Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Massey
210 Va. 680, 173 S.E.2d 869 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A continuing contract for essential public services, where a municipality or county agrees to pay in periodic installments only as services are rendered, does not create "debt" or "indebtedness" within the meaning of constitutional limitations on municipal or county indebtedness.
Facts:
- Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church previously entered into agreements with the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (Authority) to underwrite proportionate shares of operating deficits for a proposed public transit system.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that these initial agreements constituted "debt or indebtedness" under the Virginia Constitution.
- In response to the ruling, the Authority made basic changes to its financial plan for the transit system, eliminating the requirement that the County and City underwrite operating deficits.
- The Authority submitted new agreements to Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church.
- These new agreements provided that the County and City would make annual transit service payments to the Authority, beginning in the first year of full operation (estimated 1980), based on the number of train miles operated within their jurisdictions and the number of their residents using the system.
- Carlton C. Massey, County Executive of Fairfax County, and Harry E. Wells, City Manager of the City of Falls Church, refused to execute the new agreements.
Procedural Posture:
- Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church initially entered into agreements with the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (Authority) for financial participation in the construction and operation of a transit system.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia, in Fairfax County v. County Executive, 210 Va. 253, 169 S.E.2d 556 (1969), ruled that these initial agreements constituted "debt or indebtedness" in violation of the Virginia Constitution.
- Following this ruling, the Authority revised its financial plan and submitted new agreements to Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church, which were subsequently adopted by their respective governing bodies (Board of Supervisors and City Council).
- Carlton C. Massey, County Executive of Fairfax County, and Harry E. Wells, City Manager of the City of Falls Church, refused to sign these new agreements.
- Fairfax County and the City of Falls Church filed separate petitions for writs of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Virginia, seeking to compel their respective executives to execute the new agreements.
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 a county or city incur "debt or indebtedness" in violation of constitutional limitations when it enters into agreements to pay annual charges for essential public transit services, conditioned upon the service being rendered, in periodic installments over a period of years?
Opinions:
Majority - Vinson, J.
No, a county or city does not incur "debt or indebtedness" in violation of constitutional limitations when it enters into agreements to pay annual charges for essential public transit services, conditioned upon the service being rendered, in periodic installments over a period of years. The Court held that the new agreements fall under the "service contract rule," which states that a continuing service contract, where a municipality or county agrees to pay in installments as service is furnished, does not create a present debt for the aggregate amount of all installments throughout the term of the contract within the meaning of constitutional limitations on indebtedness. This rule applies to both the general debt prohibition for counties (§ 115(a)) and the debt limit for cities (§ 127). The obligations are not a commitment for future debt but rather an honor of an account payable for services rendered in that specific year, as recognized in cases like Barnes v. Lehi City and Smith v. Town of Dedham. The court distinguished this from installment purchase contracts, which create an absolute and unconditional obligation payable beyond the current fiscal year (e.g., American-LaFrance v. Arlington County). The court noted that the new agreements are for an essential public service, payments are conditioned on service being rendered, and payments are periodic annual installments. The service contract doctrine has evolved from traditional utilities to a variety of municipal services, including those for essential public transit, which the General Assembly itself recognized as vital for the region.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the application of the "service contract rule" in Virginia, extending its reach to essential regional public services like mass transit, not just traditional utility services. It provided a pathway for localities to participate in large-scale public projects requiring long-term financial commitments without violating strict constitutional debt limitations, provided payments are tied to services rendered. The decision emphasizes the distinction between a true debt, which represents a fixed future obligation, and a conditional payment for ongoing services, which is treated as an annual expense. This precedent facilitates inter-jurisdictional cooperation on regional infrastructure projects by offering a legal framework for shared financial responsibilities.
