nuisance is situated, to defray the cost or to reimburse the city for the cost of destruction or removal of said building or structure so declared to be a nuisance.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 61, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion near the end of the section was inserted by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Instruction.
Liability for improper destruction.
Nature of hazard.
Instruction.
The instruction given by the trial court to the effect that, if the building was in fact a nuisance, the city had the burden of showing it gave the property owner reasonable notice and opportunity to repair and remove the structure and if the city failed to give such notice and provide such opportunity before destroying the building, it was liable for damages, was a correct statement of the law. Albert v. City of Mt. Home, 81 Idaho 74, 337 P.2d 377 (1959).
Liability for Improper Destruction.
Nature of Hazard.
Where the city ordered a building summarily destroyed which was not a nuisance per se, it did so at its peril, and, if it was found the structure was not in fact a nuisance, the owner might recover damages. Albert v. City of Mt. Home, 81 Idaho 74, 337 P.2d 377 (1959). Nature of Hazard.
Even though the building was littered with debris, and transients were living there and using candles and cigarettes creating a fire hazard, these conditions being caused by the use to which the house was put were not hazards inherent in the building itself; therefore, the building could not be destroyed as a nuisance by the city, it being apparent such hazardous condition could be remedied by cleaning and repairs without major reconstruction. Albert v. City of Mt. Home, 81 Idaho 74, 337 P.2d 377 (1959).
To be lawfully destroyed as a nuisance, a building must be a nuisance per se or in fact. If it is neither, it cannot be made a nuisance by declaration of the city council. Albert v. City of Mt. Home, 81 Idaho 74, 337 P.2d 377 (1959).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
§ 50-336. Traffic safety education program — Fees.
- Cities may by ordinance elect to offer a traffic safety education program to all drivers issued an infraction citation by a city law enforcement officer for a moving violation not involving a collision. Citations allowing the traffic safety education program alternative shall only be issued pursuant to section 49-1501, Idaho Code, and as permitted by this section. Such traffic safety education program shall be for the purpose of educating drivers in traffic safety concepts. Drivers qualified under this section who desire to pay the fixed penalty and court costs in lieu of appearing in court on the citation may also elect to attend a traffic safety education program offered by a city under this section as an alternative to receiving violation points and insurance rating charges as provided in subsection (6) of this section. At the time of issuance of the citation, drivers shall elect whether they wish to attend the program and, if so, the citing officer shall record the election in the uniform citation. The citing officer shall provide to the driver a written notice of the available times, locations and the cost of the program or a written notice identifying a telephone number or internet website address where such information can be obtained. The driver shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance of the citation to complete the traffic safety education program. A driver electing to attend the program shall pay the fixed penalty and court costs for the citation to the clerk of the court as provided in the citation and pay the program fee, if any, separately to the city at or before the time of attendance at the program. Any person who fails to complete the offered traffic safety education program within the forty-five (45) days after voluntarily electing to attend will not receive the relief provided in subsection (6) of this section. Before issuing a citation allowing the traffic safety education program alternative, the citing officer shall ensure that the driver is not disqualified under subsection (2) of this section.
-
The traffic safety education program option allowed under subsection (1) of this section is not available to:
- Any driver holding a commercial driver’s license or any person driving a commercial motor vehicle; or
- Any driver having received within the last three (3) years relief from violation points under subsection (6) of this section or having received a point reduction as provided in rules of the Idaho department of transportation for completing any defensive driving or driver safety course.
- If the city imposes a traffic safety education program fee, such fee shall not exceed twenty-five dollars ($25.00).
- If the city collects a program fee from a driver disqualified from the traffic safety education program alternative, the city shall refund the program fee to the driver no later than ten (10) days following the discovery of the error. If the driver has already completed the program, the city shall, no later than ten (10) days following the discovery of the error, so notify the clerk of the court and the driver and shall advise the driver that the relief provided in subsection (6) of this section is not available and shall pay to the driver twenty-five dollars ($25.00) as liquidated damages for the error, in addition to refunding the program fee. (5) The city clerk or other authorized city official for the city in which the citation was issued shall within fifteen (15) days of the completion of the traffic safety education program by the cited driver transmit verification of the completion to the clerk of the county in which the citation was issued.
(6) When a person has successfully completed a traffic safety education program for an infraction citation, the infraction shall not result in violation point counts as prescribed in section 49-326, Idaho Code, nor shall the infraction be deemed to be a moving violation for the purpose of establishing rates of motor vehicle insurance charged by a casualty insurer.
(7) The Idaho supreme court shall establish such rules as deemed necessary to implement the provisions of this section.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-336, as added by 2013, ch. 292, § 1, p. 769.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-336, defining “service function,” which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429, § 62, was repealed by S.L. 1970, ch. 38, § 9. For present comparable law, see§§ 67-2326 to 67-2333.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 2013, ch. 292 provided: “This act shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 2014.”
§ 50-337 — 50-340. Joint service functions. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
These sections, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429, §§ 63 to 66, were repealed by S.L. 1970, ch. 38, § 9. For present comparable law, see§§ 67-2326 — 67-2333.
§ 50-341. Competitive bidding
Application of law. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 67, p. 1249; am. 1975, ch. 34, § 1, p. 60; am. 1979, ch. 62, § 1, p. 165; am. 1981, ch. 289, § 2, p. 595; am. 1983, ch. 89, § 3, p. 185; am. 1984, ch. 136, § 1, p. 321; am. 1987, ch. 161, § 1, p. 316; am. 1995, ch. 164, § 1, p. 644; am. 1998, ch. 397, § 2, p. 1241, was repealed by S.L. 2005, ch. 213, § 17.
§ 50-342. Electric power — Purchase or disposal.
In addition to the powers otherwise conferred on cities of this state, a city owning and operating an electric distribution system shall have the authority to:
- Purchase, or generate, or both, electric power and energy for the purpose of disposing of such power and energy to the United States of America, department of energy, acting by and through the Bonneville power administration, or its successor, through exchange, net billing or any arrangement which is used for supplying the needs of the city for electric power or energy;
- Enter into power sales or power purchase contracts with entities engaged in generating, transmitting, or distributing electric power and energy to provide for the purchase, sale or exchange of electric power or energy upon such terms and conditions as shall be specified in the power sales or purchase contract; and
- Establish, operate and fund energy conservation or other public purpose programs for the purpose of promoting efficient use of energy and energy conservation by city consumers including, but not limited to, programs to install energy efficient and energy conservation devices or measures in consumer buildings and structures served by the city and to grant low-interest loans to city consumers for the installation of such measures, provided such measures are provided on a nondiscriminatory basis to all classes of customers similarly situated;
and such authority shall not be subject to the requirements, limitations, or procedures contained in sections 50-325, 50-327 and chapter 28, title 67, Idaho Code.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-342, as added by 1971, ch. 31, § 1, p. 75; am. 1981, ch. 30, § 1, p. 48; am. 1982, ch. 194, § 1, p. 521; am. 1999, ch. 283, § 1, p. 705; am. 2005, ch. 213, § 18, p. 637.
STATUTORY NOTES
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1981, ch. 30 declared an emergency. Approved March 17, 1981.
CASE NOTES
Purchase of Project Capability.
There is no statutory authorization for the purchase of “project capability” where such purchase comprehends the payment of long-term indebtedness for which no power may be supplied, and for which no ownership interest is acquired; the municipality is neither acquiring, owning, maintaining, or operating a plant, nor purchasing electrical power but is underwriting another entity’s indebtedness in return for merely the possibility of electricity. Asson v. City of Burley, 105 Idaho 432, 670 P.2d 839 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 870, 105 S. Ct. 219, 83 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1984).
Agreement between cities and power company by which company agreed to try to arrange financing, obtain permits and issue bonds for nuclear power plants while city agreed to pay costs, including debt service on bonds, regardless of whether company failed to secure financing or complete the projects, did not come within ordinary and necessary proviso of Idaho Const., Art. VIII, § 3 and consequently, was void as to cities who acted ultra vires by obligating their residents without an election and without compliance with the constitution. Asson v. City of Burley, 105 Idaho 432, 670 P.2d 839 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 870, 105 S. Ct. 219, 83 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1984).
§ 50-342A. Participation in generation and transmission projects.
- It is hereby determined and declared that securing long-term electric generation and transmission resources at cost-based rates is essential to the ability of municipal utilities to provide reliable and economic electric services at stable prices to the consumers and communities they serve and is essential to the economy and the economic development of their communities and to the public health, safety and welfare. It is further determined and declared that in order to facilitate the development of such cost-based resources, it is necessary and desirable that municipal electrical utilities have sufficient flexibility and statutory authority to pay the ordinary and necessary expenses associated with the operation and maintenance of such cost-based resources.
-
When used in this section the following terms shall have the following meanings:
- “Joint electric facilities” means all works, facilities and property necessary or useful in the generation or transmission of electric power and energy.
- “Participants” means a city and the other parties to a participation agreement, including municipalities or public agencies of other states who have authority to own, construct, develop and operate joint electric facilities under the laws of such state.
-
“Participation agreement” means:
- An agreement providing for the joint ownership and operation of joint electric facilities; or
- A long-term power purchase agreement providing for the right to receive a share of the capacity or output of joint electric facilities at cost-based rates.
-
In order to obtain long-term electric generation and transmission resources at cost-based rates, a city that owns and operates a municipal electric utility system may acquire an undivided ownership interest in, or a contractual right to the capacity, output or services of, joint electric facilities under a participation agreement with one (1) or more investor-owned, cooperative or municipal utilities or with other entities engaged in the generation or transmission of electricity. Prior to entering into any participation agreement, the governing body of the city shall consider:
- The city’s long-term power supply and transmission requirements;
- The efficiencies and economies of scale expected to be achieved by participating with others in the acquisition or construction of joint electric facilities;
- The estimated cost, commercial operation date and useful life of the joint electric facilities;
- The financial, regulatory and technical feasibility of constructing and operating such joint electric facilities; and
- The availability, reliability and cost of existing or alternate power supply and transmission resources.
- The remedies upon a default by any participant in the performance of its obligations under the participation agreement, which may include a provision obligating or enabling the other participants to succeed to all or a portion of the ownership interest or contractual rights and obligations of the defaulting participant;
- The liabilities of the participants, which shall be several and not joint and no participant shall be obligated for the acts, omissions or obligations of any other participant; and
- The amendment and termination of the agreement, and for the decommissioning of the joint electric facilities and the funding of the costs thereof.
In order to facilitate such consideration, the city may retain engineering, financial or other consultants to provide advice and recommendations concerning such long-term power supply or transmission facilities and in such event, all written reports prepared by such consultants shall be made a matter of record and be available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho public records act. (4) Each participation agreement shall include provisions regarding:
(a) The specific joint or undivided ownership interests of the participants in the joint electric facilities or the specific contractual rights of the participants to the capacity, output or services of the joint electric facilities, any restrictions on the right of the participants to withdraw from participation in the operation of the joint electric facilities or restrictions upon transfer or partition of such interests or rights and the method for allocating the capacity or output of the joint electric facilities among the participants;
(b) The creation of a management committee comprised of representatives of the participants which shall be responsible for the governance of the acquisition, construction and operation of the joint electric facilities, and provisions granting each participant voting rights proportional to its percentage entitlement to the output or capacity of such joint electric facilities;
(c) The acquisition, construction and operation of the joint electric facilities and the appointment of construction and operation managers and agents and the employment of personnel in connection with the joint electric facilities, which may include provisions for the indemnification of such managers, agents and personnel;
(d) The methods for financing the costs of acquisition, construction and operation of the joint electric facilities, which may include provisions obligating or enabling each participant to finance its proportional share of such costs, based on its ownership interest in or contractual rights to the joint electric facilities;
(e) The allocation of the costs of acquisition, construction and operation of the joint electric facilities among the participants proportional to the percentage entitlement to the output or capacity of such joint electric facilities and the specific obligations of the participants to pay such costs, which may include a provision obligating each participant to pay its respective share of all costs of the joint electric facilities regardless of whether such facilities are acquired, completed, operable or operating and notwithstanding the suspension or reduction of the capacity, output or services of the joint electric facilities for any reason;
(5) A city may finance its proportionate share of the acquisition, construction and operation costs of joint electric facilities through the issuance of its bonds as provided by law or through financing arrangements with the Idaho energy resources authority under chapter 89, title 67, Idaho Code.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-342A, as added by 2007, ch. 28, § 1, p. 55.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Idaho public records act,§ 74-101 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 2 of S.L. 2007, ch. 28 provided “Severability. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act”.
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 2007, ch. 28 declared an emergency. Approved February 23, 2007.
§ 50-343. Regulation of firearms
Control by state. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-343, as added by S.L. 1984, ch. 243, § 2, p. 590, was repealed by S.L. 2008, ch. 304, § 1, effective March 28, 2008. For present comparable provisions, see§ 18-3302J.
§ 50-344. Solid waste disposal.
-
Cities shall have the power to maintain and operate solid waste collection systems. Such maintenance and operation may, by exclusive or nonexclusive means, be performed by:
- Employees, facilities, equipment and supplies engaged or acquired by cities;
- Contracts, franchises or otherwise providing maintenance and operation performed by private persons;
- Contracts providing for maintenance and operation performed by another unit of government;
- Contracts, franchises or otherwise for maintenance and operation that may provide solid waste collection for all or geographic parts of a city;
- Any combination of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section [subsection].
- Upon a finding by the mayor or city manager for public safety or necessary protection of public health and welfare and property, the provisions of chapter 28, title 67, Idaho Code, shall not apply to solid waste collection, as provided herein.
- Before entering into such contracts, franchises or otherwise, a city may require such security for the performance thereof as it deems appropriate or may waive such undertaking.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-344, as added by 1986, ch. 19, § 1, p. 59; am. 2004, ch. 144, § 2, p. 473; am. 2005, ch. 213, § 19, p. 637.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion in paragraph (1)(e) was added by the compiler to clarify the statutory reference.
CASE NOTES
Exclusive Franchise.
In regulating the collection of solid waste within its city limits, a municipality is exercising its police power function under Const. Art. XII, § 2 and, under§ 48-107(c), it is afforded a statutory exemption from the Idaho Competition Act. Since this section does not conflict with granting exclusive solid waste collection franchises, this exercise is valid. Plummer v. City of Fruitland, 139 Idaho 810, 87 P.3d 297 (2004).
§ 50-345. Computerized mapping system fees.
- As used in this section, “computerized mapping system” or “system” means the digital storage, processing and retrieval of cadastral information derived from local government records and related information such as land use, topography, water, streets and geographic features.
- In a city which develops a computerized mapping system, the city council may impose and collect fees from the users of this system for the development, maintenance and dissemination of digital forms of the system. These fees shall not exceed the actual costs of development, annual maintenance and dissemination of the computerized mapping system. These fees shall not apply to official paper maps produced from the computerized mapping system.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-345, as added by 1995, ch. 129, § 1, p. 562.
Chapter 4 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Sec.
§ 50-401. Short title.
This chapter shall be known and cited as the “Idaho Municipal Election Laws.”
History.
I.C.,§ 50-401, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-402. Definitions.
The following words and phrases when used in this chapter, have the meanings respectively given herein.
- General election. “General election” means the election held on the first Tuesday succeeding the first Monday in November in each odd-numbered year at which there shall be chosen all mayors and councilmen as are by law to be elected in such years.
- Special election. “Special election” means any election other than a general election held at any time for any purpose provided by law.
- Qualified elector. A “qualified elector” means any person who is at least eighteen (18) years of age, is a United States citizen and who has resided in the city at least thirty (30) days next preceding the election at which he desires to vote and who is registered within the time period provided by law. A “qualified elector” shall also mean any person who is at least eighteen (18) years of age, is a United States citizen, who is a registered voter, and who resides in an area that the city has annexed pursuant to chapter 2, title 50, Idaho Code, within thirty (30) days of a city election.
-
Residence.
- “Residence” for voting purposes, shall be the principal or primary home or place of abode of a person. Principal or primary home or place of abode is that home or place in which his habitation is fixed and to which a person, whenever he is absent, has the present intention of returning after a departure or absence therefrom, regardless of the duration of absence. In determining what is a principal or primary place of abode of a person the following circumstances relating to such person may be taken into account: business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income or other tax pursuits, residence of parents, spouse, and children, if any, leaseholds, situs of personal and real property, and motor vehicle registration.
- A qualified elector shall not be considered to have gained residence in any city of this state into which he comes for temporary purposes only without the intention of making it his home but with the intention of leaving it when he has accomplished the purpose that brought him there.
- A qualified elector who has left his home and gone to another area outside the city, for a temporary purpose only shall not be considered to have lost his residence.
- If a qualified elector moves outside the city, with the intentions of making it his permanent home, he shall be considered to have lost his residence in the city.
- Election official. “Election official” means the city clerk, registrar, judge of election, clerk of election, or county clerk engaged in the performance of election duties.
- Reference to male. All references to the male elector and male city officials include the female elector and female city officials and the masculine pronoun includes the feminine.
- Computation of time. Calendar days shall be used in all computations of time made under the provisions of this chapter. In computing time for any act to be done before any election, the first day shall be included and the last, or election day, shall be excluded. Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be included, but if the time for any act to be done shall fall on Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, such act shall be done upon the day following each Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-402, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1982, ch. 81, § 1, p. 148; am. 1983, ch. 45, § 1, p. 115; am. 1994, ch. 66, § 1, p. 135; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 2, p. 164; am. 2009, ch. 341, § 102, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, in subsection (c), twice inserted “at least” preceding “eighteen (18) years of age”; in subsection (e), substituted “county clerk” for “constable,” and deleted “as required by this act” from the end; deleted subsections (f) through (h), which were the definitions for “election register,” “combination election record and poll book,” and “tally book,” and made related redesignations; and, in present subsection (g), substituted “provisions of this chapter” for “provision of this act.”
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1994, ch. 66 declared an emergency. Approved March 7, 1994.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-403. Supervision of administration of election laws by county clerk.
For each city, the county clerk of the county is the chief elections officer and shall exercise general supervision of the administration of the election laws in the city for the purpose of achieving and maintaining a maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, efficiency and uniformity. The county clerk shall meet with and issue instructions to election judges and clerks prior to the opening of the polls to ensure uniformity in the application, operation and interpretation of the election laws during the election.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-403, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2007, ch. 202, § 11, p. 620; am. 2009, ch. 341, § 103, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2007 amendment, by ch. 202, added the last paragraph.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, in the section catchline and in the last sentence, substituted “county clerk” for “city clerk”; in the first sentence, substituted “For each city, the county clerk of the county is the chief elections officer” for “Each city clerk is the chief elections officer”; and deleted the last paragraph, which dealt with emergency procedures handled by the city clerk.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-404. Registration of electors.
All electors must register before being able to vote at any municipal election. The county clerk shall be the registrar for all city elections and shall conduct voter registration for each city pursuant to the provisions of chapter 4, title 34, Idaho Code. To be eligible to register to vote in city elections, a person shall be at least eighteen (18) years of age, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the city for at least thirty (30) days next preceding the election at which he desires to vote, or a resident of an area annexed by a city pursuant to the provisions of chapter 2, title 50, Idaho Code.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-414, as added by 1993, ch. 379, § 4, p. 1392; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 105, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-404, which comprised S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
Another former§ 50-404 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 50-401.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-414; substituted “chapter 4, title 34, Idaho Code” for “section 34-1402, Idaho Code” at the end of the second sentence; and added the last sentence.
Effective Dates.
Section 6 of S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 6 provided that the act should be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 1994.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-405. General and special city elections.
- A general election shall be held in each city governed by this title, for officials as in this title provided, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in each odd-numbered year. All such officials shall be elected and hold their respective offices for the term specified and until their successors are elected and qualified. All other city elections that may be held under authority of general law shall be known as special city elections.
-
-
No city election shall be held for an office if, after the deadline for filing a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the office, it appears:
(2)(a) No city election shall be held for an office if, after the deadline for filing a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the office, it appears:
- For the office of mayor, only one (1) person has filed a declaration of candidacy or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate;
- For the office of city council member in cities that have established designated seats, as provided in section 50-707, Idaho Code, only one (1) person has filed a declaration of candidacy or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for a particular seat up for election for a two (2) year term or a four (4) year term; or
- For the office of city council member in cities that do not have designated council seats as provided in section 50-707, Idaho Code, the number of people who have filed a declaration of candidacy or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate is equal to or fewer than the number of council positions up for election for a two (2) year term or a four (4) year term.
- If the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection have been met, the city clerk shall declare such candidate elected. The candidate shall receive a certificate of election and be installed at the first city council meeting in January following the election.
-
No city election shall be held for an office if, after the deadline for filing a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the office, it appears:
(2)(a) No city election shall be held for an office if, after the deadline for filing a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the office, it appears:
- On and after January 1, 2011, notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, there shall be no more than two (2) elections conducted in any city in any calendar year, except as provided in this section.
-
The dates on which elections may be conducted are:
- The third Tuesday in May of each year; and
- The Tuesday following the first Monday in November of each year.
- In addition to the elections specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, an emergency election may be called upon motion of the city council of a city. An emergency exists when there is a great public calamity, such as an extraordinary fire, flood, storm, epidemic or other disaster, or if it is necessary to do emergency work to prepare for a national or local defense, or if it is necessary to do emergency work to safeguard life, health or property.
- Pursuant to section 34-1401, Idaho Code, all city elections shall be conducted by the county clerk of the county wherein the city lies, and elections shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of title 34, Idaho Code, except as those provisions are specifically modified by the provisions of this chapter. After an election has been ordered, all expenses associated with conducting city general and special elections shall be paid from the county election fund as provided by section 34-1411, Idaho Code. Expenses associated with conducting runoff elections shall be paid by the city adopting runoff elections pursuant to the provisions of section 50-612 or 50-707B, Idaho Code, or both. (6) The secretary of state is authorized to provide such assistance as necessary and to prescribe any needed rules or interpretations for the conduct of elections authorized under the provisions of this section.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-429, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1993, ch. 379, § 2, p. 1392; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 107, p. 993; am. 2020, ch. 76, § 1, p. 164.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Secretary of state,§ 67-901 et seq.
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-405, which comprised S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
Another former§ 50-405 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 50-401.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-429; substituted “2011” for “1994” and “two (2) elections” for “four (4) elections” in subsection (2); in subsection (3), deleted former paragraphs (a) and (c) which read “The first Tuesday in February of each year; and” and “The first Tuesday in August of each year; and”, redesignated former paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) as present paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), substituted “third Monday” for “fourth Monday” in present paragraph (a) and deleted the last sentence in paragraph (c), which read “Such a special election, if conducted by the city clerk, shall be conducted at the expense of the political subdivision submitting the question”; added present subsection (4); and redesignated former subsection (4) as subsection (5).
The 2020 amendment, by ch. 76, added present subsection (2); redesignated former subsections (2) to (5) as subsections (3) to (6); and, in subsection (5), substituted “city” for “municipal” near the beginning of the first and second sentences.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-406. Method of nomination — Clerk to furnish printed forms.
Candidates for elective city offices shall be nominated by declaration. The declaration shall contain the name and address of the person and the office and the term for which he is being nominated. There shall be no mention relating to party or principal of the nominee. The completed declaration of candidacy shall be accompanied by: (1) a petition of candidacy signed by not less than five (5) registered qualified electors; or (2) a nonrefundable filing fee of forty dollars ($40.00) which shall be deposited in the city treasury.
It shall be the duty of the city clerk to furnish upon application a reasonable number of regular printed forms, as herein set forth, to any person or persons applying therefor. The forms shall be of uniform size as determined by the clerk.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-430, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 8, p. 164; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 108, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-406, which comprised S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
Another former§ 50-406 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 50-401.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-430.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
CASE NOTES
Authority of Clerk.
City clerk’s authority to review proposed city initiatives was limited to form only, clerk exceeded that authority by rejecting voters’ initiative petition proposing the legalization of marijuana on the basis that it violated state law. Davidson v. Wright, 143 Idaho 616, 151 P.3d 812 (2006).
§ 50-407. Form of declaration of candidacy.
Declarations of candidacy and petitions of candidacy shall read substantially as herein set forth. Any number of separate petitions of candidacy may be circulated at the same time for any candidate and all petitions for each candidate shall be considered one (1) petition when filed with the city clerk. Each signer of a petition shall be a registered qualified elector.
DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY
I, the undersigned, affirm that I am a qualified elector of the City of ......, State of Idaho, and that I have resided in the city for at least thirty (30) days. I hereby declare myself to be a candidate for the office of ............, for a term of .... years, to be voted for at the election to be held on the .... day of ......, ...., and certify that I possess the legal qualifications to fill said office, and that my residence address is .............
(Signed) ...............................
Subscribed and sworn to before me this .... day of ......, .....
...............................
Notary Public
State of Idaho
County of ............ ss.
City of ...............
PETITION OF CANDIDACY
OF ...............................
(NAME OF CANDIDATE)
FOR OFFICE OF ...............................
This petition must be filed in the office of the City Clerk not earlier than 8:00 a.m. on the eleventh Monday nor later than 5:00 p.m. on the ninth Friday immediately preceding election day. The submitted petition must have affixed thereto the names of at least five (5) qualified electors who reside within the appropriate city.
I, the undersigned, being a qualified elector of the City of .........., in the State of Idaho, do hereby certify and declare that I reside at the place set opposite my name and that I do hereby join in the petition of ........, a candidate for the office of .................. to be voted at the election to be held on the .... day of ......, .....
Signature of Petitioner Printed Name Residence Address Date Signed
.................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........ .................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........
.................... ............ ............... ........
STATE OF IDAHO
County of ............
I, ............, being first duly sworn, say: That I am a resident of the State of Idaho and at least eighteen (18) years of age; that every person who signed this sheet of the foregoing petition signed his or her name thereto in my presence; I believe that each has stated his or her name and residence address correctly; and that each signer is a qualified elector of the State of Idaho, and the City of ...........
Signed ...............................
Address ...............................
Subscribed and sworn to before me this .... day of ...., ....
Signed Notary Public ...............................
Residing at ...............................
Commission expires ...............................
(Notary Seal)
History.
I.C.,§ 50-431, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2002, ch. 32, § 22, p. 46; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 9, p. 164; am. 2006, ch. 105, § 3, p. 288; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 109, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-407, which comprised S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 3, p. 164, was repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
Another former§ 50-407 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 50-401.
Amendments.
This section was amended by two 2002 acts — ch. 32, § 22 and ch. 75, § 9, both effective July 1, 2002, which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.
The 2002 amendment, by ch. 32, made stylistic changes.
The 2002 amendment, by ch. 75, rewrote the section.
The 2006 amendment, by ch. 105, in the Petition of Candidacy form, substituted “eleventh Monday” for “eighth Friday” and “ninth Friday” for “sixth Friday” in the first paragraph.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-431.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-408. Designation of polling places. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-408, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 115, § 3, p. 237; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 4, p. 164.
§ 50-409. Appointment of election judges and clerks. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-409, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1989, ch. 64, § 1, p. 101; am. 1998, ch. 240, § 1, p. 797; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 5, p. 164.
§ 50-410. Time and manner of filing declarations.
- All declarations of candidacy for elective city offices shall be filed with the clerk of the respective city wherein the elections are to be held not earlier than 8:00 a.m. on the eleventh Monday nor later than 5:00 p.m. on the ninth Friday, immediately preceding election day. Before a candidate files a petition of candidacy with the city clerk, the petition signatures shall be verified by the county clerk in the manner described in section 34-1807, Idaho Code, except that the city clerk shall stand in place of the secretary of state. Before any declaration of candidacy and filing fee or petition of candidacy mentioned in section 50-407, Idaho Code, can be filed, the city clerk shall ascertain that it conforms to the provisions of chapter 4, title 50, Idaho Code. The city clerk shall not accept any declarations of candidacy after 5:00 p.m. on the ninth Friday immediately preceding election day. Write-in candidates shall be governed by section 34-702A, Idaho Code, but shall file the declarations required in that section with the city clerk.
- A person shall not be permitted to file a declaration of candidacy for more than one (1) office in any city election.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-432, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1989, ch. 64, § 6, p. 101; am. 1996, ch. 337, § 1, p. 1137; am. 1998, ch. 240, § 3, p. 797; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 10, p. 164; am. 2006, ch. 105, § 4, p. 288; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 110, p. 993; am. 2014, ch. 162, § 5, p. 455.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-410, which comprised S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2007, ch. 202, § 12, p. 620, was repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
Another former§ 50-410 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 50-401.
Amendments.
The 2006 amendment, by ch. 105, in the first sentence, substituted “eleventh Monday” for “eighth Friday” and “ninth Friday” for “sixth Friday”; substituted “Before a candidate files a petition of candidacy with the city clerk, the petition signatures” for “Signatures on petitions of candidacy” at the beginning of the second sentence; and substituted “ninth Friday” for “sixth Friday” in the next-to-last sentence.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-432 and substituted “section 50-407” for “section 50-431” in the third sentence.
Effective Dates.
The 2014 amendment, by ch. 162, added the subsection (1) designation and added subsection (2). Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-411. Notice of candidate filing deadline.
Not more than fourteen (14) nor less than seven (7) days preceding the candidate filing deadline for an election, the city clerk shall cause to be published in the official newspaper a notice of the forthcoming candidate filing deadline. The notice shall state the name of the city, the date of the election, the offices up for election, that declarations of candidacy are available from the city clerk, and the deadline for filing such declarations with the city clerk.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-435, as added by 2006, ch. 105, § 5, p. 288; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 111, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-411, which comprised S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
Another former§ 50-411 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 50-401.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-435.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-412. Canvassing votes — Determining results of election.
The county commissioners, within ten (10) days following any election, shall meet for the purpose of canvassing the results of the election. Upon receipt of tabulation of votes prepared by the election judges and clerks, and the canvass as herein provided, the results of both shall be entered in the minutes of city council proceedings. Results of election shall be determined as follows: in the case of a single office to be filled, the candidate with the highest number of votes shall be declared elected; in the case where more than one (1) office is to be filled, that number of candidates receiving the highest number of votes, equal to the number of offices to be filled, shall be declared elected.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-467, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 113, p. 993; am. 2014, ch. 162, § 6, p. 455.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-412, which comprised S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
Another former§ 50-412 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 50-401.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-467, substituted “The county commissioners, within ten (10) days” for “The mayor and the council, within six (6) days” in the first sentence, and inserted “city council” near the end of the second sentence.
The 2014 amendment, by ch. 162, in the second sentence, substituted “receipt” for “acceptance” and deleted “and proclaimed as final” from the end.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-413. Tie votes.
In case of a tie vote between candidates, the city clerk shall give notice to the interested candidates to appear before the council at a meeting to be called within six (6) days at which time the city clerk shall determine the tie by a toss of a coin.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-468, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 114, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-413, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-413, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1982, ch. 81, § 2, p. 148, was repealed by S.L. 2006, ch. 105, § 2.
Another former§ 50-413 was repealed in 1978. See Prior Laws,§ 50-401.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-468.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-414. Failure to qualify creates vacancy.
If a person elected fails to qualify, a vacancy shall be declared to exist, which vacancy shall be filled by the mayor and the council.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-469, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 115, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-414, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-414, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1982, ch. 61, § 1, p. 121, was repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 3, p. 1392, effective January 1, 1994.
Another former§ 50-414, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429, § 88, p. 1249, was repealed by S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 1, p. 825.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-469.
Compiler’s Notes.
Pursuant to S.L. 2009, ch 341, § 105, former§ 50-414 was amended and redesignated as section 50-404, effective January 1, 2011.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
CASE NOTES
Vacancies.
Under this section, the positions of mayor and city councilman did not become vacant when the voter registrations of the candidates were cancelled, after they had been sworn into office; failure to remain eligible for the office does not automatically create a vacancy. City of Huetter v. Keene, 150 Idaho 13, 244 P.3d 157 (2010).
§ 50-415. Certificates of elections.
A certificate of election for each elected city official or appointee to fill such position shall be made under the corporate seal by the city clerk, signed by the mayor and clerk, and presented to such officials at the time of subscribing to the oath of office.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-470, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 116, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-415, which comprised S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 104, effective January 1, 2011.
Another former§ 50-415 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 50-401.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-470.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
CASE NOTES
Cited
City of Huetter v. Keene, 150 Idaho 13, 244 P.3d 157 (2010).
§ 50-416. Application for recount of ballots.
Any candidate desiring a recount of the ballots cast in any general city election may apply to the attorney general therefor, within twenty (20) days of the canvass of such election by the county board of canvassers. The provisions of chapter 23, title 34, Idaho Code, shall govern recounts of elections held under this chapter.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-471, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 117, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Attorney general,§ 67-1401 et seq.
Prior Laws.
Former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised I.C.,§§ 50-416 — 50-421, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1982, ch. 80, § 1, p. 147; am. 1982, ch. 81, § 3, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 64, §§ 2, 3, p. 101, were repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 3, effective January 1, 1994.
Another former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 90-95; 1975, ch. 94, § 1, p. 191, were repealed by S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 3.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-471 and substituted “county board of canvassers” for “city council” at the end of the first sentence.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-417. Recall elections.
Recall elections shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 17, title 34, Idaho Code, except as those provisions may be specifically modified by the provisions of this chapter.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-472, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 118, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised I.C.,§§ 50-416 — 50-421, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1982, ch. 80, § 1, p. 147; am. 1982, ch. 81, § 3, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 64, §§ 2, 3, p. 101, were repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 3, effective January 1, 1994.
Another former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 90-95; 1975, ch. 94, § 1, p. 191, were repealed by S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 3.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-472.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-418. Initiative and referendum elections.
Initiative and referendum elections shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 18, title 34, Idaho Code, and chapter 5, title 50, Idaho Code, except as those provisions are specifically modified by this chapter.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-473, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 119, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised I.C.,§§ 50-416 — 50-421, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1982, ch. 80, § 1, p. 147; am. 1982, ch. 81, § 3, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 64, §§ 2, 3, p. 101, were repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 3, effective January 1, 1994.
Another former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 90-95; 1975, ch. 94, § 1, p. 191, were repealed by S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 3.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-473.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-419. Election law violations.
The provisions of chapter 23, title 18, Idaho Code, pertaining to crimes and punishments for election law violations are applicable to all municipal elections.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-475, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 121, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised I.C.,§§ 50-416 — 50-421, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1982, ch. 80, § 1, p. 147; am. 1982, ch. 81, § 3, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 64, §§ 2, 3, p. 101, were repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 3, effective January 1, 1994.
Another former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 90-95; 1975, ch. 94, § 1, p. 191, were repealed by S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 3.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, redesignated this section from§ 50-475 and substituted “applicable to all municipal elections” for “hereby incorporated in this chapter” at the end of the section.
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-420. Application of campaign reporting law to elections in certain cities. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2019, ch. 288, § 23, effective January 1, 2020. See§ 67-6601 et seq.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-477, as added by 1982, ch. 229, § 1, p. 606; am. 2004, ch. 14, § 1, p. 11; am. 2004, ch. 177, § 1, p. 559; am. 2005, ch. 254, § 5, p. 777; am. 2007, ch. 202, § 16, p. 620; am. and redesig. 2009, ch. 341, § 122, p. 993; am. 2012, ch. 162, § 2, p. 437.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§§ 50-416 to 50-421, which comprised I.C.,§§ 50-416 to 50-421, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1982, ch. 80, § 1, p. 147; am. 1982, ch. 81, § 3, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 64, §§ 2, 3, p. 101, were repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 3, effective January 1, 1994.
Another former§§ 50-416 to 50-421, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 90-95; 1975, ch. 94, § 1, p. 191, were repealed by S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 3.
§ 50-421. Qualifications for registration. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised I.C.,§§ 50-416 — 50-421, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1982, ch. 80, § 1, p. 147; am. 1982, ch. 81, § 3, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 64, §§ 2, 3, p. 101, were repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 3, effective January 1, 1994.
Another former§§ 50-416 — 50-421, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 90-95; 1975, ch. 94, § 1, p. 191, were repealed by S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 3.
§ 50-422. Reregistration of elector who changes residence. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-422, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 1981, ch. 255, § 4.
§ 50-423, 50-424. Registration cards — Registration — When required. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Another former§ 50-423, which comprised S.L. 1970, ch. 232, § 1, p. 649, was repealed by S.L. 1978, ch. 329, § 1.
Compiler’s Notes.
These sections, which comprised I.C.,§§ 50-423, 50-424 as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1981, ch. 255, § 5, p. 545; am. 1985, ch. 83, §§ 1, 2, p. 157; am. 1989, ch. 64, § 4, p. 101, were repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 3, effective January 1, 1994.
§ 50-425. Affidavit voting of elector who moves to another precinct. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Another former§ 50-425, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-425, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 1981, ch. 255, § 6.
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-425, as added by 1989, ch. 64, § 5, p. 101, was repealed by S.L. 1998, ch. 240, § 2, effective July 1, 1998.
§ 50-426. Change of name
Voting. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised I. C.,§ 50-426, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 2002, ch. 75, § 1.
§ 50-427. Challenges of entries in combination election record and poll book. [Repealed]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 106, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-427, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 3, p. 157; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 6, p. 164.
§ 50-428. Combination election record and poll book. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 106, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-428, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 7, p. 164.
§ 50-429. General and special city elections. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-430. Method of nomination
Clerk to furnish printed forms. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-431. Form of declaration of candidacy. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-432. Time and manner of filing declarations. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-433 — 50-434. Signatures on nominating petitions — Revocation of signature. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
These sections, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-433 and 50-434 as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, were repealed by S.L. 2002, ch. 75, § 1.
§ 50-435. Notice of candidate filing deadline. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-436. Notice of election — Contents
Publication. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-436, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 11, p. 164; am. 2006, ch. 105, § 6, p. 288.
§ 50-437. Official election stamp. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-437, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-438. Ballots and election supplies. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-438, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-439. Preparation and contents of ballot. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-439, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 12, p. 164; am. 2006, ch. 105, § 7, p. 288.
§ 50-440. Sample ballots. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-440, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 13, p. 164; am. 2006, ch. 105, § 8, p. 288.
§ 50-441. Procedure for correction of ballots after printing. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011..
History.
I.C.,§ 50-441, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-442. Voting by absentee ballot authorized. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-442, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-443. Application for absentee ballot. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-443, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 4, p. 157; am. 1996, ch. 74, § 2, p. 238; am. 2002, ch. 236, § 3, p. 707.
§ 50-444. Classifications for absent elector’s ballot. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-444, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 5, p. 157, was repealed by S.L. 1998, ch. 240, § 4, effective July 1, 1998.
§ 50-445. Issuance of absentee ballot. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-445, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 6, p. 157; am. 1996, ch. 74, § 3, p. 238; am. 1998, ch. 240, § 5, p. 797.
§ 50-446. Marking and folding of absentee ballot
Affidavit. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-446, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-447. Return of absentee ballot. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-447, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 7, p. 157; am. 2007, ch. 202, § 13, p. 620.
§ 50-448. City clerks shall provide an absent elector’s voting place. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-448, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-449. Transmission of absentee ballots to polls. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-449, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2007, ch. 202, § 14, p. 620.
§ 50-450. Deposit of absentee ballots. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-450, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 8, p. 157.
§ 50-451. Record of applications for absentee ballots. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-451, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-452. Duties of city clerk on election day. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-452, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-453. Opening and closing polls. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-453, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1987, ch. 2, § 1, p. 3; am. 1993, ch. 379, § 5, p. 1392; am. 1996, ch. 76, § 1, p. 242; am. 1998, ch. 240, § 6, p. 797.
§ 50-454. Changing polling place
Proclamation and notice. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-454, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-455. Opening ballot boxes. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-455, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-456. Judges may administer oaths
Challenge of voters. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-456, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-457. Enforcement duties of judge. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-457, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 9, p. 157.
§ 50-458. Signing combination election record and poll book
Delivery of ballot to elector. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-458, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 14, p. 164.
§ 50-459. Manner of voting. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-459, as added by 2006, ch. 105, § 10, p. 288; am. 2007, ch. 202, § 15, p. 620.
§ 50-460. Assistance to voter. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-460, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 10, p. 157; am. 2010, ch. 235, § 36, p. 542.
§ 50-461. Spoiled ballots. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-461, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-462. Officers not to divulge information. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-462, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-463. Counting of votes. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-463, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 11, p. 157; am. 1989, ch. 64, § 7, p. 101.
§ 50-464. Comparison of poll lists and ballots
Void ballots. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-464, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825; am. 1985, ch. 83, § 12, p. 157.
