Simons v. Laramie County School District No. One

penalty, it shall additional in- for an unreasonable such bear continue bance to exceeding per- a rate not five terest at Griego time, leaving in imminent length of (5%) annum, for the time for per cent Second, danger he contends injury. stayed, to ascertained which it was be and wan- guilty of willful Mayflower was (Emphasis by the court.” and awarded did not ton misconduct when added.) who, Griego “was medical assistance 10.05, W.R.A.P., requires that we Rule confused.” dazed and damages against attorney assess fees and Mayflower may have been agree that We Griego certify if “that there no was stopping in the disturbance negligent not Griego’s appeal.” cause for ar- reasonable rendering medical assist- in not promptly, guments specious nor were neither friv- escorting Griego out the front in ance and olous, appear good in but to be made faith. he in a dazed when was doors of bar attorney damages We will not add fees and that their There is no evidence condition. costs. to wanton and action or inaction amounted respects. Affirmed in all willful misconduct. jus- line conduct between Sometimes culpable damages and less

tifying punitive Mitchell, supra; v.

conduct is fine. Weaver Company v.

and Oil Columbia Sinclair Wyo., 682 P.2d 975

Casualty Company, (1984). May- hold the conduct of Here we SIMONS, Lynn State cross that fine line. The flower did not Instruction, Public in her official ca puni- correct when it denied trial court was Rogers, pacity, in her offi and Barbara Griego Mayflower damages to tive McName, capacity, A. in cial Michael granted respect Mayflower and JNOV with Linford, capacity, in his official Carwin damages. to those Patton, capacity, John his official capacity, official Patricia M. Lau his FEES

ATTORNEY ber, capacity, in her official Everett Kilmer, Cynthia Next, capacity, asks that John Lambousis in his official capacity, Boyhan, Griego pay attorney’s fees in her official ordered to be Engelking, capaci in his official Glenn damages requiring him to defend for ty as Members of the Board of State 10.05, appeal. Wyoming Rules of Rule Education, (Defendants), Appellants Procedure, Appellate provides: case, “When, judgment or in a civil affirmed, appellee shall re- final order is LARAMIE COUNTY SCHOOL DIS typewriting repro- cover the cost ONE, Wyo TRICT NUMBER brief, comput- ducing his such cost to be ming By Through Duly Elected its making ed at the rate allowed law for Cotton, Trustees, Jean in her official If transcript of the evidence. Herber, capacity, Don in his official

court certifies that there was no reason- Rounds, capacity, in his official Keith Brown, appeal, able there shall capacity, cause official Richard his capacity, Mercer, part capacity, costs in the also be taxed as Art his official Atkins, capaci case, fee, l in his official fixed reasonable be A Frentheway, ty, Gladys in her official court, not less than one hundred dollars (Plaintiffs). capacity, Appellees ($100.00)nor more than five hundred dol- ($5000.00), ap- lars to the counsel No. 87-46. pellee, appellee damages Supreme Wyoming. Court of reasonable, may not ex- such sum as Aug. ($2,000.00), ceeding one thousand dollars judgment or final order di- unless the money, execu- payment

rects the stayed,

tion thereof lieu of

1H7 Joseph Meyer, Atty. Gen., B. Rowe- Heckert, Gen., na L. Sr. Atty. Chey- Asst. enne, appellants. Hickey Rooney,

Paul J. Bagley, Hick- Statkus, ey, Cheyenne, appel- Evans & lees. BROWN, C.J., THOMAS,

