Case Title: City of Fargo v. Cass County

Citation: 286 N.W.2d 494

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1979-12-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
286 N.W.2d 494 (1979) CITY OF FARGO, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CASS COUNTY, a body corporate, Duane E. Hoehn, its Auditor, and Maxine M. Liversage, its Treasurer, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. No. 9655. Supreme Court of North Dakota. December 12, 1979. Rehearing Denied January 10, 1980. *495 Solberg, Stewart & Boulger, Fargo, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Ward D. Briggs, Fargo. Ohnstad, Twichell, Breitling, Arntson & Hagen, West Fargo, for defendants and appellants; argued by Duane R. Breitling, West Fargo. SAND, Justice. The City of Fargo sought and obtained a writ of mandamus from the district court commanding Cass County to pay to the city auditor of Fargo all the moneys in the bridge fund in the treasury of Cass County, or which may come in to the bridge fund, which may have been or which shall be levied, assessed and collected from persons and property, or either, within the city of Fargo until such time as the city of Fargo's share of the costs of the bridges which are being constructed at First Avenue North and Twelfth Avenue North, or either of said bridges, has been paid in full from such tax and the city's other revenues used to finance such bridge or bridges. The court also set out certain guidelines to be followed by Cass County in carrying out the writ of mandamus. The court relied heavily upon § 24-08-08, North Dakota Century Code, as a basis for granting the writ. Cass County appealed, contending that § 24-08-08, NDCC, was either impliedly repealed or in the alternative was unconstitutionally vague, or that the court misconstrued the phrase "bridge fund" and the phrase "or is about to be constructed," as found in § 24-08-08. The facts are not in dispute. The pertinent findings of fact by the trial court are: The court issued the following Writ of Mandamus: In examining the provisions of § 24-08-08, NDCC, it becomes apparent that it is not a self-sufficient law capable of operating on its own but must rely upon some other law to fully implement its provisions. Section 24-08-08 does not grant any powers to the county commissioners. The necessary grant of power, such as levying a tax or creating a bridge fund, obviously rests upon some other law. To obtain the full and true meaning of the provisions of § 24-08-08, it is imperative that the background under which it was enacted be examined to determine if any pari materia laws existed at that time which will help in determining its true and full significance. With this in mind, we have reviewed and researched the various enactments which may have a bearing on the resolution of the issue under consideration particularly as to the interpretation and construction or validity of § 24-08-08, NDCC, as it now provides. Section 24-08-08 was enacted by Ch. 39 of the 1890 Sessions Laws, at which time a territorial law, Ch. 28, § 33 of the 1877 Code, was still in effect. It was found under the heading "Rate of Taxation and Levy of Same" and contained the headnote "Territorial, County and Special Taxes Limited," and provided: This Territorial statute was adopted by the State as evidenced by the 1895 Code, where it became § 1217. Later it became § 2150 of the Compiled Laws of 1913. The "bridge tax" not to exceed two mills on the dollar remained the same until 1915, when it was amended by Ch. 111, and was raised to four mills on the dollar. Chapter 111 of the 1915 Session Laws was repealed by Ch. 318 of the 1923 S.L., which enacted a new law limiting the combined levy for road and bridge purposes not to exceed two and one-half mills on the *498 dollar on the net taxable assessed valuation. The same Act also permitted the voters to authorize an excess levy by voting for it. Ch. 318 of the 1923 Session Laws was superseded by Ch. 235 of the 1929 S.L., leaving the levy limitation for road and bridge purposes at two and one-half mills on the dollar of the net taxable assessed valuation of the county. Chapter 235 of the 1929 S.L., after having been amended and reenacted, is now found in the North Dakota Century Code as § 57-15-06(3), which currently provides as follows: When the provisions of § 24-08-08, NDCC, were enacted in 1890, the bridge tax as found in the 1877 and 1895 Codes was in full force and effect. The reference to the bridge fund in § 24-08-08 had a clear and definite meaning. Nothing was left to be determined. The "bridge fund" referred to the bridge taxes collected. The law imposing the bridge tax not to exceed two mills, as found in Ch. 28, § 33, of the 1877 Code, and as it existed in 1890, was in pari materia with Ch. 39 of the 1890 Session Laws (now § 24-08-08) which provided for the disposition of the bridge fund. These two provisions of law supported each other and gave each a meaningful application. Significantly Ch. 39 of the 1890 Session Laws [§ 24-08-08] did not impose a tax. It merely directed the disposition of the tax collected. However, when Ch. 318 of the 1923 Session Laws was enacted, which eliminated