§ 50-465. Counting of ballots. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-465, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-466. Transmission of supplies to city clerk. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 112, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-466, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-467. Canvassing votes
Determining results of election. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-468. Tie votes. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-469. Failure to qualify creates vacancy. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-470. Certificates of elections. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-471. Application for recount of ballots. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-472. Recall elections. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-473. Initiative and referendum elections. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-474. Voting by machine or vote tally system. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2009, ch. 341, § 120, effective January 1, 2011.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-474, as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825.
§ 50-475. Election law violations. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-476. Adoption of state registration procedures
Joint registration. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-476 as added by 1978, ch. 329, § 2, p. 825, was repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 379, § 3, effective January 1, 1994.
§ 50-477. Application of campaign reporting law to elections in certain cities. [Amended and Redesignated.]
§ 50-478. Limitation of ballot access for multi-term incumbents. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised Init. Measure 1994, No. 2, § 3, p. 1371, was repealed by S.L. 2002, ch. 1, § 1.
§ 50-479. Application of persuasive poll requirements. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-479, as added by 2002, ch. 142, § 1, p. 393, was repealed by S.L. 2006, ch. 105, § 11.
Chapter 5 INITIATIVE — REFERENDUM — RECALL
Sec.
§ 50-501. Initiative and referendum. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2015, ch. 285, § 3, effective July 1, 2015. For present comparable provisions, see§ 34-1801B.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-501, as added by 1977, ch. 144, § 2, p. 320; am. 1978, ch. 343, § 1, p. 882; am. 1993, ch. 313, § 14, p. 1157; am. 1997, ch. 352, § 1, p. 1041; am. 2013, ch. 135, § 12, p. 307.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-501, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 27A, p. 1249; am. 1973, ch. 80, § 1, p. 129, was repealed by S.L. 1977, ch. 144, § 1.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49 of tit. 50.
§ 50-502 — 50-517. Recall of officers. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
These sections which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 105-117, were repealed by S.L. 1972, ch. 283, § 2, p. 703. For law relating to recall of officers see§ 34-1701 et seq.
Chapter 6 MAYOR
Sec.
§ 50-601. Qualifications.
Any person shall be eligible to hold the office of mayor who is a qualified elector of the city at the time his declaration of candidacy or declaration of intent is submitted to the city clerk and remains a qualified elector during his term of office.
The term of office of mayor shall be for a period of four (4) years except as otherwise specifically provided. He shall take office at the time and in the manner provided for installation of councilmen.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 121, p. 1249; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 15, p. 164.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49, of tit. 50.
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
CASE NOTES
Cited
City of Huetter v. Keene, 150 Idaho 13, 244 P.3d 157 (2010).
§ 50-602. Mayor, administrative official.
The mayor, except as provided in sections 50-801 through 50-812[, Idaho Code], shall be the chief administrative official of the city, preside over the meetings of the city council and determine the order of business subject to such rules as the council may prescribe, have a vote only when the council is equally divided, have the superintending control of all the officers and affairs of the city, preserve order, and take care that the ordinances of the city and provisions of this act are complied with and enforced.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 122, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Mayor may solemnize marriages,§ 32-303.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion near the beginning of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
The term “this act” near the end of the section refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Buckalew v. City of Grangeville, 100 Idaho 460, 600 P.2d 136 (1979).
§ 50-603. Messages to council.
The mayor shall, from time to time, communicate to the city council such information and recommend such measures as, in his opinion, may tend to the improvement of the finances, the protection, the health, the security, the ornament, the comfort, and the general welfare and prosperity of the city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 123, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Appointment of Special Police.
Former similar section authorized the mayor to recommend the appointment of special police, but he had no authority himself to appoint them. Moore v. Hupp, 17 Idaho 232, 105 P. 209 (1909).
§ 50-604. Special meetings of council.
The mayor shall have the power to call special meetings of the city council, the object of which shall be submitted to the council in writing; the call and object, as well as the disposition thereof, shall be entered upon the journal by the clerk.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 124, p. 1249.
§ 50-605. Accounts and reports of officers.
The mayor shall have the power, when he deems it necessary, to require any officer of the city to exhibit his accounts or other papers, and to make written reports pertaining to his office to the council.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 125, p. 1249.
§ 50-606. Police powers of mayor.
The mayor shall have such jurisdiction as may be vested in him by ordinance over all places within five (5) miles of the corporate limits of the city, for the enforcement of any health or quarantine ordinance and regulation thereof, and shall have jurisdiction in all matters vested in him by ordinance, except taxation, within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of said city and over such properties as may be owned by the city without the corporate limits.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 126, p. 1249.
§ 50-607. General powers.
The mayor shall have and exercise such powers, prerogatives and authority as is conferred by the laws of the state of Idaho or as may be conferred upon him by the city council, and shall have the power to administer oaths, and shall sign all contracts and conveyances in the name of and on behalf of the city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 127, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Mandamus.
Mandamus will lie if the officer against whom the writ is brought has a clear legal duty to perform the desired act, and if the act sought to be compelled is ministerial or executive in nature; thus, mandamus was a proper remedy to compel the mayor of a city to execute a public contract, since the signing of public contracts is authorized by this section. Utah Power & Light Co. v. Campbell, 108 Idaho 950, 703 P.2d 714 (1985).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Appointment of Policemen.
Under former similar section, mayor had no authority to appoint policemen upon his own motion or in a manner other than that provided in former section governing appointment of officers. Moore v. Hupp, 17 Idaho 232, 105 P. 209 (1909).
§ 50-608. Vacancy in office of mayor.
In case of a temporary vacancy in the office of mayor due to absence or disability, the president of the council shall exercise the office of mayor during such disability or temporary absence, and until the mayor shall return. When a vacancy occurs in the office of mayor by reason of death, resignation or permanent disability, the city council shall fill the vacancy from within or without the council as may be deemed in the best interests of the city, which appointee shall serve until the next general city election, at which election a mayor shall be elected for the full four (4) year term.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 128, p. 1249.
§ 50-609. Mayor may require aid in enforcing law.
The mayor is hereby authorized to call on every resident in the city over twenty-one (21) years of age to aid in enforcing the laws.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 129, p. 1249; am. 2006, ch. 53, § 1, p. 164.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2006 amendment, by ch. 53, substituted “resident” for “male inhabitant.”
§ 50-610. Remission of fines. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429, § 130, p. 1249, was repealed by S.L. 1970, ch. 63, § 1, p. 152, effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 11, 1971.
§ 50-611. Veto power.
The mayor shall have power to veto or sign any ordinance passed by the city council; provided, that any ordinance vetoed by the mayor may be passed over his veto by a vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council, notwithstanding the veto, and should the mayor neglect or refuse to sign any ordinance, and return the same with his objections, in writing, at the next regular meeting of the council, the same shall become law without his signature.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 131, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Right to Legislate.
Former similar section expressly conferred upon city council right to legislate on behalf of city. Such power was nowhere vested in mayor except by virtue of his veto power. Moore v. Hupp, 17 Idaho 232, 105 P. 209 (1909).
§ 50-612. Majority required for election — Runoff election.
A city may, by ordinance, provide that a majority of the votes for any candidate running for the office of mayor shall be required for election to that office. In the event no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, there shall be a runoff election between the two (2) candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast. Such runoff election shall be conducted by the county clerk as in the general election in a manner consistent with chapter 14, title 34, Idaho Code, and at such time, within thirty (30) days of the general election, as prescribed by the city and shall be exempt from the limitation upon elections provided in sections 34-106 and 50-405, Idaho Code. The ballot shall be prepared by the county clerk not less than twenty-two (22) days preceding the runoff election. The designation of polling places shall be made by the county commissioners not less than twenty (20) days preceding any runoff election and sample ballots shall be printed not less than eighteen (18) days preceding the runoff election.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-612, as added by 1985, ch. 209, § 1, p. 518; am. 1992, ch. 176, § 5, p. 553; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 16, p. 164; am. 2006, ch. 105, § 12, p. 288; am. 2009, ch. 341, § 123, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2006 amendment, by ch. 105, substituted the present last two sentences for the former last sentence which read: “The first notice of election shall be made by the city clerk not less than twenty (20) days next preceding any runoff election, and the designation of polling places shall be made by the city clerk not less than twenty (20) days next preceding any runoff election”.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, in the third sentence, inserted “by the county clerk” and “consistent with chapter 14, title 34, Idaho Code,” and updated the last section reference; in the fourth sentence, substituted “county clerk” for “city clerk”; and, in the last sentence, substituted “county commissioners” for “city clerk.”
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1985, ch. 209 declared an emergency. Approved March 21, 1985.
Section 7 of S.L. 1992, ch. 176 read: “This act shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 1994, except that the provisions of Section 6 [appropriation] of this act shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1992.”
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
Chapter 7 COUNCIL
Sec.
§ 50-701. Composition — Powers.
The legislative authority of each city in the state of Idaho, except those operating under the provisions of section [sections] 50-801 through 50-812[, Idaho Code,] shall be vested in a council consisting of either four (4) or six (6) members, one half (1/2) of whom shall be elected at each general city election. Councils shall have such powers and duties as are now or may hereafter be provided under the general laws of the state of Idaho.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 132, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Annual appropriations,§ 50-1003.
Annual audit of city finances,§ 50-1010.
Annual budget,§ 50-1002.
Certification of taxes to be collected by tax collector,§ 50-1007.
No power to draw on funds without appropriation,§ 50-1006.
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1-46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49, of tit. 50.
Compiler’s Notes.
The first bracketed insertion in the section was added by the compiler to correct the enacting legislation.
The second bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Federated Publications, Inc. v. Boise City, 128 Idaho 459, 915 P.2d 21 (1996).
§ 50-702. Qualification of councilmen — Terms — Installation.
Any person shall be eligible to hold the office of councilman of his city who is a qualified elector at the time his declaration of candidacy or declaration of intent is submitted to the city clerk, and remains a qualified elector under the constitution and laws of the state of Idaho. Each councilman elected at a general city election, except as otherwise specifically provided, shall hold office for a term of four (4) years, and until his successor is elected and qualified. Councilmen elected at each general city election shall be installed at the first meeting in January following election. The manner of conducting that meeting shall be as herein set forth and not otherwise: the incumbents shall meet and conduct such business as may be necessary to conclude the fiscal matters of the preceding year; the newly elected shall then subscribe to the oath of office, be presented certificates of election, assume the duties of their position, and conduct such business as may be necessary, one (1) item of which shall be the election of a member as president of the council.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 133, p. 1249; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 17, p. 164.
CASE NOTES
Cited
City of Huetter v. Keene, 150 Idaho 13, 244 P.3d 157 (2010).
§ 50-703. Change in number of councilmen.
-
Any city may change to the greater or lesser number of councilmen after an election instituted by resolution of the council or by petition as provided for initiative in chapter 18, title 34, Idaho Code. When the proposition submitted to the electors shall receive a favorable vote, officials shall be elected at the succeeding general city election, provided however, that should such election be conducted in a year when no general city election is to be held, such new positions shall be filled by appointment within thirty (30) days.
- When the number of councilmen to be elected is to be reduced from six (6) to four (4), there shall be elected one (1) councilman to serve a term of four (4) years. At the next succeeding general city election, there shall be elected two (2) councilmen, each to serve a term of four (4) years, and one (1) councilman to serve a term of two (2) years.
- When the number of councilmen to be elected is to be increased from four (4) to six (6), there shall be elected three (3) councilmen, each to serve a term of four (4) years, and one (1) councilman to serve a term of two (2) years.
-
Any city operating under the city manager form of government may change to the greater or lesser number of councilmen after an election instituted under subsection (1).
-
When the number of councilmen to be elected is to be reduced from seven (7) to five (5):
- If there are four (4) councilmen up for election at the next general city election, there shall be elected two (2) councilmen, each to serve a term of four (4) years.
- If there are three (3) councilmen up for election at the next general city election, there shall be elected one (1) councilman, to serve a term of four (4) years. At the next succeeding general city election, there shall be elected three (3) councilmen, each to serve a term of four (4) years, and one (1) councilman to serve a term of two (2) years.
-
When the number of councilmen to be elected is to be increased from five (5) to seven (7):
- If there are two (2) councilmen up for election at the next general city election, there shall be elected four (4) councilmen, each to serve a term of four (4) years.
- If there are three (3) councilmen up for election at the next general city election, there shall be elected four (4) councilmen, each to serve a term of four (4) years, and one (1) councilman to serve a term of two (2) years.
-
When the number of councilmen to be elected is to be reduced from seven (7) to five (5):
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 134, p. 1249; am. 1972, ch. 16, § 1, p. 21; am. 2018, ch. 169, § 17, p. 344.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Amendments.
The 2018 amendment, by ch. 169, redesignated former subsections A. and B. as subsections (1) and (2), and in subsection (2), redesignated former paragraphs (a)1. and (a)2. as paragraphs (a)(i) and (a)(ii) and paragraphs (b)1. and (b)2. as paragraphs (b)(i) and (b)(ii); and substituted “chapter 18, title 34, Idaho Code” for “sections 50-502 through 50-517, Idaho Code, such election to be held not less than sixty (60) days before any general city election” in the introductory paragraph of subsection (1).
§ 50-704. Vacancies — Appointment.
A vacancy on the council shall be filled by appointment made by the mayor with the consent of the council, which appointee shall serve only until the next general city election, at which such vacancy shall be filled for the balance of the original term.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 135, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Disclosure of Names and Resumes of Applicants.
Because a member of a city council is a local governmental official, not an employee, the name and resume of an applicant to be appointed to a city council are not exempt from disclosure; city was required to disclose names and resumes of applicants for city council to publisher requesting records. Federated Publications, Inc. v. Boise City, 128 Idaho 459, 915 P.2d 21 (1996).
§ 50-705. Meetings of council — Quorum — Discipline.
Regular meetings of the city council shall be held each month at such place and times as the council may establish by ordinance. At all meetings of the council a majority of the full council shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business; unless otherwise provided by law, a question before the council shall be decided by a majority of the members present.
For the purpose of holding regular or special meetings a number less than a majority may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as the council may, by ordinance, have previously prescribed. Regular or special meetings of the council may be recessed until further notice.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 136, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
§ 50-706. Special meetings of council.
One half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council shall have the power to call special meetings of the city council, the object of which shall be submitted to the council in writing; the call and object, as well as the disposition thereof, shall be entered upon the journal of the clerk.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 137, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Buckalew v. City of Grangeville, 97 Idaho 168, 540 P.2d 1347 (1975).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Entry on journal.
Notice.
Entry on Journal.
Entry made by city clerk upon journal at special meeting setting forth that call for special meeting was made and its object and action taken by council at such meeting was sufficient compliance with former similar section. Gale v. City of Moscow, 15 Idaho 332, 97 P. 828 (1908).
Notice.
Where there was a special meeting of city council and mayor and all councilmen except one were present, any business could have been transacted that did not incur an indebtedness, although call for meeting was not made in writing as required by former similar section. Sommercamp v. Kelly, 8 Idaho 712, 71 P. 147 (1902).
Former similar section evidently contemplated that all members of the council could have been found within the city. It was unnecessary to give notice to a member of a special meeting when he was at the time absent from the state or county and could not be notified of the time, and, if notified, could not reach the place of meeting in time for the meeting. Gale v. City of Moscow, 15 Idaho 332, 97 P. 828 (1908).
Former similar section did not require a written notice to be served on the members of the council. It did require that the object of the meeting should have been submitted to the council in writing. Gale v. City of Moscow, 15 Idaho 332, 97 P. 828 (1908).
§ 50-707. Assignment of council seats.
Any city, by ordinance, may assign a number to each council seat. Upon the adoption of such an ordinance, and at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the next general election, the city clerk shall assign a number for each council seat. Any candidate seeking election to the council shall file for one (1) of the assigned council seats.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-707, as added by 1984, ch. 108, § 1, p. 250.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-707, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429, § 138, p. 1249, was repealed by S.L. 1969, ch. 255, § 6.
§ 50-707A. Election of councilmen by districts.
- Any city having fewer than one hundred thousand (100,000) inhabitants based upon the most recent federal decennial census may, by ordinance, provide for districts and the election of councilmen by districts. Upon the adoption of such an ordinance and at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to each general election, the governing body of the city shall establish the territory of council districts in accordance with this section. Any city having more than one hundred thousand (100,000) inhabitants based upon the most recent federal decennial census shall establish districts and shall elect councilmen by districts for districts so established. Districts shall be established no later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the general election following the date that election precincts are established pursuant to the provisions of section 34-301, Idaho Code.
- Each district shall consist of one (1) or more contiguous election precincts as established pursuant to the provisions of chapter 3, title 34, Idaho Code, and each district shall, to the nearest extent possible, contain the same number of people based upon the most recent federal decennial census.
- Each city establishing districts for the election of councilmen by districts shall establish the number of districts corresponding to the number of council seats determined by the city pursuant to section 50-701, Idaho Code, or for any city having a governing body governed by the provisions of sections 50-801 through 50-812, Idaho Code, the number of council seats determined by the city pursuant to section 50-805, Idaho Code.
- Upon establishment of city election districts, council members are to be elected by the electors of the said geographic district, and any candidate must be a resident of said geographic district. For cities with fewer than one hundred thousand (100,000) inhabitants that establish districts by ordinance, the council shall determine, not less than ninety (90) days before the next general election, the method of the implementation of this ordinance.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-707A, as added by 1984, ch. 108, § 2, p. 250; am. 2020, ch. 269, § 1, p. 781.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2020 amendment, by ch. 269, rewrote the section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.
§ 50-707B. Majority may be required for election — Runoff election.
A city may, by ordinance, provide that a majority of the votes for any candidate running for a council seat adopted by a city in accordance with section 50-707 or 50-707A, Idaho Code, shall be required for election to that office. In the event no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, there shall be a runoff election between the two (2) candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast. Such runoff election shall be conducted by the county clerk as in the general election in a manner consistent with chapter 14, title 34, Idaho Code, and at such time within thirty (30) days of the general election, as prescribed by the city and shall be exempt from the limitation upon elections provided in sections 34-106 and 50-405, Idaho Code. The ballot shall be prepared by the county clerk not less than twenty-two (22) days preceding the runoff election. The designation of polling places shall be made by the county commissioners not less than twenty (20) days preceding any runoff election, and sample ballots shall be printed not less than eighteen (18) days preceding the runoff election.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-707B, as added by 1984, ch. 108, § 3, p. 250; am. 2002, ch. 75, § 18, p. 164; am. 2006, ch. 105, § 13, p. 288; am. 2009, ch. 341, § 124, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2006 amendment, by ch. 105, substituted “shall be required” for “may be required” in the first sentence, and substituted the present last two sentences for the former last sentence which read: “The first notice of election shall be made by the city clerk not less than twenty (20) days next preceding any runoff election, and the designation of polling places shall be made by the city clerk not less than twenty (20) days next preceding any runoff election.”
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, in the third sentence, inserted “by the county clerk” and “consistent with chapter 14, title 34, Idaho Code,” and updated the last section reference; in the fourth sentence, substituted “county clerk” for “city clerk”; and, in the last sentence, substituted “county commissioners” for “city clerk.”
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-708. Examination of accounts of fiscal officers.
At least once in each quarter of each year, the council shall examine by review of a quarterly treasurer’s report included upon the city council agenda the accounts and doings subject to management by the chief financial officer of the city. Such report shall be completed no more than thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter and shall then be transmitted to the city clerk for inclusion on the next available city council agenda.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 139, p. 1249; am. 2017, ch. 129, § 2, p. 303.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2017 amendment, by ch. 129, rewrote the section, which formerly read: “At least once in each quarter of each year, the council shall examine, either in open session or by committee, the accounts and doings of all officers or other persons having the care, management or disposition of moneys, property or business of the city”.
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 4 of S.L. 2017, ch. 129 provided: “Severability. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act”.
Chapter 8 COUNCIL-MANAGER PLAN
Sec.
§ 50-801. Cities may adopt plan.
Any city within the state of Idaho, organized under the general laws of the state, special chapter, or a general incorporation act, may adopt the council-manager plan of government by proceedings as herein provided.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 140, p. 1249; am. 1984, ch. 156, § 1, p. 381.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49, of tit. 50.
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
§ 50-802. Instituting election, petition — Resolution.
Procedure for instituting a special election on adoption of the council-manager plans shall be by petition of electors as provided for initiative in section 34-1801B, Idaho Code, or by resolution passed by one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 141, p. 1249; am. 1984, ch. 156, § 2, p. 381; am. 2015, ch. 285, § 4, p. 1155.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2015 amendment, by ch. 285, substituted “section 34-1801B” for “section 50-501”.
§ 50-803. Time for holding special election on proposition.
Within ten (10) days after the filing of such petition or resolution with the city clerk, the mayor shall, by proclamation, establish a date for holding a special election on the question of adopting the council-manager plan, such date to be determined as follows:
- When the petition or resolution is filed with the city clerk during a year when no general city election is to be held, such election shall be held on the date authorized in section 34-106, Idaho Code, that is nearest to but not less than sixty (60) days following filing of such petition or resolution;
- When the petition or resolution is filed with the city clerk during a year when a general city election is to be held, such election shall be held on the date for holding general city elections.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 142, p. 1249; am. 1984, ch. 156, § 3, p. 381; am. 2009, ch. 341, § 125, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, in subsection (1), substituted “shall be held on the date authorized in section 34-106, Idaho Code, that is nearest to but not less than sixty (60) days following filing” for “shall be held within sixty (60) days following filing”; and, in subsection (2), substituted “shall be held on the date” for “shall be held not less than sixty (60) days prior to the date.”
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-804. Proposition to be voted.
At such election the proposition to be submitted to the electors shall be: “Shall the City of . . . . adopt the council-manager plan of government, as set forth in sections 50-801 through 50-812, Idaho Code?”
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 143, p. 1249; am. 1984, ch. 156, § 4, p. 381.
§ 50-805. Governing body — Size.
The governing body of any city governed by the provisions of sections 50-801 through 50-812[, Idaho Code,] shall consist of five (5) or seven (7) councilmen. Should the proposition be adopted under section 50-804[, Idaho Code], the governing body shall consist of a council equal in number to the councilmen plus the mayor under the existing form of government, unless subsequently changed as provided by section 50-703[, Idaho Code].
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 144, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertions in three places were added by the compiler to conform to correct the statutory citation style.
§ 50-806. Election of officials following adoption — Determining successful candidates — Designation of seats.
- When the proposition is submitted to the electors under section 50-803(1), Idaho Code, officials shall be elected at the same election during which the proposition is submitted to the voters; when the proposition submitted to the electors under subsection (2) of section 50-803, Idaho Code, officials shall be elected at the same general city election. If any proposition submitted to the electors under section 50-803, Idaho Code, fails to receive a favorable vote, the election of officials at the same election shall be declared null and void.
- By ordinance, the city may assign a number to each council seat. In that event candidates will file for a designated seat and the candidate receiving the largest number of votes for the seat he has filed for shall be declared elected.
Determination of successful candidates at either a special or general election shall be as herein provided: A. When the council is to consist of five (5) members, the three (3) receiving the largest number of votes shall be declared elected to serve four (4) year terms or so much thereof as remains, and two (2) to serve two (2) year terms or so much thereof as remains; B. When the council is to consist of seven (7) members, the four (4) receiving the largest number of votes shall be declared elected to serve four (4) year terms or so much thereof as remains, and three (3) to serve two (2) year terms or so much thereof as remains. At each general city election thereafter, councilmen shall be elected to fill the unexpired terms.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 145, p. 1249; am. 1981, ch. 158, § 1, p. 270; am. 2009, ch. 341, § 126, p. 993.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, rewrote the first paragraph in subsection (1), which formerly read: “When the proposition submitted to the electors under section 50-803, subsection (1), Idaho Code, received a favorable vote, officials shall be elected at a special election, called for that purpose, to be held not more than sixty (60) days following the date on which the proposition was submitted to the voters; when the proposition submitted to the electors under subsection (2) received a favorable vote, officials shall be elected at the succeeding general city election.”
Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
§ 50-807. Effective date following adoption of plan.
The effective date of the council-manager plan shall be not more than seventy-five (75) days following the election of officials, to be determined by the incumbent council.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 146, p. 1249; am. 1984, ch. 156, § 5, p. 381.
§ 50-808. Powers — Duties of the council.
The council shall have all powers delegated under general law, appoint a chief administrative officer to be known as the city manager, and confirm all appointments of department heads made by the city manager.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 147, p. 1249.
§ 50-809. Mayor.
- At the time of installing and swearing in the councilmen following each general city election, or special election called for the purpose of electing officials, the council shall elect one (1) of their members to be designated the mayor. He shall serve for a period of two (2) years unless sooner removed by the council or becomes disqualified.
- By ordinance, a city may provide for the direct election of the mayor by the voters. When direct election is permitted, the mayor’s position on the ballot shall replace that of one (1) councilman. Prior to the opening of the filing for candidacy for mayor, the term of the direct elected mayor shall be designated, by ordinance, as two (2) years or four (4) years. The direct elected mayor shall have no changes in his powers as defined in section 50-810, Idaho Code.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 148, p. 1249; am. 1975, ch. 203, § 1, p. 564.
§ 50-810. Powers of the mayor.
The mayor shall preside at the meetings of the council and perform such other duties consistent with his office as may be imposed by the council. He shall be entitled to a vote on all matters coming before the council, but shall possess no veto power. He shall be recognized as the official head of the city for all ceremonial purposes, by the courts of [for] the purposes of serving civil processes, and by the governor for military purpose. He may use the title of mayor in any case in which the execution of contracts or other legal instruments in writing, or other necessity arising from the general laws of this state may so require, but this shall not be construed as conferring upon him administrative powers or functions of a mayor under the general laws of the state.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 149, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion in the third sentence was added by the compiler to correct the enacting legislation.
§ 50-811. City manager — Duties.
The council shall appoint a city manager to be the administrative head of the city government under the direction and supervision of such council and who shall hold office at the pleasure of the majority of the members thereof. Before entering upon the duties of his office, such city manager shall take the official oath for the support of the government and the faithful performance of his duties, and shall execute a bond in favor of the city in such sum as may be fixed by the council. He shall:
- Have general supervision over the business of the city.
- See that the ordinances and policies of the city are complied with and faithfully executed.
- Attend all meetings of the council at which his attendance is required by that body.
- Recommend for adoption to the council such measures as he may deem necessary or expedient.
- Make the appointment of all department heads, subject to such civil service regulations as may relate thereto.
- Prepare and submit to the council such reports as may be required by that body, or as he may deem advisable.
- Keep the council fully advised of the financial condition of the city and its future needs.
- Prepare and submit to the council a tentative budget for the next fiscal year.
- Perform such other duties as the council may establish by ordinance or resolution.
- Possess such powers as are vested in the mayor as provided in section 50-606[, Idaho Code].
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 150, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion at the end of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
CASE NOTES
Policy Decisions.
The decision to file a lawsuit is not a ministerial or administrative decision but is a policy decision that must be made by the governing board pursuant to the open meeting laws, and the city manager is appointed by the city council as the administrative head of the city government under the direction and supervision of such council, not as the city’s policymaker. City of McCall v. Buxton, 146 Idaho 656, 201 P.3d 629 (2009).
§ 50-812. Discontinuance of council-manager plan — Proposition to be voted.
Any city which shall have operated for more than six (6) years under the provisions of sections 50-801 through 50-812, Idaho Code, may resume operation under sections 50-601 through 50-708, Idaho Code, by proceedings held as sections 50-801 through 50-812, Idaho Code, provide for adoption of the council-manager plan. The proposition to be submitted shall be: “Shall the City of . . . . retain its organization under the “council-manager plan’ ?”
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 151, p. 1249; am. 1984, ch. 156, § 6, p. 381.
§ 50-813. Calculation for number of required signatures.
In cases where a city is operating under the council-manager plan, if there is no direct mayoral election, and a statute provides for petitions or elections based upon the total number of votes cast for mayor at the last preceding city election, the calculation of signatures or votes necessary under state law shall be based upon the total number of votes cast for the city councilman who received the highest number of votes at the last preceding city election.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-813, as added by 1978, ch. 257, § 1, p. 562; am. 1984, ch. 156, § 7, p. 381.
Chapter 9 ORDINANCES — CITY CODE — RECORDS
Sec.
§ 50-901. Ordinances — Style — Publication — When effective — Immediate operation in emergencies.
The style of all ordinances shall be: “Be it ordained by the mayor and council of the city of .........” and all ordinances of a general nature, unless otherwise required by law, shall, before they take effect and within one (1) month after they are passed, be published in full or by summary as provided in section 50-901A, Idaho Code, in at least one (1) issue of the official newspaper of the city, or mailed as provided in section 60-109A, Idaho Code; provided, however, that in cases of riot, infections or contagious disease, or other impending danger requiring immediate enforcement, such ordinances shall take effect upon the proclamation of the mayor or president of the council, posted in at least five (5) public places of the city; provided further, that nationally recognized codes such as, but not limited to, those establishing rules and regulations for the construction, alteration or repair of buildings, the installation of plumbing, the installation of electric wiring, fire prevention, gas piping installations, sanitary regulations, health measures, and statutes of the state of Idaho such as, but not limited to, those relating to the operation of motor vehicles, equipment of motor vehicles, traffic control devices, motor vehicle laws, liquor and beer laws, housing, construction, health and sanitation, may be adopted by a city council without including more than a particular reference to such code, and without publication or posting thereof, if adoption of such code be made in a regularly adopted and published ordinance; provided further, that at least one (1) copy of the supplemental code, duly certified by the city clerk, shall have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the clerk of the city prior to the adoption of the ordinance by the city council. Following its adoption by the city, one (1) copy of the supplemental code shall be retained by the city, which shall be filed in the office of the city clerk.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 152, p. 1249; am. 1971, ch. 9, § 1, p. 20; am. 1979, ch. 19, § 1, p. 29; am. 1981, ch. 145, § 1, p. 249; am. 1982, ch. 66, § 1, p. 130; am. 2001, ch. 156, § 1, p. 563.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Open public meetings,§§ 74-201 et seq.
General power to enact ordinances,§ 50-302.
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49, of tit. 50.
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
Section 2 of S.L. 1971, ch. 9, provided that the act should be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1971.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Style.
Provision relating to style was directory and enacting clause of the village ordinance as follows: “Be it ordained by the town of Post Falls,” was sufficient, as such enacting clause indicated intention and declaration of village to legislate. Best v. Broadhead, 18 Idaho 11, 18 Idaho 16, 108 P. 333 (1909).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
Construction and application of ordinances relating to unrestrained dogs, cats, or other domesticated animals. 1 A.L.R.4th 994.
Validity and construction of statute or ordinance establishing rent control benefit or rent subsidy for elderly tenants. 5 A.L.R.4th 922.
Right of municipal corporation to review of unfavorable decision in action or prosecution for violation of ordinance, modern status. 11 A.L.R.4th 399.
Construction of provisions of statute or ordinance governing occasion, time or manner of summary destruction of domestic animals by public authorities. 46 A.L.R.4th 839.
Validity and construction of statute, ordinance, or regulation applying to specific dog breeds, such as pit bulls or bull terriers. 80 A.L.R.4th 70.
§ 50-901A. Summarization of ordinances permitted — Requirements.
-
In lieu of publishing the entire ordinance under section 50-901, Idaho Code, the city may publish a summary of the ordinance which summary shall be approved by the governing body and which shall include:
- The name of the city;
- The formal identification or citation number of the ordinance;
- A descriptive title;
- A summary of the principal provisions of the ordinance, including penalties provided and the effective date;
- Any other information necessary to provide an accurate summary; and
- A statement that the full text is available at the city hall.
- Subsection (1) of this section notwithstanding, whenever any publication is made under this section and the proposed or adopted ordinance contains legal descriptions, or contains provisions regarding taxation or penalties concerning real property, then the sections containing this matter shall be published in full and shall not be summarized. When a legal description of real property is involved, the notice shall also include the street address or addresses of the property described, if any. In the case of descriptions covering one or more street addresses, the street addresses of the corners of the area described shall meet this requirement. Maps may be substituted for written legal description of property provided they contain sufficient detail to clearly define the area with which the ordinance is concerned.
- Before submission of a summary to a newspaper for publication under this section, the legal advisor of the city shall sign a statement, which shall be filed with the ordinance, that the summary is true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public.
- The full text of any ordinance which is summarized by publication under this section shall be promptly provided by the city clerk to any citizen on personal request.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-901A, as added by 1979, ch. 19, § 2, p. 29; am. 1981, ch. 145, § 2, p. 249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 1981, ch. 145 declared an emergency. Approved March 27, 1981.
§ 50-902. Passage of ordinances.
The passage or adoption of every ordinance, and every resolution or order to enter a contract shall be by roll call of the council with the yea or nay of each being recorded, and to pass or adopt any ordinance or any such resolution or order, a majority of the council shall be required.
Ordinances shall be read on three (3) different days, two (2) readings of which may be by title only and one (1) reading of which shall be in full, unless one half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council shall dispense with the rule. In preparation, passage and publication, ordinances shall contain no subject which shall not be clearly expressed in the title, and no ordinance or section thereof shall be revised or amended unless all ordinances, which are intended to amend existing ordinances, shall have the words which are added to such ordinance underlined; when the amendment is to strike out or repeal any part of an existing ordinance, the letter, figure, word or words stricken or repealed shall be printed with a line through such letter, figure, word or words in the printed bill to indicate the part stricken or repealed. Provided, however, that when an ordinance includes or consists of the repeal of an entire section or chapter, it shall not be necessary to print such repealed section or chapter.
All ordinances may be proved by a certificate of the clerk under the seal of the city and when printed or published individually in book or pamphlet form by authority of the city, shall be read and received in evidence in all courts and places without further proof.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 153, p. 1249; am. 1972, ch. 18, § 1, p. 24.
CASE NOTES
Judicial notice.
Resolution.
Judicial Notice.
Existence of an ordinance relevant to adjudication of a dispute is a question well-suited to the application of I.R.E. 201, and if an ordinance’s existence is not reasonably in dispute because it is generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, then it may be accepted as evidence by judicial notice. Doe v. Doe, 146 Idaho 386, 195 P.3d 745 (Ct. App. 2008).
Resolution.
Cited
The clerk of the city council testified that a motion authorizing the lease of former hospital to state for use as correctional facility was presented at the December 20, 1989, meeting of the city council and that the city council took a final vote at that time. The trial court concluded that the oral motion made and passed by the city council amounted, in substance, to a “resolution” within the meaning of this section prior to execution of the lease. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the copy of the resolution into evidence. Foster v. City of St. Anthony, 122 Idaho 883, 841 P.2d 413 (1992). Cited Black v. Young, 122 Idaho 302, 834 P.2d 304 (1992).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Amendments.
Ratification of contracts.
Repeals.
Titles.
Amendments.
Amendatory ordinance which purported to amend ordinance by inserting therein particular language without indicating where such insertion shall be made, or containing entire ordinance as amended, or particular section amended, was void. Best v. Broadhead, 18 Idaho 11, 18 Idaho 16, 108 P. 333 (1909).
Ratification of contracts.
Contract made by city council in an emergency without full compliance with former similar section was held to have been ratified by later allowance of claim thereon. Rice v. Gwinn, 5 Idaho 394, 49 P. 412 (1897).
Repeals.
Ordinance could be repealed only in pursuance of same method required for its enactment. Beem v. Davis, 31 Idaho 730, 175 P. 959 (1918).
Titles.
It was sufficient if title in its general scope clearly expressed object and purpose of such ordinance. Village of St. Anthony v. Brandon, 10 Idaho 205, 77 P. 322 (1904); Best v. Broadhead, 18 Idaho 11, 18 Idaho 16, 108 P. 335 (1909).
Title of ordinance was held sufficient. Clyde v. City of Moscow, 23 Idaho 592, 131 P. 381 (1913).
§ 50-903. Grant of power.
Any city is hereby empowered to revise, codify, and compile from time to time and to publish in book or pamphlet form all ordinances of such city of a general and permanent nature and to make such changes, alterations, modifications, additions and substitutions therein as it may deem best to the end that a complete simplified code of such ordinances then in force shall be presented, but with errors, inconsistencies, repetitions and ambiguities therein eliminated.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 154, p. 1249.
§ 50-904. Arrangement of ordinances.
The ordinances in such revision, codification and compilation shall be arranged in appropriate chapters, articles and sections, excluding the titles, enacting clauses, signatures of the mayor, attestations and other formal parts.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 155, p. 1249.
§ 50-905. Repeal of conflicting provisions.
Such revision shall be by one (1) ordinance embracing all ordinances of a general and permanent nature preserved as changed or added to and perfected by such revision, codification and compilation and shall be a repeal of all ordinances in conflict with such revision, codification and compilation, but all ordinances then in force shall continue in force after such revision, codification and compilation for the purpose of all rights acquired, fines, penalties and forfeitures and liabilities incurred and actions therefor. The only title necessary for such ordinance shall be “An ordinance for revising, codifying and compiling the general ordinances of the city of . . . . . ..”
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 156, p. 1249.
§ 50-906. Publication in book or pamphlet form.
Such ordinances when so revised, codified, compiled and published in book or pamphlet form by authority of the city need not be printed or published in any other manner.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 157, p. 1249.
§ 50-907. Classification and retention of municipal records.
-
“Permanent records” shall consist of:
- Adopted meeting minutes of the city council and city boards and commissions;
- Ordinances and resolutions;
- Building plans and specifications for commercial projects and government buildings;
- Fiscal year-end financial reports;
- Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon;
- Cemetery records of lot ownership, headstone inscriptions, interment, exhumation and removal records, and cemetery maps, plot plans and surveys;
- Poll books, excluding optional duplicate poll books used to record that the elector has voted, tally books, sample ballots, campaign finance reports, declarations of candidacy, declarations of intent, and notices of election; and
- Other documents or records as may be deemed of permanent nature by the city council.
-
“Semipermanent records” shall consist of:
- Claims, canceled checks, warrants, duplicate warrants, purchase orders, vouchers, duplicate receipts, utility and other financial records;
- Contracts;
- Building applications for commercial projects and government buildings;
- License applications;
- Departmental reports;
- Bonds and coupons; and
- Other documents or records as may be deemed of semipermanent nature by the city council.
-
“Temporary records” shall consist of:
- Building applications, plans, and specifications for noncommercial and nongovernment projects after the structure or project receives final inspection and approval;
- Cash receipts subject to audit;
- Election ballots and duplicate poll books; and
- Other documents or records as may be deemed of temporary nature by the city council.
- “Historical records” shall consist of records which, due to age or cultural significance, are themselves artifacts of historical value. Historical records have enduring value based on the administrative, legal, fiscal, evidential or historical information they contain. Historical records shall be retained by the city in perpetuity or may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society’s permanent records repository pursuant to subsections 8. and 9. of section 67-4126, Idaho Code, upon resolution of the city council.
- Each city council shall adopt by resolution a records retention schedule, listing the various types of city records and the retention period for each type of record.
-
The city may reproduce, retain and manage records in a photographic, digital or other nonpaper medium. The medium in which a document is retained shall accurately reproduce the record in paper form during the period for which the document must be retained and shall preclude unauthorized alteration of the document.
- If the medium chosen for retention is photographic, all film used must meet the quality standards of the American national standards institute (ANSI).
- If the medium chosen for retention is digital, the medium must provide for reproduction on paper at a resolution of at least two hundred (200) dots per inch.
- A record retained by the city in any form or medium permitted under this section shall be deemed an original public record for all purposes. A reproduction or copy of such record, certified by the city clerk, shall be deemed to be a transcript or certified copy of the original and shall be admissible before any court or administrative hearing.
-
Once a semipermanent or temporary record is retained in a nonpaper medium as authorized by this section:
- The original paper document shall be considered a duplicate of the record, and may be summarily disposed of or returned to the sender; and
- The provisions of this section related to retention and destruction of semipermanent and temporary records shall apply only to the record retained in the nonpaper medium.
-
Once a permanent record is retained in a nonpaper medium as authorized by this section:
- The original paper document shall be considered a copy of the record and may be destroyed after compliance with the provisions of this subparagraph. Prior to destruction of original paper documents, the city clerk shall provide written notice, either by electronic or physical delivery, including a detailed list of the documents proposed for destruction to the Idaho state historical society. The Idaho state historical society shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice to review the list and respond in writing, either by electronic or physical delivery, to the city clerk identifying any documents that will be requested to be transferred from the city to the historical society for retention in the permanent records repository. Any documents that will not be transferred for retention in the permanent records repository may be destroyed. If the city clerk receives no written response within thirty (30) days after the notice was received by the historical society, then the records proposed for destruction may be destroyed.
