Mountain Cement Co. v. South of Laramie Water & Sewer District
2011 WY 81
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- District established in 1992 by Albany County Board; Mountain Cement’s land south of Laramie, within the District, includes parcels (Dodge/Silva) later owned by MCC; MCC never gave written consent to inclusion as required by statute; MCC does not receive water or services from the District; MCC learned in 2008 of anticipated tax levy and filed district court complaint in 2009 challenging inclusion and bond issues; Board petitioned MCC’s exclusion which the Board later dismissed; district court granted summary judgment upholding District’s bond authority and MCC’s exclusion petition was deemed time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to include MCC property without MCC consent | MCC did not consent in writing as required by §41-10-102(c). | Area was lawfully included when the District organized; consent not required for all MCC lands. | MCC barred from challenging inclusion under §41-10-107(g) and quo warranto limitations. |
| Validity of bond issue under §41-10-128 | §41-10-128 requires revenue bonds payable solely from net revenues; general obligation bonds are not permitted here. | Statute allows either revenue or general obligation bonds; not limited to revenues in pari materia with other provisions. | District may issue general obligation bonds; §41-10-128 is ambiguous but permits non-revenue bonds for district projects. |
| Indebtedness limitation under §41-10-127 | Excludes from computation only certain bonds; MCC’s project not a revenue project thus subject to limitation. | Exception language broad enough to exempt bonds for supplying water and for income-producing projects; general obligation bonds are permissible. | Bond issue does not violate the indebtedness limitation when viewed with the broader statutory framework. |
| Power of county commissioners to remove property from a district | Board can remove MCC property from the District. | Section 22-29-307 applicability ended in 1999; no current mechanism to remove post-1999 petitions. | There are no circumstances under which removal is permitted under current law; MCC petition cannot be granted. |
| Petition for Exclusion viability | Petition states a claim for exclusion. | Petition did not state a claim; time limits and statutory vehicle to exclude are unavailable post-1999. | Petition for exclusion does not state a cognizable claim; Board correctly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Speer v. District Court for Sierra County, 441 P.2d 745 (N.M.1968) (finality of district organization; quo warranto alternatives discussed)
- Burns v. District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 356 P.2d 245 (Colo.1960) (limits on collateral challenges to district organization; purpose to facilitate financing)
- Oliver v. Board of Trustees of Town of Alamogordo, 1 P.2d 116 (N.M.1931) (credit stability for municipalities; urgency of timely challenges)
- Diefenderfer v. State ex rel. First National Bank of Chicago, 80 P. 667 (Wyo.1905) (historical interpretation of indebtedness and tax-levy mechanisms)
- BP America, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 112 P.3d 596 (Wyoming 2005) (statutory construction; pari materia and ambiguity)
- City of Torrington v. Cottier, 145 P.3d 1274 (Wyoming 2006) (ambiguous statutes; look to purposes and in pari materia)