Before CARDINE, MACY, URBIGKIT and JJ. URBIGKIT, Justice. State

Public Instruction and the members of trial- appeal Board Education determining court decision that a statute unconstitutional which reduced funding specific educational for a alleg- district because the assessor edly county, under-assessed in that conse- reducing quently local resource contribu- tions In within total formulae. declaratory judgment proceeding, by holding provision offset unconstitution- al, judgment the trial court awarded a favor of school district for the withheld funds, $366,345.94. amount of considering the four issues raised: After mootness; sovereign untimely immunity; claim; and constitutionality filed statute, this court affirms. sentences, FACTS 1985. It is repealed these two after adopted, were that caused pursuit of a fundamental constitution controversy presented now ap- responsive responsibility, al to the liti peal. gation Dis Herschler, Wyo., No. trict One By 11, 1984, letter dated October denied 449 U.S. 101 S.Ct. cert. chairman of the Equaliza- State Board of (1980), Wyoming legisla 66 L.Ed.2d tion, agency which had the constitutional attempted ture has a broad- statutory and responsibility for tax assess- funding sys and local resource based state adequacy equalization, ment advised immediate, An public tem for education. Superintendent of Public Instruction of pervasive difficulty intrinsic and was en under-assessment in five counties. Based unequal inequitable countered from lo upon percentages, these stated in applica- assessments, directly affect cal tax which program tion of the state foundation fund- contributory responsibility. ed state To ad ing factor, Superintendent deduction of dress this obvious and well-considered Public Instruction reduced the allotment 21-13-310(c), W.S.1977, problem, effec § separate public for seven school districts of 1983, 30, comple tive June was enacted as plaintiff largest loser, which was the with mentary variety legislative to a of other operational funding $322,731.67, total specific legisla and to reviews assessment $43,614.27. construction allotment recently tion more enacted: Laramie School District 1No. “(c) 30, Annually, commencing July on (School 1) against District No. filed suit equalization, the state board of of Instruction Public determinable, certify membership and the of the State Board of department of education whether or not (State) January Education on 1985. On of any level local assessments for 18, 1985, granted October the trial court category in each inis accord with summary judgment to the State on the requirements equali- of the board of filing basis that a claim with the State and, not, percent zation if by statutory prece- Auditor as the condition the assessments are below the board’s dent to suit was omitted. School District requirements. the assessment level If of immediately 1No. filed the notice of claim locally properties assessed any cate- for gory any existing and moved to amend its school district is more lawsuit. than percent (5%) granted, The motion below the board’s re- to amend was and the five quirements, department continued, in- case in accord earlier filed with fact, crease the amount revenue to be in- stipulations judgment summary of of cluded in the sum local district re- disposition resulting in of the en- award of (a)(i) (ii) paragraphs, sources under by cumbered funds to School District No. by locally section the amount 21-13-310(c) determination that was “un- of assessed value of category neces- being constitutional as of violative Article sary comply with the board’s re- Section 27 of the Constitu- quirements appropriate times the mill tion.” (a)(i) (ii) paragraphs levies under this section. This does not subsection of ISSUES apply equalization if the board of has State, As stated we find the con- complied 39-l-304(a)(ii) with W.S. tended issues to be: (iii),has ordered the valuations corrected and has certified the new valuations to “I. THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF department of education.” THE STATE BARS THE MONETARY (Emphasis added.) Chapter S.L. of CLAIM, IT THE DE- AND WITHOUT Wyoming 1983. CLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS MOOT. The last two sentences of this statute repealed

were provisions of Ch. “II. APPELLEE FAILED FILE A TO S.L. Wyoming 1985, July effective THE CLAIM WITH STATE AUDITOR