- The provisions of this section related to retention of permanent records shall only apply to the record retained in the nonpaper medium.
- Even if a historic record is retained in a nonpaper medium as authorized by this section, the original paper record shall also be retained by the city in perpetuity, or it may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society’s permanent records repository upon resolution of the city council.
- Whenever any record is retained in a nonpaper medium, the city clerk shall maintain, throughout the scheduled retention period for such record, suitable equipment for displaying such record at not less than original size and for making copies of the record.
- Whenever any record is retained in a nonpaper medium, it shall be made in duplicate and the custodian thereof shall place one (1) copy in a fire-resistant vault or off-site storage facility, and he shall retain the other copy in his office with suitable equipment for displaying such record at not less than original size and for making copies of the record. (7) Destruction or transfer of records:
- a Permanent records shall not be destroyed, except for paper originals of permanent records retained in a nonpaper medium as provided in subsection (6(e of this section. Permanent records may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society’s permanent records repository upon resolution of the city council.
Permanent records shall be retained by the city in perpetuity, or may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society’s permanent records repository upon resolution of the city council.
Semipermanent records shall be kept for not less than five (5) years after the date of issuance or completion of the matter contained within the record.
Temporary records shall be retained for not less than two (2) years, but in no event shall financial records be destroyed until completion of the city’s financial audit as provided in section 67-450B, Idaho Code.
(b) Semipermanent records may be destroyed only by resolution of the city council and upon the advice of the city attorney, except for paper originals of semipermanent records retained in a nonpaper medium as provided in subsection (6)(d) of this section. Such disposition shall be under the direction and supervision of the city clerk. The resolution ordering destruction shall list in detail records to be destroyed.
(c) Temporary records may be destroyed only by resolution of the city council and upon the advice of the city attorney, except for paper originals of temporary records retained in a nonpaper medium as provided in subsection (6)(d) of this section. Such disposition shall be under the direction and supervision of the city clerk. The resolution ordering destruction shall list in detail records to be destroyed.
(d) Historical records may not be destroyed but may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society’s permanent records repository upon resolution of the city council.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-907, as added by 2005, ch. 41, § 2, p. 163; am. 2016, ch. 226, § 1, p. 621.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
State historical society,§ 67-4113.
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-907, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 158, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 50, § 1, p. 150, was repealed by S.L. 2005, ch. 41, § 1.
Amendments.
The 2016 amendment, by ch. 226, rewrote subsection (4), which formerly read: “Semipermanent and temporary records may only be destroyed by resolution of the city council, and upon the advice of the city attorney. Such disposition shall be under the direction and supervision of the city clerk. The resolution ordering destruction shall list in detail records to be destroyed. Prior to destruction of semipermanent records, the city clerk shall provide written notice, including a detailed list of the semipermanent records proposed for destruction, to the Idaho state historical society thirty (30) days prior to the destruction of any records”; in subsection (5), deleted “Prior to January 1, 2007” at the beginning and added subsections (6) and (7), picking up much of what had been codified in former subsection (4).
Compiler’s Notes.
For further information on standards of the American national standards institute, referred to in paragraph (6)(a), see https://www.ansi.org .
§ 50-908. Designation, powers and responsibilities of municipal records management officers — Duties of city officials concerning records.
-
The city clerk shall serve as the municipal records manager in each city, and each department may designate a department records manager who reports to the city clerk. The municipal records manager shall supervise the administration of city records, including:
- Ensuring the orderly and efficient management of municipal records in compliance with state and federal statutes and regulations and city ordinances, resolutions and policies;
- Identification and appropriate administration of records of enduring value for historical or other research;
- Overseeing retention and destruction of municipal records as directed by state and federal statutes and regulations and city ordinances, resolutions and policies; and
- Coordinating transfer of permanent records to the Idaho state historical society’s permanent records repository, with the assistance of the state archivist.
-
All city officials, elected, appointed and staff, shall:
- Protect the records in their custody;
- Cooperate with the municipal records manager on the orderly and efficient management of records including identification and management of inactive records and identification and preservation of records of enduring value; and
- Pass on to their successor records necessary for the continuing conduct of city business.
All city records are property of the city, and no city official, elected, appointed or staff, shall have any personal or property right to such records even though he or she may have developed or compiled them. The unauthorized destruction or removal of city records is prohibited.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-908, as added by 2005, ch. 41, § 3, p. 163.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
State historical society,§ 67-4113.
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-908, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 159, p. 1249; am. 1997, ch. 143, § 1, p. 415, was repealed by S.L. 2005, ch. 41, § 1.
Compiler’s Notes.
The reference to the state archivist, at the end of paragraph (1)(d), is to the state archives administrator at the Idaho state historical society. See https://history.idaho.gov/idaho-state-archives .
§ 50-909. Retention of city records using photographic and digital media. [Repealed.]
Repealed by S.L. 2016, ch. 226, § 2, effective July 1, 2016. For present comparable provisions, see§ 50-907.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-909, as added by 2005, ch. 41, § 4, p. 163; am. 2009, ch. 11, § 20, p. 14.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-909, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 160, p. 1249, was repealed by S.L. 2005, ch. 41, § 1.
Chapter 10 FINANCES
Sec.
§ 50-1001. Fiscal year.
The fiscal year of each city shall commence on the first day of October.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 161, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 45, § 1, p. 122.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49, of tit. 50.
Compiler’s Notes.
“Transitional budget and levy.
“The budget adopted by the county commissioners in each of the counties in the state of Idaho during the week of the second Monday in February 1977 shall provide for a fiscal year from the second Monday in January to September 30, 1977. The levy certified on the second Monday of September, 1977 shall be based only upon either said budget and include an estimate of expenditures for an additional three month period, October 1 through December 31, 1977 or upon a budget adopted for the fiscal year October 1, 1977 through September 30, 1978.
“Prior to October 1, 1977 and every year thereafter, all cities and counties in the state of Idaho shall adopt a budget for the ensuing fiscal year, October 1 through September 30.”
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Change in Payment Time.
Change in time of payment of taxes did not deprive city of amount of taxes levied for fiscal year, even though such taxes were not collected during fiscal year for which they were levied. Wycoff v. Strong, 26 Idaho 502, 144 P. 341 (1914).
§ 50-1002. Annual budget.
The city council of each city shall, prior to passing the annual appropriation ordinance, prepare a budget, estimating the probable amount of money necessary for all purposes for which an appropriation is to be made, including interest and principal due on the bonded debt and sinking fund, itemizing and classifying the proposed expenditures by department, fund or service, as nearly as may be practicable, and specifying any fund balances accumulated under section 50-1005A, Idaho Code. To support such proposed expenditure, the council shall prepare an estimate of the total revenue anticipated during the ensuing fiscal year for which a budget is being prepared classifying such receipts by source as nearly as may be possible and practicable, said estimate to include any surplus not subject to the provisions of sections 50-1004 and 50-1005A, Idaho Code, nor shall said estimated revenue include funds accumulated under section 50-236, Idaho Code. The proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year shall list expenditures and revenues during each of the two (2) previous fiscal years by fund and/or department. Following tentative approval of the revenues and expenditures estimated by the council, the same shall be entered at length in the journal of proceedings. Prior to certifying to the county commissioners, a notice of time and place of public hearing on the budget, which notice shall include the proposed expenditures and revenues by fund and/or department including the two (2) previous fiscal years, and a statement of the estimated revenue from property taxes and the total amount from sources other than property taxes of the city for the ensuing fiscal year, shall be published twice at least seven (7) days apart in the official newspaper. At said hearing any interested person may appear and show cause, if any he has, why such proposed budget should or should not be adopted.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 162, p. 1249; am. 1972, ch. 22, § 1, p. 27; am. 1976, ch. 45, § 2, p. 122; am. 1981, ch. 318, § 3, p. 662; am. 1994, ch. 89, § 1, p. 205.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Effect of limitation on contracts.
Payment of special improvement bonds.
Publication of annual appropriation.
Effect of Limitation on Contracts.
Contract by a city which incurred a total liability to an amount exceeding city’s revenue for year in which contract was made was void if it failed to comply with all provisions of Idaho Const., Art. VIII, § 3, although actual debt incurred thereby would not mature in excess of city’s revenue until after year in which contract was made. Boise Dev. Co. v. City of Boise, 26 Idaho 347, 143 P. 531 (1914).
Debt created by contract made by a city to settle uncertain and unliquidated damage claims against city was held to be a new debt or liability within the provisions of Idaho Const., Art. VIII, § 3, and, therefore, void if it exceeded amount of revenue provided for city for year in which contract was made. Boise Dev. Co. v. City of Boise, 26 Idaho 347, 143 P. 531 (1914).
Payment of Special Improvement Bonds.
The holder of local improvement bonds was not entitled to a mandamus to compel a city to apply unused proceeds of general obligation bonds for payment of assessments against the city’s property, where the city never fixed any amount to be paid from general funds for improvements and the item never was included within the budget or appropriation bill. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 53 Idaho 62, 21 P.2d 527 (1933).
Publication of Annual Appropriation.
Statutory provisions for publishing notice of annual estimate of municipal appropriations were mandatory. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 53 Idaho 62, 21 P.2d 527 (1933).
Purpose and Necessity of Compliance.
Preparation and publication of estimate of probable amount of money necessary to be raised for all purposes was condition precedent to levy of taxes under former section governing general tax levies. Graves v. Berry, 35 Idaho 498, 207 P. 718 (1922).
Purpose of requiring publication of estimate was to enable inhabitants and taxpayers to become informed as to purposes for which the amounts were proposed to be levied against their property. Graves v. Berry, 35 Idaho 498, 207 P. 718 (1922).
§ 50-1003. Annual appropriations bill — Amending appropriation ordinance — Special appropriation upon petition or election.
The city council of each city shall, prior to the commencement of each fiscal year, pass an ordinance to be termed the annual appropriation ordinance, which in no event shall be greater than the amount of the proposed budget, in which the corporate authorities may appropriate such sum or sums of money as may be deemed necessary to defray all necessary expenses and liabilities of such corporation, not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of tax authorized to be levied during that year in addition to all other anticipated revenues. Provided, the amount appropriated from property tax revenues shall not exceed the amount of property tax revenue advertised pursuant to section 50-1002, Idaho Code.
Such ordinance shall specify the object and purposes for which such appropriations are made and the amount appropriated for each object or purpose. Said ordinance shall be filed with the office of the secretary of state.
The city council of any city may, by the same procedure as used in adopting the original appropriation ordinance at any time during the current fiscal year, amend the appropriation ordinance to a greater amount than that adopted, if after the adoption of the appropriation ordinance, additional revenue will accrue to the city during the current fiscal year as a result of increase in state or federal grants or allocations, or as a result of an increase in an enterprise fund or funds to finance the operation and maintenance of governmental facilities and services which are entirely or predominantly self-supporting by user charges, or as a result of an increase in revenues from any source other than ad valorem tax revenues. A city whose property tax certification is made for the current fiscal year may amend its budget and annual appropriation ordinance, pursuant to the notice and hearing requirements of section 50-1002, Idaho Code, prior to certification to the county commissioners.
No further appropriation, except as herein provided, shall be made at any other time within such fiscal year unless the proposition to make each appropriation has been first sanctioned by a majority of the legal voters of such city, either by petition signed by them equal in number to a majority of the number who voted at the last general city election, or approved at a special election duly called therefor, and all appropriations shall end with the fiscal year for which they are made.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 163, p. 1249; am. 1974, ch. 166, § 1, p. 1422; am. 1976, ch. 45, § 3, p. 122; am. 1981, ch. 318, § 4, p. 662; am. 1982, ch. 276, § 1, p. 708; am. 1987, ch. 172, § 1, p. 338; am. 1989, ch. 25, § 1, p. 29.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Secretary of state,§ 67-901 et seq.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1982, ch. 276 declared an emergency. Approved March 31, 1982.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Appropriation for indebtedness.
Flood damage as authorizing borrowing of money.
Necessity of appropriation bill.
Payment of special improvement bonds.
Petition.
Appropriation for Indebtedness.
Municipal indebtedness incurred in one fiscal year could not be paid from the revenues of a later fiscal year unless there was an appropriation and collection therefor in such later year. Theiss v. Hunter, 4 Idaho 788, 45 P. 2 (1896).
Failure to include in appropriation ordinance specific appropriation for payment of outstanding warrant indebtedness did not oust city council of power thereafter to make such appropriation, or in case of failure to do so prior to time of certifying tax levy for city, it did not deprive them of jurisdiction to certify a sufficient levy within maximum prescribed by former similar section to meet such indebtedness. Standrod v. Case, 24 Idaho 365, 133 P. 651 (1913).
Former similar section did not contemplate an actual levy by city authorities at time of passing appropriation bill for purpose of paying outstanding indebtedness, but it rather required council to make an appropriation of a lump sum for such purpose and limited amount that could be thus appropriated. Standrod v. Case, 24 Idaho 365, 133 P. 651 (1913).
Flood Damage as Authorizing Borrowing of Money.
“Casualty” or “accident,” consisting of continuous floods from December 20, 1933, until after the first part of July, 1934, occurred after city adopted annual appropriation bill on June 11, 1934, so as to authorize it to borrow money to repair and restore damaged sewers without taxpayers’ sanction, though bill failed to provide for such expenditures. Ramstedt v. City of Wallace, 55 Idaho 1, 36 P.2d 772 (1934).
Necessity of Appropriation Bill.
Passage of appropriation bill was condition precedent to authority of village trustees to levy taxes under former section governing general tax levies. Graves v. Berry, 35 Idaho 498, 207 P. 718 (1922).
Bond issue authorized by election was exempt from provision of former similar section that annual appropriation bill must have contained appropriation for necessary expenses. Village of Oakley v. Wilson, 50 Idaho 334, 296 P. 185 (1931).
Payment of Special Improvement Bonds.
Petition.
The holder of local improvement bonds was not entitled to a mandamus to compel a city to apply unused proceeds of general obligation bonds for payment of assessments against the city’s property, where the city never fixed any amount to be paid from general funds for improvements, and the item never was included within the budget or appropriation bill. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 53 Idaho 62, 21 P.2d 527 (1933). Petition.
Finding by municipal council that petition favoring appropriation was signed by majority of legal voters was presumptively correct. Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394, 195 P. 92 (1921).
In absence of election called for the purpose, there was no way other than by petition signed by majority of legal voters to determine whether majority of qualified voters favor appropriation. Thomas v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 394, 195 P. 92 (1921).
§ 50-1004. Special tax assessment — Warrant redemption fund.
At the time of passing the annual appropriation ordinance, said city councils, unless provision shall have been made as provided by law for the funding, refunding, purchase, redemption or exchange of the outstanding city warrant indebtedness, must, whenever any city shall have warrants outstanding and unpaid, for the payment of which there are no funds in the city treasury, in addition to other taxes provided by law, if such warrants amount to a sum equal to five per cent (5%) or more of the value of the taxable property of such city, levy and include a special tax assessment of not to exceed two tenths per cent (.2%) of market value for assessment purposes in such annual appropriation bill; if such warrants amount to a sum equal to four per cent (4%) and less than five per cent (5%) of such taxable property, they must levy and include a special tax or assessment of not to exceed sixteen hundredths per cent (.16%) of market value for assessment purposes in such annual appropriation bill; if such warrants amount to a sum equal to three per cent (3%) and less than four per cent (4%) of such taxable property, they must levy and include a special tax or assessment of not to exceed twelve hundredths per cent (.12%) of market value for assessment purposes in such annual appropriation bill; if such warrants amount to a sum equal to two per cent (2%) and less than three per cent (3%) of such taxable property, they must levy and include a special tax or assessment of not to exceed eight hundredths per cent (.08%) of market value for assessment purposes in such annual appropriation bill; and if such warrants amount to one per cent (1%) and less than two per cent (2%) of such taxable property they must levy and include a special tax or assessment of not to exceed four hundredths per cent (.04%) of market value for assessment purposes in such annual appropriation bill; and if such warrants amount to less than one per cent (1%) of such taxable property, then they must levy and include such special tax or assessment on the dollar in such annual appropriation bill as shall be sufficient to pay such warrants.
All moneys arising from such special tax or assessment shall be placed in a special fund to be known as the “Warrant Redemption Fund” and the redemption of such warrants shall be paid exclusively from this fund.
All moneys in the city treasury at the end of each fiscal year not needed for that year’s expenses and applicable thereto, and not subject to the provisions of section 50-1005A, Idaho Code, shall be transferred to said “Warrant Redemption Fund,” if such there be.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 164, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 45, § 4, p. 122; am. 1996, ch. 208, § 21, p. 658.
STATUTORY NOTES
Effective Dates.
Section 22 of S.L. 1996, ch. 208 declared an emergency and provided that this section should be in effect July 1, 1996. Approved March 12, 1996.
§ 50-1005. Expenses not to precede appropriation
Interim ordinance. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429, § 165; am. 1974, ch. 35, § 1, was repealed by S.L. 1976, ch. 45, § 5 effective July 1, 1977.
§ 50-1005A. Accumulation of fund balances.
Cities may accumulate fund balances at the end of a fiscal year and carry over such fund balances into the ensuing fiscal year sufficient to achieve or maintain city operations on a cash basis. A fund balance is the excess of the assets of a fund over its liabilities and reserves.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1005A, as added by 1976, ch. 45, § 6, p. 122.
§ 50-1006. Expenditures not to exceed appropriation — Exceptions.
The mayor and council shall have no power to appropriate, issue or draw on the treasurer for money unless the same has been appropriated or ordered by ordinance, or the claim for the payment of which such order or warrant is issued has been allowed according to the provisions of sections 50-1001 through 50-1042, Idaho Code, and appropriations for the class or object out of which such claim is payable has been made as provided in sections 50-1001 through 50-1042, Idaho Code. Neither the city council nor any department or officer of the corporation shall add to the corporation expenditures in any year anything over and above the amount provided in the annual appropriation bill for the year, except as herein otherwise specially provided; and no expenditures for any improvement to be paid shall exceed in any year the amount allocated for such improvement in the annual appropriation bill, provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council from declaring an emergency, the necessity for which was caused by casualty, accident, or act of nature after such annual appropriation is made. In the event of a declared emergency caused by casualty, accident, or act of nature, the city council may order the mayor and finance committee to borrow a sufficient sum to provide for the expense incurred in abating the emergency or the making of any repairs or restoration of improvements, for a space of time not exceeding the close of the next fiscal year, which sum and interest shall be added to the amount authorized to be raised in the next general tax levy and embraced therein.
Should any judgment be obtained against the corporation, the mayor and finance committee, under the sanction of the city council, may borrow for a space of time not exceeding the close of the next fiscal year, a sufficient amount to pay the same, which sum and interest shall in like manner be added to the amount authorized to be raised in the general tax levy of the next year and embraced therein.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 166, p. 1249; am. 1980, ch. 136, § 6, p. 297; am. 1987, ch. 171, § 1, p. 337; am. 1996, ch. 322, § 50, p. 1029.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Constitutional limitation on indebtedness, Idaho Const., Art. VIII, § 3.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Casualty construed.
Emergency expenses.
Flood damage.
Judgment against city.
Pavement expense.
Payment of special improvement bonds.
Street paving.
Time of receiving revenue immaterial.
Casualty Construed.
Progressive decay of underside of planking of municipal wharf was not casualty or accident within meaning of former similar section. Eaton v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 389, 195 P. 90 (1921).
Word “casualty”, strictly and liberally, was limited to injuries which arose solely from accident, without any element of conscious human design or intentional human agency; something not to be foreseen or guarded against; something that happens not in usual course of events; word “casualty” being synonymous with accident. Eaton v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 389, 195 P. 90 (1921).
Emergency Expenses.
City council was authorized by two-thirds vote to incur indebtedness to replace waterworks and fire extinguishing apparatus destroyed by fire. Hickey v. City of Nampa, 22 Idaho 41, 124 P. 280 (1912).
Municipal resolution reciting necessity of incurring expense and that it was due to casualty or accident conferred no authority when facts did not bring case within purview of former similar section. Eaton v. Glindeman, 33 Idaho 389, 195 P. 90 (1921).
Appropriation bill was intended to limit expenditures for fiscal year, except in certain cases of casualty or accident. Graves v. Berry, 35 Idaho 498, 207 P. 718 (1922).
Flood Damage.
“Casualty” or “accident,” consisting of continuous floods from December 20, 1933, until after the first part of July, 1934, occurred after city adopted annual appropriation bill on June 11, 1934, so as to have authorized it to borrow money to repair and restore damaged sewers without taxpayers’ sanction, though bill failed to provide for such expenditures. Ramstedt v. City of Wallace, 55 Idaho 1, 36 P.2d 772 (1934).
Judgment Against City.
Judgment against a city for amount due holders of improvement bonds could not properly authorize the issuance of an execution thereon, since such judgment was not subject to be enforced in that manner. Wheeler v. City of Blackfoot, 55 Idaho 599, 45 P.2d 298 (1935).
Pavement Expense.
Franchise, roadbed, tracks and like property of street railroads in pavement improvement district were taxable as “abutting, contiguous, tributary or included lands” in proportion to benefits accruing from the improvement. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 55 Idaho 342, 42 P.2d 292 (1935).
Payment of Special Improvement Bonds.
The holder of local improvement bonds was not entitled to a mandamus to compel a city to apply unused proceeds of general obligation bonds for payment of assessments against the city’s property, where the city never fixed any amount to be paid from general funds for improvements and the item never was included within the budget or appropriation bill. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 53 Idaho 62, 21 P.2d 527 (1933).
Street Paving.
Expense of paving streets was not an “ordinary and necessary expense,” as regards statutory provision limiting expenditures to amount of appropriation. Reynard v. City of Caldwell, 53 Idaho 62, 21 P.2d 527 (1933).
Time of Receiving Revenue Immaterial.
Fact that time for collection of taxes could be made after commencement of fiscal year different from that in which they were levied did not deprive city of taxes levied for any fiscal year, even though they were collected in a succeeding fiscal year. Wycoff v. Strong, 26 Idaho 502, 144 P. 341 (1914).
§ 50-1007. Certification and collection of city taxes.
The council of each city not later than [the Thursday prior to] the second Monday in September, as provided in section 63-803(3), Idaho Code, shall certify to the county commissioners of the county, the total amount required from a property tax upon property within the city to raise the amount of money fixed by their budget as previously approved which shall include all special taxes assessed as provided by law. The amount which may be so certified, assessed and collected shall not exceed the maximum levy provided by section 50-235, Idaho Code, to defray its general expenses for either the current or the ensuing fiscal year, together with any special taxes, authorized under the provisions of this act, and such tax as may be authorized by law to be levied for the payment of outstanding bonds and debts. In all sales for delinquent city taxes, if there be other delinquent taxes from the same person, or lien upon the same property, the sale shall be for all the delinquent taxes; and such sales and all sales made under and by virtue of this section or the provisions of law herein referred to shall be of the same validity, and in all respects be deemed and treated as though sales had been made for delinquent state and county taxes exclusively.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 167, p. 1249; am. 1972, ch. 14, § 1, p. 18; am. 1976, ch. 45, § 7, p. 22; am. 1977, ch. 184, § 1, p. 514; am. 1996, ch. 322, § 51, p. 1029.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Airports, levy,§ 21-404.
Authorized to levy taxes,§ 50-235.
Capital improvement fund levy,§ 50-236.
Collection and payment of property taxes,§ 63-901 et seq.
Limitation on property taxes,§ 63-1313.
Policemen’s retirement fund, special levy,§ 50-1512.
Recreation and culture, special levy,§ 50-303.
Special assessment levies,§ 50-1004.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion in the first sentence was added by the compiler to reflect the language of the 2002 amendment of§ 63-803(3).
The term “this act” near the end of the second sentence refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code. Section 2 of S.L. 1977, ch. 184 read, “Cities and counties may issue tax anticipation notes or bonds during the transitional fiscal year 1977, January through September 30, based upon the amount to be certified to the county commissioners prior to the second Monday of September, 1977, and subject to the percentage limitations set forth in section 63-3102, Idaho Code. Each city or county may make only one (1) certification, either for the current or the ensuing fiscal year.”
Effective Dates.
Section 32 of S. L. 1976, ch. 45 read, “In order to provide an orderly sequence for implementation of the provisions of this act:
“(a) Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 27 and 31 shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 1977;
“(b) Sections 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 30 shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1977; and
“(c) Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29 shall be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1977.”
Section 3 of S.L. 1977, ch. 184 declared an emergency and provided that the act should be in full force and effect on and after approval retroactive to January 1, 1977.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Changing levy.
City liable for embezzlement.
Clerk to make collections.
Compensation for collection.
Construction.
Illegality of collection.
Special taxes.
Warrants issued in former years.
Changing Levy.
City council, any time before certifying tax levy for city, could change same. Standrod v. Case, 24 Idaho 365, 133 P. 651 (1913).
City Liable for Embezzlement.
A city which permitted its clerk to collect local improvement assessments in pursuance of statutory authority therefor could not subsequently have questioned the legality of collection by city clerk rather than by county tax collector as defense to action by bondholder for value of special assessment bonds which remained unpaid as result of the city clerk’s embezzlement of funds which had been collected for payment of such bonds. Cruzen v. Boise City, 58 Idaho 406, 74 P.2d 1037 (1938).
Clerk to Make Collections.
A clerk of a city had statutory authority to receive and receipt for local improvement assessments. Cruzen v. Boise City, 58 Idaho 406, 74 P.2d 1037 (1938).
Compensation for Collection.
Neither county nor tax collector was authorized to retain any part of taxes collected as compensation for collecting them. City of Moscow v. Latah County, 5 Idaho 36, 46 P. 874 (1896).
Construction.
Levy authorized under former similar section could include a levy for the redemption of outstanding warrants for which an appropriation had been made under former section governing the annual appropriation bill. Standrod v. Case, 24 Idaho 365, 133 P. 651 (1913).
The power to levy the tax was conferred by former section governing general tax levies, while former section governing certification provided for its certification and collection. Standrod v. Case, 24 Idaho 365, 133 P. 651 (1913).
Illegality of Collection.
A city which permitted its clerk to collect local improvement assessments, which were properly paid in part to bondholders by the city treasurer, could not have alleged illegality of collection by clerk, rather than by county tax collecting officer, as defense to action for value of bonds which remained unpaid as result of city clerk’s embezzlement of funds which clerk had collected, since municipality had ratified the acts of the clerk in collecting such assessments. Cruzen v. Boise City, 58 Idaho 406, 74 P.2d 1037 (1938).
Special Taxes.
Former similar section was not repealed by statute authorizing the construction of sewers; and city authorities could certify sewerage taxes to county tax collector to be collected as other taxes. Denning v. City of Moscow, 11 Idaho 415, 83 P. 339 (1905).
Warrants Issued in Former Years.
City treasurer could not be compelled to pay warrants issued in former years unless the revenues of the present year were levied to include such indebtedness. Theiss v. Hunter, 4 Idaho 788, 45 P. 2 (1896).
§ 50-1008. Collection of special assessments — Certification to tax collector — Widow’s exemption.
All special assessments levied in any city to which the provisions of this act are made applicable shall be due and payable to the city treasurer and, if not paid within thirty (30) days after mailing of notification of assessment, shall be declared delinquent and be certified to the tax collector of the county by the city clerk, not later than the first day of August and shall be by said tax collector placed upon the tax roll and collected in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as other city taxes; provided, however, that special assessments certified to the tax collector which are placed on property qualifying for a widow’s exemption may be returned to the taxing district from which they originated if the special assessments are not paid within three (3) years. All money received on special assessments shall be held by the city treasurer as a special fund to be applied to the payment of the improvement for which the assessment was made, and said money shall be used for no other purpose whatever unless to reimburse such city for money expended for such improvement.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 168, p. 1249; am. 1970, ch. 227, § 1, p. 637; am. 1973, ch. 289, § 1, p. 612.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” near the beginning of the section refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1973, ch. 289 provided the act should take effect on and after July 1, 1973.
§ 50-1009. Payment by tax collector to city treasurer. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised S.L. 1969, ch. 429, § 169, was repealed by S.L. 1972, ch. 17, § 1.
§ 50-1010. Audit of city finances — Audit to be filed.
It shall be the duty of the council in every city to cause to be made a full and complete audit of the financial statements of such city as required in section 67-450B, Idaho Code.
The council shall be required to include all necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of this section in its annual budget.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 170, p. 1249; am. 1977, ch. 71, § 5, p. 134; am. 1982, ch. 42, § 1, p. 68; am. 1987, ch. 13, § 1, p. 18; am. 1993, ch. 327, § 23, p. 1186; am. 1993, ch. 387, § 15, p. 1417.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
This section was amended by two 1993 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.
The 1993 amendment, by ch. 327, in the former last paragraph of this section substituted “council” for “auditor”. However, ch. 387, § 15 deleted the former last paragraph of this section which read: “The council is hereby required to file one (1) copy of such completed audit report with the legislative auditor within ten (10) days after its delivery by the contracting auditor.” Therefore, the former last paragraph has been deleted.
The 1993 amendment, by ch. 387, in the first paragraph deleted “all” following “a full and complete audit of”; substituted “statements” for “transactions” preceding “of such city”; at the end of the first paragraph substituted “as required in section 67-450B, Idaho Code” for “every year; however, lacking more stringent requirements by contract or government law, rule, or regulation, any city whose annual budget for all purposes does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) may elect to have its financial transactions audited on a biennial basis and may continue biennial auditing cycles in subsequent years provided that the city’s annual budget does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) during any biennial period.”; deleted the former last two sentences of the first paragraph; and deleted the former last paragraph of this section.
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 41 of S.L. 1993, ch. 327 read: “All employees employed by the Joint Senate Finance-House Appropriations Committee, the Legislative Auditor or Legislative Budget Office on June 30, 1993, shall be transferred to the Legislative Council and shall be deemed to be employees of the Legislative Council on July 1, 1993. All moneys which have been appropriated to and been encumbered by the Joint Senate Finance-House Appropriations Committee, the Legislative Budget Office and the Legislative Auditor on June 30, 1993, shall be transferred to the Legislative Council and shall be deemed to be encumbered by that body. All moneys appropriated to the Joint Senate Finance-House Appropriations Committee for the Legislative Auditor and the Legislative Budget Office are deemed appropriated to the Legislative Council for the same period and purpose.”
§ 50-1011. Publication of financial statements — Noncompliance.
It shall be the duty of the city treasurer to cause to be published quarterly during each fiscal year for at least one (1) insertion in the official newspaper of the city, a full statement of each separate account, fund or appropriation for the year to date, and balances of the debits and credits belonging thereto, indicating salaries, capital outlay and a percentage comparison to the original appropriation. All published financial statements shall include the following: “Citizens are invited to inspect the detailed supporting records of the above financial statements.” Such statement shall be published within thirty (30) days from the end of each quarter, except for [the statement for] the final quarter of the fiscal year which shall be published no later than thirty (30) days from the date of completion of the annual audit. Notwithstanding the above, no one shall be precluded from making this filing prior to the completion of an audit. Failure upon the part of the treasurer of any city to comply with the requirements of this section shall be deemed a misdemeanor.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 171, p. 1249; am. 1979, ch. 90, § 2, p. 217; am. 1989, ch. 28, § 1, p. 33; am. 1990, ch. 88, § 1, p. 183.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion in the third sentence was added by the compiler to clarify the sentence.
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 1979, ch. 90 declared an emergency. Approved March 20, 1979.
Section 2 of S.L. 1989, ch. 28 declared an emergency. Approved March 20, 1989.
§ 50-1012. Accounting system. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 50-1012, as added by 1974, ch. 71, § 2, p. 1152, am. 1994, ch. 180, § 91, p. 420, was repealed by S.L. 2003, ch. 32, § 1.
§ 50-1013. Deposit and investment of funds.
The treasurer shall be required to keep all money in his hands belonging to the corporation in such place or places of deposit as shall be provided by ordinance; provided, however, that the treasurer may be directed and empowered by resolution, to invest any money in his hands in any of the following:
- Revenue bonds issued by the revenue bond act.
- City coupon bonds provided for under section 50-1019, Idaho Code.
- Local improvement district bonds provided for under chapter 17, title 50, Idaho Code.
- Time deposit accounts with public depositories.
- Bonds, treasury bills, interest-bearing notes, or other obligations of the United States, or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest.
- General obligation bonds of this state, or those for which the faith and credit of this state are pledged for the payment of principal and interest.
- General obligation bonds of any county, city, metropolitan water district, municipal utility district, school district or other taxing district of this state.
- Notes, bonds, debentures, or other similar obligations issued by the farm credit system or institutions forming a part thereof under the farm credit act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. sections 2001-2259) and all acts of congress amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto; in bonds or debentures of the federal home loan bank board established under the federal home loan bank act (12 U.S.C. sections 1421-1449); in bonds, debentures and other obligations of the federal national mortgage association established under the national housing act (12 U.S.C. sections 1701-1750g) as amended, and in the bonds of any federal home loan bank established under said act and in other obligations of agencies and instrumentalities of the government of the state of Idaho or of the United States.
- Bonds, notes or other similar obligations issued by public corporations of the state of Idaho including, but not limited to, the Idaho state building authority, the Idaho housing authority [Idaho housing and finance association] and the Idaho water resource board, but such investment shall not extend beyond seven (7) days.
- Repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements covered by any legal investment for the state of Idaho or as otherwise allowed by this section, provided that reverse repurchase agreements shall only be used for the purpose of liquidity and not for leverage or speculation.
- Tax anticipation bonds or notes, income and revenue anticipation bonds or notes and registered warrants of the state of Idaho or of taxing districts of the state of Idaho.
- Savings accounts including, but not limited to, accounts on which interest or dividends are paid and upon which negotiable orders of withdrawal may be drawn, and similar transaction accounts.
- Time deposit accounts and other savings accounts of state or federal savings and loan associations located within the geographical boundaries of the state in amounts not to exceed the insurance provided by the federal savings and loan corporation, including, but not limited to, accounts on which interest or dividends are paid and upon which negotiable orders of withdrawal may be drawn, and similar transaction accounts.
- Share, savings and deposit accounts of state and federal credit unions located within the geographical boundaries of the state in amounts not to exceed the insurance provided by the national credit union share insurance fund and/or any other authorized share guaranty corporation, including, but not limited to, accounts on which interest or dividends are paid and upon which negotiable orders of withdrawal may be drawn, and similar transaction accounts.
- Prime banker’s acceptances.
- Prime commercial paper.
- Money market funds, mutual funds, or any other similar funds whose portfolios consist of any allowed investment as specified in this section.
- Bonds, debentures or notes of any corporation organized, controlled and operating within the United States which have, at the time of their purchase, an A rating or higher by a commonly known rating service.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 173, p. 1249; am. 1970, ch. 76, § 1, p. 192; am. 1972, ch. 170, § 1, p. 420; am. 1976, ch. 74, § 1, p. 244; am. 1981, ch. 19, § 1, p. 34; am. 1983, ch. 38, § 1, p. 89; am. 1986, ch. 74, § 3, p. 220; 1986, ch. 88, § 1, p. 257; am. 1987, ch. 162, § 1, p. 318; am. 2001, ch. 42, § 1, p. 78.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Housing authorities and cooperation law,§ 50-1901 et seq.
Idaho state building authority act,§ 67-6401 et seq.
Idaho water resources board,§ 42-1732 et seq.
Revenue bond act,§ 50-1027 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion in subsection (i) was added by the compiler to correct the name of the referenced agency. See§ 67-6201 et seq.
The reference to the federal savings and loan corporation in subsection (m) should be to the federal savings and loan insurance corporation. However, that agency was abolished in 1989 and its duties were transferred to the federal deposit insurance corporation. See https://www.fdic.gov/ .
For more information on the national credit union share insurance fund, referred to in subsection (n), see https://www.ncua.gov/services/Pages/share-insurance.aspx .
The words enclosed in parentheses so appeared in the law as enacted.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1970, ch. 76 declared an emergency. Approved March 2, 1970.
Section 2, S.L. 1972, ch. 170 declared an emergency. Approved March 17, 1972.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Application.
Deposit and investment.
Application.
Former section governing deposit of municipal funds did not apply to the deposit of irrigation district funds. In re Bank of Nampa, Ltd., 29 Idaho 166, 157 P. 1117 (1916).
Deposit and Investment.
Deposit was temporary disposition of money for safekeeping and its temporary nature made it distinguishable from an investment which carries with it greater degree of permanency. City of Pocatello v. Fargo, 41 Idaho 432, 41 Idaho 454, 242 P. 297 (1924).
Objection that ordinance designating bank as depositary was not legally passed and void would not be entertained, especially where bank had received deposit and acted in depositary capacity. City of Pocatello v. Fargo, 41 Idaho 432, 41 Idaho 454, 242 P. 297 (1924).
Placing of public funds with bank under time certificate of deposit was, in effect, loan to bank on its promissory note. City of Pocatello v. Fargo, 41 Idaho 432, 41 Idaho 454, 242 P. 297 (1924).
§ 50-1013A. Investment of deposits of deferred compensation plans.
A municipal corporation, in administering a deferred compensation plan, shall be governed by the uniform prudent investor act, chapter 5, title 68, Idaho Code.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1013A, as added by 1989, ch. 249, § 1, p. 599; am. 1997, ch. 14, § 4, p. 14.
§ 50-1014. Transfer of funds.
The city council of the cities may transfer an unexpended balance in one fund to the credit of another fund.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 174, p. 1249.
§ 50-1015. Disposition of license fees and fines.
All license fees of every character and all fines and penalties recovered under the provisions of any city ordinance shall be paid into the city treasury for the use and benefit of the general fund, except that the council may transfer and distribute the moneys or revenue, in whole or in part, received and recovered from fines, penalties, forfeitures and costs for enforcing and prosecuting violations of ordinances regulating traffic (pedestrian, motor vehicle or bicycle), including but not limited to parking, moving and nonmoving violations of such traffic regulations to the fund or funds established by ordinance dedicated for the purpose of paying the indebtedness (principal and interest) incurred for the acquisition and construction of off-street parking facilities, including land, buildings, structures, equipment and appurtenances necessary for the parking of motor vehicles. The council may also by ordinance transfer and distribute any portion of said fines, penalties, forfeitures and costs, after deducting that amount required to pay an indebtedness (principal and interest) incurred for acquiring and constructing said off-street parking facilities, for the purpose of maintaining and operating said off-street parking facilities.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 175, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 164, § 1, p. 594.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The words enclosed in parentheses so appeared in the law as enacted.
§ 50-1015A. Disposition of parking fees and fines.
All moneys collected for the regulation of parking on city streets, whether collected through city parking meters or by the city clerk, shall not be subject to disposition in the same manner as moneys collected for violations of city ordinances, but shall be placed in the general fund of the city.
History.
1969, ch. 120, § 1, p. 380.
STATUTORY NOTES
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1969, ch. 120 provided that the act should be effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 11, 1971.
§ 50-1016. Deductions from wages.
Any city may deduct, upon written approval of the individual employee, sums certain from said employee’s salary or wages for the purpose of paying said sums for premiums on group life, health, accident, disability, hospital and surgical insurance, or any other purposes approved by the city council. Any city may pay all or any part of such deductions as approved by the council.
Any city may adopt a city retirement and pension plan for the benefit of its employees and for that purpose may deduct, upon written approval of the individual employee, sums certain from said employee’s wages as a contribution to said plan and any city may pay all or any part of such premiums as approved by the council and may make such other contributions as may be required to make such plan actuarially sound. Such plan may be administered by the employer or by a third party organization selected through a competitive selection process. Further, the employer may cooperate with other city or county employers for joint administration of the plan.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Policemen’s retirement fund,§ 50-1501 et seq.
§ 50-1017. Presentation of claims.
All claims against the city shall be approved by the city council prior to the payment of such claims and the city council shall establish and maintain an adequate and reasonable system of internal accounting controls. No costs shall be recovered against such city in any action brought against it for any unliquidated claim which has not been presented to the city council for payment, nor upon claims allowed in part, unless the recovery shall be for a greater sum than the amount allowed with interest due.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 177, p. 1249; am. 1972, ch. 107, § 1, p. 221; am. 1977, ch. 240, § 1, p. 717; am. 2003, ch. 69, § 1, p. 235.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Damage claims, manner of presentation and payment,§ 50-219.
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 2003, ch. 69 declared an emergency. Approved March 13, 2003.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Suit against councilmen.
Torts.
Suit Against Councilmen.
Plaintiff who sustained personal injuries as the result of a dead end street accident in a city was not barred from suing councilmen based on their alleged negligence to maintain warning signs merely because the plaintiff failed to file a claim against the city. Lemmon v. Clayton, 128 F. Supp. 771 (D. Idaho 1955).
