Syfie v. Tri-County Hospital Dist.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1971
• Docket Number: TRI-COUNTY,No. 37642,37642
• Citation: 184 N.W.2d 398,186 Neb. 478
• Parties: George SYFIE et al., Appellants, v.HOSPITAL DISTRICT et al., Appellees.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 398

184 N.W.2d 398

186 Neb. 478

George SYFIE et al., Appellants, v. TRI-COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT et al., Appellees.

No. 37642.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Feb. 26, 1971.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Questions of public policy, convenience, and welfare, as related to the creation of municipal corporations, such as counties, cities, villages, school districts, or other subdivisions, or any change in the boundaries thereof, are, in the first instance, of purely legislative cognizance and when delegated to any public body having legislative power, any action in regard thereto does not come within the due process clause of either the State or Federal Constitutions.

2. Statutes which provide for the creation of a district to encompass land in two or more counties may constitutionally allow the county board of one of the counties involved to act as the competent tribunal before which the question of setting the boundaries of the district may be heard.

3. It is competent for the Legislature to authorize the creation of governmental agencies for the enforcement of its police power, and clothe county commissioners, supervisors, or any other administrative officers or boards with authority to establish districts for the implementation of such purposes.

4. The fact that bodies of land may extend into two or more counties does not render the Legislature powerless to include contiguous tracts into one district for the more convenient exercise of the police power.

Julius D. Cronin, Edward E. Hannon, O'Neill, for appellants.

William W. Griffin, O'Neill, Henry F. Reimer, Knox County Atty., Center, August F. Schuman, Boyd County Atty., Butte, Philip R. Riley, Creighton, Jewell, Otte & Pollock, Norfolk, for appellees.

Michael V. Smith, Gordon, Person, Dier & Person, Holdrege, Young, Baird, Holm, McEachen, Pedersen, Hamann & Haggart, Omaha, amicus curiae.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., and CARTER, SPENCER, SOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, and NEWTON, JJ.

WHITE, Chief Justice.

The principal question involved in this case is the constitutionality of the Nebraska Local Hospital District Act enacted by the Sixty-ninth Session of the Legislature in 1959. The particular statutes involved are sections 23--343.20 to 23--343.47, R.R.S.1943. The defendant, Tri-County Hospital District, was organized under these provisions comprising portions of Holt, Boyd, and Knox Counties. The district court found that the defendant Tri-County Hospital District was validly created under Nebraska law and that the Nebraska Local Hospital District Act (hereinafter referred to as the Hospital District Act) was constitutional. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

The pertinent portions of the applicable statutes necessary for determination of this appeal are as follows:

'Whenever it shall be conducive to the public health and welfare, a local hospital district may be established in the manner and having the powers and duties provided in sections 23--343.20 to 23--343.47.' Section 23--343.20, R.R.S.1943.

'Whenever the formation of a local hospital district is desired, a petition, stating (1) the name of the proposed district, (2) the location of the hospital to be maintained by such proposed district, and (3) the territory to be included within it, which territory should be contiguous, may be presented to the county board of the county in which the land, or a greater portion of the land, in the proposed district is situated.' Section 23--343.21, R.R.S.1943.

'Upon receipt of such petition, the county board shall examine it to determine whether it complies with the requirements of section 23--343.21. Upon finding that such petition complies with such requirements, the county board shall set a hearing thereon and cause notice thereof to be published at least three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation throughout the area to be included in such proposed district. Such notice shall contain a statement of the information contained in such petition and of the date, time, and place at which such hearing shall be held and that at such hearing proposals may be submitted for the exclusion of land from, or the inclusion of additional land in such proposed district or for modification of the boundaries of the area into which such district shall be divided for the purpose of election of members of the board of directors.' Section 23--343.22, R.R.S.1943.

