MISSISSIPPI WASTE OF HANCOCK COUNTY, INC. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF …

• Decision Date: 22 February 2001
• Docket Number: No. 2000-CA-00187-SCT.,2000-CA-00187-SCT.
• Citation: MISSISSIPPI WASTE OF HANCOCK COUNTY, INC. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF …, 818 So.2d 326 (Miss. 2001)
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI WASTE OF HANCOCK COUNTY, INC. v. The BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF HANCOCK COUNTY, Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

818 So.2d 326

MISSISSIPPI WASTE OF HANCOCK COUNTY, INC. v. The BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF HANCOCK COUNTY, Mississippi.

No. 2000-CA-00187-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

February 22, 2001.

William J. Cole, III, Jackson, Attorney for Appellant.

Gerald Calhoun Gex, Waveland, Michael Durrett Haas, Jr., Bay St. Louis, Attorneys for Appellee.

EN BANC.

WALLER, J., for the Court:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

¶ 1. The issue before the Court is whether Appellee Hancock County Board of Supervisors ("the Board") properly suspended contract negotiations between Appellant Mississippi Waste of Hancock County, Inc. ("Mississippi Waste"), and the Hancock County Solid Waste Authority ("the Authority"). Numerous Hancock County citizens opposed the location of a privately owned waste facility in Hancock County and presented to the Board a petition for a special election under Miss.Code Ann. § 19-3-55 (Supp.2000). The Board declined to take unilateral action on the issue, but called for the county-wide special election. Mississippi Waste challenged the Board's authority to call such an election by filling a bill of exceptions under Miss.Code Ann. § 11-51-75 (1972). The Court affirms the judgment of the Circuit Court of Hancock County and finds that the Board's actions were lawful.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

¶ 2. The Authority, which serves Hancock County, the City of Bay St. Louis, and the City of Waveland, was created in December of 1997 for the purpose of soliciting proposals for a solution to its solid waste management needs. After advertising for proposals pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 31-7-13(t) (Supp.1999), the Authority received several responses and ultimately began to negotiate with Mississippi Waste. During this process, Mississippi Waste responded to suggestions by the Authority that additional items unrelated to solid waste, such as the construction of an animal shelter and sums for educational programs on recycling, be included in any contract proffered.

¶ 3. During this same period, the Authority was preparing a modification of the solid waste plan to submit to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. A public hearing was held on and the Authority voted to approve the amendment to the solid waste plan.

¶ 4. A group calling itself "Citizens for Responsible Dumping" circulated a petition¹ opposing the landfill, and submitted it to the Board under § 19-3-55. The petitioners requested the Board to do one of two things: enact an order prohibiting any privately owned landfills in Hancock County; or place the issue of establishing a privately owned landfill upon a ballot for a special election as prescribed in § 19-3-55. The Citizens also requested that, if the Board chose to call an election, a second issue be placed on the ballot which would require that any sanitary landfill located in Hancock County be owned, maintained and operated under the Board's jurisdiction, and the sanitary landfill accept waste from Hancock County and its neighboring Mississippi counties only.

¶ 5. The Board ordered that a special election be held. Mississippi Waste filed a bill of exceptions pursuant to § 11-51-75, challenging the Board's authority to call the election. Thereafter, an election was held with the propositions being approved,² and the Board enacted resolutions effectuating the relief requested in the petition. A hearing was held in the Circuit Court of Hancock County regarding Mississippi Waste's bill of exceptions. The circuit court dismissed the bill, and Mississippi Waste appealed to this Court. This appeal exclusively relates to the dismissal of the bill of exceptions, and in no way challenges the results of the election called pursuant to § 19-3-55.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 6. In reviewing an administrative agency's findings of fact, we are limited by the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. Board of Supervisors of Harrison Co. v. Waste Management of Miss., Inc., 759 So.2d 397, 400 (Miss.2000) (citing McDerment v. Mississippi Real Estate Comm'n, 748 So.2d 114, 118 (Miss. 1999)). There is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the agency's decisions and the burden of proving to the contrary is on the challenging party. Board of Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Training v. Butler, 672 So.2d 1196, 1199 (Miss.1996). Therefore an agency's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a finding that it was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was beyond the power of the administrative agency to make, or violated some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party. Harrison Co., 759 So.2d at 400 (citing McDerment, 748 So.2d at 118). Appellate review of an agency's decision is limited to the record and the agency's findings. Law Enforcement Officers, 672 So.2d at 1199.