Torts.
Claims for torts did not come within former similar section. Miller v. Mullan, 17 Idaho 28, 104 P. 660 (1909).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
§ 50-1018. Payment of claims.
Upon approval of claims by the council, payment may be ordered by warrant or by electronic means, signed by or authorized by the mayor and clerk or by check or by electronic means signed by or authorized by the mayor and treasurer. The order for their payment shall specify the particular fund or appropriation out of which they are payable, as specified in the annual appropriation bill. In the absence of sufficient funds, the council may, by resolution, order payment of claims by money borrowed by either:
- Registered warrants as provided in section 31-2125, Idaho Code, or
- By issuing its tax [revenue] anticipation notes as provided in section 63-3102, Idaho Code, or
- Short term borrowing not involved with the tax effort in anticipation of approved federal or state grants.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 178, p. 1249; am. 1976, ch. 48, § 1, p. 147; am. 2003, ch. 69, § 2, p. 235.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Payment of invalid or stale claims prohibited,§ 50-218.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion in paragraph (2) was added by the compiler to reflect the language of the 1988 amendment of§ 63-3102.
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 2003, ch. 69 declared an emergency. Approved March 13, 2003.
§ 50-1019. Purposes for which bonds may be issued — Limitation on amount.
Every city incorporated under the laws of the territory of Idaho or of the state of Idaho shall have power and authority to issue city coupon bonds not to exceed in aggregate at any time, ten per cent (10%) of the assessed full cash valuation [two per cent (2%) of the market value for assessment purposes] of the real and personal property in said city, according to the assessment of the preceding year, for any or all of the purposes specified [in subsections 1 through 10 of this section,] as follows:
- To provide for constructing, laying out, grading, curbing, draining, sidewalking or otherwise improving streets, alleys, intersections, crossings and crosswalks; and to construct, or aid in the construction of bridges across streams within or contiguous to, or within one (1) mile of the exterior limits of, such city.
- To provide for the funding, refunding, purchase and redemption of the outstanding indebtedness, bonds may be issued under this section for such purposes, without submission of the question of issuance of such bonds to the electors of the city, when the same can be done to the profit and benefit of such city without incurring any additional liability.
- To provide for the establishment of hospitals and cemeteries, either within or without the corporate limits of such city.
- To provide for the purchase, improvement and equipment of lands and buildings thereon, for public parks, monuments, recreation facilities and zoos, either within or without the corporate limits of such city.
- To provide for the purchase, erection, construction and furnishing of city public libraries.
- To provide for the establishment of a fire department by the purchase of building sites, buildings, and suitable equipment and apparatus necessary to provide fire protection.
- To provide for the purchase, acquisition, improvement and equipment of aviation facilities either wholly or partly within or without the corporate limits of such city, or wholly or partly within or without the state of Idaho.
- To provide for flood control by acquisition and purchase of right-of-way and to establish, alter, enlarge, improve, reconstruct and change the channels of watercourses or any stream, river or body of water within or without the corporate limits of the city.
- To provide for the acquisition, construction, remodeling, improvement or otherwise, of buildings for public use, together with all necessary appurtenant facilities and equipment, including all necessary land for building sites, either within or without the corporate limits of such city.
- To provide for the purchase, acquisition, erection and construction of off-street parking sites, structures, buildings, facilities, equipment and appurtenances.
- To provide for the purchase, acquisition, improvement and equipment of transit systems.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 179, p. 1249; am. 1968 (2nd E.S.), ch. 7, § 1, p. 15; am. 1970, ch. 130, § 1, p. 305; am. 1976, ch. 163, § 1, p. 592; am. 1980, ch. 54, § 1, p. 111; am. 1980, ch. 350, § 22, p. 887.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Power to issue bonds,§ 50-237.
Amendments.
This section was amended by two 1980 acts, Chapters 54 and 350, which made different changes in the first paragraph of the section. Accordingly, that paragraph reflects the conflicting amendments with the varying language of S.L. 1980, Chapter 350 in brackets. In addition, S.L. 1980, Chapter 54 added subsection (11).
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1968 (2nd E.S.), ch. 7 declared an emergency. Approved February 12, 1968.
CASE NOTES
Attempted evasion.
Charter provisions.
City hall.
Distinguished from local improvements.
Ditches.
Equitable relief on void bonds.
Funding and refunding bonds.
Nature of power to issue bonds.
Parks.
Statutory provisions incorporated in bond.
Attempted Evasion.
City could not evade provisions of former similar section limiting bonded indebtedness to certain percentage of real estate valuation for preceding year, by voting bonds for partial payment on a contract, and making no legal provision for balance due upon said contract. Woodward v. City of Grangeville, 13 Idaho 652, 92 P. 840 (1907).
A city could not pledge its revenues from any source whatever without creating an indebtedness subject to the restriction of Idaho Const., Art. 8, § 3. Williams v. City of Emmett, 51 Idaho 500, 6 P.2d 475 (1931). Former sections dealing with municipal bonds did not provide for the issuance of municipal bonds for the construction and operation of a system for the distribution of gas and the creation of the cooperative in question, its contracts for the purchase of gas and for the sale of its bonds to raise funds for the construction, operation and maintenance of a gas distribution system and the ordinance of the City of Idaho Falls granting an exclusive franchise for thirty years to the cooperative with the contract provided for by such ordinance, were all parts of a plan and design devised to enable the City of Idaho Falls to evade and circumvent the limitations and prohibitions of the constitution and statutes. O’Bryant v. City of Idaho Falls, 78 Idaho 313, 303 P.2d 672 (1956).
Charter Provisions.
Act of legislature amending charter of city, providing that fifteen per cent of entire property of city, both personal and real, could be considered as basis for issuing bonds for municipal improvements, wherein it was provided that bonds should not be issued in excess of fifteen per cent of the taxable property as shown by the assessment of the preceding year, was a local or special law, but did not conflict with state constitution. Wiggin v. City of Lewiston, 8 Idaho 527, 69 P. 286 (1902).
City Hall.
Issuance of bonds by City of Gooding for city hall was held proper. Thomas v. City of Gooding, 27 Idaho 624, 149 P. 1064 (1915).
Distinguished From Local Improvements.
Where streets were paved and assessments were made against abutting property, improvement district bonds could be issued without submitting question of issuing bonds to electors or taxpayers of either improvement district or city, but where cost and expenses were to be paid by city, and bonds were to be issued for purpose of raising revenue to pay same, then such question was required to be submitted to electors and taxpayers of city. Byrns v. City of Moscow, 21 Idaho 398, 121 P. 1034 (1912).
Ditches.
In exercising its right to grade its streets, city could, if necessary, have removed ditches and required their reconstruction by pipelines laid beneath surface by company possessing franchise and easement for such ditches. City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979 (1911).
Equitable Relief on Void Bonds.
In an action to cancel bonds and interest coupons, which had been adjudged to have been issued in violation of constitutional and statutory debt limitations, the holder of such bonds was not entitled to have equity direct an accounting and fix general debt liability against a village, since the bonds were void and not voidable, and equity could not and would not afford relief in violation of constitutional prohibitions. Village of Heyburn v. Security Sav. & Trust Co., 55 Idaho 732, 49 P.2d 258 (1935).
Funding and Refunding Bonds.
Nature of Power to Issue Bonds.
Where the bondholder was willing to accept payment in advance of maturity, former similar section clearly implied the authority for the village to issue and sell refunding revenue bonds, to provide the means of payment and redemption, before maturity, of the outstanding water and sewer revenue bonds, when such could be done without increasing the outstanding indebtedness and with a savings to those served by the work. Such bonds could be authorized, issued and sold either by ordinance or resolution and without a vote of the electors of the village. Adams v. Pritchard, 88 Idaho 325, 399 P.2d 252 (1965). Nature of Power to Issue Bonds.
Power of municipality to issue bonds for improvement of light and power plant was grant of authority from state and was required to be construed strictly against grantee. Bradbury v. City of Idaho Falls, 32 Idaho 28, 177 P. 388 (1918).
Parks.
Grant to municipality of power to maintain park enjoined no absolute duty to do so. Maintenance of parks was primarily a private as opposed to a governmental function. Boise Dev. Co. v. Boise City, 30 Idaho 675, 167 P. 1032 (1917).
Statutory Provisions Incorporated in Bond.
Provisions of former similar section referred to in ordinance and bonds were to be read into, and made part of, bonds, and they become binding on purchasers. Neighbors of Woodcraft v. Rupert, 51 Idaho 215, 4 P.2d 360 (1931).
§ 50-1020. Waterworks — Light and power plants — Sewerage systems.
Every city incorporated under the laws of the territory of Idaho or of the state of Idaho shall have power and authority to issue city coupon bonds in a sufficient amount to acquire, by purchase or otherwise, waterworks plants and water supply, light and power plants, storm sewers and sanitary sewerage systems, and to construct, enlarge, extend, repair, alter and improve such plants or systems notwithstanding the percentage limitation of the previous section. “Waterworks plants and water supply” include by way of example but not by way of limitation, a public water system providing water at any temperature for space heating or cooling, culinary, sanitary, recreational or therapeutic uses.
The amount for which bonds may be issued for purposes as in this section provided shall be determined by the council and stated in the ordinance therefor, and shall be authorized in such amount as the city council shall deem necessary by one or more bond elections, called as provided in section 50-1026, Idaho Code, or amendatory act.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 180, p. 1249; am. 1970, ch. 130, § 2, p. 305; am. 1979, ch. 304, § 2, p. 825.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Power plant bond issues.
Proprietary capacity.
Village water supply.
Power Plant Bond Issues.
Proceeding of a city, relating to a municipal electric power generating plant and distribution system bond issue election and increasing liability of the city, was void under the Idaho statute and constitution, where the plan involved debt exceeding the amount authorized by ordinance and the voters of the city, and, therefore, the court would not modify its injunction restraining the city from entering into a contract with the federal emergency administration of public works for the purpose of providing funds for the construction of the plant and system. Washington Water Power Co. v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 25 F. Supp. 795 (D. Idaho 1938).
Proprietary Capacity.
Village Water Supply.
A municipal corporation in the ownership, maintenance and operation of a municipal water system supplying water to its inhabitants for pay, acted in a proprietary, not in a governmental, capacity. Gilbert v. Bancroft, 80 Idaho 186, 327 P.2d 378 (1958). Village Water Supply.
Village had power and authority to contract for supply of water. Jack v. Village of Grangeville, 9 Idaho 291, 74 P. 969 (1903); City of Pocatello v. Murray, 21 Idaho 180, 120 P. 812, aff’d, 226 U.S. 318, 33 S. Ct. 107, 57 L. Ed. 239 (1912).
§ 50-1021. Previous issues validated.
All bonds authorized at any city election heretofore held, as provided in said section 50-1026[, Idaho Code], or acts amendatory thereof, for the purpose of acquiring adequate plants for such city by purchase or otherwise, and by enlarging, extending[,] repairing, altering or improving any existing city water, light and power or sewage [sewerage] systems, shall be deemed to have been authorized for all or any of the purposes for which such bonds may hereafter be issued under this section, and all such bonds which at such election have been heretofore authorized, when issued and sold, are hereby declared to be legal and binding obligations of such city, provided all requirements of law have been fully complied with, and the same are hereby declared to be of like force and effect as if the city, at the time such election was called and held, had possessed all the power herein granted and conferred.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 181, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The first bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
The second bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to clarify the sentence.
The third bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to supply the probable intended term.
§ 50-1022. Joint services.
In addition to the authority contained in the foregoing sections and in sections 67-2326 through and including 67-2333, Idaho Code, it shall be lawful for two (2) or more cities, so situated with reference to each other that it is practicable and convenient to furnish the said inhabitants thereof with water, power or sewerage from a single plant and system, to join in the construction or purchase of such plant or system upon a substantial compliance with the provisions of sections 50-1022 to 50-1025, Idaho Code, and not otherwise.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 182, p. 1249; am. 1971, ch. 10, § 1, p. 22.
§ 50-1023. Joint services — Agreement on apportionment.
Whenever two (2) or more cities desire jointly to construct water, power or sewage [sewerage] systems, it shall be necessary for the councils to agree among themselves as to the kind and character of construction of the said plant and system, the amount of service to which each city shall be entitled, the approximate cost of such systems and the proportionate part thereof which shall be borne by each city, which proportionate part shall be as nearly just and equitable as possible, and shall be determined in such manner as may be agreeable to all concerned.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 183, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed word “sewerage” was inserted by the compiler, as the probable intended term.
§ 50-1024. Joint services — Bond election in each city.
Whenever the proportionate share of the cost of such construction or purchase to be borne by each city has been determined, an election shall be held in each city as now provided by law in similar cases, for the purpose of determining whether or not coupon bonds shall be issued by such city in an amount equal to its proportionate share of the cost of such construction or purchase.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 184, p. 1249.
§ 50-1025. Joint services — Committee for construction or purchase.
If, in each of said cities the question of issuing bonds for the construction or purchase of such systems, plants and equipment shall have been favorably decided by the electors of such city, said bonds shall be issued as now provided by law, and the city councils of the cities in question shall meet, and organize and appoint a committee to be composed of their own members, upon which each of said cities shall have equal representation, for the purpose of constructing such plants and systems or for purchasing the same if such is available. The said committee shall have all necessary power to make contracts for the construction or purchase of such plants and systems and to bind the said cities as herein contemplated.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 185, p. 1249.
§ 50-1026. City bonds — Ordinance — Election.
Whenever the city council of a city shall deem it advisable to issue the coupon bonds of such city, the mayor and council shall provide therefor by ordinance, which shall specify and set forth all the purposes, objects, matters and things required by section 57-203, Idaho Code, and make provision for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on such proposed bonds as it falls due, and also to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof within thirty (30) years from the time of contracting the same as required by the constitution and laws of the state of Idaho.
The ordinance shall also provide the date for holding an election that is in accordance with the dates authorized in section 50-405, Idaho Code, which falls more than forty-five (45) days after the clerk of the political subdivision orders that such election shall be held. Notice shall be given in the official newspaper of the city by the county clerk in accordance with election law in title 34, Idaho Code. Such election shall be conducted as other city elections. The voting at such elections must be by ballot, and the ballot used shall be substantially as follows: “In favor of issuing bonds to the amount of .... dollars for the purpose stated in Ordinance No. ....,” and “Against issuing bonds to the amount of .... dollars for the purpose stated in Ordinance No. ....” If at such election, held as provided in this chapter, two-thirds (2/3) of the qualified electors voting at such election assent to the issuing of such bonds and the incurring of the indebtedness thereby created for the purpose aforesaid, such bonds shall be issued in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Idaho.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 186, p. 1249; am. 1971, ch. 25, § 7, p. 61; am. 2009, ch. 341, § 127, p. 993; am. 2011, ch. 11, § 25, p. 24.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, in the first sentence in the last paragraph, inserted “the date” and “that is in accordance with the dates authorized in section 50-405, Idaho Code,” deleted “thirty (30) days” preceding “notice,” and added “by the county clerk in accordance with election law in title 34, Idaho Code.”
Compiler’s Notes.
Effective Dates.
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 11, divided the first former sentence of the second paragraph into two sentences, inserting “falls more than forty-five (45) days after the clerk of the political subdivision orders that such election shall be held” as the end of the present first sentence. Effective Dates.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
Section 27 of S.L. 2011, ch. 11 declared an emergency retroactively to January 1, 2011 and approved February 23, 2011.
CASE NOTES
Constitutionality.
Projects financed under section.
Qualification of voters.
Constitutionality.
Two thirds affirmative vote requirement of this section and Idaho Const., Art. VIII, § 3, as applied to issuance by city of general obligation bonds to finance airport terminal and municipal swimming pool, was not offensive to Equal Protection Clause, Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution, as violative of principle of one man, one vote. Bogert v. Kinzer, 93 Idaho 515, 465 P.2d 639 (1970), appeal dismissed, 403 U.S. 914, 91 S. Ct. 2224, 29 L. Ed. 2d 691 (1971).
Projects Financed Under Section.
In a ground lease and power sales contract relating to the construction of a hydroelectric project, to be financed by the city under this section and§ 50-1026A, a contractual obligation to sell a certain percentage of power to the company leasing property to the city for the project for a period in excess of the proposed term of the bonds did not violate either Idaho Const., Art. VIII, § 4 or Idaho Const., Art. XII, § 4, prohibiting loans or donations of public credit, since such obligation was of a contractual nature, and a sale for adequate consideration did not amount to a loan or donation; the accrual of incidental benefits to a private enterprise will not invalidate an otherwise constitutional transaction. Utah Power & Light Co. v. Campbell, 108 Idaho 950, 703 P.2d 714 (1985).
Qualification of Voters.
A compelling state interest in limiting the franchise in special elections to approve general obligation bonds to electors who are real property taxpayers prevails over City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski which holds that property qualifications are invalid insofar as the franchise to vote in general obligation bond elections are concerned. Muench v. Paine, 94 Idaho 12, 480 P.2d 196 (1971). See City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204, 90 S. Ct. 1990, 26 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1970).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Power plant bonds.
Qualifications of voters.
Refunding bonds. Statement of purpose in ordinance.
Submission of several propositions.
Sufficiency of ballot.
Sufficiency of notice.
Test of sufficiency of notice or ordinance.
Power Plant Bonds.
Proceeding of a city, relating to a municipal electric power generating plant and distribution system bond issue election, and increasing liability of the city, was void under the Idaho statute and constitution, where the plan involved debt exceeding the amount authorized by ordinance and the voters of the city; therefore, the court would not modify its injunction restraining the city from entering into a contract with the federal emergency administration of public works for the purpose of providing funds for the construction of the plant and system. Washington Water Power Co. v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 25 F. Supp. 795 (D. Idaho 1938).
Qualifications of Voters.
Provision of former similar section prescribing qualification of voter at municipal bond election did not apply to one who had paid registration fee on automobile but owned no other taxable property. Hartman v. Meier, 39 Idaho 261, 227 P. 25 (1924).
Purpose of former similar section was to restrict issuance of bonds to such issues as should be consented to by at least two thirds of those who were to be primarily affected by burden thereby imposed. Hartman v. Meier, 39 Idaho 261, 227 P. 25 (1924).
Resident of municipality owning no taxable property other than automobile on which he had paid registration fee was not qualified to vote at municipal bond election. Hartman v. Meier, 39 Idaho 261, 227 P. 25 (1924).
Refunding Bonds.
Provisions of former similar section were not intended to apply to issuance of refunding bonds of municipalities when issuance of such bonds would not create an additional indebtedness or liability of municipality. Veatch v. City of Moscow, 18 Idaho 313, 109 P. 722 (1910).
Statement of Purpose in Ordinance.
Provision of former similar section which required bonding ordinance to specify purpose of issuing proposed bonds was not complied with by an ordinance stating purpose of bonds to be “to fund the outstanding indebtedness of said city.” Coffin v. Richards, 6 Idaho 741, 59 P. 562 (1899).
Submission of Several Propositions.
Former similar section did not require a separate election ordinance for each proposed issue of municipal bonds. Different propositions for different objects may have been embodied in one ordinance, provided that each proposition was so clearly and distinctly submitted to electors of municipality that they could adopt or reject it, independently of others. Platt v. City of Payette, 19 Idaho 470, 114 P. 25 (1911).
Proposition could include but one purpose. Corker v. Village of Mt. Home, 20 Idaho 32, 116 P. 108 (1911). Several distinct and independent purposes or propositions may be incorporated in one ordinance submitting question of issuing municipal bonds by a municipal corporation, providing such purposes were separately stated and voters at municipal election were given an opportunity to express their will upon each purpose or question as a separate and independent proposition or question. Ostrander v. City of Salmon, 20 Idaho 153, 117 P. 692 (1911).
Where, however, propositions to be determined were distinct and different propositions and were to be determined under different provisions of statute, there should be a separate ordinance with reference to each proposition. Byrns v. City of Moscow, 21 Idaho 398, 121 P. 1034 (1912).
Sufficiency of Ballot.
Ballot in exact language of former similar section was sufficient. Brown v. Village of Grangeville, 8 Idaho 784, 71 P. 151 (1903).
Sufficiency of Notice.
Where mayor published proclamation for period of more than thirty days in a newspaper published in city, giving time and place when an election would be held to vote upon a proposition to issue bonds for municipal improvement, there was a sufficient compliance with former similar section. Sommercamp v. Kelly, 8 Idaho 712, 71 P. 147 (1902).
Test of Sufficiency of Notice or Ordinance.
Test of sufficiency or validity of a notice or ordinance in this respect was whether voters at general election held pursuant to ordinance and notice could be reasonably presumed from notice itself and ordinance to have understood the question submitted to them. Corker v. Village of Mt. Home, 20 Idaho 32, 116 P. 108 (1911).
§ 50-1026A. City bonds — Pledge of revenues.
- In the ordinance required in section 50-1026, Idaho Code, providing for the issuance of bonds of a city to be issued to acquire, improve, construct or extend a revenue producing system or facility to be owned and operated by the city, the city council may pledge, as an additional source of payment of such bonds, all or any part of the revenues derived or to be derived from rates, fees, tolls, or charges imposed for the services, facilities, or commodities furnished by the revenue producing system or facility to be so acquired, improved or extended.
- The notice of the election on bonds provided for in section 50-1026, Idaho Code, shall describe any pledge of revenues made pursuant to this section. The proposition appearing on the ballot provided for in section 50-1026, Idaho Code, shall indicate that the bonds are to be additionally secured by a pledge of revenues of designated revenue producing systems or facilities owned and operated by the city.
- The city council of a city may, in the ordinance required in section 50-1026, Idaho Code, providing for the issuance of bonds to which revenues have been pledged as provided in this section, covenant to prescribe and collect reasonable rates, fees, tolls or charges for the services, facilities, or commodities furnished by any revenue producing system or facility owned and operated by the city, all or a portion of the revenues of which have been pledged to bonds of the city as provided in this section, and may covenant to prescribe and collect such rates, fees, tolls or charges as will produce revenues sufficient, in addition to any other requirements of law, to pay all or a portion of the maturing principal of an interest on the bonds to which such revenues have been pledged.
- The provisions of section 57-214, Idaho Code, to the contrary notwithstanding, bonds of a city to which revenues have been pledged as provided in this section, if issued to provide electric improvements or facilities, may be sold in such manner and at such price as the city council may in its discretion determine advisable, provided that such bonds may not be issued to acquire generation, transmission, or distribution facilities owned by other utilities without the consent of the utility owning the improvement or facility. Bonds of a city to which revenues have been pledged as provided in this section may be issued in coupon or registered form. The city council may provide for the use of a portion of the proceeds of sale of bonds to which revenues have been pledged as provided in this section to pay interest on the bonds during the period to be covered by the construction of the facility or improvement for which the bonds are to be issued and to establish such reserves as the city council shall deem to be necessary.
- The provisions of section 50-1041, Idaho Code, shall not apply to bonds of a city to which revenues have been pledged as provided in this section. Such bonds shall be deemed not to have been issued under the revenue bond act.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1026A, as added by 1981, ch. 218, § 1, p. 405; am. 1982, ch. 366, § 1, p. 916.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Revenue Bond Act,§ 50-1027 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 2 of S.L. 1981, ch. 218 read: “If any one or more sentences, clauses, phrases, provisions or sections of this act, or the application thereof to any set of circumstances, shall be held by final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remaining sentences, clauses, phrases, provisions and sections hereof and the application of this act to other sets of circumstances shall nevertheless continue to be valid and effective, the legislature hereby declaring that all sentences, clauses, phrases, provisions and sections of this act are severable.”
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 1981, ch. 218 declared an emergency. Approved April 6, 1981.
CASE NOTES
Contracts Financed Under Section.
In a ground lease and power sales contract relating to the construction of a hydroelectric project to be financed by the city under this section and§ 50-1026, a contractual obligation to sell a certain percentage of power to the company leasing property to the city for the project for a period in excess of the proposed term of the bonds did not violate either Idaho Const., Art. VIII, § 4 or Idaho Const., Art. XII, § 4, prohibiting loans or donations of public credit, since such obligation was of a contractual nature, and a sale for adequate consideration did not amount to a loan or donation; the accrual of incidental benefits to a private enterprise will not invalidate an otherwise constitutional transaction. Utah Power & Light Co. v. Campbell, 108 Idaho 950, 703 P.2d 714 (1985).
§ 50-1027. Revenue bonds — Short title.
The following fifteen (15) sections may be cited as the Revenue Bond Act.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 187, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The section defines the revenue bond act as the “following fifteen (15) sections” of S.L. 1967, Chapter 429. As codified, those sections are§§ 50-1028 to 50-1035 and 50-1036 to 50-1042. Section 50-1035A was added by S.L. 1981, ch. 300, § 3.
CASE NOTES
Rates, fees and charges.
— Connection fees.
Rates, Fees and Charges.
When the rates, fees and charges of water and sewerage system conform to the statutory scheme set forth in the Idaho revenue bond act or are imposed pursuant to a valid police power, the charges are not construed as taxes. However, if the rates, fees and charges are imposed primarily for revenue raising purposes they are, in essence, disguised taxes and subject to legislative approval and authority. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
Because§ 50-1033(b) allows the collection of revenues sufficient to cover certain costs, city under contract to treat other city’s wastewater did not violate the revenue bond act by charging a rate of return for wastewater treatment. City of Chubbuck v. City of Pocatello, 127 Idaho 198, 899 P.2d 411 (1995).
— Connection Fees.
The Idaho revenue bond act authorizes the collection of sewer connection fees, and it is clear that so long as the fees collected pursuant to the Idaho revenue bond act are allocated and budgeted in conformity with that act they will not be construed as taxes requiring approval of the electorate. However, if fees are collected under the disguise of the act and allocated and spent otherwise, then the fees are primarily revenue raising and will be construed as taxes. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
Cited
Alliance v. City of Idaho Falls, 742 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2013).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Attempted Evasion.
Former sections, containing the revenue bond act, did not authorize issuance of bonds for the construction and operation of a system for the distribution of gas and the creation of the cooperative in question, its contracts for the purchase of gas and for the sale of its bonds to raise funds for the construction, operation and maintenance of a gas distribution system and the ordinance of the City of Idaho Falls granting an exclusive franchise for thirty years to the cooperative with the contract provided for by such ordinance, were all parts of a plan and design provided to enable the City of Idaho Falls to evade and circumvent the limitations and prohibitions of the constitution and statutes and to exercise powers not granted to a municipality. O’Bryant v. City of Idaho Falls, 78 Idaho 313, 303 P.2d 672 (1956).
§ 50-1028. Grant of authority.
Any city acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, improving, bettering or extending any works pursuant to this act, shall manage such works in the most efficient manner consistent with sound economy and public advantage, to the end that the services of such works shall be furnished at the lowest possible cost. No city shall operate any works primarily as a source of revenue to the city, but shall operate all such works for the use and benefit of those served by such works and for the promotion of the welfare and for the improvement of the health, safety, comfort and convenience of the inhabitants of the city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 188, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” in the first sentence refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code. However, in the context of§ 50-1027, the term may mean the “revenue bond act,” codified as§§ 50-1027 to 50-1042.
CASE NOTES
Fee and Rate System.
A connection fee may be imposed by the police power or other statutory power and will be upheld by the courts if it is not unreasonable and not arbitrarily imposed. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
It is not the province of the court to determine how a municipality should allocate its fee and rate system. So long as the fees and rates charged conform to the statutory requirements and are reasonable, the fees, rates and charges will be upheld; the fees, rates and charges imposed by the municipality must be reasonable and produce sufficient revenue to support the system at the lowest possible cost as required by the Idaho revenue bond act. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
Because§ 50-1033(b) allows the collection of revenues sufficient to cover certain costs, city under contract to treat other city’s wastewater did not violate the revenue bond act by charging a rate of return for wastewater treatment. City of Chubbuck v. City of Pocatello, 127 Idaho 198, 899 P.2d 411 (1995).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Combination of systems. Refunding bonds.
Combination of Systems.
Village was entitled to combine its water system and sewerage system and issue water and sewer revenue bonds with a pledge of the net revenue of both as sole security even though water system presently existed and sewerage system was nonexistent, since intention of legislature was to make it possible to establish and maintain any or all of such systems in any combination which would serve best interests of a municipality. Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953).
Refunding Bonds.
The savings to users by means of refunding the outstanding bonds at a lower rate of interest was in harmony with, and in furtherance of, the legislative policy declared in former similar section. Adams v. Pritchard, 88 Idaho 325, 399 P.2d 252 (1965).
§ 50-1029. Definitions.
For the purpose of this act, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the following terms shall be ascribed the following meanings:
- The term “works” shall include water systems, drainage systems, sewerage systems, recreation facilities, off-street parking facilities, airport facilities and air navigation facilities, electric systems or any of them as herein defined;
- The term “water system” shall include reservoirs, storage facilities, water mains, conduits, aqueducts, pipelines, pumping stations, filtration plants, and all appurtenances and machinery necessary or useful for obtaining, storing, treating, purifying or transporting water for domestic uses or purposes. The term “domestic uses or purposes” includes by way of example but not by way of limitation the use of water at any temperature for space heating or cooling, culinary, sanitary, recreational or therapeutic purposes;
- The term “sewerage system” shall include intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, force mains, collecting sewers, pumping stations, ejector stations, treatment plants, structures, buildings, machinery, equipment, connections and all other appurtenances necessary, useful or convenient for the collection, transportation, treatment, purification, and disposal of the sewage of any city or any part of territory included within the territorial limits of any city;
- The term “off-street parking” shall include all machinery, equipment and appurtenances, including lands, easements, rights-of-way and buildings required, necessary or useful for the parking of motor vehicles on lands or places other than public highways;
- The term “airport facilities and air navigation facilities” shall include land acquisition, construction costs, buildings, equipment, and other necessary appurtenances, either wholly or partly within or without the corporate limits of such political subdivision of the state or owned or operated by a regional airport authority as defined by law, or wholly or partly within or without the state of Idaho, which are hereby deemed to be for a public purpose, which facilities are to be financed for, or to be leased, sold or otherwise disposed of to private persons, associations or corporations, or to be held by the political subdivision of the state or regional airport authority as defined by law;
- The term “rehabilitate existing electrical generating facilities” shall include the reconstruction, replacement, and betterment of existing generation facilities, properties and other related structures, together with all necessary equipment and appurtenances related thereto, used in or useful for the generation of electricity, including power plants, turbine generators, dams, penstocks, step-up transformers, electrical equipment and other facilities related to hydroelectric production plants, and related facilities for flood control, environmental, public recreation and fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement purposes made necessary in order to comply with applicable state and federal requirements, but does not include transmission and distribution lines and their related structures, equipment and appurtenances;
- The term “drainage system” shall include ditches, channels, creeks, ponds, intake structures, diversion structures, levies, storm sewers, pump stations, force mains, buildings, easements, machinery, equipment, connections and all other appurtenances necessary, useful or convenient for the collection, treatment and disposal of any surface water, nuisance ground or subsurface water or stormwater of any city; and
History.
(h) The term “electric system” shall include all electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities comprising a municipal electric system and used to supply electricity to customers located within the service area of such system established by law, including all properties, structures, facilities, equipment and appurtenances used in or useful for the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. The term “electric system” includes, by way of example, but not by way of limitation, power plants for the generation of electricity by any means, substations, transformers, transmission lines, distribution lines, and all other facilities, equipment and appurtenances necessary or desirable in connection with the generation, transmission or distribution of electricity, including energy conservation, public purpose and environmental facilities, programs and measures, and joint electric facilities as defined in section 50-342A, Idaho Code. History.
1967, ch. 429, § 189, p. 1249; am. 1969, ch. 193, § 1, p. 564; am. 1977, ch. 50, § 1, p. 91; am. 1978, ch. 176, § 1, p. 402; am. 1979, ch. 304, § 3, p. 825; am. 1991, ch. 311, § 1, p. 818; am. 2011, ch. 129, § 1, p. 358.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 129, in subsection (a), inserted “airport facilities and” and “electric systems”; in subsection (e), substituted “political subdivision of the state” for “city”, inserted “or owned or operated by a regional airport authority as defined by law” and added the language beginning “which are hereby deemed to be for a public purpose” through to the end; and added subsection (h).
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 1 of S.L. 1978, ch. 330 purported to amend this section. Section 3 of that act provided that the act should take effect when the amendment to Article VIII, § 3 of the Idaho Constitution which was proposed by the Second Regular Session of the Forty-Fourth Idaho Legislature was ratified. However, the proposed constitutional amendment was defeated and, accordingly, the amendment to this section never took effect.
The term “this act” in the introductory paragraph refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code. However, in the context of§ 50-1027, the term may mean the “revenue bond act,” codified as§§ 50-1027 to 50-1042.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1969, ch. 193 provided that the act should be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1969.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Alliance v. City of Idaho Falls, 742 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2013).
§ 50-1030. Powers.
In addition to the powers which it may now have, any city shall have power under and subject to the following provisions:
- To acquire by gift or purchase and to construct, reconstruct, improve, better or extend any works within or without the city, or partially within or partially without the city, or within any part of the city, and acquire by gift or purchase lands or rights in lands or water rights in connection therewith, including easements, rights-of-way, contract rights, leases, franchises, approaches, dams and reservoirs; to sell excess or surplus water under such terms as are in compliance with section 42-222, Idaho Code, and deemed advisable by the city; to lease any portion of the excess or surplus capacity of any such works to any party located within or without the city, subject to the following conditions: that such capacity shall be returned or replaced by the lessee when and as needed by such city for the purposes set forth in section 50-1028, Idaho Code, as determined by the city; that the city shall not be made subject to any debt or liability thereby; and the city shall not pledge any of its faith or credit in aid to such lessee;
- To rehabilitate existing electric generating facilities;
- To exercise the right of eminent domain for any of the works, purposes or uses provided by this act, in like manner and to the same extent as provided in section 7-720, Idaho Code;
- To operate and maintain any works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities within or without the boundaries of the city, or partially within or without the boundaries of the city, or within any part of the city;
- To issue its revenue bonds hereunder to finance, in whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, betterment or extension of any works, or to finance, in whole or in part, the cost of the rehabilitation of existing electrical generating facilities;
- To prescribe and collect rates, fees, tolls or charges, including the levy or assessment of such rates, fees, tolls or charges against governmental units, departments or agencies, including the state of Idaho and its subdivisions, for the services, facilities and commodities furnished by such works, or by such rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities, and to provide methods of collections and penalties, including denial of service for nonpayment of such rates, fees, tolls or charges;
- To pledge an amount of revenue from such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities, including improvement, betterment or extensions thereto, thereafter constructed or acquired, sufficient to pay said bonds and interest as the same shall become due, and to create and maintain reasonable reserves therefor. Such amount may consist of all or any part or portion of such revenues. In determining such cost, there may be included all costs and estimated costs of the issuance of said bonds; all engineering, inspection, fiscal and legal expenses and interest which it is estimated will accrue during the construction period and for six (6) months thereafter on money borrowed or which it is estimated will be borrowed pursuant to sections 50-1027 through 50-1042, Idaho Code, and the costs of any bond reserve funds or working capital deemed necessary in connection with the bond issue;
- In the procurement of off-street parking sites, facilities, equipment and appurtenances, any city shall have power, in addition to those heretofore conferred, to pledge the net revenues to be derived from on-street parking facilities not otherwise pledged, to be combined with the rates, fees, tolls and charges to be derived from the operation of off-street parking facilities, after the payment of all operative and maintenance costs, to the payment of revenue bonds and interest thereon issued under the authority of the revenue bond act;
- To issue bonds for the purpose of refunding any bonds theretofore issued under authority of the revenue bond act and to pay accrued interest and applicable redemption premiums on the bonds to be refunded, if the bonds to be refunded are due, callable or redeemable by their terms on or prior to the date that the refunding bonds are issued, or will become due, callable or redeemable by their terms within twelve (12) months thereafter, or if the bonds to be refunded, even though not becoming due, callable or redeemable within such period, are voluntarily surrendered by the holders thereof, for cancellation at the time of the issuance of the refunding bonds. All or part of any issue may be refunded and all or part of several issues may be refunded into a single issue of refunding bonds. There may be included with the refunding bonds, as part of a single issue, or in combination in one (1) or more series, bonds for any other purpose or purposes for which bonds are authorized to be issued under the revenue bond act. Refunding bonds shall be issued and secured in such manner as may be provided in the proceedings authorizing their issuance and as otherwise provided in the revenue bond act, and such changes may be made in the security and revenue pledged to the payment of the bonds so refunded, as provided by the governing body in the proceedings authorizing such bonds. No election on the issuance of refunding bonds shall be required, but if by an increase in the amount of bonds or by changes in the security or pledged revenues, the requirements of the constitution for an election shall become applicable, or if refunding bonds are combined into a single issue with bonds authorized for nonrefunding purposes, then such bonds with changes in security or revenues, or such bonds in excess of the amount of bonds refunded, as the case may be, must have been approved at an election as otherwise provided in the revenue bond act and the constitution. Refunding bonds may be exchanged for not less than a like principal amount of bonds authorized to be refunded, may be sold, or may be exchanged in part and sold in part. If sold, the proceeds of the sale, not required for the payment of expenses, and in any event, in an amount sufficient to assure the retirement of the bonds refundable, when such bonds become available for retirement, if not applied to a simultaneous payment and cancellation of the bonds refunded shall be escrowed with a bank or trust company and may be invested in United States government obligations or in obligations unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America in such manner as may be provided in the authorizing proceedings;
- To issue its revenue bonds for airport facilities and air navigation facilities to be held by the political subdivision of the state or regional airport authority as defined by law payable solely from fees, charges, rents, payments, grants or any other revenues derived from the airport or any of its facilities, structures, systems of projects, or from any land, facilities, buildings, projects or other property financed by such bonds; and to issue special facility bonds for airport facilities and air navigation facilities to be financed for, or to be leased, sold or otherwise disposed of to private persons, associations or corporations, to pledge to the payment of such bonds the fees, charges, rents, payments, grants, or any other revenues from the financed facilities and to secure such bonds by a deed of trust, mortgage or other lien on the financed property or by other security or credit enhancement; and neither airport revenue bonds nor special facility bonds shall be secured by the full faith and credit or the taxing power of the political subdivision of the state or regional airport authority as defined by law.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 190, p. 1249; am. 1971, ch. 112, § 1, p. 383; am. 1977, ch. 50, § 2, p. 91; am. 1987, ch. 206, § 1, p. 433; am. 2011, ch. 129, § 2, p. 358.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Revenue bond act,§ 50-1027 et seq.
Amendments.
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 129, added subsection (j).
Compiler’s Notes.
The words enclosed in parentheses so appeared in the law as enacted.
The term “this act” in subsection (c) refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code. However, in the context of§ 50-1027, the term may mean the “revenue bond act,” codified as§§ 50-1027 to 50-1042.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1971, ch. 112 declared an emergency. Approved March 15, 1971.
CASE NOTES
Condemnation.
Liability for charges incurred by tenants.
Rates, fees and charges.
Condemnation.
City lacked extraterritorial eminent domain power to condemn easements located outside of its boundaries for the purpose of constructing electric transmission lines because there is no express grant of extraterritorial eminent domain power in in the general eminent domain statutes,§§ 7-701, 7-720. Subsection (c) of this section indicates that the legislature did not intend to augment the scope of the eminent domain power beyond the provisions of§ 7-720, and the extraterritorial power of eminent domain to construct transmission lines was not implied or incident to the city’s expressly granted powers. Alliance v. City of Idaho Falls, 742 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2013).
Liability for Charges Incurred by Tenants.
A city did not have implied power to collect from a property owner for charges incurred by tenants for water, sewer and garbage services. City of Grangeville v. Haskin, 116 Idaho 535, 777 P.2d 1208 (1989).
Rates, Fees and Charges.
Where city based connection fees charged users of water and sewer system on formula termed “equity buy-in” and city annually was required to revalue the fees pursuant to the formula and all revenue from the fees was placed in a separate account and used only for replacement of existing facilities and equipment, no moneys were placed in the general operating funds of the city and none was used for expansion or improvement of the existing system, it was not necessary that a municipality have an election such as prescribed in Const., Art. VIII, § 3 prior to changing the rates, fees or charges imposed in establishing the cost of public works services such as sewer or water connection fees. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991). Where city, after receiving an engineering report, selected a system in which the new user buys into a portion of the current value of the water and sewer system capacity and such method attempts to determine the current value of the system and then apportion a share of the value of that system to a new user, the methodology used to determine the value of the system is not unreasonable, nor is it unreasonable to charge a new user the value of that portion of the system capacity that the new user will utilize at that point in time; and the fact the connection fee may be higher in such city than in other municipalities will not invalidate the fee as long as it is reasonable and is not primarily a source of revenue; thus, where ordinance specifically states that its intent is to “recover the costs of operating, maintaining, replacing, and depreciating the existing water and sewer systems and any extensions thereof,” there is nothing in the ordinance that is not authorized by the Idaho revenue bond act and court found no evidence in the record that the fees charged by the city were arbitrary or unreasonable. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
Cities can legally assess buy-in fees when those fees are reasonably connected to the actual costs such additional users will engender. The correct amount is to be calculated by dividing the net system replacement value by the number of users the system can support. The new user is charged the value of that portion of the system capacity that the new user will utilize at that point in time. N. Idaho Bldg. Contrs. Ass’n v. City of Hayden, 164 Idaho 530, 432 P.3d 976 (2018).