the separate bridge tax and combined and limited the road and bridge tax to a levy of two and one-half mills, it in effect made what is now § 24-08-08 inoperative. This section could be made operative again if the Legislature were to impose a bridge tax and require it to be deposited in a bridge fund. With the enactment of Ch. 318 of the 1923 Session Laws, the bridge tax which supplied the money for the bridge fund no longer existed. Neither did any law direct or authorize the creation of a bridge fund separate from the road and bridge fund. None of the existing laws suggest that portions of the road and bridge fund should or may be used for bridges. This issue is left to the discretion of the county commissioners. Generally, mandamus will not lie for the purpose of compelling officers to perform a discretionary act in a certain manner. Oliver v. Wilson, 8 N.D. 590, 80 N.W. 757 (1899); State ex rel. Herbrandson v. Vesperman, 52 N.D. 641, 204 N.W. 202 (1925); State ex rel. Conrad v. Langer, 68 N.D. 167, 277 N.W. 504 (1938); Midland Produce Co. v. City of Minot, 70 N.D. 156, 294 N.W. 192 (1940). We also note that § 24-05-01, NDCC, which has its roots in Ch. 69 of the 1893 S.L., provides that counties in the state having a population of 2,000 or more shall levy and collect "a property tax of not less than one-fourth of one mill, nor more than the maximum rate permitted by law, on each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property in the county for the improvement of highways." As amended by Ch. 179 of the 1953 S.L., it also provided that 20% of the tax collected shall be turned over by the treasurer to the auditor of the city in the manner provided in § 11-13-06, NDCC, to be expended under the direction of the governing body of such division in the improvements of the *499 streets and highways thereof, and that the provisions of this section in regard to allocation shall apply to the proceeds of any tax originally levied for other purposes if appropriated or transferred to the county road fund or for expenditure for road and bridge purposes. However, § 24-05-02, NDCC, which stems from the same source, also provides that: We note the fund may be used only for certain purposes and no mention is made that it may be used for bridges. This section was considered in Brusegaard v. Schroeder, 201 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1972), in which the North Dakota Supreme Court said that the designation of the Pillsbury and Urban Renewal funds[1] as a special fund within the road and bridge fund for the purpose of erecting a new county equipment shop building was not so violative of the statutes as to restrict these funds to be expended only for road machinery and for grading, ditching, and surfacing highways or parts of highways as provided by § 24-05-02, NDCC. Significant, however, is that the court found it would have been a better procedure to have covered the Pillsbury fund and the Urban Renewal fund into a special building fund within the general fund. Thus the holding in Brusegaard is not indicative of the proposal here to use the funds generated under § 24-05-02 for bridge purposes. We recognize that the court in Brusegaard in effect said the action of the county commission was permissive under § 24-05-02, but we doubt that the court could have legally concluded that such action was compulsory so as to make it appropriate for a writ of mandamus. In addition, the Brusegaard case involved the creation of a special fund by the commissioners in the road and bridge fund which we do not have here. Chapter 179 of the 1953 S.L., which amended § 24-0501, NDRC 1943, also repealed § 24-0618, NDRC 1943, which provided as follows: This is compatible with § 175 of the North Dakota Constitution, which provides: We have also reviewed other somewhat related statutory provisions and amendments. It would serve no useful purpose to recite them in this opinion. We can, however, conclude that they militate in favor of our conclusion rather than against it, and do not support the writ of mandamus issued by the trial court. We can also obtain some precedence from the case of City of Grand Forks v. Grand Forks County, 139 N.W.2d 242 (N.D.1965), *500 in which the court had under consideration several certified questions, including the question whether or not the taxes collected under § 24-08-08, NDCC, and placed in the bridge account, were required to be paid over to the city of Grand Forks, which was in the process of constructing a bridge over the Red River on Skidmore Avenue. The court recognized that the parties stipulated that the county had not theretofore maintained a bridge fund but that the cost of bridges and culverts had been paid by the county directly from its general fund. The court further observed that the stipulation did not state when this may have occurred and it did not know whether this practice was currently being carried on. The court then said that it could not determine from the stipulation of facts or the order certifying the questions if a levy was currently being made for bridge purposes or if there were any taxes being collected or outstanding under such levy. The court also observed that the stipulation specifically provided that the county had levied and collected tax moneys under §§ 24-05-01 and 57-15-06.3, NDCC, but no mention was made of any levy under Ch. 24-08, or otherwise, for bridge purposes. The court ultimately concluded that the facts necessary for a resolution of the certified questions had not been established by stipulation and therefore any answer to the question would be merely advisory, and as such the court declined to answer the question. The facts needed to answer the issues, particularly Question No. 7,[2] namely whether or not a levy was made for bridge purposes under Ch. 24-08, is a clear indication of what the court thought was contemplated by § 24-08-08, NDCC, which does not include the construction placed upon it by the trial court. Individually, the city and county each has only such authority as is granted to it or as is necessarily implied from the grant. They both derive their authority and power from the same source. Both are of equal standing and neither may impose its wishes upon the other without express constitutional or legislative authority. In this case no such authority has been presented and our research did not disclose any. Under the present situation or position, if the city of Fargo were sustained it would be tantamount to saying that the county is subordinate to the city and that the city may dictate when the county must create and budget for a bridge fund. Not only that, but the city would dictate to a degree what shall constitute the budget for the bridge fund. A careful examination and analysis immediately discloses that under our form of government such authority was never contemplated except by specific legislation. We are not expressing any thought as to whether or not the bridge or bridges are necessary or an item of practical convenience. Neither are we suggesting that the county should in no manner contribute to the construction of the bridges. We are, however, convinced that the procedure employed here was inappropriate. In cases where more than one governmental body is involved in a subject matter or has an interest, the Legislature has enacted Ch. 54-40, NDCC, which basically provides that governmental bodies may do jointly what they are authorized to do separately, and then sets out the procedures to be followed to accomplish this. A writ of mandamus may be used to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting *501 from an office, trust or station. The applicant must show the existence of a legal right to the performance of the particular act sought to be compelled by the writ. Fargo Education Association v. Paulsen, 239 N.W.2d 842 (N.D.1976). This does not include a discretionary act of an official. The applicant must also establish that a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is not available. Section 32-04-02, NDCC, and Fargo Education Association v. Paulsen, supra. In matters which are discretionary, mandamus does not lie. First American Bank & Trust Company v. Ellwein, 198 N.W.2d 84 (N.D.1972). In the instant case, we have found no statute, and none was called to our attention, which either expressly or impliedly directs the county commissioners to perform the act commanded by the trial court in its writ of mandamus. Furthermore, there is a serious question whether or not the commissioners are authorized as a matter of law in any event to perform the act commanded by the writ. (Because of our conclusion we are not required to decide the question.) At best, if the acts were permitted they would be clearly discretionary. However, in examining the court's command it becomes apparent that whatever discretion the commissioners could have exercised, if they could have done so in the first instance, was exercised by the court or by the city in its demand for the writ of mandamus. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude the trial court inappropriately issued the writ of mandamus. The case is remanded with directions to vacate the writ of mandamus. In reaching this conclusion we are not expressing any views that the county should not pay for any of the costs of the bridge. This is a matter of two equal governmental boards employing the appropriate statutes to accomplish a common objective for the benefit of both governmental bodies. No costs shall be taxed to either party. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PAULSON, PEDERSON and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur. [1] These funds obviously were derived from sources other than a levy under § 24-05-01, NDCC. [2] "Under Section 24-08-08 of North Dakota Century Code, can the City of Grand Forks claim one hundred per cent (100%) of taxes collected on account of real or personal property [collected on account of real or personal property] situated within the City of Grand Forks, being expended by the county for bridge purposes, but which funds are not handled through a so-called `bridge fund' but being expended from the general fund; the funds sought by the City for the current construction of the Skidmore Avenue Bridge across the Red River, a navigable river?" City of Grand Forks v. Grand Forks County, 139 N.W.2d 242, 247 (N.D.).