'After completion of the hearing required by section 23--343.22, the county board shall order such changes in the boundaries of such proposed district or of the areas into which such proposed district is to be divided as it shall deem proper, but no such change shall reduce the total assessed valuation of all taxable property, except intangible property, within such proposed district below three million dollars. The county board shall also order that the question of the formation of such district, as set forth in the petition and any changes therein ordered by the board, shall be submitted to the electors of such proposed district at a special election to be held for that purpose * * *.' Section 23--343.23, R.R.S.1943.

'If the county board finds that a majority of the votes cast in the area of the proposed district favor the formation of such proposed district, it shall so declare by resolution entered on its records and forward a copy of such resolution to the county board of each county containing land embraced within such proposed district, and the district shall thereupon be fully organized.' Section 23--343.24, R.R.S.1943.

In 1968, under the provisions of the Hospital District Act, a group of citizens representing towns in Boyd County, Nebraska, Began a petition drive to form the defendant Tri-County Hospital District. They submitted their petition to the Boyd County board which found that all requirements of section 23--343.21, R.R.S.1943, were complied with. The boundaries of the proposed district included all of Boyd County, approximately 225 Sections of contiguous land in Holt County, and approximately 34 sections of contiguous land in Knox County.

The Boyd County board held a hearing on the matter, found that all conditions required by law had been met, and that the question of the formation of the district should be submitted to the electorate under the provisions of the statute. A special election was ordered to be held on August 6, 1968. At this election the formation of the defendant Tri-County Hospital District was approved by a majority of the voters. The Boyd County board certified the election results on August 12, 1968. This action was brought in the district court for Boyd County by the plaintiffs for themselves and others contending that the Tri-County Hospital District had been illegally formed and not in compliance with the statute, and that the Hospital District Act as recited above was unconstitutional.

It is not questioned but that it is within the power of the Legislature under the general welfare clause to further the public health, convenience, or welfare by enacting legislation which allows citizens to establish hospital districts which will benefit those living within the proposed district. It is also clear that it is within the Legislature's power generally to delegate the enforcement of such legislation to administrative authorities under proper standards.

Boiled down, the plaintiffs claim that when a statute permits a group of individuals to begin the formation of a public district and outlining its boundaries, there must be a provision for an appropriate tribunal to determine if the lands have been properly included or excluded from the proposed district and second, whether the organization of the district is for the public convenience and welfare. Their argument is drawn from the language of our prior decisions in Anderson v. Carlson, 171 Neb. 741, 107 N.W.2d 535, 83 A.L.R.2d 831; Summerville v. North Platte Valley Weather Control Dist., 170 Neb. 46, 101 N.W.2d 748, and Elliott v. Wille, on rehearing, 112 Neb. 86, 200 N.W. 347. The gist of these cases requires that there be a provision allowing a landowner in the district the opportunity to be heard by a competent tribunal on the question of whether his property has been arbitrarily or unjustly included within the boundaries of the district. We feel that the precise language of section 23--343.23, R.R.S.1943, recited previously in this opinion, is a complete answer to such an argument. It seems to us that the language of the Hospital District Act was drawn with the specific requirements of the Summerville, Anderson, and Elliott cases in mind. The procedure provides for a hearing and grants authority to the county board to exclude or include land in the proposed district. This is based upon the testimony to be given by the interested citizens at the hearing as set up in the statute. The use of such a procedure is actually seen in this case. The record reveals that after the notice of hearing, the hearing was held, and at this hearing some Holt County residents asked that their land be excluded from the proposed district. The record reveals that all of these requests were granted.

Plaintiffs also argue that there is no provision for determining whether the district should be formed at all, that is, whether the district is actually for the public convenience and welfare. It is quite difficult to understand the precise nature of the argument the plaintiffs make. It is quite semantical in nature and relies upon the emphasization of the word 'shall' in section 23-- 343.23, R.R.S.1943. The apposite answer to this argument is that the plaintiffs have ignored the use of the word 'may' found in the further provision of section 23--343.20, R.R.S.1943, which states: 'Whenever it shall be conducive to the public health and welfare, a local hospital district May be established in the manner and having the powers and duties provided in sections * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.) In other words, the board cannot...