So long as the fees collected pursuant to the Idaho revenue bond act are allocated and budgeted in conformity with that act they will not be construed as taxes. However, if fees are collected under the disguise of the act and allocated and spent otherwise, then the fees are primarily revenue raising and will be construed as taxes. N. Idaho Bldg. Contrs. Ass’n v. City of Hayden, 164 Idaho 530, 432 P.3d 976 (2018).
Cited
Coeur d’Alene Garbage Serv. v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 114 Idaho 588, 759 P.2d 879 (1988).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Acquisition of land.
Combination of systems.
Constitutionality.
Disconnection charge.
Removal of water company’s pipes.
Sewage disposal.
Acquisition of Land.
Combination of Systems.
A village was entitled to acquire land without the village for the purpose of constructing a sewage disposal and treatment plant. Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953). Combination of Systems.
Village was entitled to combine its water system and sewerage systems and issue water and sewer revenue bonds with a pledge of the net revenue of both as sole security even though water system presently existed and sewerage system was nonexistent, since intention of legislature was to make it possible to establish and maintain any or all of such systems in any combination which would serve best interests of a municipality. Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953).
Constitutionality.
Provision of ordinance and former similar section granting authority to municipality to discontinue service to any one who failed to pay charges for water and sewer service is constitutional. Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953).
Disconnection Charge.
Provisions in ordinance for charge of $1.00 for disconnection of service from municipal water and sewerage systems on default in payment and charge of $1.00 for reconnection were valid since specific charges covered only the cost of disconnection and reconnection. Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953).
Removal of Water Company’s Pipes.
Unincorporated village was not required to obtain consent of public utilities commission before requiring removal of pipes and apparatus of a private water company, though water company as a public utility was subject to regulation by the commission, since municipalities retain the right to control and maintain its streets and alleys. Village of Lapwai v. Alligier, 78 Idaho 124, 299 P.2d 475 (1956).
Sewage Disposal.
As a municipal corporation, the village possessed legislatively delegated power to construct, operate and maintain sewage disposal facilities and to issue its bonds for the purpose of acquiring and constructing sewage treatment and disposal plants, together with lands and appurtenances. Larsen v. Village of Lava Hot Springs, 88 Idaho 64, 396 P.2d 471 (1964).
A sewage disposal facility, legal in its inception, was not a nuisance per se, and its location and the manner of its operation would determine whether it was a nuisance in fact. Larsen v. Village of Lava Hot Springs, 88 Idaho 64, 396 P.2d 471 (1964).
§ 50-1031. Supervision of projects.
The construction, acquisition, improvement, equipment, custody, operation and maintenance of any works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities under the provisions of this act, and the collection of revenues therefrom for the service rendered thereby, shall be under the supervision and control of the governing body of the city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 191, p. 1249; am. 1977, ch. 50, § 3, p. 91.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” near the middle of the section refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code. However, in the context of§ 50-1027, the term may mean the “revenue bond act,” codified as§§ 50-1027 to 50-1042.
§ 50-1032. Projects to be self-supporting.
The council of a city issuing bonds pursuant to this act shall prescribe and collect reasonable rates, fees, tolls or charges for the services, facilities and commodities furnished by such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities, and shall revise such rates, fees, tolls or charges from time to time, to provide that all such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities shall be and always remain self-supporting. The rates, fees, tolls or charges prescribed shall be such as will produce revenue at least sufficient, (a) to pay when due all bonds and interest thereon for the payment of which such revenue is or shall have been pledged, charged or otherwise encumbered including reserves therefor, and (b) to provide for all expenses of operation and maintenance of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities, including reserves therefor.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 192, p. 1249; am. 1977, ch. 50, § 4, p. 91.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” near the beginning of the section refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code. However, in the context of§ 50-1027, the term may mean the “revenue bond act,” codified as§§ 50-1027 to 50-1042.
CASE NOTES
Fee structure.
Rates, fees and charges.
Fee Structure.
The fees, rates and charges imposed by a municipality must be reasonable and must produce sufficient revenue to support the public works project at the lowest possible cost. The law only requires that the fee be reasonably related to the benefit conveyed. Manwaring Invs., LC v. City of Blackfoot, 162 Idaho 763, 405 P.3d 22 (2017), overruled on other grounds, N. Idaho Bldg. Contrs. Ass’n v. City of Hayden, 164 Idaho 530, 432 P.3d 976 (2018).
Rates, Fees and Charges.
The legislature has not imposed exacting rate requirements upon localities. The law requires only that the fee be reasonably related to the benefit conveyed. Creating a fee structure for a wastewater system whereby every member of the general public would be charged only for his or her exact contribution of waste presumably could be established, but the system would be cumbersome and perhaps prohibitively expensive to maintain. Manwaring Invs., LC v. City of Blackfoot, 162 Idaho 763, 405 P.3d 22 (2017), overruled on other grounds, N. Idaho Bldg. Contrs. Ass’n v. City of Hayden, 164 Idaho 530, 432 P.3d 976 (2018). Rates, Fees and Charges.
Where city, after receiving an engineering report, selected a system in which the new user buys into a portion of the current value of the water and sewer system capacity and such method attempts to determine the current value of the system and then apportion a share of the value of that system to a new user, the methodology used to determine the value of the system is not unreasonable, nor is it unreasonable to charge a new user the value of that portion of the system capacity that the new user will utilize at that point in time; and the fact that the connection fee may be higher in such city than in other municipalities will not invalidate the fee as long as it is reasonable and is not primarily a source of revenue; since the ordinance specifically states that its intent is to “recover the costs of operating, maintaining, replacing, and depreciating the existing water and sewer systems and any extensions thereof,” there was nothing in the ordinance that was not authorized by the Idaho revenue bond act and court found no evidence in the record that the fees charged by the city were arbitrary or unreasonable. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
Where the proceeds of the connection fee for water and sewer service are dedicated to the water and sewer systems, those funds are kept in a separate, segregated account and are not used for general fund purposes and, further, only users of those services are charged and those fees are not utilized for general fund or for future expansion of the water and sewer system because the funds collected from connection fees by the city are specifically allocated in accordance with the Idaho revenue bond act, the fees are not collected for general revenue raising purposes and are, therefore, not taxes requiring approval of the electorate; under these circumstances a municipality may collect such fees, rates or charges pursuant to the power granted in the Idaho revenue bond act to pay for maintenance, depreciation and replacement of system components. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Disconnection Charge.
Provisions in ordinance for charge of $1.00 for disconnection of service from municipal water and sewage systems on default in payment and charge of $1.00 for reconnection were valid since specific charges covered only the cost of disconnection and reconnection. Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953).
§ 50-1033. Use of projects — Revenue.
Any city issuing bonds under sections 50-1027 through 50-1042, Idaho Code, for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, betterment or extension of any works or to rehabilitate existing electrical generating facilities, shall have the right to appropriate, apply or expend the revenue of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities for the following purposes: (a) to pay when due all bonds and interest thereon, for the payment of which such revenue is or shall have been pledged, charged or otherwise encumbered, including reserves therefor; (b) to provide for all expenses of operation, maintenance, replacement and depreciation of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities, including reserves therefor; (c) to pay and discharge notes, bonds or other obligations and interest thereon, not issued under this act for the payment of which the revenue of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities may have been pledged, charged or encumbered; (d) to pay and discharge notes, bonds or other obligations and interest thereon which do not constitute a lien, charge or encumbrance on the revenue of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities, which may have been issued for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, betterment or extension of such works or to rehabilitate existing electrical generating facilities; and (e) provide a reserve for improvements to such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities. Unless and until full and adequate provision has been made for the foregoing purposes, no city shall have the right to transfer the revenue of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities to its general fund.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 193, p. 1249; am. 1977, ch. 50, § 5, p. 91.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” in paragraph (c) refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code. However, in the context of§ 50-1027, the term may mean the “revenue bond act,” codified as§§ 50-1027 to 50-1042.
CASE NOTES
Fee structure.
Maintenance, replacement and depreciation.
Ordinary and necessary expenses.
Fee Structure.
The fees, rates and charges imposed by a municipality must be reasonable and must produce sufficient revenue to support the public works project at the lowest possible cost. The law only requires that the fee be reasonably related to the benefit conveyed. Manwaring Invs., LC v. City of Blackfoot, 162 Idaho 763, 405 P.3d 22 (2017), overruled on other grounds, N. Idaho Bldg. Contrs. Ass’n v. City of Hayden, 164 Idaho 530, 432 P.3d 976 (2018).
The legislature has not imposed exacting rate requirements upon localities. The law requires only that the fee be reasonably related to the benefit conveyed. Creating a fee structure for a wastewater system whereby every member of the general public would be charged only for his or her exact contribution of waste presumably could be established, but the system would be cumbersome and perhaps prohibitively expensive to maintain. Manwaring Invs., LC v. City of Blackfoot, 162 Idaho 763, 405 P.3d 22 (2017), overruled on other grounds, N. Idaho Bldg. Contrs. Ass’n v. City of Hayden, 164 Idaho 530, 432 P.3d 976 (2018).
Maintenance, Replacement and Depreciation.
Where city, after receiving an engineering report, selected a system in which the new user buys into a portion of the current value of the water and sewer system capacity and such method attempts to determine the current value of the system and then apportion a share of the value of that system to a new user, the methodology used to determine the value of the system is not unreasonable, nor is it unreasonable to charge a new user the value of that portion of the system capacity that the new user will utilize at that point in time; and the fact the connection fee may be higher in such city than in other municipalities will not invalidate the fee as long as it is reasonable and is not primarily a source of revenue; since the ordinance specifically states that its intent is to “recover the costs of operating, maintaining, replacing, and depreciating the existing water and sewer systems and any extensions thereof,” there was nothing in the ordinance that is not authorized by the Idaho revenue bond act and the court found no evidence in the record that the fees charged by the city were arbitrary or unreasonable. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
Where the proceeds of the connection fee for water and sewer service are dedicated to the water and sewer systems, those funds are kept in a separate, segregated account and are not used for general fund purposes and, further, only users of those services are charged and those fees are not utilized for general fund or for future expansion of the water and sewer system because the funds collected from connection fees by the city are specifically allocated in accordance with the Idaho revenue bond act, the fees are not collected for general revenue raising purposes and are, therefore, not taxes requiring approval of the electorate; under these circumstances a municipality may collect fees, rates or charges pursuant to the power granted in the Idaho revenue bond act to pay for maintenance, depreciation and replacement of system components. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
Ordinary and Necessary Expenses.
Because subsection (b) of this section allows the collection of revenues sufficient to cover certain costs, city under contract to treat other city’s wastewater did not violate the revenue bond act by charging a rate of return for wastewater treatment. City of Chubbuck v. City of Pocatello, 127 Idaho 198, 899 P.2d 411 (1995). Ordinary and Necessary Expenses.
A municipality may accumulate collected revenues from rates, charges or fees to fund the cost of replacement of system components in its public works projects which are ordinary and necessary. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991).
§ 50-1034. Preliminary expenses.
The city may provide for the payment of all necessary preliminary expenses actually incurred in the making of surveys, estimates of costs and revenues, employment of engineers and other employees, making of notices, taking of options, legal and clerical help and all other expenses necessary to be made and paid prior to the authorization for the issuance of such revenue bonds, provided, that no such expenditures shall be made or paid unless an appropriation has been made therefor in the same manner as is required by law for city funds. Any funds so expended by the city shall be fully reimbursed and repaid to the city out of the sale of such revenue bonds before any other disbursements are made therefrom, and the amount so advanced by the city to pay such preliminary expenses shall be a first charge against the proceeds resulting from the sale of such revenue bonds until the same has been repaid as herein provided.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 194, p. 1249.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
§ 50-1035. Ordinance prior to construction — Election.
Before any city shall construct or acquire any works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities under this chapter, the council of such city shall enact an ordinance or ordinances which shall, (a) set forth a brief and general description of the works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities, and if the same are to be constructed, a reference to the preliminary report or plans and specifications which shall theretofore have been prepared and filed by an engineer chosen for that purpose; (b) set forth the cost thereof estimated by the engineer chosen as aforesaid; (c) order the construction or acquisition of such works or the rehabilitation of such existing electrical generating facilities; (d) direct that revenue bonds of the city shall be issued pursuant to this chapter in such amount as may be necessary to pay the cost of the works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities; and (e) contain such other provisions as may be necessary in the proposal.
Such ordinance shall be passed, approved and published as provided by law for the enactment of general ordinances, but such city shall not incur or authorize in any year any indebtedness or liability under said ordinance exceeding in that year, the income and revenue provided for it for such year, without the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the qualified electors of such city voting at an election held for the purpose of authorizing or refusing to authorize the indebtedness or liability provided for in said ordinance; provided, that any city may, with the assent of a majority of the qualified electors voting at an election to be held for such purpose, issue revenue bonds for the purpose of providing funds to own, purchase, construct, extend or equip, within and without the corporate limits of such city, water systems, sewerage systems, water treatment plants, sewerage treatment plants, electric systems, or to rehabilitate existing electrical generating facilities, the principal and interest of which to be paid solely from the revenue derived from rates and charges for the use of, and the service rendered by such systems, plants and facilities. In accordance with section 3E, article VIII of the constitution of the state of Idaho, any political subdivision of the state or regional airport authority as defined by law, operating an airport may issue revenue bonds payable solely from fees, charges, rents, payments, grants or any other revenues derived from or relating to airport facilities and air navigation facilities to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing, installing and equipping airport facilities and air navigation facilities and such bonds shall not be secured by the full faith and credit or the taxing power of the political subdivision of the state or regional airport authority as defined by law.
Said ordinances shall provide for the holding of said election in accordance with the dates authorized in section 50-405, Idaho Code, by the county clerk in accordance with the provisions of title 34, Idaho Code. The notice of election shall set forth the purpose of said ordinance, the amount of bonds authorized by it, the maximum number of years from their respective dates for which such bonds may run, the voting places, the hours between which the polls will be open and the qualifications of voters who may vote thereat. In all other respects such election shall be conducted as are other city elections. The voting at such elections must be by ballot, and the ballots used shall be substantially as follows: “In favor of issuing revenue bonds for the purposes provided by Ordinance No. . . . . .”
“Against the issuance of revenue bonds for the purposes provided by Ordinance No. . . . . .”
If, at such election, the required vote is in favor of issuing such revenue bonds, then such city may issue such bonds and create such indebtedness or liability in the manner and for the purpose specified in said ordinance.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 195, p. 1249; am. 1973, ch. 40, § 1, p. 75; am. 1977, ch. 50, § 6, p. 91; am. 1981, ch. 300, § 2, p. 620; am. 2009, ch. 341, § 128, p. 993; am. 2011, ch. 129, § 3, p. 358.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Revenue bond act,§ 50-1027 et seq.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, by ch. 341, in the first paragraph, twice substituted “chapter” for “act”; and rewrote the first sentence in the third paragraph, which formerly read: “Said ordinances shall provide for the holding of said election and the giving of notice thereof by publication in the official newspaper of the city, said publication to be once a week for two (2) successive weeks prior to such election.”
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 129, in the second paragraph, inserted “electric systems” near the end of the first sentence and added the last sentence.
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 2 of S.L. 1978, ch. 330 purported to amend this section. Section 3 of that act provided that the act should take effect when the amendment to Article VIII, § 3 of the Idaho Constitution which was proposed by the second regular session of the Forty-Fourth Idaho Legislature was ratified. However, the proposed constitutional amendment was defeated and, accordingly, the amendment to this section never took effect.
Effective Dates.
Section 1 of S.L. 1973, ch. 40 declared an emergency. Approved February 26, 1973.
Section 161 of S.L. 2009, ch. 341 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2011.
CASE NOTES
Requirement by Election.
Where city based connection fees charged users of water and sewer system on formula termed “equity buy-in” and city annually was required to revalue the fees pursuant to the formula and all revenue from the fees was placed in a separate account and used only for replacement of existing facilities and equipment, no moneys were placed in the general operating funds of the city and none was used for expansion or improvement of the existing system it was not necessary that a municipality have an election such as prescribed in Idaho Const., Art. VIII, § 3 prior to changing the rates, fees or charges imposed in establishing the cost of public works services such as sewer or water connection fees. Loomis v. City of Hailey, 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272 (1991). Decisions Under Prior Law
Laws Controlling Elections.
Revenue bond elections were controlled by laws of the state governing municipal elections and not by laws of the state relating to general obligation bond election, since village and taxpayers were not obligated to pay revenue bonds as in the case of general obligation bonds. Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953).
§ 50-1035A. Issuance of revenue bonds at rates of interest in excess of original specification.
Any city may issue revenue bonds of the city bearing interest at such rate or rates as shall be prescribed by ordinance if:
- The principal amount of such revenue bonds does not exceed the then unissued balance of the principal amount of revenue bonds of the same type authorized at an election heretofore held in the city;
- The revenue bonds are issued for the same purpose as that for which the unissued bonds were authorized; and
- The bonds are issued in accordance with the provisions of the revenue bond act; provided, that an election shall have been held and conducted in the manner provided in section 50-1035, Idaho Code, on the proposition of issuing revenue bonds under the provisions of this section at a rate or rates of interest in excess of the maximum rate of interest specified in the notice of election at which the unissued bonds were authorized and the proposition shall have been approved by the same percentage of the qualified electors of the city voting at the election as was required in section 50-1035, Idaho Code, at the election at which the unissued bonds were authorized.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1035A, as added by 1981, ch. 300, § 3, p. 620.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Revenue bond act,§ 50-1027 et seq.
Effective Dates.
Section 4 of S.L. 1981, ch. 300 declared an emergency. Approved April 7, 1981.
§ 50-1036. Bonds — Form — Conditions — Bond anticipation notes.
-
All revenue bonds issued under authority of this act shall be sold, executed and delivered in the same manner as provided by the municipal bond law for the sale of general obligation negotiable coupon bonds, except that issues of revenue bonds may, in the discretion of the governing body, be sold at a private sale without advertising the same at competitive bidding and at a price above, at, or below par. The ordinance authorizing the issuance of said bonds shall prescribe the form of bonds. Said bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates, payable annually, or at such lesser intervals as may be prescribed by ordinance; may be in one (1) or more series, bear such date or dates, mature at such time or times, and be redeemable before maturity at the option of the city; may be payable in such medium of payment, at such place or places, may carry such registration privileges, may be subject to such terms of redemption, may contain such terms, covenants and conditions, and may be in such form, either coupon or registered, as such ordinance may provide. Pending preparation of the bonds, interim certificates, in such form and with such provisions as the council may determine, may be issued. Said bonds and interim certificates shall be fully negotiable within the meaning of and for all the purposes of the negotiable instruments law.
- provide for the initial issuance of one (1) or more bonds, in this act called “bond,” aggregating the amount of the entire issue;
- make such provision for instalment payments of the principal amount of any such bond as it may consider desirable;
- provide for the making of any such bond payable to bearer or otherwise, registrable as to principal or as to both principal and interest, and where interest accruing thereon is not represented by interest coupons, for the indorsing of payments of interest on such bonds; and
- further make provision in any such proceedings for the manner and circumstances in and under which any such bond may in the future, at the request of the holder thereof, be converted into bonds of smaller denominations, which bonds of smaller denominations may in turn be either coupon bonds or bonds registrable as to principal, or principal and interest, or both.
-
Whenever the governing body considers it advisable and in the interests of the city to anticipate the issuance of revenue bonds to be issued under this act, the governing body may from time to time and pursuant to appropriate resolution issue bond anticipation notes. Each resolution authorizing the issuance of bond anticipation notes shall:
- describe the revenue bonds in anticipation of which the notes are to be issued; and
- shall specify the principal amount of the notes, the rate of interest and maturity date of the notes, which maturity date shall be not to exceed five (5) years from the date of issue of such notes; but the time of payment of any such notes may be extended for a period of not exceeding three (3) years from their maturity date. Bond anticipation notes shall be issued and sold from time to time in such manner and at such price as the governing body shall by resolution determine. Bond anticipation notes shall be in bearer form, except that the governing body may provide for the registration of the notes in the name of the owner either as to principal alone, or as to principal and interest, and on such terms and conditions as the governing body may determine in the authorizing resolution. Interest on bond anticipation notes may be made payable semiannually, annually, or at maturity. Bond anticipation notes may be made redeemable prior to maturity at the option of the governing body in the manner and upon the terms fixed by the resolution authorizing their issuance. Bond anticipation notes shall be executed and shall be in such form and have such details and terms as shall be provided in the authorizing resolution.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the municipal bond law, the governing body in any proceedings authorizing bonds under this act may:
Contemporaneously with the issuance of the revenue bonds in anticipation of which bond anticipation notes are issued, all bond anticipation notes so issued, even though they may not then have matured, shall be paid, both as to principal and interest, to date of payment; and all such notes shall be surrendered and canceled.
Bond anticipation notes and the interest on them shall be secured by a pledge of the income and revenues derived by the city from the project to be undertaken with the proceeds of the bond anticipation notes and shall also be made payable from funds derived from the sale of the revenue bonds in anticipation of which the notes are issued.
Bond anticipation notes may be refunded by the issuance of other bond anticipation notes maturing within not more than eight (8) years from the date of the issuance of the initial issue of bond anticipation notes for which this refunding is to be effected.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 196, p. 1249; am. 1970, ch. 133, § 13, p. 23; am. 1970, ch. 219, § 1, p. 619; am. 1971, ch. 330, § 1, p. 1297; am. 1978, ch. 176, § 2, p. 402; am. 1981, ch. 300, § 1, p. 620.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Municipal bond law,§ 57-201 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” in three places in subsection (a) and in the introductory paragraph in subsection (b) refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code. However, in the context of§ 50-1027, the term may mean the “revenue bond act,” codified as§§ 50-1027 to 50-1042.
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 1978, ch. 176 declared an emergency. Approved March 20, 1978.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Procedure.
Former similar section specifically provided that revenue bonds issued under authority thereof should be sold, executed and delivered in the same manner as provided by the “municipal bond law” (§ 57-201 et seq.) and such bonds under§ 57-218 could be authorized, issued and sold either by ordinance or resolution and without a vote of the electors of the village. Adams v. Pritchard, 88 Idaho 325, 399 P.2d 252 (1965).
§ 50-1037. Bonds — Issuance — Terms — Conditions.
Whenever revenue bonds are authorized to be issued, the city council shall by ordinance provide for the issuance thereof. The ordinance authorizing the issuance of said revenue bonds, for the purpose authorized, shall contain covenants as to:
- The purpose or purposes to which the proceeds of the sale of said bonds may be applied and the use and disposition thereof;
- The use and disposition of the revenue of the works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities for which said bonds are to be issued, including the creation and maintenance of reserves;
- The transfer from the general fund of the city to the account or accounts of the works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities, of a sum or sums of money for furnishing the city or any of its departments, boards or agencies with the services, facilities and commodities of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities;
- The issuance of other or additional bonds payable from the revenue of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities;
- The operation and maintenance of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities;
- The insurance to be carried thereon, the use and disposition of insurance moneys;
- Books of account and inspection and audit thereof;
- The appointment and duties of a trustee. Provisions may be made for the securing of the bonds by a trust indenture, but no such indenture shall convey, mortgage or create any lien upon property of the city;
- The terms and conditions upon which the holders thereof or any trustee therefor shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver which receiver may enter and take possession of such works, operate and maintain the same, prescribe rates, fees, tolls or charges and collect, receive and apply all revenue thereafter arising therefrom in the same manner as the city itself might do. The provisions of this section and of any such ordinance shall be a contract with the holder of said bonds, and the duties of the city and its council under this section and under such ordinance, shall be enforceable by the holder by mandamus or other appropriate suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 197, p. 1249; am. 1977, ch. 50, § 7, p. 91.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Appointment of Receiver.
Provision in ordinance authorizing appointment of receiver for water and sewerage system on default in payment of principal or interest of revenue bonds was authorized under former similar section. Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953).
§ 50-1038. Validity of bonds.
Any ordinance authorizing said bonds may provide that the bonds shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to section [sections] 50-1027 through 50-1042[, Idaho Code], which recital shall be conclusive evidence of their validity and of the regularity of their issuance.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 198, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The first bracketed insertion in this section was added by the compiler to correct the enacting legislation.
The second bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1039. Lien of bonds.
All bonds of the same issue shall, subject to the prior and superior rights of outstanding bonds, claims or obligations, have prior and paramount lien on the revenue of the works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities for which said bonds have been issued, except that where provision is made in the ordinance authorizing any issue or series of bonds for the issuance of additional bonds in the future on a parity therewith pursuant to procedures or restrictions provided in such ordinance, additional bonds may be issued in the future on a parity with such issue or series in the manner so provided in such ordinance. All bonds of the same issue shall be equally and ratably secured without priority by reason of number, date of bonds, date of sale, date of execution, or date of delivery, by a lien on said revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Bond Act and the ordinance authorizing said bonds. Special facility bonds issued for airport facilities and air navigation facilities to be owned by private persons, associations or corporations and not by the political subdivision of the state or regional airport authority as defined by law shall be additionally secured by a deed of trust, mortgage or other lien on the facilities or other security or credit enhancement provisions.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 199, p. 1249; am. 1970, ch. 219, § 1, p. 619; am. 1977, ch. 50, § 8, p. 91; am. 2011, ch. 129, § 4, p. 358.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Revenue bond act,§ 50-1027 et seq.
Amendments.
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 129, added the last sentence.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Parity of Liens.
An ordinance was not invalid on the ground that it authorized issuance in the future of a second issue of revenue bonds to enjoy complete parity of lien with bonds of first issue providing certain required conditions were fulfilled, as priority of first issue was exclusively for the benefit of the holders of the bonds under first issue and same could be waived. Schmidt v. Village of Kimberly, 74 Idaho 48, 256 P.2d 515 (1953).
§ 50-1040. City not liable on bonds.
Bonds issued pursuant to sections 50-1027 through 50-1042[, Idaho Code,] shall not be a debt of the city and the city shall not be liable thereon, nor shall they be payable out of any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof. Each bond issued under the Revenue Bond Act shall recite, in substance, that said bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenue pledge [pledged] to the payment thereof. Bonds may be issued under sections 50-1027 through 50-1042[, Idaho Code,] notwithstanding and without regard to any limitation or restriction on the amount or percentage of indebtedness, or of outstanding obligations of a city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 200, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Revenue bond act,§ 50-1027 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertions near the beginning and near the end of the section were added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
The first bracketed insertion in the second sentence was added by the compiler to correct the enacting legislation.
§ 50-1041. Tax levy to pay bonds prohibited.
The provisions of [section] 57-203, Idaho Code, relating to the levy of taxes for the payment of bonds, shall not be applicable to bonds issued by a city under the Revenue Bond Act, and the principal or interest thereof shall not be charged upon the city issuing the same. The holder or holders of any bonds issued under the Revenue Bond Act shall not have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the city to pay said bonds or the interest thereon.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 201, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Revenue bond act,§ 50-1027 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed word “section” in the first sentence was inserted by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1042. Projects and bonds exempt from taxation.
So long as a city shall own any works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities, the property and revenue of such works or rehabilitated existing electrical generating facilities shall be exempt from taxation. Bonds issued under sections 50-1027 through 50-1042, Idaho Code, and the income therefrom shall be exempt from taxation, except transfer and estate taxes.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 202, p. 1249; am. 1977, ch. 50, § 9, p. 91.
§ 50-1043. Short title.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the “City Property Tax Alternatives Act of 1978.”
History.
1978, ch. 261, § 1, p. 567.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” refers to S.L. 1978, Chapter 261, which is compiled as§§ 50-1043 to 50-1048.
§ 50-1044. Authority for resort city residents to approve and resort city governments to adopt, implement and collect certain city nonproperty taxes.
The voters of any resort city with a population not in excess of ten thousand (10,000) according to the most recent census within the state of Idaho, organized under the general laws of the state, special charter, or a general incorporation act, are hereby given the freedom to authorize their city government to adopt, implement and collect one (1) or more local-option nonproperty taxes as provided herein. A resort city is a city that derives the major portion of its economic well-being from businesses catering to recreational needs and meeting needs of people traveling to that destination city for an extended period of time. The corporate authorities of any such resort city are hereby given the freedom and authority to adopt, implement and collect one (1) or more local-option nonproperty taxes as provided herein, if approved by the required majority of city voters voting in an election as provided herein. No local-option nonproperty tax proposal may be presented to resort city voters for approval or modification for a period of eleven (11) months after an election to approve or disapprove such tax. The election may be a special election conducted for the exclusive purpose of approving or disapproving such tax or may be conducted as a part of any other special or general city election.
History.
1978, ch. 261, § 2, p. 567; am. 1981, ch. 328, § 1, p. 687; am. 2013, ch. 135, § 13, p. 307.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
General and special city elections,§ 50-405.
Amendments.
The 2013 amendment, by ch. 135, substituted “eleven (11) months” for “one (1) year” in the next-to-last sentence.
Effective Dates.
Section 14 of S.L. 2013, ch. 135 declared an emergency. Approved March 22, 2013.
§ 50-1045. City property tax relief fund.
Any resort city may establish a city property tax relief fund into which may be placed all or any portion of revenues received from any nonproperty tax levied in accordance with the provisions of this act and such nonproperty tax revenues may be used to replace city property taxes in the ensuing fiscal year by the amount of nonproperty tax revenues placed in the city property tax relief fund if city voters have approved of such use of nonproperty tax revenues in the election authorizing such city nonproperty tax. Any resort city that receives more revenues from any local-option nonproperty tax than such city has budgeted shall establish a city property tax relief fund into which shall be placed all revenues received in excess of the budget amount and such excess revenues shall be used to replace city property taxes in the ensuing fiscal year by the amount of all excess revenues placed in said city property tax relief fund.
History.
1978, ch. 261, § 3, p. 567.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” in the first sentence refers to S.L. 1978, Chapter 261, which is compiled as§§ 50-1043 to 50-1048.
§ 50-1046. City local-option nonproperty taxes permitted by sixty per cent majority vote.
A sixty per cent (60%) majority of the voters of any resort city voting on the question may approve and, upon such approval, any city may adopt, implement, and collect, subject to the provisions of this act, the following city local-option nonproperty taxes: (a) an occupancy tax upon hotel, motel, and other sleeping accommodations rented or leased for a period of thirty (30) days or less; (b) a tax upon liquor by-the-drink, wine and beer sold at retail for consumption on the licensed premises; and (c) a sales tax upon part or all of sales subject to taxation under chapter 36, title 63, Idaho Code.
History.
1978, ch. 261, § 4, p. 567; am. 1984, ch. 225, § 1, p. 542.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” near the middle of the section refers to S.L. 1978, Chapter 261, which is compiled as§§ 50-1043 to 50-1048.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Sun Valley Co. v. City of Sun Valley, 109 Idaho 724, 708 P.2d 147 (1985).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Building Materials.
The City of Sun Valley may impose its local option sales tax on building materials sales made in the city.OAG 91-6.
Ski Lift Tickets.
A vendor who sells a ski lift ticket from a location within the city limits of the City of Sun Valley has a responsibility to collect city local option sales tax from the purchaser of the ticket; the tax thus collected must be remitted to the City of Sun Valley in the manner provided in the city’s municipal sales tax ordinance.OAG 91-6.
§ 50-1047. General provisions.
Any ordinance assessing a tax pursuant to this act shall contain a finding by the local governing body of the city based upon evidence presented to it that the condition set forth in section 50-1044, Idaho Code, exists and shall provide the methods for reporting and collecting taxes due. Taxes collected pursuant to any such ordinance shall be remitted to the city official designated in such ordinance or other such official contracting, pursuant to this act, with the city to provide collection services, and shall constitute revenue of the city available for any lawful corporate purpose approved by city voters subject to the provisions of this act. In any election, the ordinance submitted to city voters shall: (a) state and define the specific tax to be approved; (b) state the exact rate of the tax to be assessed; (c) state the exact purpose or purposes for which the revenues derived from the tax shall be used; and (d) state the duration of the tax. No tax shall be redefined, no rate shall be increased, no purpose shall be modified, and no duration shall be extended without subsequent approval of city voters. An ordinance adopting any local-option nonproperty tax authorized by this act may provide for separate identification of taxes as may be appropriate. The city clerk of any city adopting an ordinance pursuant to this act shall, immediately following approval of such ordinance, or any amendment thereto, forward a copy of said ordinance or amendment to the chairman of the state tax commission, and the chairman of the state board of tax appeals.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1047, as added by 1978, ch. 261, § 5, p. 567; am. 1979, ch. 221, § 1, p. 615; am. 1994, ch. 180, § 92, p. 420; am. 2003, ch. 32, § 25, p. 115.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The term “this act” throughout this section refers to S.L. 1978, Chapter 261, which is compiled as§§ 50-1043 to 50-1048.
Effective Dates.
Section 241 of S.L. 1994, ch. 180 provided that such act should become effective on and after the first Monday in January, 1995 [January 2, 1995] if the amendment to the Constitution of Idaho changing the name of the state auditor to state controller [1994 S.J.R. No. 109, p. 1493] was adopted at the general election held on November 8, 1994. Since the amendment was adopted, the amendment to this section by § 92 of S.L. 1994, ch. 180 became effective January 2, 1995.
§ 50-1048. Coordination with county local-option nonproperty taxes.
In the event that counties are given local-option nonproperty tax authority, it is the intent of the legislature that such county local-option nonproperty taxes be coordinated with existing city local-option nonproperty taxes in the county.
History.
1978, ch. 261, § 6, p. 567.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
“Provisions ruled invalid. —
Effective Dates.
Section 8 of S.L. 1978, ch. 261 provided that the act should take effect July 1, 1978.
§ 50-1049. Collection and administration of local-option nonproperty taxes by state tax commission — Distribution.
- A city which has levied a tax pursuant to section 50-1044, Idaho Code, may contract with the state tax commission for the collection and administration of such taxes in like manner and under the definitions, rules and regulations of the tax commission for the collection and administration of the state sales tax under chapter 36, title 63, Idaho Code. A city which levies such tax shall have the right to review and audit the records of collection thereof maintained by the commission and the returns of taxpayers relating to such tax. Alternatively, such city shall have authority to administer and collect such tax.
-
All revenues collected by the tax commission pursuant to section 50-1044, Idaho Code, shall be distributed as follows:
- An amount of money shall be distributed to the state refund account sufficient to pay current refund claims. All refunds authorized by the commission to be paid shall be paid through the state refund account and those moneys are continuously appropriated;
- An amount of money equal to such fee as may be agreed upon between the commission and such city for the actual cost of the collection and administration of the tax. The amount retained by the commission shall not exceed the amount authorized to be expended by appropriation by the legislature. Any unencumbered balance in excess of the actual cost at the end of each fiscal year shall be distributed as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection;
- All remaining moneys received pursuant to this chapter shall be placed in an account designated by the state controller and remitted monthly to the city levying such tax.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1049, as added by 1979, ch. 221, § 2, p. 615; am. 1986, ch. 73, § 7, p. 201; am. 1994, ch. 180, § 93, p. 420.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
State controller,§ 67-1001 et seq.
State refund account,§ 63-3067.
State tax commission,§ 63-101.
Effective Dates.
Section 241 of S.L. 1994, ch. 180, provided that such act should become effective on and after the first Monday in January, 1995 [January 2, 1995] if the amendment to the Constitution of Idaho changing the name of the state auditor to state controller [1994 S.J.R. No. 109, p. 1493] was adopted at the general election held on November 8, 1994. Since such amendment was adopted, the amendment to this section by § 93 of S.L. 1994, ch. 180 became effective January 2, 1995.
Chapter 11 PLANNING COMMISSIONS
Sec.
§ 50-1101 — 50-1106. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49, of title 50.
Compiler’s Notes.
These sections, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 203-208, p. 1249, were repealed by S.L. 1975, ch. 188, § 1, effective July 1, 1975. For present comparable law, see§ 67-6501 et seq.
Chapter 12 ZONING
Sec.
§ 50-1201 — 50-1210. [Repealed.]
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49, of title 50.
Compiler’s Notes.
These sections, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 209-218, p. 1249, were repealed by S.L. 1975, ch. 188, § 1, effective July 1, 1975. For present comparable law, see§ 67-6501 et seq.
Chapter 13 PLATS AND VACATIONS
Sec.
§ 50-1301. Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply to terms used in this section and sections 50-1302 through 50-1334, Idaho Code.
- Basis of bearing: The bearing in degrees, minutes and seconds, or equivalent, of a line between two (2) monuments or two (2) monumented corners that serves as the reference bearing for all other lines on the survey;
- Easement: A right of use, falling short of ownership, and usually for a certain stated purpose;
- Functioning street department: A city department responsible for the maintenance, construction, repair, snow removal, sanding and traffic control of a public highway or public street system which qualifies such department to receive funds from the highway distribution account to local units of government pursuant to section 40-709, Idaho Code;
- Idaho coordinate system: That system of coordinates established and designated by chapter 17, title 55, Idaho Code;
-
Land survey: Measuring the field location of corners that:
- Determine the boundary or boundaries common to two (2) or more ownerships;
- Retrace or establish land boundaries;
- Retrace or establish boundary lines of public roads, streets, alleys or trails; or
- Plat lands and subdivisions thereof.
- Monument: A physical structure or object that occupies the position of a corner;
- Owner: The proprietor of the land (having legal title);
- Plat: The drawing, map or plan of a subdivision, cemetery, townsite or other tract of land, or a replatting of such, including certifications, descriptions and approvals;
- Private road: A road within a subdivision plat that is not dedicated to the public and not a part of a public highway system;
- Public highway agency: The state transportation department, any city, county, highway district or other public agency with jurisdiction over public highway systems and public rights-of-way;
- Public land survey corner: Any point actually established and monumented in an original survey or resurvey that determines the boundaries of remaining public lands, or public lands patented, represented on an official plat and in the field notes thereof, accepted and approved under authority delegated by congress to the U.S. general land office and the U.S. department of the interior, bureau of land management;
- Public right-of-way: Any land dedicated and open to the public and under the jurisdiction of a public highway agency, where the public highway agency has no obligation to construct or maintain said right-of-way for vehicular traffic;
- Public street: A road, thoroughfare, alley, highway or bridge under the jurisdiction of a public highway agency;
- Reference point: A special monumented point that does not occupy the same geographical position as the corner itself and where the spatial relationship to the corner is known and recorded and that serves to locate the corner;
- Sanitary restriction: The requirement that no building or shelter which will require a water supply facility or a sewage disposal facility for people using the premises where such building or shelter is located shall be erected until written approval is first obtained from the director of the department of environmental quality or his delegate approving plans and specifications either for public water and/or sewage facilities, or individual parcel water and/or sewage facilities; (16) Street: A road, thoroughfare, alley, highway or a right-of-way which may be open for public use but is not part of a public highway system nor under the jurisdiction of a public highway agency;
(17) Subdivision: A tract of land divided into five (5) or more lots, parcels, or sites for the purpose of sale or building development, whether immediate or future; provided that this definition shall not include a bona fide division or partition of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. A bona fide division or partition of agricultural land for agricultural purposes shall mean the division of land into lots, all of which are five (5) acres or larger, and maintained as agricultural lands. Cities or counties may adopt their own definition of subdivision in lieu of this definition;
(18) Witness corner: A monumented point on a lot line or boundary line of a survey, near a corner and established in situations where it is impracticable to occupy or monument the corner.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 219, p. 1249; am. 1970, ch. 184, § 1, p. 533; am. 1971, ch. 329, § 1, p. 1294; am. 1988, ch. 175, § 1, p. 306; am. 1990, ch. 170, § 1, p. 367; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 1, p. 778; am. 1994, ch. 364, § 4, p. 1139; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 1, p. 517; am. 1998, ch. 220, § 1, p. 753; am. 1999, ch. 89, § 1, p. 290; am. 2010, ch. 256, § 1, p. 649; am. 2011, ch. 136, § 6, p. 383; am. 2014, ch. 58, § 1, p. 139; am. 2017, ch. 86, § 1, p. 232.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Department of environmental quality,§ 39-104.
