Homestead Valley Sanitary District v. Donohue

California Court of Appeal Jul 12, 1938 No. Civ. No. 10766; Civ. No. 10767Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that section 3714b of the Political Code applies to the Sanitary District, requiring it to submit its budget to the county board of supervisors for approval, as the district is not among the classes of districts expressly exempted by the statute.

Issues

Whether section 3714b of the Political Code controls the governing body of a Sanitary District regarding the levying of assessments and disbursement of funds.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the positive terms of the code section demonstrate that it was the intention of the legislature to apply the budgetary scheme to all local tax assessment districts except those which are expressly exempted from the operation of the section.”

“By expressly exempting seven of such local districts by name, the legislature must be deemed to have intended to include all such districts as were not designated.”

NOURSE, P. J. The plaintiffs each sought a writ of mandate in the superior court; the causes were consolidated for hearing; both applications were denied. The two appeals of the plaintiffs are, by stipulation, heard upon the same briefs.

The Sanitary District was regularly organized under the Sanitary District Act of 1923. (Act 7105, Deering’s Gen. Laws.) It demanded of the county tax collector that he collect special taxes for its benefit in accordance with an assessment list which the governing board of the district prepared. The tax collector refused the demand on the ground that the assessment was not approved by the county board of supervisors pursuant to the provisions of section 3714b of the Political Code.

The plaintiff Barnett was regularly employed as special counsel for the district. He demanded of the county treasurer the payment of a sum for legal services performed for the district, his demand having been approved by the directors of the Sanitary District. This demand was refused upon the same ground—noncompliance with the code section.

The question involved in both appeals is whether this section controls the action of the governing body of the Sanitary District in the matter of levying assessments and disbursing funds for district purposes. The section reads in part:

“ (1) The governing body of any special tax or assessment district in a county where a tax levy for such district is not carried upon the regular county or city and county assessment roll, except irrigation, reclamation, water conservation, drainage and levee districts, revenue producing utility districts and those districts that are situated in two or more counties, shall at least sixty days prior to the time the county board of supervisors is required by law to pass upon the general county budget, file with the county board of supervisors of such county an itemized estimate of expenditures and income for the preceding and next ensuing fiscal year.

“(2) Contents. The estimate shall be known as the district budget and shall state:

[550]“ (a) The probable revenues from sources other than taxation or assessment that will accrue during the next ensuing fiscal year;

“(b) All expenditures required by such district for the next ensuing fiscal year. . . .

Homestead Valley Sanitary District v. Donohue

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief