District Bd. of Health of Public Health Dist. No. 5 v. Chancey

• Decision Date: 22 August 1972
• Docket Number: No. 11066,11066
• Citation: 500 P.2d 845,94 Idaho 944
• Parties: The DISTRICT BOARD OF HEALTH OF PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT NO. 5, State of Idaho, Plaintiff, v. William L. CHANCEY et al., Defendants.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 845

500 P.2d 845

94 Idaho 944

The DISTRICT BOARD OF HEALTH OF PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT NO. 5, State of Idaho, Plaintiff, v.William L. CHANCEY et al., Defendants.

No. 11066.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Aug. 22, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1972.

Parry, Robertson, Daly & Larson, Twin Falls, for plaintiff.

Leon E. Smith, Jr., Pros.Atty., Douglas D. Kramer, Special Asst. Pros.Atty., Twin Falls, for defendants.

SHEPARD, Justice.

This is an original proceeding in which plaintiff seeks a Writ of Mandate to compel the defendants, who are certain officers of Twin Falls County, to appropriate for and pay to the plaintiff certain amounts of money.This court issued an Alternative Writ of Mandate requiring defendants to make return thereto and hearing was held thereon.We order the Alternative Writ made permanent.

The 1970Legislature(Chap. 90, 1970 Idaho Session Laws, now codified as Chapter 4,Title 39, Idaho Code) created seven public health districts within the State of Idaho.The area of Public Health DistrictNo. 5 includes the eight counties in the Magic Valley area, one of which is Twin Falls County.The defendants are the Board of County Commissioners and the Auditor-BudgetOfficer of Twin Falls County.

The pertinent legislation provides for the organization of public health districts and prescribes their powers, authorities and duties.I.C. § 39-423¹ provides that the chairmen of the Boards of County Commissioners within the districts are constituted as the Budget Committee of the Public Health District.The Public Health District is required to submit a preliminary budget for its operation and the budget committee, following a public hearing, is required to agree upon and set a budget for the operation of the Public Health District.I.C. § 39-424² requires that the cost of maintenance of the Public Health District shall be borne by the counties within the district based on the proportion of each county's population to the total population within the District.

Pursuant to the legislation, the budget committee of Public Health DistrictNo. 5(comprised of the eight chairmen of the county commissioners of the counties within the public health district) met and held the required public hearing.Thereafter the budget committee voted to approve a Public Health District budget based on a per capita assessment of $1.66 per each person in the public health district.The total amount of that budget was $170,958.00.The sole dissenting vote was registered by the chairman of the county commissioners of Twin Falls.The Twin Falls County share of the total budget was $69,400.00.Thereafter the county commissioners of Twin Falls County refused to budget for said amount of $69,400.00 but rather in its tentative appropriation has budgeted for $51,000.00.Plaintiff brings this proceeding to compel the county commissioners of Twin Falls to appropriate for and pay into Public Health DistrictNo. 5 the sum of $69,400.00.

Defendants initially contend that the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus is not authorized or appropriate in the circumstances.I.C. § 7-302 authorizes the issuance of writs of mandate by

'* * * any court except a justice's or probate court, to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or to compel the admission of a party to the use and the enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, * * *.'

I.C. § 7-303 provides:

'The writ must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.It must be issued upon affidavit, on the application of the party beneficially interested.'

Although mandamus will not issue when an applicant has a plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, Silver Bowl, Inc. v. Equity Metals, Inc., 93 Idaho 487, 464 P.2d 926(1970);Nancy Lee Mines, Inc. v. Harrison, 93 Idaho 652, 471 P.2d 39(1970), it is nevertheless clear that plaintiff in this case has no speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.Plaintiff has enjoined upon it the performance of certain duties under the statute.Those duties cannot be performed retroactively but must be performed at the time needed.Plaintiff must have funds in its budget to perform the necessary services.The failure of the defendants to provide Twin Falls County's full share of the budget will diminish the ability of the plaintiff to furnish those services.Under the provisions of I.C. § 39-425, the State Board of Health will provide to plaintiff certain matching funds but if the original budget funds are not provided by the respective counties a portion of those state matching funds will be lost.All these considerations eliminate the possibility of plaintiff resolving the problem through the ordinary course of law.

I.C. § 31-604, 31-811 authorizes county commissioners to levy and collect taxes, Article 18, Section 6 of the Constitution of Idaho provides:

'All taxes shall be collected by the officer or officers designated by law.'

I.C. § 39-424 requires the various counties to participate in the financing of the Public Health District.The duty to participate in the financing is imposed upon the county.The county commissioners clearly have the power to levy and collect taxes.Therefore, no discretion exists in the Board of County Commissioners to in any manner avoid this clear legal duty.The duty is ministerial and therefore subject to the Writ of Mandate.As stated in State ex rel. Williams v. Adams, 90 Idaho 195, 409 P.2d 415(1965):

'Mandamus will lie if the party seeking it has a clear legal right to have the act done for which he seeks the writ, and it is the clear duty of the officer to act.* * * Such act or duty must be ministerial and not require the exercise of discretion. * * *'

See also: Silver Bowl, Inc. v. Equity Metals, Inc., supra;Allen v. Smylie, 92 Idaho 846, 452 P.2d 343(1969).

Plaintiff has presented a prima facie case for the issuance of the Alternative Writ of Mandate.Defendants, however, further object to various of the authorizing statutes and procedures set forth in the Public Health Districtlegislation, Chapter 4,Title 39, Idaho Code.

Defendants assert that the course chosen by the legislature in enactment of the public health district law is in violation of the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, setting forth the doctrine of the separation of powers and Article 18, Sections 1 through 11, establishing county government in Idaho.The argument of defendants goes primarily to the collection of taxes and the assertion that the legislation intrudes upon the taxation function of county government.We see no conflict between any of the above constitutional provisions and the legislation creating the public health districts.The levying and collecting of taxes in the instant case are all performed at and by the county level of government properly acting in its executive capacity.The fact that the county was and is willing to levy and collect taxes and turn the amounts so collected over to the Public Health District, albeit in a smaller amount than demanded, militates against the argument of defendants.

Defendants next contend that no proper voice is given the taxpayers of the counties within the Public Health District to vote approval or disapproval on the budget.As set forth in I.C. § 39-423 a public hearing is required and was in fact held.The legislation in question sets forth guidelines for the operation of the plaintiff and I.C. § 39-425and31-862 set limitations upon the maximum amount of tax which may be imposed.A citizen does not have a constitutional right to vote on every question his government finds it necessary to resolve.Horner's Market, Inc. v. TriCounty Met. Transp. Dist., 256 Or. 124, 471 P.2d 798(1970).The taxpayers and the general public within the Public Health District are able to express themselves through the medium of public hearings and through their opportunity to be represented by the election of legislators and county commissioners.

Defendants next assert that the budget committee is malapportioned in that each county has one member regardless of the population of the county.This assertion is not amplified by the defendants nor are we favored with any authority therefor.Assuming defendants have reference to 'one man-one vote' principles enunciated at various times by the Supreme Court of the United States, such principles do not extend to the situation here.Sailors v. Board of Education of County of Kent, 387 U.S. 105, 87 S.Ct. 1549, 18 L.Ed.2d 650(1967).

As heretofore indicated, the budget committee of the Public health district approved a budget based on a per capita assessment of $1.66 per person.Because of the disparity in population as between the various counties within the district the mill levy necessary to obtain that $1.66 per person varies from county to county within the Public Health District with a range between 0.33 mills and 1.31 mills.Twin Falls County would be required to levy 1.18 mills.Defendants urge that the imposition of different levy amounts from county to county within the Public Health District violates Article 7, Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution, which provides in pertinent part:

'All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits, of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws * * *.'

That constitutional provision requires only that taxes be levied uniformly throughout Twin Falls County.The authority levying the tax is the County of Twin Falls and within that county the taxes are undeniably 'uniform.'

Defendants next assert that I.C. § 39-423'gives to the chairman of one county commission the authority to levy taxes in another county and by statute extends the constitutional power of the county commissioners to levy...