Highway distribution account,§ 40-701.
Idaho transportation department,§ 40-501 et seq.
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49, of title 50.
Amendments.
The 2010 amendment, by ch. 256, added subsection (1) and redesignated the subsequent subsections accordingly; and in subsection (14), inserted “and welfare” following “state board of health”.
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 136, added subsection (5) and redesignated the subsequent subsections accordingly; in subsection (14), substituted “Reference point” for “Reference monument,” “special monumented point” for “special monument” and “and where the spatial relationship to the corner is known and recorded and that serves to locate the corner” for “but whose spatial relationship to the corner is known and recorded and which serves to witness the corner”; in subsection (17), substituted “this definition” for “the above definition” at the end; and, in subsection (18), deleted “usually” following “monumented point.” The 2014 amendment, by ch. 58, substituted “director of the department of environmental quality” for “state board of health and welfare by its administrator” in subsection (15).
The 2017 amendment, by ch. 86, inserted “two (2) monumented” preceding “corners” in subsection (1).
Compiler’s Notes.
The words enclosed in parentheses so appeared in the law as enacted.
The U.S. general land office, referred to in subsection (11), was merged with the United State grazing service to become the bureau of land management in 1946. For more information on the bureau of land management, also referred to in subsection (11), see https://www.blm.gov/ .
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
Section 2 of S.L. 1970, ch. 184 declared an emergency. Approved March 13, 1970.
CASE NOTES
Naming and numbering streets.
Subdivision.
Naming and Numbering Streets.
Since the purposes of the local planning act (§ 67-6501 et seq.) and the duties of those charged with its administration are closely related to the planning and zoning functions that have long been the domain of cities and counties, since of necessity these functions transcend the boundaries of local special purpose districts, since§ 40-501 was amended to add to the duties of the county commissioners the duty to rename streets and highways within the county by proper ordinance, since§§ 50-1301 — 50-1329 governing the filing of subdivision plats provide that all plats must be presented to the proper governing body of a city and/or county for approval and each plat must show all the streets and have them named, since nothing in the planning act suggests a legislative intent for the planning and standard setting of the act in respect to highways to flow to highway districts by reason of the language of§ 40-1611 and since§ 67-6501 et seq. were enacted after§§ 40-1611 and 40-1615, the local planning act gives a county the authority to set standards for street naming and address numbering within the boundaries of a local highway district. Worley Hwy. Dist. v. Kootenai County, 104 Idaho 833, 663 P.2d 1135 (Ct. App. 1983).
Subdivision.
County planning and zoning commission was not required to approve landowner’s plot where plot was divided into three lots and met neither statutory requirements nor county requirements for a subdivision. Tranmer v. Helmer, 126 Idaho 88, 878 P.2d 787 (1994).
Cited
Monaco v. Bennion, 99 Idaho 529, 585 P.2d 608 (1978); Stafford v. Klosterman, 134 Idaho 205, 998 P.2d 1118 (2000); Cowan v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 143 Idaho 501, 148 P.3d 1247 (2006); Armand v. Opportunity Mgmt. Co., 155 Idaho 592, 315 P.3d 245 (2013).
§ 50-1302. Duty to file.
Every owner creating a subdivision, as defined in section 50-1301, Idaho Code, shall cause a land survey and a plat thereof to be made which shall particularly and accurately describe and set forth all the streets, easements, public grounds, blocks, lots, and other essential information, and shall record said plat. This section is not intended to prevent the filing of other survey maps or plats. Description of lots or parcels of land, according to the number and designation on such recorded plat, in conveyances or for the purposes of taxation, shall be deemed good and valid for all intents and purposes.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 220, p. 1249; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 2, p. 517; am. 2011, ch. 136, § 7, p. 383.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 136, substituted “as defined in section 50-1301, Idaho Code” for “as defined above” and “a land survey and a plat thereof to be made” for “the same to be surveyed and a plat made thereof.”
CASE NOTES
Intention to Dedicate.
In an action for a declaration that a road in a subdivision was private, the trial court properly struck an affidavit by the engineer who prepared the subdivision plat as inadmissible parol evidence; the affidavit was introduced to vary the terms of an unambiguous instrument, the subdivision plat. Kepler-Fleenor v. Fremont County, 152 Idaho 207, 268 P.3d 1159 (2012).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Description of property in dispute.
Evidence.
Intention to dedicate.
Unopened streets.
Description of Property in Dispute.
In an action to resolve a boundary dispute, the descriptions of both parties’ properties was by the lot numbers designated on the plat of the addition as authorized by former section governing filing of plats. Nutterville v. McLam, 84 Idaho 36, 367 P.2d 576 (1961).
Evidence.
The admission of the testimony of an engineer and the plat prepared by him was improper without a foundation first being laid that he was actually ascertaining the original lines of the original plat or without a prior determination that the monuments of the original plat had been lost and could not be reestablished. Nutterville v. McLam, 84 Idaho 36, 367 P.2d 576 (1961).
Intention to Dedicate.
First essential of a dedication was intention of owner of land to dedicate it, and such intention was usually shown by plat filed. Contrary intention could not be shown by something hidden in mind of landowner. Hanson v. Proffer, 23 Idaho 705, 132 P. 573 (1913).
Unopened Streets.
There could be dedicated to public, land for street purposes which was not at time of dedication in condition to be traveled by public. Hanson v. Proffer, 23 Idaho 705, 132 P. 573 (1913).
§ 50-1303. Survey — Monuments — Accuracy.
The centerline intersections and points where the centerline changes direction on all streets, avenues, and public highways, and all points, witness corners and reference points on the exterior boundary where the boundary line changes direction shall be marked with magnetically detectable monuments the minimum size of which shall be five-eighths (5/8) of an inch in least dimension and two (2) feet long iron or steel rod unless special circumstances preclude use of such monument and all lot and block corners, witness corners and reference points for lot and block corners shall be marked with monuments conforming to the provisions of section 54-1227, Idaho Code. Monuments shall be marked such that measurements between them may be made to the nearest one-tenth (0.1) foot. All lot corners of a burial lot within a platted cemetery need not be marked with a monument, but the block corners shall be monumented in order to permit the accurate identification of each burial lot within the cemetery. The monuments shall conform to the provisions of section 54-1227, Idaho Code. The locations and descriptions of all monuments within a platted cemetery shall be recorded upon the plat, and the courses and distances of all boundary lines shall be shown, but may be shown by legend. The survey for any plat shall be conducted in such a manner as to produce an unadjusted mathematical error of closure of each area bounded by property lines within the survey of not more than one (1) part in five thousand (5,000).
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 221, p. 1249; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 3, p. 517; am. 1998, ch. 220, § 2, p. 753; am. 2008, ch. 378, § 1, p. 1023; am. 2011, ch. 136, § 8, p. 383.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2008 amendment, by ch. 378, rewrote the section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 136, in the section heading, deleted “Stakes and” preceding “Monuments”; in the first sentence, twice substituted “reference points” for “reference monuments”; rewrote the second sentence, which read: “Monuments shall be plainly and permanently marked such that measurements may be taken to the marks within one-tenth (1/10) of a foot”; and, in the last sentence, inserted “each are bounded by property lines within the survey of” and substituted “not more than one” for “not less than one part.”
§ 50-1304. Essentials of plats.
- All plats offered for record in any county shall be upon stable base drafting film with a minimum base thickness of 0.003 inches. The image thereon shall be by a photographic process or a process by which a copy is produced using an ink jet or digital scanning and reproduction machine with black opaque drafting film ink or fused toner that will ensure archival permanence. The copy and image thereon shall be waterproof, tear resistant, flexible, and capable of withstanding repeated handling, as well as providing archival permanence. If ink or toner is used, the surface shall be coated with a suitable substance, if required by the county where the plat is to be recorded, to assure permanent legibility. Plats shall be eighteen (18) inches by twenty-seven (27) inches in size, with a three and one-half (3 1/2) inch margin at the left end for binding and a one-half (1/2) inch margin on all other edges. No part of the drawing or certificates shall encroach upon the margins. Signatures shall be in reproducible black ink. The sheet or sheets which contain the drawing or diagram representing the survey of the subdivision shall be drawn at a scale suitable to ensure the clarity of all lines, bearings and dimensions. In the event that any subdivision is of such magnitude that the drawing or diagram cannot be placed on a single sheet, serially numbered sheets shall be prepared and match lines shall be indicated on the drawing or diagram with appropriate references to other sheets. The required dedications, acknowledgments and certifications shall appear on any of the serially numbered sheets.
- The plat shall show: (a) the streets and alleys, with widths and courses clearly shown; (b) each street named; (c) all lots numbered consecutively in each block, and each block lettered or numbered, provided however, in a platted cemetery, that each block, section, district or division and each burial lot shall be designated by number or letter or name; (d) each and all lengths of the boundaries of each lot shall be shown, provided however, in a platted cemetery, that lengths of the boundaries of each burial lot may be shown by appropriate legend; (e) the exterior boundaries shown by distance and bearing; (f) descriptions of survey monuments; (g) point of beginning with ties to at least two (2) public land survey corner monuments in one (1) or more of the sections containing the subdivision, or in lieu of public land survey corner monuments, to two (2) monuments recognized by the county surveyor; and also, if required by the city or county governing bodies, give coordinates based on the Idaho coordinate system; (h) the easements; (i) basis of bearings, bearing and length of lines, graphic scale of plat and north arrow; (j) subdivision name; and (k) narrative as described in section 55-1906, Idaho Code.
- When coordinates in the Idaho coordinate system are shown on a plat, the plat must show the national spatial reference system monuments and their coordinates used as the basis of the survey; the zone; the datum and adjustment; and the combined adjustment factor and the convergence angle and the location where they were computed.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 222, p. 1249; am. 1978, ch. 106, § 1, p. 218; am. 1990, ch. 170, § 2, p. 367; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 4, p. 517; am. 2010, ch. 256, § 2, p. 649; am. 2015, ch. 48, § 1, p. 101; am. 2019, ch. 58, § 1, p. 146.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Idaho coordinate system,§ 55-1705.
Amendments.
The 2010 amendment, by ch. 256, added the subsection (1) and (2) designations and subsection (3).
The 2015 amendment, by ch. 48, rewrote the first four sentences in subsection (1), which formerly read: “All plats offered for record in any county shall be prepared in black opaque image upon stable base drafting film with a minimum base thickness of 0.003 inches, by either a photographic process using a silver image emulsion or by use of a black opaque drafting film ink, by mechanical or handwritten means. The drafting film and image thereon shall be waterproof, tear resistant, flexible, and capable of withstanding repeated handling, as well as providing archival permanence. If ink is used on drafting film, the ink surface shall be coated with a suitable substance to assure permanent legibility. The drafting film must be of a type which can be reproduced by either a photographic or diazo process”; and, in subsection (2)(i), inserted “bearing and length of lines, graphic scale of plat and north arrow”.
The 2019 amendment, by ch. 58, added “and (k) narrative as described in section 55-1906, Idaho Code” at the end of subsection (2).
Compiler’s Notes.
For more on the national spatial reference system, referred to in subsection (3), see https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/INFO/OnePagers/NSRSOnePager.pdf .
§ 50-1305. Verification.
The county shall choose and require an Idaho professional land surveyor to check the plat and computations thereon to determine that the requirements herein are met, and said professional land surveyor shall certify such compliance on the plat. Such certification shall not relieve the professional land surveyor who prepared the plat from responsibility for the plat. For performing such service the county shall collect from the subdivider a fee as provided by local ordinance reasonably related to the cost of providing such service.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 223, p. 1249; am. 1979, ch. 88, § 1, p. 214; am. 1989, ch. 102, § 1, p. 235; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 5, p. 517.
§ 50-1306. Extraterritorial effects of subdivision — Property within the area of city impact — Rights of city to comment.
All plats situate within an officially designated area of city impact as provided for in section 67-6526, Idaho Code, shall be administered in accordance with the provisions set forth in the adopted city or county zoning and subdivision ordinances having jurisdiction. In the situation where no area of city impact has been officially adopted, the county with jurisdiction shall transmit all proposed plats situate within one (1) mile outside the limits of any incorporated city which has adopted a comprehensive plan or subdivision ordinance to said city for review and comment at least fourteen (14) days before the first official decision regarding the subdivision is to be made by the county. Items which may be considered by the city include, but are not limited to, continuity of street pattern, street widths, integrity and continuity of utility systems and drainage provisions. The city’s subdivision ordinance and/or comprehensive plan shall be used as guidelines for making the comments hereby authorized. The county shall consider all comments submitted by the city. Where the one (1) mile area of impact perimeter of two (2) cities overlaps, both cities shall be notified and allowed to submit comments.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 224, p. 1249; am. 1979, ch. 88, § 2, p. 214; am. 1999, ch. 391, § 1, p. 1088.
STATUTORY NOTES
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1999, ch. 391 declared an emergency. Approved March 29, 1999.
CASE NOTES
In General.
This section defines the respective jurisdictions of a city and a county that share contiguous boundaries but have not acted to create an area of impact, by outlining an approval procedure to be followed when a subdivision is located within one mile of the city limits. Blaha v. Board of Ada County Comm’rs, 134 Idaho 770, 9 P.3d 1236 (2000).
Cited
Coeur d’Alene Indus. Park Property Owners Ass’n v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 108 Idaho 843, 702 P.2d 881 (Ct. App. 1985).
§ 50-1306A. Vacation of plats — Procedure.
- Any person, persons, firm, association, corporation or other legally recognized form of business desiring to vacate a plat or any part thereof must petition the city council if it is located within the boundaries of a city, or the county commissioners if it is located within the unincorporated area of the county. Such petition shall set forth particular circumstances of the requests to vacate; contain a legal description of the platted area or property to be vacated; the names of the persons affected thereby, and said petition shall be filed with the city clerk.
- Written notice of public hearing on said petition shall be given, by certified mail with return receipt, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of public hearing to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of the area described in the petition. Such notice of public hearing shall also be published once a week for two (2) successive weeks in the official newspaper of the city, the last of which shall be not less than seven (7) days prior to the date of said hearing; provided, however, that in a proceeding as to the vacation of all or a portion of a cemetery plat where there has been no interment, or in the case of a cemetery being within three hundred (300) feet of another plat for which a vacation is sought, publication of the notice of hearing shall be the only required notice as to the property owners in the cemetery.
- When the procedures set forth herein have been fulfilled, the city council may grant the request to vacate with such restrictions as they deem necessary in the public interest.
- If a petition to vacate is brought before county commissioners, and the plat or part thereof which is the subject of the petition is located within one (1) mile of the boundaries of any city, the county commissioners shall cause written notice of the public hearing on the petition to be given to the mayor or chief administrative officer of the city by regular mail at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of public hearing.
- In the case of easements granted for gas, sewer, water, telephone, cable television, power, drainage, and slope purposes, public notice of intent to vacate is not required. Vacation of these easements shall occur upon the recording of the new or amended plat, provided that all affected easement holders have been notified by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the proposed vacation and have agreed to the same in writing.
- When public streets or public rights-of-way are located within the boundary of a highway district, the highway district commissioners shall assume the authority to vacate said public streets and public rights-of-way as provided in section 40-203, Idaho Code.
- All publication costs shall be at the expense of the petitioner.
- Public highway agencies acquiring real property within a platted subdivision for highway right-of-way purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.
- Land exclusive of public right-of-way that has been subdivided and platted in accordance with this chapter need not be vacated in order to be replatted.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1306A, as added by 1971, ch. 6, § 1, p. 16; am. 1985, ch. 244, § 1, p. 575; am. 1989, ch. 247, § 1, p. 596; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 2, p. 778; am. 1994, ch. 364, § 5, p. 1139; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 6, p. 517; am. 1998, ch. 220, § 3, p. 753; am. 2014, ch. 21, § 1, p. 27; am. 2014, ch. 137, § 2, p. 372.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
This section was amended by two 2014 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.
The 2014 amendment, by ch. 137, substituted “as provided in section 40-203, Idaho Code” for “as provided in subsection (4) of this section” at the end of subsection (6).
The 2014 amendment, by ch. 21, in subsection (1), deleted “which is inside or within one (1) mile of the boundaries of any city” preceding “must petition” and substituted “if it is located within the boundaries of a city, or the county commissioners if it is located within the unincorporated area of the county” for “to vacate” in the first sentence; rewrote subsection (4), which formerly read: “When the platted area lies more than one (1) mile beyond the city limits, the procedures set forth herein shall be followed with the county commissioners of the county wherein the property lies. The county commissioners shall have authority, comparable to the city council, to grant the vacation, provided, however, when the platted area lies beyond one (1) mile of the city limits, but adjacent to a platted area within one (1) mile of the city, consent of the city council of the affected city shall be necessary in granting any vacation by the county commissioners”; and deleted “as provided in subsection (4) of this section” at the end of subsection (6).
CASE NOTES
Cited
Williams Lake Lands, Inc. v. LeMoyne Dev., Inc., 108 Idaho 826, 702 P.2d 864 (Ct. App. 1985).
§ 50-1307. Designation of townsite and addition — Necessity of distinctiveness — Limitations on rule.
Plats of towns, subdivisions or additions must not bear the name of any other town or addition in the same county, nor can the same word or words similar or pronounced the same, be used in making a name for said town or addition, except the words city, place, court, addition or similar words, unless the same is contiguous and laid out and platted by the same party or parties platting the addition bearing the same name, or a party files and records the written consent of the party or parties who platted the addition bearing the same name. All plats of the same name must continue the block numbers of the plat previously filed.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 225, p. 1249.
§ 50-1308. Approvals.
- If a subdivision is not within the corporate limits of a city, the plat thereof shall be submitted, accepted and approved by the board of commissioners of the county in which the tract is located in the same manner and as herein provided. If the city or county has established a planning commission, then all plats must be submitted to said commission in accordance with provisions of chapter 65, title 67, Idaho Code. No plat of a subdivision requiring city approval shall be accepted for record by the county recorder unless said plat shall have first been submitted to the city and has been accepted and approved and shall have written thereon the acceptance and approval of the said city council and bear the signature of the city engineer and city clerk. No plat of a subdivision shall be accepted for record by the county recorder unless said plat has been certified, within thirty (30) days prior to recording, by the county treasurer of the county in which the tract is located. The county treasurer shall not withhold certification for any reason except for county property taxes due, but not paid, upon the property included in the proposed subdivision.
- Plats resulting from the exercise of any right granted under the provisions of sections 50-1314 and 63-210(2), Idaho Code, may be accepted for record and recorded by the county recorder without being certified by the county treasurer and the record of any such plat which has previously been recorded without being certified by the county treasurer shall not be invalid or defective because of not having been so certified by the county treasurer.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 226, p. 1249; am. 1979, ch. 286, § 1, p. 731; am. 1981, ch. 304, § 1, p. 626; am. 1981, ch. 317, § 1, p. 661; am. 1996, ch. 322, § 52, p. 1029; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 7, p. 517.
STATUTORY NOTES
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1981, ch. 304 declared an emergency and provided that the act should be in full force and effect on and after approval and retroactively to January 1, 1981. Approved April 7, 1981.
CASE NOTES
Acceptance of plat.
Approval denied.
Subdivision application.
Acceptance of Plat.
While§ 40-1611 appears to grant highway districts exclusive jurisdiction over highways within their districts, it does not give them the power or duty to accept subdivision plats; under the code as it existed when subdivision was created (1973), the county clearly had the authority to accept and approve the plat and the direct effect of that acceptance thoroughfare was to dedicate it to the public use. Harshbarger v. County of Jerome, 107 Idaho 805, 693 P.2d 451 (1984).
Approval Denied.
County planning and zoning commission was not required to approve landowner’s plot where plot was divided into three lots and met neither statutory requirements nor county requirements for a subdivision. Tranmer v. Helmer, 126 Idaho 88, 878 P.2d 787 (1994).
Subdivision Application.
The power to approve a subdivision application in the impact area resides exclusively with the county, and the city’s action in reviewing the subdivision application is advisory only and is not a prerequisite to action by the county. Blaha v. Board of Ada County Comm’rs, 134 Idaho 770, 9 P.3d 1236 (2000).
§ 50-1309. Certification of plat — Dedication of streets and alleys — Dedication of private roads to public — Jurisdiction over private roads.
- The owner or owners of the land included in said plat shall make a certificate containing the correct legal description of the land, with the statement as to their intentions to include the same in the plat, and make a dedication of all public streets and rights-of-way shown on said plat, which certificate shall be acknowledged before an officer duly authorized to take acknowledgments and shall be indorsed on the plat. The professional land surveyor making the survey shall certify the correctness of said plat and he shall place his seal, signature and date on the plat.
- No dedication or transfer of a private road to the public can be made without the specific approval of the appropriate public highway agency accepting such private road.
- Highway districts shall not have jurisdiction over private roads designated as such on subdivision plats and shall assume no responsibility for the design, inspection, construction, maintenance and/or repair of private roads.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 227, p. 1249; am. 1988, ch. 175, § 2, p. 306; am. 1989, ch. 102, § 2, p. 235; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 3, p. 778; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 8, p. 517.
STATUTORY NOTES
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 1988, ch. 175 declared an emergency. Approved March 26, 1988.
CASE NOTES
Dedication of streets.
Owner.
Public roads.
Dedication of Streets.
Sales of lots by reference to lot and block following recording of a plat constitutes a dedication of the streets and alleys to public use. Boise City ex rel. Amyx v. Fails, 94 Idaho 840, 499 P.2d 326 (1972).
Where the plat of a subdivision, which was compulsorily recorded by a developer, depicts no public streets or rights-of-way, there can be no statutory dedication of the roads. Lattin v. Adams County, 149 Idaho 497, 236 P.3d 1257 (2010).
Owner.
When an owner of land plats the land, files the plat for record, and sells lots by reference to the recorded plat, a dedication of public areas indicated by the plat is accomplished. However, just filing the plat is not enough: public dedication also requires that the plat show the owners’ intent clearly and explicitly. Rowley v. Ada County Highway Dist., 156 Idaho 275, 322 P.3d 1008 (2014). Owner.
Leasehold interests are not included within the meaning of “owner” under this section. Allen v. Blaine County, 131 Idaho 138, 953 P.2d 578 (1998).
Landowners were not entitled to an interest in a plat’s common area because the plat was void: (1) although non-owners executed the plat, owners did not ratify the plat, so the plat granted no interest, and (2) platted land could not be dedicated by common law to owners of unplatted land. Armand v. Opportunity Mgmt. Co., 155 Idaho 592, 315 P.3d 245 (2013).
Public Roads.
In a quiet title action in which residents of subdivision sought to enjoin defendant from using two roads for access to his residence, defendant did not show that road and 60-foot easement he used to gain access to his property were public access roads, nor were the requirements under this section and§ 50-1313 for the creation of a public road met. Stafford v. Klosterman, 134 Idaho 205, 998 P.2d 1118 (2000).
Cited
Armand v. Opportunity Mgmt. Co., 141 Idaho 709, 117 P.3d 123 (2005).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Failure of title.
Spasmodic travel.
Failure of Title.
Alleged public street designated as such on a recorded plat was not a public street by dedication where strip of land designated as public street was not owned by the party recording the plat at the time the plat was filed. Worthington v. Koss, 72 Idaho 132, 237 P.2d 1050 (1951).
Spasmodic Travel.
Strip of land did not become a public street by use where evidence showed only a small portion of strip used for spasmodic travel for period of two years and the presence of bush, trees, and fence on strip for long period of time. Worthington v. Koss, 72 Idaho 132, 237 P.2d 1050 (1951).
§ 50-1310. Filing and recording — Record of plats — Filing of copy.
- All approved plats of subdivisions shall, upon the payment of the required fees, be filed by the county clerk or county recorder, and such filing with the date thereof shall be endorsed thereon. The plat or opaque copy thereof shall then be bound or filed with other plats of like character in a proper book or file designated as “Records of Plats.”
- At the time of filing such plat, the owner or his representative shall also file with the county clerk or county recorder one (1) copy thereof. The plat media and copy process shall be as provided in section 50-1304, Idaho Code. The original plat shall be stored for safekeeping in a reproducible condition by the county. It shall be proper for the recorder to maintain for public reference a set of counter maps that are prints of the original maps. The original maps shall be produced for comparison upon demand. Full scale copies thereof shall be made available to the public, at the cost allowed in section 31-3205, Idaho Code, by the county recorder.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 228, p. 1249; am. 1978, ch. 106, § 2, p. 218; am. 1993, ch. 343, § 1, p. 1282; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 9, p. 517; am. 2013, ch. 263, § 1, p. 648; am. 2015, ch. 48, § 2, p. 101.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2013 amendment, by ch. 263, added the subsection designations; and, in subsection (2), inserted “or a process by which a copy is produced using a copy machine or by digital scanning and reproduction using black opaque drafting film ink” in the third sentence and inserted the fourth sentence.
The 2015 amendment, by ch. 48, in subsection (2), substituted the present second sentence for the former second, third, and fourth sentences, which read: “The copy shall be upon stable base drafting film with a minimum base thickness of 0.003 inches. The image thereon shall be by a photographic process using a silver image emulsion, or a process by which a copy is produced using a copy machine or by digital scanning and reproduction using black opaque drafting film ink. If a copy machine or ink is used, the surface shall be coated with a suitable substance to assure permanent legibility. The copy and image thereon shall be waterproof, tear-resistant, flexible, and capable of withstanding repeated handling, as well as providing archival permanence.”
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 2013, ch. 263 declared an emergency. Approved April 3, 2013.
§ 50-1311. Indexing of plat records.
The said books of “record of plats” shall be provided in the front part thereof with indices, in which shall be duly entered in alphabetical order all maps, plats and diagrams recorded therein, and when so filed, bound and indexed, shall be the legal record of all such maps, plats, diagrams, dedication and other writings.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 229, p. 1249.
§ 50-1312. Effect of acknowledging and recording plat.
The acknowledgment and recording of such plat is equivalent to a deed in fee simple of such portion of the premises platted as is on such plat set apart for public streets or other public use, or as is thereon dedicated to charitable, religious or educational purposes; provided, however, that in a county where a highway district exists and is in operation no such plat shall be accepted for recording by the county recorder unless the acceptance of said plat by the commissioners of the highway district is endorsed thereon in writing.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 230, p. 1249; am. 1978, ch. 78, § 1, p. 153; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 4, p. 778.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Recording surveys,§§ 55-1901 et seq.
CASE NOTES
Acceptance of plats.
Dedication of streets and alleys.
Land survey.
Statutory scheme governing dedication.
Acceptance of Plats.
While§ 40-1611 appears to grant highway districts exclusive jurisdiction over highways within their districts, it does not give them the power or duty to accept subdivision plats; under the code as it existed when subdivision was created (1973), the county clearly had the authority to accept and approve the plat and the direct effect of that acceptance thoroughfare was to dedicate it to the public use. Harshbarger v. County of Jerome, 107 Idaho 805, 693 P.2d 451 (1984).
Dedication of Streets and Alleys.
Sales of lots by reference to lot and block following recording of a plat constitutes a dedication of the streets and alleys to public use. Boise City ex rel. Amyx v. Fails, 94 Idaho 840, 499 P.2d 326 (1972).
The recording of the plat which referenced the segments of land at issue constituted a dedication of public roadway easements, through the segments, which the original developer had been permitted to delay improving until a later date. In addition, the language of this section makes it clear that the recording of a plat denominating a public street transfers an interest equivalent to a fee simple. Volco, Inc. v. Lickley, 126 Idaho 709, 889 P.2d 1099 (1995). District court’s finding that a boundary by agreement existed was not clearly erroneous because a fence had been standing between two properties for more than 50 years; moreover, the parties involved were adjoining landowners, despite being separated by a dedicated road, because the parties had an ownership interest up to the center of the dedicated street. Neider v. Shaw, 138 Idaho 503, 65 P.3d 525 (2003).
When an owner of land plats the land, files the plat for record, and sells lots by reference to the recorded plat, a dedication of public areas indicated by the plat is accomplished. However, just filing the plat is not enough: public dedication also requires that the plat show the owners’ intent clearly and explicitly. Rowley v. Ada County Highway Dist., 156 Idaho 275, 322 P.3d 1008 (2014).
Land Survey.
The recording of a subdivision plat is intended to partition property and creates legally-recognized lots within the subdivision. A land survey does not subdivide land, nor does the filing of such a survey indicate with what intent the landowner surveyed his property. State v. Bilbao, 130 Idaho 500, 943 P.2d 926 (1997).
Magistrate erred in dismissing complaint against defendant for misdemeanor illegal subdivision, after concluding the statute of limitations had run because the allegedly illegal subdivision occurred in 1985 with the filing of a land survey. The record before the magistrate did not support his conclusion that the allegedly criminal act occurred in 1985, and not later, because the document filed by defendant in 1985 was a land survey, which does not subdivide land, and not a plat. State v. Bilbao, 130 Idaho 500, 943 P.2d 926 (1997).
Statutory Scheme Governing Dedication.
The statutory scheme governing the dedication of real property to the public involves two steps, the first of which is an offer by the owner to “dedicate” the property to the public, and the second of which is an acceptance of such offer by the public; the offer to dedicate is evidenced by the acknowledgement and recording of a plat under this section, and the acceptance by action of a public body “accepting” and “confirming” the “dedication,” as required by§ 50-1313. Worley Hwy. Dist. v. Yacht Club of Coeur d’Alene, Ltd., 116 Idaho 219, 775 P.2d 111 (1989).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Completion of dedication.
Effect of dedication.
Title of municipality.
Validation of dedication.
Completion of Dedication.
Dedication was completed when plat was filed in proper office and lots sold with reference to it. Hanson v. Proffer, 23 Idaho 705, 132 P. 573 (1913).
Effect of Dedication.
By dedication of plat, public acquired only an estate necessary to adequate accommodation of public, consisting of an easement for free and unobstructed use of street and not a title in fee simple. Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 P. 399 (1910). By filing of a plat and selling of lots with reference thereto, dedicator and grantor was estopped from revoking dedication of any streets marked thereon. Hanson v. Proffer, 23 Idaho 705, 132 P. 573 (1913).
Where owner of land plats streets and blocks, dedicating streets to public, and plat shows a strip of sand beach between platted streets, etc., and an abutting lake, beach was not dedicated. Deffenbaugh v. Washington Water Power Co., 24 Idaho 514, 135 P. 247 (1913).
While property owners, abutting on street which predecessors in title had dedicated to city or state for use as such, owned fee of land to center of street, the city or state had a complete right to use of such land for street purposes. Powell v. McKelvey, 56 Idaho 291, 53 P.2d 626 (1935).
Title of Municipality.
Effect of recording plat was to vest in city determinable fee for public use of surface of street. Mochel v. Cleveland, 51 Idaho 468, 5 P.2d 549 (1930).
Where portion of street was vacated in recorded plat, city could not convey fee therein to owner of abutting land not in plat. Mochel v. Cleveland, 51 Idaho 468, 5 P.2d 549 (1930).
Validation of Dedication.
A statute validating existing plats and a statute providing that an acknowledgment and recording of plats was equivalent to a deed in fee simple of such portion of premises platted as were set apart for streets or other public use impressed upon the plat theretofore filed a dedication to the public of streets outlined in such plat with the same effect as though dedication had been originally placed upon such plat. Powell v. McKelvey, 56 Idaho 291, 53 P.2d 626 (1935).
§ 50-1313. Dedication must be accepted.
No street or alley or highway hereafter dedicated by the owner to the public shall be deemed a public street, highway or alley, or be under the use or control of said city or highway district unless the dedication shall be accepted and confirmed by the city council or by the commissioners of the highway district. An acceptance imposes no obligation or liability upon the city council or highway district until the street, highway or alley is declared to be open for public travel.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 231, p. 1249; am. 1978, ch. 78, § 2, p. 153; am. 1992, ch. 55, § 2, p. 160.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Recordation and dedication of highways,§ 40-2302.
Effective Dates.
Section 3 of S.L. 1978, ch. 78 declared an emergency. Approved March 10, 1978.
CASE NOTES
Creation of public road.
Statutory scheme governing dedication.
Creation of Public Road.
In a quiet title action in which plaintiffs, residents of subdivision, sought to enjoin defendant from using two roads for access to his residence, defendant did not show that road and 60-foot easement he used to gain access to his property were public access roads, nor were the requirements under this section and§ 50-1309 for the creation of a public road met. Stafford v. Klosterman, 134 Idaho 205, 998 P.2d 1118 (2000).
Statutory Scheme Governing Dedication.
The statutory scheme governing the dedication of real property to the public involves two steps, the first of which is an offer by the owner to “dedicate” the property to the public, and the second of which is an acceptance of such offer by the public; the offer to dedicate is evidenced by the acknowledgement and recording of a plat under§ 50-1312, and the acceptance by action of a public body “accepting” and “confirming” the “dedication,” as required by this section. Worley Hwy. Dist. v. Yacht Club of Coeur d’Alene, Ltd., 116 Idaho 219, 775 P.2d 111 (1989).
Cited
Pugmire v. Johnson, 102 Idaho 882, 643 P.2d 832 (1982); Harshbarger v. County of Jerome, 107 Idaho 805, 693 P.2d 451 (1984).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Liability from five-year use.
Private driveways.
Spasmodic travel.
Title defective.
Liability From Five-Year Use.
Where a street had been used by the public and worked by the city for at least five years, the city, by reason of the implied invitation to the public to use it as a street, became liable for injury to a traveler from obstruction negligently placed therein. Gallup v. Bliss, 44 Idaho 756, 262 P. 154 (1927).
Private Driveways.
Private driveways used by public within municipality were subject to municipal regulation for safety of public, whether dedicated or accepted by ordinance. Crossler v. Safeway Stores, 51 Idaho 413, 6 P.2d 151 (1931).
Spasmodic Travel.
Strip of land did not become a public street by use where evidence showed only a small portion of strip used for spasmodic travel for period of two years and the presence of bush, trees, and fence on strip for long period of time. Worthington v. Koss, 72 Idaho 132, 237 P.2d 1050 (1951).
Title Defective.
Alleged public street designated as such on a recorded plat was not a public street by dedication where strip of land designated as public street was not owned by the party recording the plat at the time the plat was filed. Worthington v. Koss, 72 Idaho 132, 237 P.2d 1050 (1951).
§ 50-1314. Enforcing execution of plat — Assessment of costs.
Whenever the owners of any tract of land have divided and sold or conveyed five (5) or more parts thereof, or invested the public with any right therein, and have failed and neglected to execute and file a plat for record, as provided in sections 50-1301 through 50-1313, Idaho Code, the county recorder, when instructed by the board of county commissioners, shall notify some or all of such owners and proprietors by mail or otherwise, and demand an execution of such plat; if such owners or proprietors, whether notified or not, fail and neglect to execute and file for record said plat within thirty (30) days after the issuance of such notice, the recorder shall cause to be made a plat of such tract and any surveying necessary therefor. Said plat shall be prepared in accordance with requirements in sections 50-1301 through 50-1325, Idaho Code, and in addition, be signed and acknowledged by the recorder, who shall certify that he executed it by reason of the failure of the owners or proprietors named to do so, and filed for record, and, when so filed for record, shall have the same effect for all purposes as if executed, acknowledged and recorded by the owners or proprietors themselves.
A correct statement of the costs and expenses of such plat, surveying and recording, verified by oath, shall be by the recorder laid before the next session of the county board, who shall allow the same and order the same to be paid out of the county treasury, and who shall, at the same time, assess the same amount pro rata upon all several lots or parcels of said subdivided tract; said assessment may be billed to the property owner and, if not paid as requested, shall be collected with, and in like manner as the property taxes, and shall go to the county current expenses fund; or said board may direct suit to be brought in the name of the county before any court having jurisdiction, to recover from the said original owners or proprietors, said cost and expense of preparing and recording said plat.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 232, p. 1249; am. 2011, ch. 120, § 1, p. 330.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 120, in the first sentence in the first paragraph, substituted “as provided in sections 50-1301 through 50-1313, Idaho Code, the county recorder, when instructed by the board of county commissioners” for “as provided in the thirteen (13) foregoing sections of this act, the county recorded”; and, in the last paragraph, inserted “may be billed to the property owner and, if not paid as requested” and substituted “property taxes, and shall go to the county current expenses fund” for “general taxes, and shall go to the general county fund.”
CASE NOTES
Estoppel.
The mortgagor was estopped from arguing that the replat of the property was invalid because it did not contain the owners’ signatures, and was not prepared and filed in accordance with this section, where the mortgagor was responsible for getting the replat properly recorded, acquiesced in the recording procedure and accepted the benefit of the increased saleability, and only challenged its validity when default on the purchase agreement was imminent. Williams Lake Lands, Inc. v. LeMoyne Dev., Inc., 108 Idaho 826, 702 P.2d 864 (Ct. App. 1985).
§ 50-1315. Existing plats validated.
None of the provisions of sections 50-1301 through 50-1325, Idaho Code, shall be construed to require replatting in any case where plats have been made and recorded in pursuance of any law heretofore in force; and all plats heretofore filed for record and not subsequently vacated are hereby declared valid, notwithstanding irregularities and omissions in manner of form of acknowledgment or certificate. Provided, however:
- When plats have been accepted and recorded for a period of five (5) years and said plats include public streets that were never laid out and constructed to the standards of the appropriate public highway agency, said public street may be classified as public right of way; and
- Public rights of way for vehicular traffic included in plats which would not conform to current highway standards of the appropriate public highway agency regarding alignments and access locations which, if developed, would result in an unsafe traffic condition, shall be modified or reconfigured in order to meet current standards before access permits to the public right of way are issued.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 233, p. 1249; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 5, p. 778; am. 1993, ch. 412, § 9, p. 1505.
CASE NOTES
Merger.
Statutory scheme governing dedication.
Merger.
Where the federal survey system did not constitute a legal subdivision of property, the trial judge did not err in finding that three separate parcels had merged into a single parcel of land, that the presence of two roads on the property did not render the property non-contiguous, and that plaintiff’s property constituted an unplatted, contiguous tract of land that was subject to defendant county’s subdivision ordinance. Robbins v. County of Blaine, 134 Idaho 113, 996 P.2d 813 (2000).
Statutory Scheme Governing Dedication.
The statutory scheme governing the dedication of real property to the public involves two steps, the first of which is an offer by the owner to “dedicate” the property to the public, and the second of which is an acceptance of such offer by the public; the offer to dedicate is evidenced by the acknowledgement and recording of a plat under§ 50-1312, and the acceptance by action of a public body “accepting” and “confirming” the “dedication,” as required by§ 50-1313. Worley Hwy. Dist. v. Yacht Club of Coeur d’Alene, Ltd., 116 Idaho 219, 775 P.2d 111 (1989).
Cited Williams Lake Lands, Inc. v. LeMoyne Dev., Inc., 108 Idaho 826, 702 P.2d 864 (Ct. App. 1985). Decisions Under Prior Law
Validation of Dedication by Validation of Plat.
A statute validating existing plats and a statute providing that an acknowledgment and recording of plats was equivalent to a deed in fee simple of such portion of premises platted as were set apart for streets or other public use impresses upon the plat theretofore filed a dedication to the public of streets outlined in such plat with the same effect as though dedication had been originally placed upon such plat. Powell v. McKelvey, 56 Idaho 291, 53 P.2d 626 (1935).
§ 50-1316. Penalty for selling unplatted lots.
Any person who shall dispose of or offer for sale any lots in any city or county until the plat thereof has been duly acknowledged and recorded, as provided in sections 50-1301 through 50-1325[, Idaho Code], shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars ($100) for each lot and part of a lot sold or disposed of or offered for sale.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 234, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
CASE NOTES
Contracts Not Invalidated.
The legislature did not intend for this section to invalidate contracts for the sale of realty because of the vendor’s failure to record the plat to lots or portions thereof sold or offered for sale; the language of the section does not prohibit the act of selling lots of an unrecorded plat nor does it mandate that the vendor must record the plat prior to contracting for the sale of the realty, but rather only mandates the forfeiture of a set sum if the vendor contracts for the sale of the realty without first acknowledging and recording the plat. Cox v. Mountain Vistas, Inc., 102 Idaho 714, 639 P.2d 12 (1981).
An agreement to develop property was not void merely because the final plat of the property was not recorded at the time the agreement was executed. This section does not prohibit the sale of lots of an unrecorded plat, nor does this section mandate that the vendor must record the plat prior to contracting for development of the property. Gugino v. Kastera, LLC (In re Ricks), 433 B.R. 806 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2010).
