Anaheim City School District v. County of Orange

Appellants, comprising the majority of the school districts in Orange County, appeal the denial of their petition for writ of mandate commanding the County of Orange to accept, at its disposal sites, solid waste from appellants without charge.

Until 1982 operating costs for county solid waste disposal sites and transfer stations were funded through the county general fund. When this source became inadequate to subsidize the increased volume at the facilities, [1] the Orange County Board of Supervisors by resolution imposed a schedule of gate fees at all landfills and transfer stations based on tonnage accepted. The original resolution was passed in July 1982 and became effective in October. In February 1983 appellants filed their petition for writ of mandate, alleging the county and board had "a clear, present, and ministerial duty to provide an official service to Petitioners at no charge pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 by accepting waste for disposal at [the county's] waste disposal sites and transfer stations." [2] The writ was denied in March.

(1) Appellants contend the county and board have no authority to impose the gate fees. However, we…

Appellants, comprising the majority of the school districts in Orange County, appeal the denial of their petition for writ of mandate commanding the County of Orange to accept, at its disposal sites, solid waste from appellants without charge.

Until 1982 operating costs for county solid waste disposal sites and transfer stations were funded through the county general fund. When this source *699 became inadequate to subsidize the increased volume at the facilities, 1 the Orange County Board of Supervisors by resolution imposed a schedule of gate fees at all landfills and transfer stations based on tonnage accepted. The original resolution was passed in July 1982 and became effective in October. In February 1983 appellants filed their petition for writ of mandate, alleging the county and board had “a clear, present, and ministerial duty to provide an official service to Petitioners at no charge pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 by accepting waste for disposal at [the county’s] waste disposal sites and transfer stations.” 2 The writ was denied in March.

I

Appellants contend the county and board have no authority to impose the gate fees. However, we find ample…

I can find no fault with the preceding legal exposition and concur in the judgment of the court, not without misgivings, however. Although it is true “‘some school districts have old buildings which require expensive maintenance; some have a disproportionate number of older teachers entitled to higher salaries; some must spend excessive amounts for security, and for the repair of vandalized buildings[;] [sjome high schools in remote parts of the State have only a few students and must maintain costly classes for less than ten students[;] [sjome schools must insulate rooms to keep out distracting noise from airports or freeways[; and] [s]ome are located in parts of the State where climatic conditions require unusually high expenditures for heating or air conditioning’ ” (Serrano v. Priest (1976) 18 Cal.3d 728, 760 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 557 P.2d 929 ]), these special burdens contain a common element: They are simply unavoidable.

*703 By contrast, the user fee the County of Orange adds to the strained budget of local school districts is avoidable. The county could exempt schools from the fees and, if necessary, spread the additional cost by raising the user fee slightly to…