JURISDICTION

¶ 7. The Board raises the affirmative defense that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this claim based on the absence of a final judgment, claiming that, at the time Mississippi Waste filed its appeal, it was not an aggrieved party. An election had yet to be held, and the Board had declined to act unilaterally on the petition. Essentially, the Board's position is that, absent election results contrary to Mississippi Waste's position, no harm was suffered.

¶ 8. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-51-75 (Supp.2000) provides that an appeal to the circuit court from a decision of the county board of supervisors is proper only when brought by a person "aggrieved by a judgment or decision of the board." Sanford v. Board of Supervisors, Covington Co., 421 So.2d 488, 490 (Miss.1982) (citations omitted). Likewise, this Court has jurisdiction over a matter only when a final judgment has been entered. Id. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-51-3 (Supp.2000). A final judgment has been defined by this Court as a judgment adjudicating the merits of the controversy which settles all the issues as to all the parties. Sanford, 421 So.2d at 491. We have previously held that one appeal of a petition for an election is preferable to an appeal of the sufficiency of the petition followed by an appeal after the election is held. The longstanding rule has been that:

No good purpose can be served by requiring one appeal to be taken from the order of the Board adjudicating the sufficiency of the petitions asking for the election and then a second appeal after the election and the entry of the final judgment reciting the necessary jurisdictional facts to sustain the judgment,....

Costas v. Board of Supervisors of Lauderdale Co., 196 Miss. 104, 16 So.2d 378, 380 (1944).

¶ 9. Subsequent to the filing of Mississippi Waste's bill of exceptions, an election was held, resulting in unfavorable results for Mississippi Waste. Neither party to this dispute sought to supplement the record to reflect the results of the election. As such, this appeal is not properly before this Court as one from a final judgment. Procedural bar aside, we will address the issues raised by Mississippi Waste.

DISCUSSION OF LAW

I. DID THE HANCOCK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS USURP THEIR AUTHORITY WHEN THEY CALLED AN ELECTION PURSUANT TO MISS. CODE ANN. § 19-3-55 (SUPP.2000)?

Is § 19-3-55, which allows twenty-five percent of the qualified electors to place any matter effecting the entire county before a vote of the qualified electors of the county, as applied and written, unconstitutional?

¶ 10. The actions of the Board were lawful; indeed, the actions taken by the Board were required by state statute. Section 19-3-55 provides:

Unless otherwise specifically required by law, the board of supervisors of any county shall upon the filing of a petition touching any matter affecting the entire county and over which it has jurisdiction, signed by twenty-five per cent of the qualified electors of the county, either pass an order putting said proposition in force and effect or immediately submit the same to a vote of the qualified electors of the county, after giving thirty days' notice of said election, said notice to contain a statement of the proposition to be voted on at said election. If said election shall result in favor of the proposition petitioned for, the board of supervisors shall pass the necessary order, to put the said proposition into force and effect. In the event the election shall result against the proposition submitted, no other election shall be held on the same, or substantially the same proposition within twelve months of the date of the prior election. This section shall not, however, apply to the creation of taxing districts.

¶ 11. Mississippi Waste argues that § 19-3-55, as applied and written, is unconstitutional as follows: (1) The circuit court's disposition of the matter was contrary to precedent established under Board of Supervisors, Harrison County v. Waste Management of Miss. (2) The actions of the Board denied Mississippi Waste equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. (3) The stated goal of the petition, to disallow the acceptance of out-of-state waste, was unlawful.

Is Miss.Code Ann. § 19-3-55 as applied by the Hancock County Board of Supervisors contrary to our precedent established in Board of Supervisors of Harrison County v. Waste Management of Miss.?

¶ 12. Mississippi Waste relies heavily on a recent opinion handed down by this Court, where we stated, "the exercise of police power ... cannot abrogate the protections afforded in our statutory zoning requirements and the due process clauses of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Mississippi." Harrison Co., 759 So.2d at 397. In Harrison County, the county proposed an ordinance which would restrict the use of land owned by the holder of a landfill permit, such that landfill use would not be permitted. Id. We held that the county's enactment of the ordinance, without any evidentiary basis and without notice or hearing, was arbitrary and capricious and beyond the county's lawful authority. Id. at...