§ 50-1317. Vacation procedure in unincorporated areas and in cities not exercising their corporate functions — Filing of petition — Notice of hearing.
Whenever any person, persons, firm, association or corporation interested in any city which if incorporated is not exercising its corporate functions may desire to vacate any lot, tract, private road, common, plot or any part thereof in any such city, it shall be lawful to petition the board of county commissioners of the county where such property is located, setting forth the particular circumstances of the case, and giving a distinct description of the property to be vacated and the names of the persons to be particularly affected thereby; which petition shall be filed with the appropriate county or highway district clerk and notice of the pendency of said petition shall be given for a period of thirty (30) days by written notice thereof, containing a description of the property to be vacated, posted in three (3) public or conspicuous places in said city, and also within the limits of said platted acreage, or in the event such property is located within a county in which there is published a newspaper, as defined by law, such notice shall also be published in such newspaper, once a week for two (2) successive weeks. Provided however, when a public street or public right-of-way is located within the boundary of a highway district or is under the jurisdiction of a county, the respective commissioners of the highway district or board of county commissioners shall assume the authority to vacate said public street or public right-of-way pursuant to section 40-203, Idaho Code. Land exclusive of public right-of-way that has been subdivided and platted in accordance with this chapter need not be vacated in order to be replatted.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 235, p. 1249; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 6, p. 778; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 10, p. 517; am. 1998, ch. 220, § 4, p. 753; am. 2014, ch. 137, § 3, p. 372.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2014 amendment, by ch. 137, near the beginning of the section, deleted “if unincorporated, or which” preceding “if incorporated”, “or interested in any platted and subdivided tract or acreage outside the limits of any incorporated city” preceding “may desire to vacate”, and “public street, public right-of-way” preceding “private road”; and rewrote the next-to-last sentence, which formerly read: “Provided, however, when a public street or public right-of-way is located within the boundary of a highway district, the commissioners of the highway district shall assume the authority to vacate said public street or public right-of-way”.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Boise City ex rel. Amyx v. Fails, 94 Idaho 840, 499 P.2d 326 (1972).
Decisions Under Prior Law
Method Exclusive.
Design and object of those who plat tracts of land was that streets and alleys so platted were intended to give increased value to adjacent lots, and dedication of such streets and alleys to public use cannot be withdrawn at whim or caprice of person who dedicates them, or his grantees. Boise City v. Hon, 14 Idaho 272, 94 P. 167 (1908).
When dedication of street was made by filing plat in proper office and selling lots with reference to it, only way title to said land can revert was by having same vacated in manner provided by law. Hanson v. Proffer, 23 Idaho 705, 132 P. 573 (1913).
§ 50-1318. In absence of opposition — Grant of petition — Restrictions.
If no opposition be made to such petition or application within the said thirty (30) day period, the board of county commissioners shall vacate the same, with such restrictions as they may deem reasonable and for the public good.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 236, p. 1249.
§ 50-1319. In presence of opposition — Continuance of application — Hearing — When petition granted.
If opposition be made thereto, such application shall be heard by the appropriate board of county commissioners or highway district commissioners at a time fixed by said board, at which time, if the objector shall consent to said vacation, or if the petitioner shall produce to the board of county commissioners the petition of two-thirds (2/3) of the property holders of lawful age in said town, or owning two-thirds (2/3) of the tracts in such platted and subdivided acreage, the said board of county commissioners may proceed to hear and determine upon said application, and may if in their opinion justice requires it, grant the prayer of the petitioner, in whole or in part.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 237, p. 1249; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 7, p. 778.
§ 50-1320. Vesting of title on vacation.
The part so vacated, if it be a lot or tract, shall vest in the rightful owner, who may have the title thereof according to law; or if a public square or common, the property may vest in the proper county, or if in a city, the property shall vest in the council for the use of such city, and the proper authorities may sell the same, and make a title to the purchaser thereof, and appropriate the proceeds thereof for the benefit of said corporation or county, as the case may be; or if the same be a street, all right and title thereto shall be distributed in accordance with section 50-311[, Idaho Code].
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 238, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1321. Necessity for consent of adjoining owners — Acknowledgment and filing of consent — Limitation on rule — Prerequisites to order of vacation.
No vacation of a public street, public right-of-way or any part thereof having been duly accepted and recorded as part of a plat or subdivided tract shall take place unless the consent of the adjoining owners be obtained in writing and delivered to the public highway agency having jurisdiction over said public street or public right-of-way. Such public street or public right-of-way may, nevertheless, be vacated without such consent of the owners of the property abutting upon such public street or public right of way when such public street or public right-of-way has not been opened or used by the public for a period of five (5) years and when such nonconsenting owner or owners have access to the property from some other public street, public right-of-way or private road. However, before such order of vacation can be entered, it must appear to the satisfaction of the public highway agency that the owner or owners of the property abutting said public street or public right-of-way have been served with notice of the proposed abandonment in the same manner and for the same time as is now or may hereafter be provided for the service of the summons in an action at law. Any vacation of lands within one (1) mile of a city shall require written notification to the city by regular mail at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 239, p. 1249; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 8, p. 778; am. 2014, ch. 21, § 2, p. 27; am. 2015, ch. 244, § 31, p. 1008.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2014 amendment, by ch. 21, rewrote the last sentence, which formerly read: “Any vacation of lands within one (1) mile of a city shall require notification and consent of the city”.
The 2015 amendment, by ch. 244, substituted “right-of-way” for “right of way” throughout the section.
§ 50-1322. Appeal from order granting or denying application to vacate.
Whenever the governing body shall grant the application, or refuse the application of any person or persons, made as provided for the vacation of any lot, tract, street, common, plat or any part thereof, an appeal may be taken from any act, order or proceeding of the board made or had pursuant to by any person aggrieved thereby within twenty (20) days after the first publication or posting of the statement as required by section 31-819, Idaho Code. Procedure upon such appeal shall be in all respects the same as prescribed in sections 31-1510, 31-1511 and 31-1515, Idaho Code.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 240, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The versions of sections 31-1510 and 31-1511, referred to near the end of this section, were repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 103, § 1, effective July 1, 1993. Section 31-1515, referred to at the end of the section, was repealed by S.L. 1995, ch. 61, § 5, effective January 1, 1995.
§ 50-1323. Limitation of actions to establish adverse rights or question validity of vacation.
Every action brought to establish adverse rights or interests in the affected property or to determine the invalidity of any action by which any lot, tract, street, common, plat or any part thereof has been vacated must be brought within six (6) months after the effective date of this act or within six (6) months after a certified copy of the ordinance, resolution or order of vacation has been filed for record in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the affected property is located. Any person, firm or corporation having any objection thereto may bring such action.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 241, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The phrase “the effective date of this act” near the middle of the section refers to the effective date of S.L. 1967, Chapter 429, which was effective April 12, 1967.
§ 50-1324. Recording vacations.
- Before a vacation of a plat can be recorded, the county treasurer must certify that all taxes due are paid and such certification is recorded as part of the records of the vacation. The treasurer shall withhold the certification only when property taxes are due, but not paid.
- Upon payment of the appropriate fee therefor, the county recorder of each county shall index and record, in the same manner as other instruments affecting the title to real property, a certified copy of each ordinance, resolution or order by which any lot, tract, public street, public right of way, private road, easement, common, plat or any part thereof has been vacated. Such certification shall be by the officer having custody of the original document and shall certify that the copy is a full, true and correct copy of the original.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 242, p. 1249; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 9, p. 778; am. 1994, ch. 79, § 1, p. 181.
§ 50-1325. Easements — Vacation of.
Easements shall be vacated in the same manner as streets.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 243, p. 1249.
§ 50-1326. All plats to bear a sanitary restriction — Submission of plans and specifications of water and sewage systems to state department of environmental quality — Removal or reimposition of sanitary restriction.
For the purposes of sections 50-1326 through 50-1329, Idaho Code, any plat of a subdivision filed in accordance with chapter 13, title 50, Idaho Code, or in accordance with county ordinances adopted pursuant to chapter 38, title 31, Idaho Code, shall be subject to the sanitary restriction. There shall be placed upon the face of every plat prior to it being recorded by the county clerk and recorder, the sanitary restriction, except such sanitary restriction may be omitted from the plat, or if it appears on the plat, may be indorsed by the county clerk and recorder as sanitary restriction satisfied, when there is recorded at the time of the filing of the plat, or at any time subsequent thereto, a duly acknowledged certificate of approval issued by the director of the department of environmental quality, for either public water and/or public sewer facilities, or individual water and/or sewage facilities for the particular land. The owner shall have the obligation of submitting to the director all information necessary concerning the proposed facilities referred to. Such certificate of approval may be issued for the subdivision or any portion thereof. Until the sanitary restrictions have been satisfied by the filing of said certificate of approval, no owner shall construct any building or shelter on said premises which necessitates the supplying of water or sewage facilities for persons using such premises. The sanitary restrictions shall be reimposed on the plat upon the issuance of a certificate of disapproval after notice to the responsible party and an opportunity to appeal, if construction is not in compliance with approved plans and specifications, or the facilities do not substantially comply with regulatory standards in effect at the time of facility construction.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1326, as added by 1971, ch. 329, § 2, p. 1294; am. 1989, ch. 233, § 1, p. 569; am. 2001, ch. 103, § 90, p. 253.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Powers and duties of director of department of environmental quality,§ 39-105.
CASE NOTES
Sufficiency of Evidence.
Approval of subdivision plats by the department of health and the board of county commissioners combined with testimony before the district court as to the care taken in the planning of the subdivision provided the evidence necessary to a finding approving the subdivision plats, notwithstanding failure of the commissioners to obtain a geological survey to determine the potential for pollution of ground water by the proposed sewer systems. Brown v. Schafer, 96 Idaho 599, 532 P.2d 941 (1975).
Cited
Stephens v. City of Notus, 101 Idaho 101, 609 P.2d 168 (1980).
§ 50-1327. Filing or recording of noncomplying map or plat prohibited.
No person shall offer for recording, or cause to be recorded, a plat not containing a sanitary restriction, unless there is submitted for record at the same time the certificate of approval from the director of the department of environmental quality as required in section 50-1326, Idaho Code. The filing and recording of a noncomplying plat shall in no way invalidate a title conveyed thereunder.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1327, as added by 1971, ch. 329, § 3, p. 1294; am. 1989, ch. 102, § 3, p. 235; am. 1989, ch. 233, § 2, p. 569; am. 2001, ch. 103, § 91, p. 253.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Powers and duties of director of department of environmental quality,§ 39-105.
Amendments.
This section was amended by two 1989 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.
The 1989 amendment, by ch. 102, substituted “50-1326” for “15-1326” in the first sentence.
The 1989 amendment, by ch. 233, in the first sentence added “approval from” following “the certificate of” and substituted “director of the department of health and welfare” for “state board of health” preceding “as required in section 50-1326.”
§ 50-1328. Rules for the administration and enforcement of sanitary restriction.
The state board of environmental quality may adopt rules pursuant to section 39-107(8)[(7)], Idaho Code, including adoption of sanitary standards necessary for administration and enforcement, pursuant to section 39-108, Idaho Code, of sections 50-1326 through 50-1329, Idaho Code. The rules and standards shall provide the basis for approving subdivision plats for various types of water and sewage facilities, both public and individual, and may be related to size of lots, contour of land, porosity of soil, ground water level, pollution of water, type of construction of water and sewage facilities, and other factors for the protection of the public health or the environment.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1328, as added by 1971, ch. 329, § 4, p. 1294; am. 1989, ch. 233, § 3, p. 569; am. 2001, ch. 103, § 92, p. 253.
§ 50-1329. Violation a misdemeanor.
Any person, firm or corporation who constructs, or causes to be constructed, a building or shelter prior to the satisfaction of the sanitary restriction, or who installs or causes to be installed water and sewer facilities thereon prior to the issuance of a certificate of approval by the director of the department of environmental quality, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each and every day that such activities are carried on in violation of this section shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1329, as added by 1971, ch. 329, § 5, p. 1294; am. 1989, ch. 233, § 4, p. 569; am. 2001, ch. 103, § 93, p. 253.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Powers and duties of director of department of environmental quality,§ 39-105.
Punishment for misdemeanor where not provided,§ 18-113.
Effective Dates.
Section 6 of S.L. 1971, ch. 329, provided that the act should be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1971.
§ 50-1330. Jurisdiction of public streets and public rights of way within a highway district.
In a county with highway districts, the highway district board of commissioners in such district shall have exclusive general supervisory authority over all public streets and public rights of way under their jurisdiction within their district, excluding public streets and public rights of way located inside of an incorporated city that has a functioning street department, with full power to establish design standards, establish use standards and regulations in accordance with the provisions of title 49, Idaho Code, accept, create, open, widen, extend, relocate, realign, control access to or vacate said public streets and public rights of way. Provided, however, when said public street or public right of way lies within one (1) mile of a city, or the established county/city impact area or adjacent to a platted area within one (1) mile of a city or the established county/city impact area, consent of the city council of the affected city shall be necessary prior to the granting of acceptance or vacation of said public street or public right of way by the highway district board of commissioners.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1330, as added by 1983, ch. 233, § 1, p. 636; am. 1992, ch. 262, § 10, p. 778.
CASE NOTES
Functioning street department.
Legislative intent.
Power to vacate streets.
Functioning Street Department.
Where the district court specifically found the city did not have a functioning street department, the highway district had exclusive general supervisory authority to maintain the streets within the highway district. City of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Indep. Hwy. Dist., 126 Idaho 145, 879 P.2d 1078 (1994).
If a city does not follow the procedures set forth for altering a highway district, it does not obtain jurisdiction over streets located inside of the district; therefore, a district court erred by granting a city’s motion for partial summary judgment in a case where the city sought to obtain jurisdiction over streets in a highway district by merely establishing a functioning street department. City of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Indep. Highway Dist., 139 Idaho 65, 72 P.3d 905 (2003).
Legislative Intent.
Power to Vacate Streets.
Since this section was added to the Idaho Code in 1983, and§ 40-1323 was added in 1985, the legislature must have intended to preserve the incorporated city’s ability to levy taxes and intended to preserve the city’s ability to maintain streets within its city limits and to allow a city to exercise this authority only if it has a functioning street department. To interpret it otherwise would effectively make the provisions of this section regarding incorporated cities with functioning street departments a nullity. City of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Indep. Hwy. Dist., 126 Idaho 145, 879 P.2d 1078 (1994). Power to Vacate Streets.
Under this section, a highway district had exclusive power to vacate streets within its boundaries where the city did not have a functioning street department. City of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Indep. Hwy. Dist., 126 Idaho 145, 879 P.2d 1078 (1994).
Cited
Schneider v. Howe, 142 Idaho 767, 133 P.3d 1232 (2006).
§ 50-1331. Setting of interior monuments for a subdivision.
Interior monuments for a subdivision need not be set prior to the recording of the plat of the subdivision if the land surveyor performing the survey work certifies that the interior monuments will be set on or before a specified date as provided in subsection (1) of section 50-1333, Idaho Code, and if the person subdividing the land furnishes to the governing body of the county or city which approved the subdivision, a bond or cash deposit guaranteeing the payment of the cost of setting the interior monuments for the subdivision, as provided in section 50-1332, Idaho Code.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1331, as added by 1987, ch. 227, § 1, p. 482.
§ 50-1332. Setting interior monuments after recording of plat — Bond or cash deposit required — Release of bond — Return of cash deposit — Payment for survey work — County surveyor performing survey work.
- If the interior monuments for a subdivision are to be set on or before a specified date after the recording of the plat of the subdivision, the person subdividing the land described in the plat shall furnish, prior to recording the plat, to the governing body of the city or county which approved the plat, either a bond or cash deposit, at the option of the governing body, in an amount equal to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the estimated cost of performing the work for the interior monumentation. The estimated cost of performing such work will be determined by the professional land surveyor signing the plat.
- If the person subdividing the land described in subsection (1) of this section pays the professional land surveyor for performing the interior monumentation work and notifies the governing body of such payment, the governing body, within two (2) months after such notice, shall release the bond or return the cash deposit upon a finding that such payment has been made. Upon written request from the person subdividing the land, the governing body may pay the professional land surveyor from moneys within a cash deposit or bond held by it for such purpose and return the excess amount of the cash deposit, if any, to such person.
- In the event of the inability, refusal or failure of such professional land surveyor to set the interior monuments for a subdivision, the governing body may direct the county surveyor in his official capacity or contract with a professional land surveyor in private practice to set such monuments and reference such monuments for recording as provided in section 50-1333, Idaho Code. Payment of the fees of a county surveyor or professional land surveyor in private practice performing such work shall be made as otherwise provided in this section. In the event the professional land surveyor signing the plat performed his services pursuant to a contract between the person subdividing the land and a business entity possessing a certificate of authorization, as required in this chapter, and the professional land surveyor is unable, refuses or fails to set the interior monuments for a subdivision, a substitute professional land surveyor employed by the same business entity may assume responsible charge for the remainder of the project and set the monuments, as provided in this chapter, and the governing body shall not direct the county surveyor or contract with a professional land surveyor in private practice to set such monuments.
- In the event any interior monument cannot be placed at the location shown on the plat, the professional land surveyor shall place a witness corner or reference point and he shall file a record of survey as provided in chapter 19, title 55, Idaho Code, to show the location of any witness corner or reference point in relation to the platted location of the corner. In the event the professional land surveyor signing the plat does not set the interior monuments for a subdivision, the substitute professional land surveyor shall file a record of survey as provided in chapter 19, title 55, Idaho Code, to show which monuments were set by which professional land surveyor.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1332, as added by 1987, ch. 227, § 1, p. 482; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 11, p. 517; am. 1998, ch. 220, § 5, p. 753; am. 2011, ch. 136, § 9, p. 383; am. 2012, ch. 25, § 1, p. 82.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2011 amendment, by ch. 136, twice substituted “reference point” for “reference monument” in subsection (4).
The 2012 amendment, by ch. 25, inserted “professional land” in the last sentence of subsection (1) and twice in subsection (2); in subsection (3), substituted “inability, refusal or failure” for “death, disability or retirement from practice of the surveyor charged with the responsibility for setting interior monuments for a subdivision or upon the failure”, substituted “the interior monuments for a subdivision” for “such monuments”, and added the last sentence; and added the last sentence in subsection (4).
§ 50-1333. Recording of plats with only exterior monuments referenced.
- If the person subdividing any land has complied with subsection (1) of section 50-1332, Idaho Code, the professional land surveyor may prepare the plat of the subdivision for recording with only the exterior monuments set thereon when submitted for recording. There shall be a certification on the plat by the professional land surveyor that the interior monuments for the subdivision will be set in accordance with section 50-1303, Idaho Code, on or before a specified date and the said interior monuments will be referenced on the plat with a unique symbol. The time for setting the interior monuments shall not exceed one (1) calendar year from the date the plat is recorded or as determined by the governing body of such city or county.
- After the interior monuments for a subdivision have been set as provided in the certification required on the plat in subsection (1) of this section, the professional land surveyor performing such work shall, within five (5) days after completion of such work, give written notice to the person subdividing the land involved, the surveyor or engineer of the city or county by which the subdivision was approved and the governing body of such city or county.
- In the event that the person subdividing the land involved fails or refuses to authorize the payment for interior monumentation, the professional land surveyor may request payment from the governing body, and upon inspection by the governing body of the interior monumentation, the governing body shall pay the professional land surveyor from moneys held.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1333, as added by 1987, ch. 227, § 1, p. 482; am. 1997, ch. 190, § 12, p. 517.
§ 50-1334. Review of water systems encompassed by plats.
Whenever any plat is subject to the terms and requirements of sections 50-1326 through 50-1329, Idaho Code, no person shall offer for recording, or cause to be recorded, a plat unless he or she shall have certified that at least one (1) of the following is the case:
- The individual lots described in the plat will not be served by any water system common to one (1) or more of the lots, but will be served by individual wells.
- All of the lots in the plat will be eligible to receive water service from an existing water system, be the water system municipal, a water district, a public utility subject to the regulation of the Idaho public utilities commission, or a mutual or nonprofit water company, and the existing water distribution system has agreed in writing to serve all of the lots in the subdivision.
- If a new water system will come into being to serve the subdivision, that it has or will have sufficient contributed capital to allow the water system’s wells, springboxes, reservoirs and mains to be constructed to provide service without further connection charges or fees to the landowners of the lots, except for connection of laterals, meters or other plant exclusively for the lot owner’s own use.
Failure to comply with this section is a misdemeanor subject to the provisions of section 50-1329, Idaho Code. The certification must be filed or recorded as part of the plat document preserved for public inspection. Property owners in the area encompassed by the plat will be entitled to the benefits of the third provision of this section when that option is chosen.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1334, as added by 1990, ch. 178, § 1, p. 377.
Chapter 14 CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY
Sec.
§ 50-1401. Real property owned by cities — Method of conveyance or exchange.
It is the intent of this chapter that cities of the state of Idaho shall have general authority to manage real property owned by the city in ways which the judgment of the city council of each city deems to be in the public interest. The city council shall have the power to sell, exchange or convey, by good and sufficient deed or other appropriate instrument in writing, any real property owned by the city which is underutilized or which is not used for public purposes.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 244, p. 1249; am. 2001, ch. 331, § 1, p. 1161.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Oil and gas leases,§ 47-1401 et seq.
Transfer of property to other units of government,§§ 67-2322 to 67-2325.
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49 of tit. 50.
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Construction.
Estoppel.
Construction.
Statutory regulations providing for transfer of title to land held by city for building purposes did not prohibit a transfer, but only set forth method and manner necessary for a conveyance. Lloyd Crystal Post No. 20 v. Jefferson County, 72 Idaho 158, 237 P.2d 348 (1951).
Estoppel.
City was estopped from asserting title to premises conveyed by quitclaim deed to legion post after resolution by city council, even though no ordinance was passed or election held, if legion post spent large sums in maintaining and improving premises. Lloyd Crystal Post No. 20 v. Jefferson County, 72 Idaho 158, 237 P.2d 348 (1951). Estoppel did not apply to municipality if conveyance of title was prohibited, but it did apply, if municipality was allowed to convey title, even though certain statutory requirements for passing title were not met. Lloyd Crystal Post No. 20 v. Jefferson County, 72 Idaho 158, 237 P.2d 348 (1951).
§ 50-1402. Declaration of value of property.
Whenever the city council proposes to convey, exchange or offer for sale any real property, it shall first declare the value or minimum price, if any, it intends to receive as a result of such conveyance or exchange. The city council may contract for or provide that the property be appraised under such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the city council. The declaration, either in the form of a minimum dollar value, or an explanation of an intended exchange or conveyance for other than monetary consideration shall be made on the record at a public meeting of the council. The city council may also declare that the subject property will be offered for sale without establishing a minimum price.
Following a declaration of intent to sell or exchange real property, the clerk of the city shall publish a summary of the action taken by the city council in the official newspaper of the city and provide notice of a public hearing before the city council. Notice of the public hearing concerning the proposed exchange or conveyance shall be published in the official newspaper of the city at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 245, p. 1249; am. 2001, ch. 331, § 2, p. 1161.
§ 50-1403. Disposition after hearing.
After a public hearing has been conducted, the city council may proceed to exchange, convey or offer for sale the real property in question, subject to the restrictions of section 50-1401, Idaho Code. The city council shall be governed by the following provisions:
- When the property is offered for sale, the property shall be sold at a public auction to the highest bidder and no bids shall be accepted for less than the minimum declared value previously recorded on the record at a public meeting of the council, provided however, if no bids are received, the city council shall have the authority to sell such property as it deems in the best interest of the city.
- When it is determined by the city council to be in the city’s best interest that the property be offered for exchange, the council may do all things necessary to exchange any property owned by the city for real property of equal value pursuant to terms which shall be a matter of public record.
-
When property is purchased, donated or otherwise conveyed to a city and the city has previously used federal funding to acquire the property, with funds specifically designated for the purpose of assisting low- to moderate-income families with decent, safe, affordable housing opportunities, the property may be sold, donated or otherwise conveyed directly to a low- to moderate-income family, so long as the sale or conveyance is consistent with the applicable federal regulations under which the property was obtained initially. In such instances, the city council shall pass an ordinance stating:
- That the property was acquired, in whole, with federal funds;
- That the property is to be sold or otherwise conveyed to a low- to moderate-income family;
- That the sale or conveyance is consistent with all applicable federal, state or local statutes, laws, regulations and policies; and
- That the property may be offered for sale, donation or otherwise conveyed immediately upon the passing of the ordinance.
- When it is determined by the city council to be in the city’s best interest that a transfer or conveyance be made, the city council may, by ordinance duly enacted, authorize the transfer or conveyance of any real property owned by such city to any tax supported governmental unit, with or without consideration.
- When it is determined by the city council to be in the city’s best interest, the city may transfer property to a trustee for security purposes, or for purposes of accommodating a transaction, or for funding of construction of capital facilities on city owned property.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1403, as added by 2001, ch. 331, § 4, p. 1161.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-1403, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 246, p. 1249; am. 1967 (1st E. S.), ch. 10, § 1, p. 36, was repealed by S.L. 2001, ch. 331, § 3.
CASE NOTES
City Streets.
Under Idaho law, a city has no authority to convey a portion of a city street. In Idaho, city streets from side to side and end to end belong to the public and are held by the municipality in trust for the use of the public. In the absence of a statute expressly permitting it to do so, a city may not make a valid contract permanently alienating a part of a city street or permitting a permanent encroachment and obstruction thereon, limiting the use of the street by the public. Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45, 44 P.3d 1100 (2002).
§ 50-1404. Terms of sale.
Real property may be sold for cash or on contract for a period not exceeding ten (10) years, with a rate of interest on all deferred payments as determined by the city council. The title to all property sold on contract shall be retained in the name of the city until full payment has been made by the purchaser. Any property sold by the city council under the provisions of this section either for cash or on contract, shall be assessed by the county assessor in the same manner and upon the same basis of valuation as though the purchaser held a record title to the property so sold. The city council shall have authority to cancel any contract of sale pursuant to law, and retain all payments paid thereon, if the purchaser shall fail to comply with any of the terms of the contract. The city council may, by agreement with the purchaser, modify or extend any of the terms of any contract of sale, but the total period shall not exceed ten (10) years.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1404, as added by 2001, ch. 331, § 5, p. 1161.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-1404, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 247, p. 1249; am. 1973, ch. 60, § 1, p. 101, was repealed by S.L. 2001, ch. 331, § 3.
§ 50-1405. Conveyance — Disposition of proceeds.
The proceeds received from the sale or exchange of property shall be utilized in a manner consistent with provisions of law regarding revenues received by the city.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1405, as added by 2001, ch. 331, § 6, p. 1161.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-1405, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 248, p. 1249; am. 1971, ch. 53, § 1, p. 125; am. 1973, ch. 76, § 1, p. 121; am. 1991, ch. 152, § 1, p. 361, was repealed by S.L. 2001, ch. 331, § 3.
§ 50-1406. Disposal of land acquired by foreclosure — Excess proceeds.
Should real property be acquired as the result of a foreclosure of any improvement lien, or where a deed has been made and executed by the owner to the city in satisfaction of an improvement lien, and thereafter bring more than is assessed against the same, together with costs and expenses, then the proceeds shall be paid to the owner if his address is known, otherwise, to be placed in the improvement fund for the benefit of which the property was impressed with the lien.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1406, as added by 2001, ch. 331, § 7, p. 1161.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-1406, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 249, p. 1249, was repealed by S.L. 2001, ch. 331, § 3.
§ 50-1407. Leases.
The mayor and council may, by resolution, authorize the lease of any real or personal property not otherwise needed for city purposes, upon such terms as the city council determines may be just and equitable.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1407, as added by 2001, ch. 331, § 8, p. 1161.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§ 50-1407, which comprised 1967, ch. 429, § 250, p. 1249, was repealed by S.L. 2001, ch. 331, § 3.
§ 50-1408. Disposal of land acquired by foreclosure — Excess proceeds.
Should the property acquired as the result of a foreclosure of any improvement lien, or where a deed has been made and executed by the owner to the city in consideration of such improvement lien, bring more than is assessed against the same together with costs and expenses, then such excess shall be paid to the owner if his address is known, otherwise, to be placed in the improvement fund for the benefit of which such property was impressed with such lien.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 251, p. 1249.
§ 50-1409. Leases.
The mayor and council may, by resolution, authorize the lease of any property not needed for city purposes, upon such terms as may be just and equitable. The provisions of sections 50-1401 through 50-1409[, Idaho Code,] shall not apply to the vacation or discontinuance of streets, highways, avenues, alleys or lanes annulled, vacated or discontinued. Provided, that the council of a city, upon a vote of one half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council, may set apart portions of the public parks, playgrounds or other grounds to be used from time to time for athletic contests, golf links, agricultural exhibits, ball parks, fairs, rodeos, swimming pools and other amusements, and for military units of the state of Idaho or the United States, and may, upon a vote of one half (1/2) plus one (1) of the members of the full council, make and enter into proper contracts with organizations and associations necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of this provision. Provided, that a city shall not be liable for any damage by reason of any accident occurring on the parks and lands set apart for such purposes, except for gross negligence on the part of the city or its officers or agents, and provided further, that an entrance or other fee may be charged sufficient to pay the expense of maintaining and operating the ground.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 252, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion in the second sentence was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
CASE NOTES
Passage of resolution.
Power discretionary.
Property not needed for city purposes.
Passage of Resolution.
Power Discretionary.
The clerk of the city council testified that a motion authorizing the lease of former hospital to state for use as correctional facility was presented at the December 20, 1989, meeting of the city council and that the city council took a final vote at that time. The trial court concluded that the oral motion made and passed by the city council amounted, in substance, to a “resolution” within the meaning of§ 50-902 prior to execution of the lease. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the copy of the resolution into evidence. Foster v. City of St. Anthony, 122 Idaho 883, 841 P.2d 413 (1992). Power Discretionary.
This section permits a municipality to lease city property “not needed for city purposes, upon such terms as may be just and equitable”; this power to lease is a purely discretionary function entrusted to the elected officials of the municipality and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, any decision made thereunder will not be overturned on appeal. Bopp v. City of Sandpoint, 110 Idaho 488, 716 P.2d 1260 (1986).
Property Not Needed for City Purposes.
Lease between telephone and telegraph company and the city of property being used for city hall and police station to telephone company was valid, and this section which authorizes “the lease of any property not needed for city purposes” does not prohibit a city council by resolution from determining that the leased property was not needed for city purposes in the present or future and was subject to city’s right of occupation during transitional period prior to obtaining new premises. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Boise, 95 Idaho 264, 506 P.2d 832 (1973).
Chapter 15 POLICEMAN’S RETIREMENT FUND
Sec.
§ 50-1501. Purpose stated.
Retirement, with continuance of pay for themselves, provision for dependents and pay during temporary disability, and the encouragement of long tenure in police service of paid policemen becoming aged or disabled in the service of the state or any of its cities, is hereby declared to be a public purpose of joint concern to the state and each of its cities in the protection of lives and conservation of property and essential to the maintenance of competent and efficient personnel in police service.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 253, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49 of tit. 50.
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Hanson v. City of Idaho Falls, 92 Idaho 512, 446 P.2d 634 (1968).
§ 50-1502. Definitions.
The following are definitions of terms used in sections 50-1501 through 50-1524, Idaho Code:
- “Paid policeman” means any individual who is on the payroll of any city in the state of Idaho and who devotes his or her principal time of employment to the care, operation or maintenance of a regularly constituted police department of such city;
- “Industrial accident board” means the board as authorized and created under the provisions of chapter 5, title 72, Idaho Code, or as the same may be hereafter amended;
- “Workers’ Compensation Law” means the Workers’ Compensation Law as authorized and created under title 72, Idaho Code, or as the same may hereafter be amended;
- “Twenty-five years active service” — an individual whose principal means of livelihood for the period of twenty-five (25) years has been through employment by a city in a regularly constituted police department, and has actually been carried on the payroll for twenty-five (25) years;
- “Five years continuous service, ten years continuous service, fifteen years continuous service” — an individual who has been employed by a regularly constituted police department for a period of five (5) years, ten (10) years, or fifteen (15) years continuously, without having engaged in any other gainful occupation;
- “Leave of absence” means a period of time which a paid policeman shall have been out of the service of said police department of the city of which he was a member, and who, for that like period of time was off the payrolls thereof;
- “Mandatory retirement at age sixty-five” — retirement to become mandatory when age of sixty-five (65) years has been reached;
- The meaning of the term “incapacitated in a degree which prohibits efficient service” means that degree of mental or physical disability which prohibits the efficient performance of the duties of a paid policeman during any occasion when his said services as a policeman shall be necessary;
- “Twenty-five years of accumulated service” — an individual who has been employed by a regularly constituted police department without having engaged in any other gainful occupation and has had twenty-five (25) years of accumulated service with the same police department and has been carried on the payrolls of such department for that period of accumulated time.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 254, p. 1249; am. 1993, ch. 350, § 1, p. 1295.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 1 of S.L. 1969, ch. 250 amended this section to read as follows: “The following are definitions of terms used in sections 50-1501 through 50-1524:
“(a) ‘Paid policeman’ means any individual who is on the payroll of any city in the state of Idaho and who devotes his or her principal time of employment to the care, operation or maintenance of a regularly constituted police department of such city; “(b) ‘Industrial accident board’ means the board as authorized and created under the provisions of chapter 5 of title 72, or as the same may be hereafter amended;
“(c) ‘Workmen’s Compensation Law’ means the Workmen’s Compensation Law as authorized and created under title 72, or as the same may hereafter be amended;
“(d) ‘Twenty years active service’ — an individual whose principal means of livelihood for the period of twenty years has been through employment by a city in a regularly constituted police department, and has actually been carried on the payroll for twenty years;
“(e) ‘Five years continuous service, ten years continuous service, fifteen years continuous service’ — an individual who has been employed by a regularly constituted police department for a period of five years, ten years, or fifteen years continuously, without having engaged in any other gainful occupation;
“(f) ‘Leave of absence’ means a period of time which a paid policeman shall have been out of the service of said police department of the city of which he was a member, and who, for that like period of time was off the payrolls thereof;
“(g) ‘Mandatory retirement at age sixty-five’ — retirement to become mandatory when age of sixty-five years has been reached;
“(h) The meaning of the term ‘incapacitated in a degree which prohibits efficient service’ means that degree of mental or physical disability which prohibits the efficient performance of the duties of a paid policeman during any occasion when his said services as a policeman shall be necessary;
“(i) ‘Twenty years of accumulated service’ — an individual who has been employed by a regularly constituted police department without having engaged in any other gainful occupation and has (been) had twenty years of accumulated service with the same police department and has been carried on the payrolls of such department for that period of accumulated time.”
However, chapter 250 is probably invalid. Such chapter, which was Senate Bill 1178, was passed by the senate as set out above. The bill in the house was amended by striking out the amendment to the section in its entirety. The bill was then returned to the senate but was not submitted to the senate for the approval of the amendments. The bill, without such amendments, was then enrolled and sent to the governor for signature.
Pursuant to§ 72-502, references to the “industrial accident board” and “board” are deemed to be references to the “industrial commission.”
§ 50-1503. Establishment of retirement fund.
The city council of any city in the state of Idaho may, in accordance with sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code], establish a “policeman’s retirement fund” providing, that when such fund shall have been established, as hereinafter provided, it shall continue to function except that the legislature of the state of Idaho may abolish it.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 255, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1504. Board of police retirement fund commissioners — Election — Term of office — Duties.
The city council of any city, having elected to establish a policeman’s retirement fund, together with three (3) members of the police department, shall constitute the board of police retirement fund commissioners. Each police department member, to be eligible for board membership, must be (a) a participating member of the fund; and (b) either on active duty or retired from the department and drawing benefits from the fund. For the purposes of this section “participating member” means any active member of the police department who contributes to the fund, or any retired member of the police department who receives benefits from the fund. The three (3) members from the police department shall be elected at an election held every two (2) years after the adoption of the provisions of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524, Idaho Code, and in the manner herein provided. In the event that the number of participating members eligible for board membership is limited to two (2) or fewer, a member may hold more than one (1) position on the board simultaneously.
Not more than thirty (30) nor less than fifteen (15) days preceding the date fixed by law for general city elections, written notice of the nomination of any participating member of said police department for membership on said board may be filed with the secretary thereof. Each petition of nomination shall be signed by not less than three (3) participating members of said police department, and nothing herein contained shall prevent any participating member of a police department from signing more than three (3) petitions of nomination. Said election shall be held on a date fixed by the secretary of the board, and shall not be less than five (5) days nor more than ten (10) days before the date fixed by law for the election as aforesaid. Notices of the dates upon which said petitions may be filed and of the date fixed for the election of members to said board shall be given by the secretary by posting written notices thereof in a prominent place in the police headquarters of said city and by mailing written notices to each participating fund member. For the purpose of said election, the secretary shall prepare and furnish by mail printed or typewritten ballots in the usual form, containing the names of all persons regularly nominated for membership. Each participating member of said police department shall be entitled to vote in person or by mail for three (3) persons as members of said board. The chief of police of the department shall appoint two (2) members of the department, one (1) of which may be the secretary of the fund, to act as clerks at the election, which shall open at 8 o’clock A.M., and remain open so long thereafter, not exceeding twelve (12) hours, as will afford an opportunity for each person entitled to vote. The three (3) nominees receiving the highest number of votes in ballots cast in person and by mail in said election shall be declared elected and their terms shall commence on the same date as that of the mayor of said city.
Said board shall provide for the disbursement of such retirement fund and shall designate the beneficiaries thereof as provided in sections 50-1501 through 50-1524, Idaho Code.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 256, p. 1249; am. 1987, ch. 73, § 1, p. 143.
CASE NOTES
Constitutionality.
In disbursing the retirement fund to the beneficiaries, as provided in this section, the commissioners are not discharging an unconstitutional liability of the city to a private association, but are disbursing public funds from a public trust for a public purpose, i.e., compensation of faithful public servants for services rendered over the years. Hanson v. City of Idaho Falls, 92 Idaho 512, 446 P.2d 634 (1968).
§ 50-1505. Policeman’s retirement fund.
There is hereby created a special fund in the treasury of the city to be designated and known as the policeman’s retirement fund for the purpose of providing retirement pay and other benefits for paid policemen, as defined herein, becoming aged or disabled while in the public police service of said city and also providing for their dependents. Such fund shall consist of all moneys accruing under the provisions hereof, all appropriations thereto, all contributions to said fund, donations, properties, and securities acquired by investment or otherwise, and interest earned, shall, commencing with the effective date of such fund, become a part thereof.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 257, p. 1249.
§ 50-1506. Appropriation of fund.
All moneys coming into the said fund shall be continuously appropriated for the objects, uses and purposes provided herein by sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code,] and to pay all or any costs and expenses of administration thereof by the said board of police retirement fund commissioners.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 258, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1507. Administration of fund.
The policeman’s retirement fund shall be administered by the chairman of the board of police retirement fund commissioners.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 259, p. 1249.
§ 50-1508. Actions by and against board.
The said board of police retirement fund commissioners shall have the power to sue or be sued in all courts of the state in all matters arising out of the administration, management and enforcement of the provisions of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code].
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 260, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
CASE NOTES
Decisions Under Prior Law
Form of Action.
Where the board denied the application of one under disability retirement for permanent retirement on the ground that, having previously been retired, the enactment of§ 50-2116(i) [now§ 50-1516(h)] did not affect his rights, his action for declaratory judgment was the proper form of action. Engen v. James, 92 Idaho 690, 448 P.2d 977 (1969).
§ 50-1509. Employees of board.
The said board of police retirement fund commissioners shall have power to engage assistants, experts, accountants, clerks and other employees which may be found necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code], the same to be paid out of said retirement fund.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 261, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1510. Personal liability of board members or their employees.
The board of police retirement fund commissioners shall not, nor shall any person employed by any commissioners, be personally liable in his private capacity for or on account of any act performed or entered into in an official capacity in good faith and without intent to defraud, in connection with the administration of said retirement fund.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 262, p. 1249.
§ 50-1511. Audit of claims.
All claims against said fund shall be examined, audited and allowed in the manner now provided or hereafter provided for by law for claims against any city.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 263, p. 1249.
§ 50-1512. Tax levy — Salary deductions.
