DAVIDSON v. BURNS

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

DAVIDSON et al. v. BURNS et al.

Civ. 12464

Decided: April 19, 1940

Julius V. Patrosso, of Los Angeles, for appellants. Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty., Frederick Von Schrader and Leon Thomas David, Asst. City Attys., and Bourke Jones, Deputy City Atty., all of Los Angeles, for respondents.

The petition for a rehearing is denied. Petitioner urges that this court has eliminated from the budget, which section 186 of the charter of the city of Los Angeles requires respondent Board of Pension Commissioners to prepare, one item which should be included therein, to wit, 4 per cent of the estimated total pay rolls of the fire and police departments for the next succeeding fiscal year for those members of said departments included within the pension provisions of article XVII. This contention finds no support in the opinion. In the opinion, 100 P.2d 1105, we stated, “* it is clear that the budget to be prepared by respondent Board of Pension Commissioners should consist of estimated probable revenues as well as expenditures, and that the words ‘consist of’ as used in the budget mean that the expenditures listed in the budget shall consist of the items thereinafter enumerated”. (Italics added.)

Among the items thereinafter enumerated in section 186 of the city charter is the item of “a sum equal to 4% of the estimated total pay rolls of the fire and police departments for those members of the said departments included within the pension provisions of this article (XVII) for the next succeeding fiscal year”.

Neither do we find any merit in petitioner's contention that the budget as prepared by respondent Board of Pension Commissioners fails to include this item. An examination of petitioner's opening brief, page 31, and respondent's reply brief, page 68, discloses that 4 per cent of the estimated total pay rolls of the fire and police departments for those members of the departments included within the pension provisions of article XVII of the charter of the city of Los Angeles for the next fiscal year is $408,321, and that such sum is included in the budget prepared by respondent Board of Pension Commissioners under the item “service pensions”. The name under which an item required by section 186 of the city charter to be included in the budget is actually listed is immaterial. The important factor is whether the item has in fact been included as required by the charter. In the present case, as heretofore pointed out, the requirements of the charter provisions have been met.

PER CURIAM.

Copied to clipboard