*1 587 CLARK COMMISSIONERS COUNTY BOARD OF DONDERO, NEVADA, COUNTY, Chairman, THALIA HAYES, CORTEZ, RICHARD KAREN MANUAL CLARK, MAY, RONZONE, DONALD PAUL Commis WHITE, W. EARLE v. JUDGE Appellants, sioners, PEACE, TOWN Jr., LAS VEGAS THE JUSTICE OF Respondent. NEVADA, COUNTY, SHIP, CLARK 16407 No. P.2d 1347

December Miller, Chief Civil Bartley, James M. Attorney, District Robert County, Appellants. Clark Attorney, District Deputy Foley, Vegas, Respondent. Las John and Elizabeth *2 OPINION Court, Steffen, J.: By the and NRS meaning impact on the of focuses appeal This an of imposition in question provides The statute 176.059. fee) of (assessment in the amount fee administrative assessment or fines for misdemeanor pleas ten as on surcharge dollars ordinances. The essen- municipal the violation of and convictions the of disposition us concerns the character tial issue before to The rise dispute giving the assessment fee. generated by funds of justice the controversy respondent the occurred when present of necessary for requisition pieces of a sought approval the peace $6,173.00. County The Clark costing approximately equipment director) (the denied Planning and Financial Budget Director not budget that the court did justices’ on the basis request then clerk Respondent’s for items. capital include appropriations collec- funds from assessment fee to secure the asked director director unavailing This also suggestion proved tions. were that all monies informed the clerk court tanto, court justices’ pro 1984-85 funding, committed Board petitioned thereafter operational budget. Respondent where he unsuc- County, again of Clark County Commissioners as an source of cessfully appropriate NRS 176.059 invoked received Finally, relief respondent the equipment purchase. for court Clark compelling from the district the form of mandamus fol- items. This appeal County purchase requisitioned lowed. issue because arises as a threshold doctrine

The mootness in the con- involved the equipment has purchased Clark long has adhered court. This Court before the district troversy by moot to cases rendered that denies review rule controversy. NCAA to the initial events subsequent happening Nevada, P.2d 10 University v. the instant case

However, controversy in nature of the initial for requisition beyond presented far subissue extends this appeal thrust of primary equipment. items of specified generate that continues to of a statute meaning concerns the Thus, character and constraints. revenue of uncertain substantial great, the statute is under recurring disputes the potential review for reasons evading significant prospects equally Moreover, the continu- than lawful. be more practical substantial presents statute ing uncertainty burdening responsibility with the agencies charged vexing problems conclude We therefore needs of meeting the fiscal interest to the yield public doctrine must that the mootness Ballard v. See statutory interpretation. expedient more pressing Anderson, 1971). (Cal. 484 P.2d 1345 held that the the district court respondent, relief to granting *3 fund consti- County’s general in the account maintained special or reduction from not a supplement tuted “an addition to and from the the Justice Courts allocated to normally the funds declared, must County “While The court then fund.” general fund, benefit of for the exclusive the fund is regulate special the dis- contend that On appeal, appellants the Justice Courts.” interference with statuto- an unlawful creates ruling trict court’s illegal with an coupled budgetary processes rily established govern- to control local courts justices’ in the arrogation power charge respondent appellants budgeting. Specifically, ment that a position erroneously adopting court with the district upon account special a fiinded to maintain County requires on expenditures “may compel peace a of the justice which demand.” a is position that such the proposition us urge upon Appellants statutory overall under the and “unworkable both unlawful is, however, grist There budgeting.” of local government scheme If, have would appellants appeal. mill in this for each party’s than another believe, more nothing fee is the assessment us government, needs of to fund the revenue measure of a account special establishment mandate for the statutory Obviously, with be vacuous. courts would use of the justices’ account, the fiscal special fee and the without the or have to would government branch of of the judicial requirements hand, the appropria- the other money. On from public be supplied budgetary part, whole or in satisfy, tion of public 590 func- outside the clearly entities is government

needs of Moreover, to com- judiciary power an unrestrained tion. demand, not, funds, or upon available mand unbudgeted public scheme challenge any responsible would create an intolerable budgeting. subject opposite import When a statute is doubtful and committee testimony be had to may limited resort meanings, v. Maynard in question. concerning legislation discussions Johnson, (1866). history surrounding legislative 2 25 Nev. however, is, benefit. of limited the birth of NRS 176.059-.075 Nevertheless, discussions and from the committee it is apparent that court legislation the enactment of the testimony preceding the courts and acquisition improvement, capital equipment were among and counties relief for the cities budgetary “a that recognized We have legislation. benefits of the anticipated thereof redun- any part would render reading legislation a may given separate that part or where meaningless, dant Bd. of should be avoided.” substantive interpretation, 739, 744, Nevada, P.2d CMC of Comm’rs v. ascertaining and thus be described as may Our task language with both the statutory intent consonant articulating its surrounding expressions purpose of the statute and the clear advent. statute, express of the its history considering legislative conflicting reconcile inferences the obvious need to wording and we con- budgeting imperatives, sound harmony fiscally nor fowl. It is clear from is neither fish clude that the statute for the its revenues earmarking primarily of the statute is not simply that the measure use funding to assist in the designed revenue measure follows, therefore, not be viewed revenues that such It or, of the courts budgets merely funding operating as base instance, for this proposition courts. Credence justices’ in this *4 that specifically be in that of the statute may segment seen with the state revenue deposited an of the designates aliquot part for system judicial of a uniform development controller for the the assessment fee 176.061(l)(b). The latter use of records. NRS the court system to the strictly improvement revenues relates ongoing operational budgeted to funds opposed generally needs of the courts. and its historical of the statute peculiar language

Both the intent on the of the part Legislature inducements also an suggest charged entities funds of to benefit the the functions of funding responsibility statutory by is revealed for this Support premise 176.061(2), NRS which that all funds provides by received state controller that are excess of the funds authorized for expenditure must be credited to the state general fund.

The foregoing analysis (1) distills into two basic conclusions: the assessment fee a source of provides funds for court improve- ment and capital acquisitions is addition to fund allotments necessary to fund the annual operational of the budgets courts; (2) for, such monies earmarked but unused by, court system each fiscal are during year transmuted into general fund monies available for by use the accountable government agency as it sees fit. Such funds are not to be accumulated from year year to for the exclusive use of courts.

We are not unmindful that the resolution fails foregoing eliminate residual problems in administration and budgeting. minimized, however, These will problems be if the collecting dispensing governmental entities retain unused assessment fee revenues until the end of each fiscal before year releasing them to non-judicial uses. we would view Additionally, it to be in the best if, tradition of cooperative government working together, respon- judicial

sible officials and staff and the were to governing body to accommodate attempt the earliest and best use of assessment by revenues projecting, the extent possible, likely claims against the special fund. The process may latter render the governing body vulnerable to claims unexpected by judiciary against funds already expended, but this risk would have to be evaluated and resolved in accordance with the best interests of the governing body. it is

Finally, apparent from our of this matter that disposition reject we the contention that the use of assessment fee revenues becomes inconsequential under the doctrine of v. Board of Young Commissioners, 530 P.2d 1203 Young, Under we determined that a could governing body not withhold available funds from the and reasonable necessary demands of the doctrine judiciary. Young addresses itself to situations where available necessary funds which are to the ful- fillment of constitutional by the are responsibilities withheld. The issue before us extends beyond problem funding imperatives funding judicial improve- ment. While either category by court funding supplied order from the inherent or stemming statutory powers courts, it would be a reluctant use of respectively, indeed most the judicial in either case such power accomplish funding extraordinary means. The from whom the branches of people, government vitality, receive have a reasonable expectation *5 the func- among implement effort those branches

cooperative no that concluding basis for simply There is government. tions will not continue. cooperative past the spirit a carte blanche nothing have that would indicate We said court, courts, unre- the authority including respondent Nevertheless, since assessment fee revenues. stricted access to to facilitate primarily created the assessment Legislature which the fees are system of the court from the improvement expenditure from officers for generated, requests that must viewed as presump- from source be produced authority how- budgetary may, The regulating, reasonable. tively ever, such and disbursement of approval requisitions withhold validity. presumption a to rebut upon showing sufficient above, of the district specified judgment For reasons court is affirmed. Young, J.,

Mowbray, J., and concur. C. J., Gunderson, J., Springer, in the result: concurring and dicta as how the precatory We are reluctant to endorse should their adminis- perform concerned officials mind or as to the frame of with responsibilities, trative all with pursued. Accordingly, those should responsibilities do,We we our views colleagues, separately. to our state respect however, the district court ruled our brethren that fully agree be affirmed. correctly in this case and should brethren, noted above our from As statute, fee revenues by earmarking primarily not intend to create judiciary, clearly use of did legislature the funding revenue measure to in assist simply to release the various Nor did the intend legislature courts adequately, from the fund their municipalities obligation faith, out of revenue funds. good intended, rather, was to quite evidently What legislature derived supplemental funding, with a source of courts provide courts, to be at the directly using employed from persons their courts and increas- improving discretion of the ends, think their To achieve these we ing efficiency. courts’ innovation were contemplated, reasonable experimentation show that a use of only proposed if a can municipality is the municipal- assessment-fee funds is unreasonable palpably deemed invaded. ity’s interest to be reversionary case, clearly no such this the trial decided that judge established, and we cannot fault this determi- invasion had been nation.