Opinion ID: 1815835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the committee have jurisdiction to act on Kent's application?

Text: Kent first argues the committee was without jurisdiction to hear his appeal. More specifically, he contends his appeal involved a matter of public health, and thus, jurisdiction was vested solely in the county board of health pursuant to Iowa Code section 137.5. Each county has home rule power to determine its local affairs. Iowa Const. art. III, § 39A. Further, the power of each county is vested in its board of supervisors. Iowa Code § 331.301(2) (1985). Consequently, if not limited by the constitution or inconsistent with state law, a board may exercise any power and perform any function it deems appropriate to ... preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents. Id. § 331.301(1) (emphasis added). The board can exercise this broad power by passing an ordinance. Id. § 331.302(1). Here, under its home rule power, the board passed an ordinance to ban dangerous animals. In doing so, it designated the committee as the body vested with jurisdiction to hear appeals under the ordinance. This designation does not violate the statutory mandate in Iowa Code chapter 137, as Kent suggests. Kent correctly asserts a board of health has the power to enforce state health laws, id. § 137.6(1), and to make rules for the protection and improvement of the public health, id. § 137.6(2). These rules, however, become effective only upon approval by the county board of supervisors. Id. In addition, this board, in adopting the ordinance and providing for appeal to the committee, did nothing to interfere with the Polk County board of health's ability to propose rules or otherwise carry out its duty. The local board of health has no statutory mandate to hear appeals on the issues involved in this ordinance and there was no encroachment on its jurisdiction. Moreover, the board clearly has the power to enact ordinances to protect the public peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience. Id. § 331.301(1). Ordinances regulating animals often are enacted pursuant to the county's duty to protect the public, especially the public safety. See 4 C. Antieau, Antieau's Local Government Law: County Law § 35.03 (1986). Finally, the board could delegate the review process to the committee. See Iowa Code § 331.301(2) ([A] duty of a county shall be performed by or under the direction of the board....) (emphasis added). Alternatively, Kent argues the committee cannot claim derivative power from the Polk County board of health because the latter body is comprised illegally. No member of the health board was a licensed physician as required by Iowa Code section 137.3. The committee, however, derives its power to hear appeals from the board, not the health board. Further, the record reflects the board was acting as the health board at all relevant times here, pursuant to legislative authorization. See 1980 Iowa Acts ch. 1001, § 20. The legislature, in authorizing a county board of supervisors to appoint itself as the health board, did not require the board of supervisors to have a physician among its members. We hold the committee had jurisdiction to hear Kent's appeal.