Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Massey
210 Va. 253, 169 S.E.2d 556 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement by a local government to underwrite or guarantee the operating deficits of a public service authority, even if contingent upon services rendered, constitutes a present debt or indebtedness subject to constitutional and charter debt limitations. Such an agreement does not, however, violate constitutional credit clauses if the authority serves a governmental function for public purposes.
Facts:
- The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Authority) was created by an interstate compact between Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia as a body corporate and politic to plan, develop, finance, and provide improved transit facilities and service for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Zone.
- The Northern Virginia Transportation District, including Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church, was created under Virginia's Transportation District Act of 1964 to cooperate with agencies like the Authority.
- The Authority adopted a mass transit plan to construct a 97.7-mile rapid rail system with an estimated cost of $2,494,600,000, funded by revenue bonds, federal contributions, and contributions from political subdivisions.
- Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church authorized the issuance of general obligation bonds to contribute $61,900,000 and $800,000, respectively, to the capital construction, and entered into a capital contributions agreement with the Authority.
- The County and City also entered into a 'Transit Service Agreement' with the Authority, obligating them to underwrite their proportionate shares of any deficits incurred in the operating expenses of the transit system by making monthly service payments from the start of operation until June 30, 2040.
- These service payments are required if the transit system's revenues, after accounting for debt service and reserve requirements for the Authority's revenue bonds, are insufficient to cover 'operating expenses,' which include maintenance, renewals, and interest on temporary borrowings for operations.
- The obligation to make service payments is conditioned on transit service being rendered, and payments are reduced if less than 85 percent of the planned service is furnished for a particular year.
Procedural Posture:
- The Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church filed separate petitions for writs of mandamus.
- These petitions were filed directly with the Supreme Court of Virginia under its original jurisdiction, pursuant to § 17-96, Code of 1950, 1960 Repl. Vol.
- The petitioners sought to compel Carlton C. Massey, County Executive, and Harry E. Wells, City Manager, respectively, to execute the 'Transit Service Agreement' on behalf of their jurisdictions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an agreement by Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church to underwrite or guarantee the operating deficits of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, contingent upon the provision of transit service, constitute a 'debt or indebtedness' subject to constitutional and charter debt limitations, or a 'grant or loan of credit' in violation of the Virginia Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - F. Anson, J.
No, the obligations of Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church under the Transit Service Agreement do constitute a debt or indebtedness within the meaning of constitutional and charter limitations, thereby preventing the county executive and city manager from being compelled to execute the agreement. The court acknowledged the general rule that contracts for necessary services (e.g., water, electricity), where payments are made periodically as services are furnished, do not create a present indebtedness for the aggregate amount. However, the court distinguished the present case, noting that the Agreement was not merely for payments for transit service but rather obligated the County and City to underwrite and guarantee an unknown future 'operating expense' deficit of the transit system. These 'operating expenses' were broadly defined to include maintenance, renewals, interest on temporary borrowings, and payments to reserves for bondholders, effectively guaranteeing the system's continued operation. The court concluded that these obligations were 'fixed and absolute' and thus constituted a present debt, despite being contingent on service delivery and revenue shortfalls. Without evidence of voter approval or adherence to debt limits, these obligations violated Virginia Constitution §§ 115(a) and 127 and the City of Falls Church's charter. Conversely, the court found that the Agreement did not violate the credit clause of § 185 of the Virginia Constitution. The court reasoned that the Authority was a publicly conceived, owned, and controlled instrumentality created for the public purpose of solving transportation needs, and its exercise of governmental functions for public welfare did not convert into an impermissible lending of credit simply because others might incidentally profit. Finally, the court confirmed that the Authority had the right to issue gross revenue bonds under Section 44 of the Compact, addressing a secondary argument by the respondents. Given the finding that the Agreement constituted an unauthorized debt, the petitions for writs of mandamus were denied.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on the interpretation of municipal debt limitations, distinguishing between permissible long-term service contracts and impermissible agreements to underwrite operating deficits. It establishes that agreements to guarantee the financial stability of a public project, even if contingent and not directly for capital, can create a present debt, thereby preventing local governments from circumventing constitutional and charter restrictions on indebtedness. The ruling reinforces the principle that form (e.g., 'service agreement') does not override substance when assessing financial obligations. Furthermore, it clarifies that public financing of a public instrumentality for a public purpose, even with incidental private benefits, does not violate constitutional prohibitions against lending public credit.
