Source: http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/085wn2d/085wn2d0266.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:25:32+00:00

Document:
CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC., et al, Intervenors.
 Courts - Mandamus - Supreme Court - Jurisdiction. The nonexclusive original jurisdiction given the Supreme Court in mandamus as to all state officers by Const. art. 4, § 4 may be exercised by the court depending upon the nature of the interests involved. Consideration will be given to challenges to the constitutionality of statutes and to matters concerning the expenditure of public funds, among others, in determining whether the issue is of sufficient public significance to justify the Supreme Court's exercise of original jurisdiction.
 Mandamus - Nature - Prohibition. Mandamus may be utilized to prohibit a public officer from doing a specific act.
 Parties - Standing - Taxpayers' Suit. A taxpayer, for purposes of challenging the legality of a statute affecting the expenditure of public funds or a public officer's action under such a statute, may be either a person or a governmental entity and need not show any direct, special, or pecuniary interest in the outcome of such an action. The only condition precedent to maintaining the action is that the Attorney General first refuse a request to institute the action.
 Statutes - Legislative Findings - Determinations - Adjudicatory. while the legislature is empowered to make findings of fact, any determination calling for a legal conclusion, involving the element of adjudication, or construing the meaning and scope of the constitution is exclusively a judicial function.
 Contracts - Statutes - Legislative Findings - Performance of Contract. A determination that compliance with existing contractual terms has become an economic impossibility is a judicial function.
 Contracts - Public Works Contracts - Legislative Relief From Petroleum Cost - Validity. Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 194 (RCW 39.04.140), which grants relief to public contractors affected by increased petroleum prices, violates the doctrine of the separation of governmental powers and is void.
UTTER and HOROWITZ, JJ., did not participate in the disposition of this case.
Application filed in the Supreme Court August 13, 1974, for a writ of mandamus. Granted.
Robert R. Hamilton and F. H. Chapin, Jr., by Don L. Hogaboam and Floyd Oles, for petitioner City of Tacoma.
Carney, Stephenson, Siqueland, Badley, Smith Μeller, by Herman S. Siqueland, Milton C. Smith, and Nicholas P. Scarpelli, Jr., for intervenors Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., et al.
increase in the cost of petroleum products. As relevant to this case, the act provides that where the cost of petroleum products needed for the performance of a public works contract increased by more than 20 percent over the price at the time of contracting, the contractor can either terminate the entire contract or delete that portion of the contract requiring such products. The contractor's authorization to terminate or delete is subject to the following qualification. If the contractor elects to terminate or delete, the state or municipality can nevertheless require completion of the contract if completion is in the public interest, but the state or municipality must then pay 80 percent of the increased petroleum costs. The act applies only to contracts awarded prior to November 1, 1973. According to the stipulated facts in this action, more than 35 notices of termination or deletion have been received by the State. In nine instances the State determined that performance was in the public interest and agreed to pay 80 percent of the increased costs. It is with respect to these payments that petitioners seek mandamus.
 Also raised is the issue of petitioners' standing to bring this action. Petitioners brought this action as taxpayers. It is well settled that taxpayers, in order to obtain standing to challenge the act of a public official, need allege no direct, special or pecuniary interest in the outcome of their action, there being only a condition precedent to such standing that the Attorney General first decline a request to institute the action. Reiter v. Wallgren, 28 Wn.2d 872, 184 P.2d 571 (1947); Fransen v. State Bd. of Natural Resources, 66 Wn.2d 672, 404 P.2d 432 (1965). That condition was met in this case, and we perceive no justifiable reason to apply a different standard where a county or municipality brings the action. In this case a question is raised as to the propriety of a rather substantial expenditure of public funds, and it should not matter whether that question is raised by a private citizen or a governmental entity.
has rendered performance by contractors of many public works contracts economically impossible . . . Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 194.
Legislatures must necessarily make inquiries and factual determinations as an incident to the process of making law, and courts ordinarily will not controvert or even question legislative findings of facts. For example, in State ex rel. Govan v. Clausen, 108 Wash. 133, 183 P. 115 (1919), where the legislature had appropriated funds for the payment of services and materials furnished to the State and stated in the act that payment had not been made, this court declined to undertake a separate judicial determination as to whether payment had in fact previously been made. Similarly, courts will not inquire into a legislative determination that salmon caught outside state boundaries are indistinguishable from those caught within territorial waters, Frach v. Schoettler, 46 Wn.2d 281, 280 P.2d 1038 (1955); that a particular use of natural gas is wasteful, Townsend v. State, 147 Ind. 624, 47 N.E. 19 (1897); that cattle are infested with the cattle fever tick, McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Bd., 97 Fla. 750, 122 So. 239, 65 A.L.R. 508 (1929); or that certain public conditions exist, Block v.
Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 65 L. Ed. 865,41 S. Ct. 458, 16 A.L.R. 165 (1921).
disputed election, State ex rel. Worrell v. Carr, 129 Ind. 44, 28 N.E. 88 (1891).
A judicial inquiry investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist. That is its purpose and end. Legislation on the other hand looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter . . .
STAFFORD, C.J., FINLEY, ROSELLINI, HUNTER, HAMILTON, and WRIGHT, JJ., and CUNNINGHAM, J. Pro Tem., concur.
works contract and the state or such municipality shall modify the provisions of that public works contract to increase the contract price so that the state or municipality shall bear eighty percent of such increased costs over the contractor's estimated cost at the time of contract bid opening and the contractor shall bear the balance thereof. Upon request by the state or municipality the contractor shall make his records available for audit by the state or municipality to verify such increased costs.

References: art. 4
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.