Court Opinion

ID: 9726518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:54:41.735014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:27.987006
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Givan, J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. The majority takes the position that the City of Indianapolis, For and On Behalf of Its City-County Council, is not a proper party to this cause of action and thus has no standing to challenge the State Tax Board’s action in increasing the 1971 budget of the Marion County Department of Welfare.
The majority opinion to support its position cites the case of State ex rel. City of Sheboygan et al. v. County Board of Sup’rs. of Sheboygan County et al. (1927), 194 Wis. 456, 216 N. W. 144, 145. However, the Sheboygan case is decidedly different than the case at bar. As was pointed out in that case, the City of Sheboygan was only one of the taxing districts in the County of Sheboygan and was paying only 46.61 per cent of the entire county tax of the county. In the case at bar the City of Indianapolis and Marion County are for all practical purposes one and the same thing under a statute reorganizing the city-county government into a unified form of government, popularly known as “Uni-Gov.” Consolidated First Class Cities and Counties Act, IC 18-4-1-1, BURNS IND. ANN. STAT., 1973 Supp., § 48-9101.
Thus, the County Council is now the City-County Council and functions for the entire metropolitan area.
Under BURNS IND. ANN. STAT., 1964 Repl., § 52-1301, *641the county welfare fund is raised by separate tax levy “* * * which shall be levied annually by the county council * * *,” and § 52-1302, after first providing that the County Board of Public Welfare shall adopt a budget which, in turn, shall be transmitted to the State Department of Public Welfare, who “* * * ghaii examine the budget so submitted and the tax levy so recommended for the purpose of ascertaining and determining whether, in the judgment of the State Department the appropriations requested * * * will be adequate and defray the expenses and obligations incurred by the county department * * *.” The section further provides that the “* * * tax levy so recommended by the state department shall thereupon be filed for consideration by the county council
Section 52-1303 provides that “* * * the county council shall * * * levy a tax in an amount necessary to produce the funds so appropriated.”
Section 52-1304 provides that the County Board of Public Welfare or the State Board of Public Welfare may appeal to the State Board of Tax Commissioners from any action on the part of the county council in reducing the amount of the budget or the tax levy.
Section 52-1305 makes provision for the county auditor to call the county council into special session for the purpose of making a loan to the County Board of Public Welfare to replenish their funds should they become exhausted before the close of any fiscal year.
It, therefore, becomes quite apparent that the legislature contemplated that the county council would play an integral part in the consideration of the budget and tax levy required for the operation of the County Welfare Department; that any action they might take in reducing such budget or tax levy would be appealable to the State Tax Commissioners, and that they would be charged with the responsibility of supplying funds, even by the making of a loan, if need be, should funds be exhausted by the welfare department prior to the close of any fiscal year.
*642It, therefore, becomes inconceivable to the writer to hold that the City-County Council of Marion County is not a proper party to this action and has no standing on the facts presented in this case to challenge the State Board’s action.
I would grant transfer in this case but would not dismiss the appeal as done by the majority. This case should be decided on the merits presented by the briefs.
Note. — Reported in 308 N. E. 2d 868.