Any city having established a policeman’s retirement fund may levy a tax of not to exceed eight hundredths per cent (.08%) of market value for assessment purposes of property within the corporate limits of the city, except where pursuant to section 50-1525, Idaho Code, it is found that the levy is not sufficient to meet the fund’s future liability, in which case the levy may be increased to provide for the actuarial soundness of the fund. Said taxes shall be placed by the city treasurer in a fund to be known as the “policeman’s retirement fund.” Sums certain, as determined by the governing body, not to exceed eight per cent (8%) per month, may be deducted from the salary of each police officer and placed in said “policeman’s retirement fund” by the treasurer. When all claims against the fund have been satisfied, the authority to levy according to this section shall terminate.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 264, p. 1249; am. 1971, ch. 26, § 6, p. 68; am. 1985, ch. 223, § 1, p. 536; am. 1996, ch. 208, § 12, p. 658; am. 1996, ch. 322, § 53, p. 1029.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Deductions from wages for pension funds,§ 50-1016.
Amendments.
This section was amended by two 1996 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.
The 1996 amendments, by ch. 208, and ch. 322, both deleted the second sentence of this section which read: “The levy, as authorized herein, shall be exempt from the provisions of section 63-2220, Idaho Code.”
Effective Dates.
Section 22 of S.L. 1996, ch. 208 declared an emergency and provided that this section should be in effect July 1, 1996. Approved March 12, 1996.
§ 50-1513. Chairman of board — Secretaries — Reports.
The mayor of the city shall be ex-officio chairman of the board of police retirement fund commissioners and the members of the board shall elect the other necessary officers. The secretary of the board shall make a semiannual report to the city council as to the condition of the said “policeman’s retirement fund:” their receipts and disbursements in the accounts of same, a complete list of the beneficiaries of the said fund and a list of the amount paid to each of said persons. The city treasurer shall, from the records of his office, furnish the secretary with any pertinent or necessary information which may be needful or necessary to compile such report or to furnish the board with the proper information: all reports to be written, signed and dated by the secretary.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 265, p. 1249.
§ 50-1514. Retirement of policemen — Retirement benefits — Leave of absence.
- Whenever any person shall have been duly appointed, selected and sworn in as a member in any capacity or rank whatsoever of a regularly constituted police department of the city which may hereafter be subject to the provisions of this chapter, and shall have reached the age of sixty (60) years, shall be retired upon his written application to the board of retirement fund commissioners, and every other member of such a police department who reaches the age of sixty-five (65), or any member who, after reaching the age of sixty (60) years, continues in a regular capacity with that police department and thereafter becomes physically or mentally incapacitated to a degree which prevents efficient service, shall by the order and direction of the board be retired from further service with that city police department. When any person shall have served not less than twenty-five (25) years accumulatively with the same city police department, he may should he so desire have the right to retire at that time, provided he has not reached the age of sixty-five (65) years, and provided further, that whenever that person eligible to retire upon completion of twenty-five (25) years of accumulated service so elects, he may, upon application to the board of police retirement fund commissioners, remain in active service as long as his physical condition permits, or until reaching the age of sixty-five (65) years. When the board issues an order of retirement, the order shall terminate and end the services of a person in the police department, except in cases of extreme emergency as determined by the board of police retirement fund commissioners in cooperation with the chief of police of that city, and the person to be retired shall thereafter during his lifetime be paid from the retirement fund a yearly sum, equal to one-half (1/2) of the average annual salary received by the person during the five (5) highest salary years of his last ten (10) years of service next preceding the date of retirement; provided, however, in cases where the retirement plan was approved by ordinance prior to April 1, 1947, a yearly retirement sum shall be paid which is equal to one-half (1/2) of the amount of salary attached to the rank which he held in the police department of the city for a period of one (1) year next preceding the date of retirement, both of which retirement sums shall be adjusted in proportion to any cost-of-living adjustments made to the salaries of active employees. Provided further, that where a retirement plan was approved by ordinance prior to April 1, 1947, upon completion of twenty (20) years of accumulated service a person subject to this chapter may apply to the board of police retirement fund commissioners for a reduced yearly retirement sum equal to the percentage of full benefits arrived at by dividing the number of years served by twenty-five (25). This percentage reduction in benefits shall be consistent throughout the person’s retirement period.
- The period of time during which any paid policeman who is entitled to retire under the provisions of this chapter, is out of the service with the constituted police department of that city, while on authorized leave of absence, other than leave of absence granted a policeman by reason of injury or illness, and during which period of time the policeman is not carried on the payroll of the police department of the city, shall not be counted as applying to accumulative service under provisions of this chapter, except that this shall not apply to leave of absence granted to any policeman of any city for the purpose of service in the armed forces of the United States. The period of time prior to granting a leave of absence, other than those granted due to injury or illness, or for the purpose of serving in the armed forces of the United States, when the policeman was actually on the payroll of the police department of the city, and period of time the policeman is actually on the payroll of the police department after his return from leave of absence, shall be computed to establish length of accumulated service. Also, providing that any paid policeman coming under the provisions of this chapter, who shall leave the service of the police department and has been repaid any part or all of the moneys paid by him through payroll deductions to the retirement fund, shall, if and when returning to service of that police department, repay the amount of money he was reimbursed, under the provisions of this chapter to the policeman’s retirement fund before becoming eligible to receive retirement pay under the provisions of this chapter.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 266, p. 1249; am. 1970, ch. 157, § 1, p. 481; am. 1974, ch. 103, § 1, p. 1208; am. 1981, ch. 4, § 1, p. 8.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 2 of S.L. 1969, ch. 250, also purported to amend this section, but, since it was passed by the House in a different version than was passed by the Senate, it was deemed invalid.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1973, ch. 103 declared an emergency. Approved March 27, 1974.
§ 50-1515. Resignation of policemen — Refund of deductions.
A policeman who has been employed by a regularly constituted police department for a period of less than five (5) continuous years shall, upon termination of such employment, and upon application to the board of police retirement fund commissioners, be refunded one fourth (1/4) of the moneys deducted from his salary and placed in the police retirement fund. The amount to be refunded upon the application of a policeman who has been employed by said police department for a period of not less than five (5) years continuously shall be one third (1/3) of the moneys deducted from his salary and placed in the police retirement fund; for not less than ten (10) years continuous employment with said police department, one half (1/2) of the moneys deducted from his salary and placed in the police retirement fund shall, upon application, be refunded; and after having completed fifteen (15) years of continuous service with said police department, all moneys deducted from his salary and placed in the police retirement fund shall be refunded upon application of such policeman upon termination.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 267, p. 1249.
§ 50-1516. Retirement for disability — Death benefits — Funeral benefits.
No person shall be retired as provided in the above sections unless the member shall comply with the qualifications set out and provided by this chapter:
-
Any paid police member incapacitated by injury or by illness as a result of the performance of the member’s official duties as a paid member of a police department shall be retired so long as the disability shall continue in a degree which prevents efficient service and during the disability shall be paid from the retirement fund a disability benefit as follows:
- For disability attributable wholly to service as a paid police member, a monthly sum equal to one twenty-fourth (1/24) of the amount of the annual salary attached to the rank which the member held in the police department for a period of one (1) year next preceding the date of retirement; provided, however, that the benefits may be reduced by the board of police retirement fund commissioners commensurate to the extent of the disability and the person’s income earning capacity;
- For disability attributable only in part to service as a paid police member, a monthly disability benefit in an amount to be fixed by the board of police retirement fund commissioners, but commensurate with the extent of proportion the service-connected disability relates to that person’s preexisting injury or infirmity, the board may increase or decrease such monthly benefits whenever the impairment in the person’s earning capacity warrants an increase or decrease, but in no event shall a monthly benefit paid to the person exceed the benefit provided under subparagraph (1) above;
- Provided, however, that if any paid police member is entitled to receive compensation under the Workmen’s [Worker’s] Compensation Law of the state of Idaho as it now exists, or shall hereafter be amended, the amount payable under this act shall be reduced by the amount to which the paid police member is entitled under the Workmen’s [Worker’s] Compensation Law;
- The board of police retirement fund commissioners shall require medical examinations of all applicants for retirement by reason of disability, and shall, at their discretion, require periodic medical examinations of persons receiving a disability retirement allowance. The board shall prescribe general rules for medical examination required hereunder, and may provide for the discontinuance of any disability retirement allowance and forfeiture of all rights under this act for any person who refuses to submit to such an examination;
- The decision of the board as to eligibility allowances or benefits shall be final;
- When a disability beneficiary is determined by the board to be not incapacitated in a degree which prevents efficient service, the member’s disability retirement allowance shall be canceled forthwith;
- Such a person, who for any reason is not reinstated in the service of the member’s department, shall receive separation benefits according to the member’s entitlement, as provided under section 50-1515, Idaho Code.
- In event a paid police member is killed or sustains injury, from which death results, while in the performance of the member’s duty or from causes disconnected with the member’s official duties but during the period of the member’s service, and leaves surviving the member a spouse or a minor child or minor children, or, in the event the member’s spouse has predeceased the member, the member’s minor child or children, shall be paid from the retirement fund a yearly sum equal to one-half (1/2) of the amount of the salary attached to the rank the member held in the police department of the city for a period of one (1) year next preceding the date of injury or death. In event a surviving spouse of a police member so killed, or whose death so results, shall thereafter die and there shall be at the time of death, a minor child or minor children of the deceased police member under the age of eighteen (18) years, the payments aforesaid shall be paid, for the sole benefit of the minor child or children under and until reaching the age of eighteen (18) years; provided, however, that any sums payable to any surviving spouse or minor child or children of any police member under this act shall be reduced by any sum to which the surviving spouse or minor child or children may be entitled under the provisions of the Workmen’s [Worker’s] Compensation Law of the state of Idaho.
- In event a paid police member, retired on retirement pay, shall die and leave surviving the member a surviving spouse, who was the member’s spouse for over five (5) years immediately prior to the member’s death, but no minor children, the spouse shall receive an amount equal to three-fourths (3/4) of the retirement or benefit pay of the member prior to the member’s death, adjusted in proportion to any cost-of-living adjustments made to the salaries of active employees, but only during the spouse’s lifetime.
- In event a paid police member, retired on retirement pay, shall die and leave surviving the member a spouse who was the member’s spouse for over five (5) years immediately prior to the member’s death or a minor child or minor children, the surviving spouse, or, in the event the member’s spouse has predeceased the member, the member’s minor child or children, shall be paid the retirement pay to which the deceased police member was eligible, and if the member’s surviving spouse thereafter dies the full retirement pay shall be paid to the child or children until they reach the age of eighteen (18) years.
- In the event any paid police member shall die within three (3) months, from and as a result of injuries received in performance of duty or from causes disconnected with the member’s official duties but during the period of the member’s service and shall at the time of the member’s death be unmarried but shall leave surviving the member a dependent father or mother, the retirement or benefit pay to which the member would have been entitled thereunder shall be paid fifty per cent (50%) to each of the surviving parents during the continuance of his or her natural life.
- In addition to the foregoing, at the death of any paid police member from whatever cause, the fund shall pay the sum of one hundred dollars ($100) as funeral expenses.
- Any police member, father, mother, surviving spouse, child or children of a police member entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s [Worker’s] Compensation Law shall draw benefits under provisions of this chapter only to the extent that the benefits under this chapter exceed those to which the member shall be entitled under the Workmen’s [Worker’s] Compensation Law of the state of Idaho.
- When a police member has been disabled and when the period of the member’s disability combined with the member’s prior service as a police member makes the member eligible for retirement under the provisions of this chapter, the member may upon application to the board be retired at one-half (1/2) the rate of pay applicable for the job classification at the time of disability, or its equivalent, which the member held at the time of disability which pay shall be adjusted in proportion to any cost-of-living adjustments made to the pay of active employees.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 268, p. 1249; am. 1970, ch. 157, § 2, p. 481; am. 1976, ch. 287, § 1, p. 990; am. 1981, ch. 4, § 2, p. 8; am. 1992, ch. 41, § 1, p. 140.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertions in paragraph (a)(3) and subsections (b) and (g) were added by the compiler to correct the name of the referenced law. See§ 72-101 et seq.
Section 3 of S.L. 1969, ch. 250 also purported to amend this section, but, since it was passed by the House in a different version than was passed by the Senate, it was deemed invalid.
The term “this act” in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) and subsection (b) refers to S.L. 1967, Chapter 429 which is generally compiled as chapters 1 to 3, 6 to 10, 13 to 19, and 21 to 23, title 50, Idaho Code.
CASE NOTES
Effect of Repeal on Existing Rights.
The repeal of former provision allowing retirement at half-pay of disabled policeman did not affect the rights of one who had become entitled to retirement and applied therefor prior to such repeal, as the existing rights of such a one could not be taken away by a later act of the legislature. Engen v. James, 92 Idaho 690, 448 P.2d 977 (1969).
§ 50-1517. Benefits exempt from legal process.
No benefits or payments payable under the provisions of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code,] shall be subject to execution, nor assignable, nor shall be hypothecated or in any manner encumbered.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 269, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1518. Construction of statute.
The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed, with the object of promotion of justice and the welfare of the persons subject to its provisions.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 270, p. 1249.
§ 50-1519. Rotary expense fund.
The provisions of sections 67-2018, 67-2019, 67-2020 and 67-2021, Idaho Code, are hereby expressly declared applicable to the provisions of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code].
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 271, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion at the end of the section was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1520. Insurance of risks.
In event the board of police retirement fund commissioners shall determine that there are risks arising under the terms of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code,] which may be made the subject of insurance against loss to the fund created herein, said commission is hereby authorized at its discretion, to insure such risks. In event of such insurance, the premiums therefor shall be paid from the fund created hereby as other claims are paid; provided, that such insurance shall not in any event be insurance of any individual but exclusively insurance of the fund itself against loss.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 272, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion in the first sentence was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1521. Application of statute.
No paid policeman shall be retired under section 50-1514[, Idaho Code,] prior to January 1, 1950, unless he shall be discharged from service because of his incapacity in a degree which prohibits efficient service as defined in subdivision (h) of section 50-1502[, Idaho Code]. The provisions of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code,] shall apply only to persons now employed or hereafter to be employed as paid policemen.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 273, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertions were added in three places by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1522. Separability.
If any clause, section or provision of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code,] be found to be unconstitutional, the remainder of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code,] shall remain in full force and effect, notwithstanding such invalidity.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 274, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertions were added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1523. False claims — Penalty.
Any person making a false claim for allowance of benefits or payment of money under sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code], knowing the same to be false, shall be deemed guilty of presentation of a false claim against the state and shall be punished as provided by law.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 275, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Making a false claim,§ 50-1526.
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
§ 50-1524. Authority to create policeman’s retirement fund terminated.
From and after the effective date of this act, no city shall establish a policeman’s retirement fund: provided, however, that any policeman’s retirement fund, established under the provisions of sections 50-1501 through 50-1524[, Idaho Code,] and which is now in effect, shall not be invalidated. Provided, further, except as in this section hereinafter otherwise provided, that no person, who shall be hereafter employed as a paid policeman in a city which has a policeman’s retirement fund at the effective date of this act, shall participate in the policeman’s retirement fund. Any person hereafter employed by a police department shall be eligible to participate in the public employee’s retirement system except as in this section hereinafter otherwise provided. Any city having an existing policeman’s retirement fund may require, by ordinance, that all of its paid policemen shall participate in its policeman’s retirement fund. No paid policeman employed in a city which has elected by ordinance to require all its paid policemen to participate in its policeman’s retirement fund shall be eligible to participate in the public employee’s retirement system.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 276, p. 1249; am. 1969, ch. 307, § 1, p. 944; am. 1970, ch. 24, § 1, p. 51.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Public employee retirement system,§ 59-1301 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
The phrase “the effective date of this act” in the first and second sentences refers to the effective date of S.L. 1967, Chapter 429, which was effective April 12, 1967.
The bracketed insertion in the first sentence was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
Effective Dates.
Section 2 of S.L. 1969, ch. 307 declared an emergency. Approved March 27, 1969.
Section 2 of S.L. 1970, ch. 24 declared an emergency. Approved February 17, 1970.
§ 50-1525. Mandatory actuarial study.
Any city establishing and maintaining a policeman’s retirement fund pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall, at its own expense, conduct an actuarial study for the purpose of determining the actuarial soundness of such fund. Commencing January 1, 1991, actuarial studies required hereunder shall be conducted within four (4) years of the last actuarial study and each four (4) years thereafter. Copies of such studies shall be submitted to the secretary of state for the state of Idaho and to the secretary of the local police retirement fund board.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1525, as added by 1971, ch. 26, § 7, p. 68; am. 1990, ch. 128, § 1, p. 298.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Secretary of state,§ 67-901 et seq.
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 8 of S.L. 1971, ch. 26 read: “The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of remaining portions of this act”.
Effective Dates.
Section 9 of S.L. 1971, ch. 26 provided that the act should be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1971.
§ 50-1526. Making a false claim — Misdemeanor.
Any person making a false claim for allowance of benefits or payment of money under the provisions of this chapter, knowing the same to be false, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished pursuant to the provisions of section 18-113, Idaho Code.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1526, as added by 1993, ch. 349, § 1, p. 1294.
Chapter 16 CIVIL SERVICE
Sec.
§ 50-1601. Civil service commission — Appointment — Qualifications — Manner of abolishing commission.
To provide a means whereby employees of the cities of the state of Idaho may be selected, retained and promoted on the basis of merit and performance of duties, thus effecting economy and efficiency in the administration of city government, the city council of any city may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of a civil service system under the provisions herein set forth.
Any city having created a civil service system shall not thereafter abolish such system except as herein provided: notice of date, time and place of first reading of the proposed ordinance to abolish such system shall be published in one (1) issue of the official newspaper of the city not less than ten (10) days immediately preceding the first reading of the proposed ordinance; and, such ordinance shall not be passed unless the same is read at length on three (3) different days at least seven (7) days apart.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 277, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Worker’s compensation applies,§ 72-205.
Prior Laws.
Section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49 of tit. 50.
Effective Dates.
Section 475 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 1967.
CASE NOTES
Firefighters.
The contract the city of Boise made with the Idaho national guard (IDANG) to provide air rescue fire fighting (ARFF) services at the Boise municipal airport did not violate the Idaho constitution or the Idaho civil service act; however, the firefighters were entitled to collectively bargain in anticipation of the city’s actions to replace union employees with IDANG firefighters to perform the work previously performed by union members, and, by refusing to negotiate with the union, the city violated the collective bargaining act. International Ass’n of Firefighters Local No. 672 v. Boise City, 136 Idaho 162, 30 P.3d 940 (2001).
§ 50-1602. Departments governed by civil service — Classified civil service lists.
The council of each city creating a civil service system shall, by ordinance, determine which departments therein shall be included within the classified civil service system to be governed by the civil service rules and regulations. No appointments shall be made except under and according to the rules and regulations as adopted by resolution of the council.
The appointing authority of each department, subject to the rules and regulations of the civil service system, shall appoint all officers, employees or agents classified under the civil service rules and regulations, from the classified civil service list furnished by the civil service commission, and in like manner fill all vacancies.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 278, p. 1249; am. 1973, ch. 287, § 1, p. 611.
§ 50-1603. Rules by commission.
The civil service commission shall make, and is hereby empowered to make, all necessary rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of the civil service system and for examinations, appointments and promotions. All such rules and regulations shall be printed by the civil service commission for distribution.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 279, p. 1249.
§ 50-1604. Examinations — Qualifications of applicants — Rehires — Causes for removal, discharge or suspension of incumbents.
- Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, all applicants for places of employment in the classified civil service shall be subject to examination, which shall be public competitive and free and shall be held at such times and places as the civil service commission shall from time to time determine. Such examinations shall be for the purpose of determining the qualifications of applicants for positions and shall be practical and shall fairly test the fitness of the persons examined to discharge the duties of the position to which they seek appointment.
- The governing body of each city, having created a civil service commission, shall provide a job description for each civil service position of the city and shall determine and establish the standards and qualifications therefor to be met by each applicant before appointment.
-
Any applicant who, while in good standing, voluntarily terminated his or her employment with the agency with whom an appointment is sought may, upon written request to and approval from the appointing officer and in accordance with the written policy of the civil service commission, be rehired without taking an examination, provided:
- The applicant is otherwise qualified for the position; and
- The written request for rehire is physically delivered, mailed or electronically transferred to the appointing officer within such time as provided by the written policy of the civil service commission.
-
All incumbents and applicants thereafter appointed shall hold office, place, position or employment only during good behavior, and any such person may be removed, discharged, suspended without pay, demoted, reduced in rank, deprived of vacation privileges or other special privileges for any of the following reasons, subject to the determination of the facts in each case by the commission:
- Incompetency, inefficiency or inattention to or dereliction of duty;
- Dishonesty, intemperance, immoral conduct, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public or a fellow employee, or any other act of omission or commission tending to injure the public service; willful failure on the part of the employee to properly conduct himself, or any other willful violation of the civil service rules and regulations;
- Mental or physical unfitness for the position which the employee holds;
- Dishonest, disgraceful, immoral or prejudicial conduct;
- Drunkenness or use of intoxicating liquors, narcotics, or any other habit-forming drug, liquid or preparation to such extent that the use thereof interferes with the efficiency or mental or physical fitness of the employee or which prevents the employee from properly performing the functions and duties of any position under civil service;
- Conviction of a crime that is deemed relevant in accordance with section 67-9411(1), Idaho Code;
History.
(g) Any other act or failure to act, which in the judgment of the civil service commissioners is sufficient to show the offender to be an unsuitable and unfit person to be employed in the public service. History.
1967, ch. 429, § 280, p. 1249; am. 2002, ch. 51, § 1, p. 117; am. 2020, ch. 175, § 11, p. 500.
STATUTORY NOTES
Amendments.
The 2020 amendment, by ch. 175, rewrote paragraph (4)(b), which formerly read: “Conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.”
CASE NOTES
Cited
International Ass’n of Firefighters Local No. 672 v. Boise City, 136 Idaho 162, 30 P.3d 940 (2001).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
Determination as to good faith in abolition of public service or employment subject to civil service or merit system. 87 A.L.R.3d 1165.
Sexual misconduct or irregularity as amounting to conduct unbecoming an officer, justifying officer’s demotion or removal or suspension from duty. 9 A.L.R.4th 614.
First amendment protection for publicly employed firefighters subjected to discharge, transfer, or discipline because of free speech. 106 A.L.R. Fed. 396.
Nonsexual misconduct or irregularity as amounting to “conduct unbecoming an officer,” justifying police officer’s demotion or removal or suspension from duty. 19 A.L.R.6th 217.
§ 50-1605. Appointment to positions — Certificate of eligibles — Reexamination.
When a position in the classified civil service is to be filled, the appointing authority shall notify the civil service commissioner and the commission shall, as soon as possible, certify the names of three (3) or so many as there be if less than three (3) on the eligible list, to the appointing officer, provided, the said commission shall always certify the persons having the highest standing in the eligible list for the position to be filled, and each position shall be filled by one (1) of the persons certified by the said commission. All appointments shall be probationary for such periods as may be prescribed by the civil service commission. All persons not appointed shall be restored to their relative positions on the eligible list.
All persons, having been on the eligible list for two (2) years without appointment, shall be removed therefrom and can only be returned thereto upon regular examination.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 281, p. 1249.
§ 50-1606. Promotion for merit.
The civil service commission shall provide for promotions within the departments under the classified civil service on the basis of ascertained merit, seniority in service, standing obtained by competitive examination, and in all cases where practicable, provide that vacancies shall be filled by promotion from among such members of the next lower rank as submit themselves for examination for promotion. The civil service commission shall certify the names of not more than three (3) applicants having the highest rating to the appointing authority for each promotion.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 282, p. 1249.
§ 50-1607. Employees of six months when ordinance becomes effective.
All persons who are and have been continuously in the employ of the city, for at least six (6) months next prior to the effective date of the civil service ordinance, shall retain their respective employment, subject to removal or suspension in accordance with the rules and regulations of the civil service commission.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 283, p. 1249.
§ 50-1608. Temporary appointments.
The appointing authority of each department under the classified civil service, by and with the advice and consent of the civil service commission, may employ any person for temporary work without making such appointment from the certified list; but under no circumstances shall such temporary employee be appointed to a permanent position unless he shall have been duly certified by the civil service commission as in other cases.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 284, p. 1249.
§ 50-1609. Removals — Suspensions — Appeals — Hearings.
All persons in the classified civil service shall be subject to suspension from office or employment by the head of the department for misconduct, incompetency or failure to properly observe the rules of the department. Upon suspension by the head of the department or accusation by the appointing power, any citizen or taxpayer, a written statement of such suspension or accusation, in general terms, shall be served upon the accused and a duplicate filed with the commission; provided, the head of the department may suspend a member pending the confirmation of the suspension by the appointing power, which confirmation must be within three (3) days. The finding of the civil service commission upon the said charges shall be certified to the head of the department and shall forthwith be enforced and followed by him. The aggrieved party shall, however, have the right within ten (10) days from the time of his removal, suspension, demotion or discharge as the case may be, to file with the commission a written demand for an investigation. In conducting such investigation, the commission shall be confined to the determination of the question as to whether such removal, suspension, demotion or discharge was made for political or religious reasons, or was made in good faith and for cause. All investigations made by the commission pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be by public hearing after reasonable notice to the accused of the time and place of such hearing. At such hearing the accused shall be afforded an opportunity of appearing in person or by counsel and presenting his defense. If such judgment or order be upheld by a majority of the commission, the accused may appeal therefrom to the court of original and unlimited jurisdiction in civil suits of the county wherein he resides. The court of original and unlimited jurisdiction in civil suits shall thereupon proceed to hear and determine such appeal in a summary manner; provided, however, that such hearing shall be confined to the determination as to whether the judgment or order of removal, discharge, demotion or suspension by the commission, was made in good faith and for cause, and no appeal to such court shall be taken except upon such ground or grounds.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 285, p. 1249.
CASE NOTES
Findings of commission. Judicial review.
Summary appeal in district court.
Findings of Commission.
The civil service commission made findings which complied on their face with this section, where the commission determined that the police officer used excessive force when disciplining his stepchildren, causing injuries to those children, that his actions demonstrated an inability to control his temper and an inability to react appropriately as a result thereof, that his inability to control his temper cast serious doubt upon his ability to perform his duties as a police officer, and that no evidence was presented suggesting he was discharged for political or religious reasons. Dexter v. Idaho Falls City Police Dep’t, 113 Idaho 179, 742 P.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1987).
Judicial Review.
On judicial review of a civil service commission determination, the district court is required to conduct a full review of the whole record and, where the commission’s conclusions are unsupported by substantial evidence, its function encompasses stating, both for the benefit of the parties and the supreme court, its reasoning and conclusions which very well may but need not take the form of findings and conclusions. Local 1494 of Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 586 P.2d 1346 (1978).
The character of the commission, the roles committed to it by statute, and the manner in which the commission functioned serve to vary the standard of judicial review. Local 1494 of Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 586 P.2d 1346 (1978).
Summary Appeal in District Court.
Where the trial court heard oral argument of counsel, which consumed 30 minutes, following which the district court, within the confines of his chambers, made his review of the appeal record over a period of time extending from June 27, 1977, to August 25, 1977, it was clear that the district court proceeded in the “summary” manner required by this section, and the procedure was that which the parties envisioned as required by the section and their stipulation. Local 1494 of Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 99 Idaho 630, 586 P.2d 1346 (1978).
Cited
Peterson v. City of Pocatello, 117 Idaho 234, 786 P.2d 1136 (Ct. App. 1990).
§ 50-1610. Removals due to reduction of force.
Nothing in sections 50-1601 through 50-1610[, Idaho Code,] shall prohibit the city council from reducing the force employed, but such reduction shall be effected in inverse order of seniority of employment, and any employee who is removed on this account shall be placed at the head of the eligible list.
History.
1967, ch. 429, § 286, p. 1249.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
The bracketed insertion was added by the compiler to conform to the statutory citation style.
Chapter 17 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CODE — GUARANTEE FUND
Sec.
§ 50-1701. Short title.
Chapter 17, title 50, Idaho Code, shall be known and cited as the “Local Improvement District Code.”
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1701, as added by 1976, ch. 160, § 2, p. 567.
STATUTORY NOTES
Prior Laws.
Former§§ 50-1701 — 50-1727, which comprised S.L. 1967, ch. 429,§§ 287-314; am. 1968 (2nd E.S.), ch. 21,§§ 1-3; am. 1969, ch. 41,§§ 1-3, 6; am. 1969, ch. 181, § 1; am. 1970, ch. 99, § 1; am. 1970, ch. 133, §§ 14, 15; am. 1971, ch. 159, § 1; am. 1974, ch. 55, § 1; am. 1975, ch. 93, §§ 1, 2; am. 1975, ch. 168,§§ 1-3, were repealed by S.L. 1976, ch. 160, § 1.
Prior to such repeal, section 472 of S.L. 1967, ch. 429 had repealed former chs. 1 to 46, inclusive, and chs. 48, 49 of tit. 50.
Compiler’s Notes.
Section 3 of S.L. 1976, ch. 160 read: “All local improvement districts heretofore created or attempted to be created, and all assessments heretofore levied therein or attempted to be levied therein, which have not heretofore been adjudicated invalid, and all notices, assessments and proceedings taken in relation thereto whether void, defective or invalid, in all cases where the improvements contemplated have been made or contracted for, are hereby ratified, validated and confirmed and made sufficient to the same extent as if the same were perfected in the first instance. All acts and proceedings of any municipality had under or by virtue of the local improvement district code, and all contracts heretofore or hereafter made, and all warrants and bonds heretofore or hereafter issued pursuant to said acts and proceedings, are hereby ratified, validated and confirmed. All sections of the local improvement district code not specifically repealed herein are hereby ratified, validated and confirmed and made sufficient to the same extent as if they had been properly enacted in the first instance.”
CASE NOTES
Validation of Void Assessments.
Inasmuch as Idaho Const., Art. XI, § 12 prohibits the imposition of laws imposing new pecuniary liabilities in respect to transactions or considerations already past, Laws 1976, c. 160, § 3, which claims to validate all invalid assessments previously levied, cannot be the basis upon which property owners could be reassessed for improvement project costs incurred prior to the time the city acquired jurisdiction to incur such costs. Butler v. City of Blackfoot, 98 Idaho 854, 574 P.2d 542 (1978).
Cited Ward v. Ada County Hwy. Dist., 106 Idaho 889, 684 P.2d 291 (1984); Simmons v. City of Moscow, 111 Idaho 14, 720 P.2d 197 (1986). Decisions Under Prior Law
Constitutionality.
Costs incurred prior to creation of district.
Drainage districts.
Due process.
Statutory creation.
Validity.
Waiver of objections.
Constitutionality.
Provisions of former local improvement district code were not unconstitutional as violative of provision against taking of property without due process of law. Bell v. City of Moscow, 48 Idaho 65, 279 P. 1095 (1929); Wheeler v. City of Caldwell, 48 Idaho 77, 279 P. 412 (1929).
Costs Incurred Prior to Creation of District.
Inasmuch as a municipality acquired no statutory jurisdiction to incur costs to be assessed against abutting property owners under the 1967 local improvement district code until after the city council had held a hearing for public protests, any costs generated prior to the proper creation of a special improvement district could not be assessed against allegedly affected property owners. Butler v. City of Blackfoot, 98 Idaho 854, 574 P.2d 542 (1978).
Drainage Districts.
A drainage district was a local improvement district and because of the mere fact that it was not included within the local improvement code, it does not necessarily follow that it was not a local improvement district, if it was such in fact. Straus v. Ketchen, 54 Idaho 56, 28 P.2d 824 (1933).
Due Process.
Due process in the organization of a special assessment district and issuance of bonds thereby was afforded by the municipality’s notice to all interested parties, hearing before the council, and city’s assessment of benefits for the district. Oregon S.L.R.R. v. Berg, 52 Idaho 499, 16 P.2d 373 (1932).
Statutory Creation.
Special improvement districts were purely creatures of statute. Meyers v. City of Idaho Falls, 52 Idaho 81, 11 P.2d 626 (1932).
Validity.
Former sections governing special assessments for street improvements violated no constitutional right of owners of property assessed, as long as benefits continued respectively to equal the individual assessments. Noble Estate v. City of Boise City, 19 F.2d 927 (D. Idaho 1927).
Waiver of Objections.
Paving assessment against abutting property was held not discriminatory because city paved street in front of other property abutting on line of improvement at its own expense. Noble Estate v. City of Boise City, 19 F.2d 927 (D. Idaho 1927). Waiver of Objections.
Property owners who failed to object to street assessments and to take advantage of opportunity for hearing before city council could not thereafter question assessment in federal court. Noble Estate v. City of Boise City, 19 F.2d 927 (D. Idaho 1927).
§ 50-1702. Definitions.
The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall, for the purpose of this chapter, have the meanings respectively given herein.
- Municipality. Counties, water and/or sewer districts organized pursuant to the provisions of chapter 32, title 42, Idaho Code, highway districts, cities, including but not limited to those working under a special charter which have by such charter accepted the provisions of this code, and any city or like municipality hereafter created or authorized by the legislature unless one or more of the above shall be specifically excepted in any particular section of this code.
- Street or streets. The entire legal right of way and highways, roads, boulevards, avenues, streets, alleys, courts and all public places within a city, county, highway district, or water and/or sewer district.
- Council. The board of county commissioners, board of directors of water and/or sewer districts, the board of highway commissioners of any highway district, the mayor and council of all incorporated municipalities as well as any other municipal body or board which may now, or hereafter be authorized by law to do and perform any act in relation to the making of local improvements within any municipality as provided for in this code.
- Clerk, attorney or other municipal officer. The appropriate and comparable city and county officers with regard to city and county local improvement districts, highway district officers with regard to such highway district local improvement districts, and water and/or sewer district officers in regard to water and/or sewer local improvement districts.
- Engineer. The official engineer of the municipality or one specially retained for purposes of operating under this code.
- Off-street parking. All machinery, equipment, materials and appurtenances, including lands, easements, rights of way and buildings required, necessary or useful for the parking of vehicles on lands or places other than public streets.
- Resident owner or resident owners. The owner of property within, and who resides in a dwelling house situate in whole or in part within the limits of a local improvement district, or a proposed local improvement district; and a corporation, joint stock association, partnership, individual proprietor, or other form of business enterprise owning real property, and having its principal place of business, within any such district or proposed district.
- Cost and expenses. The contract price of all improvements, including the cost of making improvements within any intersection, together with any costs or expenses incurred for engineering, clerical, printing and legal services as well as for advertising, surveying, inspection of work, collection of assessments, interest upon bonds or warrants, and an amount for contingencies as shall be considered necessary by the council.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1702, as added by 1976, ch. 160, § 2, p. 567.
STATUTORY NOTES
Compiler’s Notes.
For meaning of words “this code”, see§ 50-1701.
CASE NOTES
Assessment of Costs.
Engineering and design expenses incurred prior to the formation of the local improvement district were properly assessed against the property owners. Simmons v. City of Moscow, 111 Idaho 14, 720 P.2d 197 (1986).
§ 50-1703. Powers conferred.
-
The governing body of any municipality shall have power to make or cause to be made any one (1) or more or combination of the following improvements:
- To establish grades and lay out, establish, open, extend and widen any local, collector, arterial or other street, sidewalk, alley or off-street parking facility;
- To purchase, acquire, construct, improve, repair, light, grade, pave, repave, surface, resurface, curb, gutter, sewer, drain, landscape and beautify any street, sidewalk or alley;
- To purchase, construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain or repair bridges, sidewalks, crosswalks, driveways, culverts, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, ditches, drains, conduits, flood barriers and channels for sanitary and drainage purposes, or either or both thereof, with inlets or outlets, manholes, catch basins, flush tanks, treatment systems and all other sewer and drainage appurtenances necessary for the comfort, convenience, health and well-being of the inhabitants of the municipality; provided, that any improvements for sanitary sewer facilities shall be constructed so as to conform with the general rules of the Idaho department of environmental quality;
- To construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain, or repair lines, facilities and equipment (other than generating equipment) for street lighting purposes or for the expansion or improvement of a previously established municipally-owned electrical distribution system, to a district within the boundaries of the municipality;
- To plant, or cause to be planted, set out, cultivate and maintain lawns, shade trees or other landscaping;
- To cover, fence, safeguard or enclose reservoirs, canals, ditches and watercourses and to construct, reconstruct, extend, line or reline, maintain and repair waterworks, reservoirs, canals, ditches, pipes, mains, hydrants, and other water facilities for the purpose of supplying water for domestic, irrigation and fire protection purposes, or any of them; regulating, controlling or distributing the same and regulating and controlling water and watercourses leading into the municipality;
- To acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain or repair parking lots or other facilities for the parking of vehicles on or off streets;
- To acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain or repair parks and other recreational facilities;
- To remove any nonconforming existing facility or structure in the areas to be improved;
- To construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain or repair optional improvements;
- To acquire by purchase, gift, condemnation, or otherwise any real or personal property within the limits of the municipality as in the judgment of the council may be necessary or convenient in order to make any of such improvements or otherwise to carry out the purposes of this chapter;
- To make any other improvements now or hereafter authorized by any other law, the cost of which in whole or in part can properly be determined to be of particular benefit to a particular area within the municipality;
- To construct and install all such structures, equipment and other items and to do all such other work and to incur any such costs and expenses as may be necessary or appropriate to complete any of such improvements in a proper manner; (14) To purchase, build, construct, reconstruct or otherwise improve parking facilities and all other appurtenances necessary to provide adequate off-street parking, and to that end may acquire real or personal property by purchase, gift, condemnation or otherwise, and may own, possess and maintain such real or personal property within the limits of the municipality as in the judgment of the council may be necessary and convenient for such purposes; and
- For the purpose of making and paying for all or a part of the cost of any of such improvements (including optional improvements), the governing body of a municipality may create local improvement districts within the municipality, levy assessments on the property within such a district which is benefited by the making of the improvements and issue interim or registered warrants and local improvement bonds as provided in this chapter.
(15) To acquire, purchase, build, construct or reconstruct irrigation systems, install underground tiling and cover open irrigation ditches.
History.
I.C.,§ 50-1703, as added by 1976, ch. 160, § 2, p. 567; am. 1999, ch. 291, § 2, p. 722; am. 2001, ch. 103, § 94, p. 253.
STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.
Department of environmental quality,§ 39-104.
Compiler’s Notes.
The words enclosed in parentheses so appeared in the law as enacted.
CASE NOTES
Cited
Mann v. Granite Reeder Water & Sewer Dist., 143 Idaho 248, 141 P.3d 1117 (2006).
§ 50-1703A. Local business improvement districts.
- The legislature finds that the development of architectural themes for cities is a legitimate method to further the public health, safety and welfare of cities. The purpose of the provisions of this section is to authorize cities to create local business improvement districts for the purpose of constructing and financing the cost and expense of improvements to the exterior portions of business buildings to bring business buildings within the district into conformity with the architectural theme adopted by the city. The improvement of business buildings in conformity with the architectural theme adopted by the city is hereby declared a public purpose.
- Municipalities are hereby authorized to create local business improvement districts for the purpose of constructing and financing the cost and expense of improvements to the exterior portions of business buildings in order to bring business buildings within such districts into conformity with an architectural theme adopted by the city.
- The term “business building” includes any building devoted primarily to business purposes, including professional and governmental purposes.
- It is the intent of the provisions of this section that local business improvement districts be administered in all respects as are local improvement districts, except as provided herein.
-
Local business improvement districts shall be initiated by presentment to the council of a petition containing the following:
- A description of the particular lots and parcels to be included in the proposed district;
- A description of the improvements to be constructed and financed by the district;
- The estimated cost of the improvements;
- The percentage of the cost to be assessed against each lot and parcel within the district; and
- The signature of the owner of record of each lot or parcel to be included within the district, consenting to inclusion of the lot or parcel within the district.
- The total project amount assessed against each parcel within the district shall be no more than twenty percent (20%) of the market value for assessment purposes of the parcel.
- Lots and parcels need not be contiguous in order to be included within a district. No lot or parcel may be included within a district without the written consent of the owner thereof; provided, that, after the district has been created, consent to inclusion in the district may not subsequently be withdrawn prior to payment of all costs of the improvements.
- Upon receipt of the petition, the council shall adopt a resolution of intention, substantially in the form provided in section 50-1707, Idaho Code, stating the council’s intention to create the district, to make the improvements, and to levy assessments to pay the cost thereof. The resolution shall contain a statement as to the percentage of the costs to be assessed against each particular lot or parcel within the proposed district.
History.
(9) Notice shall be given and a hearing conducted in the manner provided in sections 50-1708 and 50-1709, Idaho Code. If, after such hearing, the council determines to create the district, it shall proceed as provided in this chapter for the creation of the district, the construction of the improvements, the preparation of, hearing upon, and confirmation of the assessment roll, the co