HIQ ACCRUAL, I ONE YEAR OP WITHIN REQUIRED BY W.S. 9-1-404. AS IS BELATED CLAIM NOTICE FILING THE STATUTE “III. CHALLENGED 9-1-404, TO PURSUANT W.S.1977 A FOR THE IS NOT SPECIAL LAW OF It apparent attempted AND COLLECTION that the State ASSESSMENT TAXES.” avoid serious consideration the constitu- tional in arguing procedural dispo- issue arguments, Included the text su- Thus, argument sition. the first includes sovereign barguments as to immu- included the contention that under the circumstanc- (1) only declaratory part of this nity, es required No. was (2) judgment properly sought; since comply provisions with notice claim Act, immunity no in the there is waiver 9-1-404, W.S.1977: unconstitutionality and an declaration against provided injunction “Except further enforcement W.S. 1-39-101 only sought through 1-39-119, proper persons were the remedies to having claims 1; (3) against there is the District No. no state shall School document the public of harm in the claim evidence education and submit it to the state auditor (1) year within district. one after the ac- claim crues, audited, to be settled acted detailing its second issue belated upon.” filing, both claim it was contended that the required Constitution and the statute time- The statute does persons not define for ly filing and that accrual of the cause of purpose the requirement claim as either action and not determination of amounts including excluding agencies other state statutory would start the limitation one or governmental local instrumentalities. year. Finally, constitutionality, ap- as to Conversely, the provision notice for claims argued (1) pellant strong that there is pursuant the Wyoming Governmental (2) presumption of constitutionality; that Act, W.S.1977, Claims seq., 1-39-101 et challenged the is not enacted statute a law years, two although case law makes taxes; the assessment collection governmental clear agencies that are not (3) the the stat- that classification made eligible claimants under that See statute. important ute is served reasonable and an County Carbon School District 2No. v. objective; (4) that statute Hospital, State Wyo., 680 P.2d affected all school districts in the same State (1984); 773 County v. Board of way consequently situation same County, Commissioners Wyo., Johnson afforded a rational classification. decisions, (1982), P.2d 456 which how- ever, premised were not any immunity on by appellee, Restated the issues as af- inquiry. firmatively presented are: THE “A. DISTRICT COURT PROPER- 9-1- We will not decide whether now 21-13-301(c) LY FOUND SEC. W.S.1977 applies government to state instrumen- TO HAVE BEEN UNCONSTITUTION- Initially, talities. court concluded trial AL. provision apply, that the notice would THIS “B. ACTION IS NOT BARRED approv- opinion in we need not review that BY REPUB- SEC. 9-1-404 W.S.1977 ing present decision of the timeliness LISHED. trial in his court conclusion: “C. THIS IS NOT BARRED ACTION following appear facts BY THE SOVEREIGN OF IMMUNITY joint stipulation parties: of the STATE, THE IT AND IS NOT MOOT.” By “1. letter dated October Equalization procedural This court Board of notified will address the State first, then Instruction issues the substantive constitu- of Public issue, assess- property tional and will last consider whether of the amounts which along four recovery money mootness denies ments in this with require- claimed. other counties were below the Equaliza- “If party seeking yet ments of the State Board relief has not letter, it In this was stated that damaged, tion. been an premature. action is can now a more solid esti- ‘we Foltson v. Ariz. [Fulton] [17 Woodford of an amount those five coun- mate App. 490], 564, (Ariz.App.1972). 498 P.2d you may adjust in order that ties A cause of action does not accrue until your requested by letter of the existence of such things a state of September 1984.’ person having proper will enable a 19, 1984, By “2. letter dated October property persons relations to the con- the Director of Fiscal Services notified bring cerned to an action. Cantonwine District No. 1 the Laramie Fehling, (Wyo.1978).” previous assessment of lands This court is not now led to a converse the State Board's and lots was below conclusion that a claim must be filed until requirement adjustment and an amounts involved as events of claim can be required pursuant therefore to W.S. computed. upon The letter 21-13-301(c), stating adjust- ‘this period contends that the claim commenced ment affects the assessed valuation for stating that your reflected district and will be “ ‘ * * * adjustment this affects the as- program is recalculated in foundation your sessed valuation for district and January. computer printout A revised will be when the (No reflecting change is attached.’ reflected foundation ’ ” program January, is recalculated in computer printout appears in such record) stipulated specificity requirement. does not meet the 21-15-101, capi- “3. Pursuant to W.S. § Although involving the Governmen tal construction funds in the revised Act, tal Claims we would consider the rea amounts for fiscal 1984-1985 were dis- soning City Casper, Wyo., in Davis v. tributed to all school districts on or about 827, (1985) persuasive 710 P.2d 829 to be 30, capital December 1984. The con- and decisive: paid struction funds to Laramie “ * * * argue appellants The that 1984, 1 School District No. in December govern- torts occurred 1976 when the $43,614.27. were down negligent mental officers committed acts. “4. Plaintiffs were not notified as to the They believe that a tort can occur with- program reduction of the foundation un- damage. out our recent decision 15, February til 1985. This recalculation Bauer, 1316, Wyo., Anderson v. $322,731.67. resulted a reduction of (1984), 1321 we held otherwise. We stat- “A fair assessment of these facts makes that, ed homeowner’s cause of ‘[e]ach it clear that the Plaintiffs’ claim did not action accrued on or about the date wa- 30, accrue until December 1984 at the seepage ter was first noticed and dam- complete earliest. The claim for reim- * * added.) (Emphasis *.’ age occurred capital bursement both construction words, complete In other a tort is not and and foundation funds did not accrue until elements, duty, until all the actionable that final recalculation was made known breach, cause, proximate damage, and by February to Plaintiffs a letter dated present.” are 15, Thus, filing of Plaintiffs’ 28, also, claim on timely Wyo., October 1985 was Fehling, See Cantonwine v. being (1978); within the one limitation. Terteling 582 P.2d 592 v. United States, 250, 254, 334 F.2d 167 Ct.Cl. 331 “A cause of action does not until accrue Inc., Ala., (1964); Co., Raytheon v. (i.e., action, Garrett all of the elements in a tort 516, (1979); breach, Magnus 368 So.2d 519 v. Jack duty, the elements of proximate 287, son, 399, cause, Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. 31 107 damage) present. are See Davis v. 827 (Wyo.1985); City Anderson v. Casper, 210 Bauer, ^[710] P.2d 681 App.2d 288 (1973); 11, 50 Hangen Cal.Rptr. v. Hangen, 203, 205 241 (1966); Cal. State, 1316, 51 (Wyo.1984); Housen, Contracting, P.2d Inc. v. Terry Duke v. 528, (1966); (Wyo.1979). 589 P.2d 334 530 Misc.2d N.Y.S.2d

