An application for a certificate of need was filed with the South Dakоta Secretary of Health asking for permission to construct an intermediate care facility in Roscoe, South Dakota. Following a public heаring and a rehearing, the application was rejected. The circuit court upheld the refusal. We affirm.
While appellants concede that neither the trial court nor this court can substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agеncy, they urge that the adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law were unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record and were аrbitrary or capricious and characterized by abuse of discretion.
Whеn the application was heard, SDCL 1-26-36 provided as follows 1 :
The court shall nоt substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the. agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions arе:
(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or сapricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or cleаrly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
We have had occasion tо discuss this standard of review on many occasions. Under this test, the fact that there may be substantial evidence in the record to support findings contrary to those made by the agency is not a reason for reversal. On the contrary, the inquiry is whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the agency’s determination.
Dail v. South Dakota Real Estate Commission,
It appears from the evidence that there were three long-term care facilities existing within the service area of Edmunds County; two were intermediate-care facilities and the third was a skilled-care facility. The *479 application indiсated an intention to build a fourth facility with a forty-bed capacity.
The Seсretary of Health adopted a procedure to determine bed need for long-term care facilities. That procedure included consideration of the projected area population, age 65 and over, based upon information from the Bureau of Census, South Dakota Health Department and the Public Health Statistics Program. The agency found that there wеre 139 long-term care beds existing in Edmunds County. Considerable evidence was taken rеlative to the manner in which the proposed facility was to be financed. It appears that while there was considerable local interest in аrranging financing, no firm commitments from either individual contributors or lending institutions had been сonfirmed. The agency found that the financing arrangements for the facility werе inadequate and that no feasibility had been established.
Appellant cites the strong community interest and overwhelming support for the facility which was exhibited at the hearings. Community support for such a facility, while understandable and cоmmendable, is not determinative in making decisions of feasibility. The agency must consider whether adding another nursing facility to the community would adversely affect the other three existing and thus create difficulty for all four to function.
While there is also evidence which would indicate the facility applied for may prosper and serve a further community need, we must agree with the trial court that thе agency’s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence on the whole record and that the decision denying the application was not arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Notes
. This statute has in the meantime been amended.