Cross-motions for summary judgments.
This cause came on for a hearing and argument to determine whether or no the employees of the Parking Authority of the City of Trenton, and Mary G. Roebling, individually and as chairman of said authority, are subject to the provisions of Title 11 of the Revised Statutes (Civil Service Act). Plaintiff requests defendants submit for classification the names, salaries and compensation of all its (the parking authority's) employees, as of July 30, 1952, and complains of defendants' failure so to do.
The defendants in their answer contend that they have no employees subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act; that the act (Title 11) does not apply to the defendant parking authority, and that the employees of the parking authority are not employees of the City of Trenton so as to come within the purview of the Civil Service Act.
Counsel filed briefs and argued orally. Affidavits supporting the motions are before the court. For the plaintiff the affidavit of Louis J. Russo sets forth that on or about November 7, 1911 the electorate of the City of Trenton by referendum adopted Title 11 of the Revised Statutes of New Jersey. The defendants submit the affidavit of W. Enos Wetzel, treasurer of the Trenton parking authority, which among other matters sets forth the ordinance creating the authority under N.J.S.A. 40:11 A -1 et seq. , and states that having been duly incorporated, the Parking Authority
of the City of Trenton entered upon the exercise and performance of its duties as provided by the statute. We quote paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit of Mr. Wetzel:
"4. All of the operating expenses of the Parking Authority of the City of Trenton are met from the proceeds of fees charged the public for parking, including the payment of compensation to its employees. The employees of the Parking Authority are hired by it as an independent authority and the City of Trenton has no control over said hiring. The duties of the said employees of the Parking Authority are those prescribed by the Authority and the City of Trenton has no control thereover. The amount of compensation to be paid the employees of the Parking Authority is prescribed by the Authority and the City of Trenton has no control thereover.
5. Profits derived by the Parking Authority from its operations are retained by it and are not turned over to the City of Trenton. Conversely, should a loss be sustained by the Parking Authority in its operation, it has no right to look to the City of Trenton to make up said losses for it.
6. The only connection between the Parking Authority of the City of Trenton and the Board of Commissioners of the City of Trenton is that under R.S. 40:11A-1, et seq. the members of the Parking Authority are appointed by the said Board of Commissioners of the City of Trenton and that from time to time the City of Trenton has made gifts of land to the Parking Authority of the City of Trenton under the provisions of R.S. 40:11A-23a. In all other respects, the Parking Authority of the City of Trenton is completely independent of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Trenton and the municipal corporation known as the City of Trenton."
Defendants submit that the "device of the authority is a relatively new one -- that its function is to permit the accomplishment of a public purpose by the creation of a public corporation -- to get around the debt limitations of a governmental subdivision." "Such authority shall constitute an agency and instrumentality of the municipality or county creating it." N.J.S.A. 40:11 A -4.
The enabling act provides: "The governing body shall appoint five persons as commissioners of the authority." Ibid. Also, "No commissioner of any authority may be an officer or employee of the municipality or county for which ...