H21 Branner, Berry port 245 Ore. any school, or assist private or (1966). school, If academy, P.2d 996 at 998 it were to be seminary, college or of claim determined that notice is re other institution of learning controlled quired intergovernmental relationships, any church or organization sectarian made, presently religious is not which decision denomination whatsoever.” Ar- discern that the time ticle Wyoming would commences Constitution. authorizing agency computes when the legislature “The shall make such further paid advises sum whatever will with provision by otherwise, taxation or City Evanston v. why. held and See arising with the income general from the (1986) Griffith, Wyo., (al 715 P.2d 1381 school fund will create and maintain a though appeal an administrative rather thorough system public efficient case). declaratory judgment than a schools, adequate to proper instruc- youth state, tion of all of the between

II ages of six and twenty-one years, free of charge; and in provision view of such so SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DEFENSE made, legislature require The State contends that School District every child of physical sufficient right nonpaid No. is denied to contest ability mental public shall attend a school funding on sovereign the basis that during period eigh- between six and immunity of the state intervenes. No au- years equivalent teen for a time to three thority applies sovereign is cited which im- years, unless educated other means.” munity between state and its instru- 9, Wyoming Article Constitution. or, case, mentalities as in this the State argument apparently State’s is that Education, Department of and a school dis- district, constitutionally the school as a im existing by through legislative trict plemented state, instrumentality of the can authority and in accord with the fundamen- legislative invalidity by declaratory assert responsibility tal Constitu- judgment, unpaid but cannot claim tion, 1, 8, Art. and 9. §§ public amounts withheld other officials. legislature for the es- Noteworthy pursuing argument tablishment and maintenance of a com- appeal process is administrative plete system public and uniform of in- City Ev similarly not constrained. See of struction, embracing elementary free Griffith, supra, anston v. particularly every grade, schools of needed kind and 3,n. 715 P.2d at 1383. This court is asked university pro- with such technical and appeal to determine that the administrative departments fessional public good as the impedance judg declaratory avoids the but may require and the means of the state 12.12, ment will not. See Rule W.R.A.P.: allow, may and such other institutions as relief, review, or redress available necessary.” Wyoming Article injunction against agency in suits for ac- Constitution. thereof, tion or enforcement actions general “Provision shall be made law recovery money, in of actions for a equitable for the distribution of such in- status, declaratory judgment rights, of among come the several counties accord- legal or relations based on administrative ing to the number of children of school inaction, action or in actions for manda- each; age in which several counties shall action, compel mus to administrative in like proportion manner distribute the certiorari and applications for writs of of said fund respective- them received prohibition prevent or adminis- review ly to the several school districts em- by inde- trative action shall be available appropriation braced therein. But no notwithstanding peti- pendent any action shall be made from any said fund to tion for filed.” review district for the in which a school has not been appeal maintained for three The certification under Rule 12.- at least months; nor any portion W.R.A.P. does not remove converse public rights sup- rights corollary school fund or the of Rule 12.12. ever be used to Griffith, supra, appeal provisions Evanston v. City See trative are available at n. 2: respective rights determine and liabilities under City provisions constitutional proper “It to file for statu- agency tory these forms of relief inac- enactments. 12.12, W.R.A.P., tion under Rule That obligation remedial financial or re- states: covery generally can be determined and “ review, relief, ‘The or redress available enforced in either the appeal administrative * * * declaratory judg- in actions for a or declaratory judgment proceedings, is not status, rights, legal ment relations really an present justiciable issue of dis- based on administrative action or inac- pute. City Evanston Griffith, supra; tion, compel in actions for mandamus to United Fidelity States Guaranty & Co. v. * * * action administrative be avail- Sidwell, (10th Cir.1975). 525 F.2d 472 This by independent action able notwithstand- is the supplementary provided relief ”

ing any petition for review filed.’ 1-37-110, W.S.1977. See also Federal court, in the context This of the rule Declaratory Judgment, 2201; 28 U.S.C. § indicated, right clearly where and of Co., Beacon Construction Inc. v. Mateo Declaratory Judgments pro Act which Co., Inc., (2d Electric 521 F.2d 392 Cir. sovereign immunity vides no restriction for 1975); Maryland Casualty Boyle Co. v. by governmental agencies, action will not Co., (4th Construction 123 F.2d 558 Cir. apply sovereign immunity restriction to 1941); Q.R. Beatty Co., v. Chicago B. & rights the determination of or the award Wyo. (1935); 52 P.2d 404 Uniform Laws appropriate segments between Annot., Act, Declaratory Judgment 8, p. relief the Wyoming government. See Washakie No. One v. Her schler, supra, 606 P.2d 310.1 Ill Although Rocky we could find in CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE State, Mountain Oil & Gas Association v. FUNDS REDUCTION Wyo., (1982), appropriate P.2d 1163 au PROVISION thority permit summary judgment in the proceedings, context of its substantive issue is the as did the trial constitution- court, ality process determine ques- will the case on the mandated sovereign basis that immunity as a doctrine tioned statute which withholds earned apply proceedings does not funds sys- under the state school finance segments government between county official, tem if a elected declaratory judgment wherein assessor, appointed officials, adminis- and the state 1. It attempting parties does seem that the State is subject jurisdiction now cause all are away position walk from a committed in the purpose, of the Court for this and because all court, by stipulation: trial as evidenced the parties genuinely positions. take adversarial brought pursuant "1. This action is "4. Jurisdiction of the is Court founded on Wyoming Act, Declaratory Judgments Uniform 1, 8, 5, Article Section and Article Section 10 seq., purpose W.S. 1-37-101 et for the of Constitution, Wyoming of the and W.S. 1-37- determining penalty provision whether the 101, seq., Declaratory Judg- et the Uniform 21-13-310(c) found in W.S. of the school fi- Act,” ments nance laws is constitutional. stipulation: and in additional party pursuant "2. Plaintiff is an interested prevail In "3. the event that Plaintiffs should by having to W.S. 1-37-103 reason of suffered and the Court determine that W.S. 21-13- pecuniary opera- losses as a direct of result 310(c) is either unconstitutional or void as a statute, challenged tion W.S. 21—13— public policy matter of and award Plaintiffs 310(c). claimed, judgment for the amounts there are justiciable controversy “3. A exists between appropriated pay funds sufficient to the Dis- parties pecuniary the because of the losses trict the Foundation Fund monies and the Plaintiffs, by suffered because a declaration Furthermore, Capital Construction Funds. concerning validity of the Court the or inval- Department agrees idity the of Education to en- question effectively of the statute in will controversy surrounding settle application the cumber the funds before the end of the fiscal years, year." of that statute in and 1985 future be-

H23 Equalization, improvidence of other the State Board of fail state officials in en- constitutionally statutorily forcing (Whichever achieve a existing legislation. equalization. mandated tax either, by present is not addressed briefing case.) in this Education is a fundamental speaks subsidy Appellant of a state Wyoming: interest conception This the local district. recognize primary respon- fails to state “When a fundamental interest is affected sibility equalized educational ifor a classification is inherently suspect, which, separation powers, under the then the classification must subjected be legislative responsibility provide, scrutiny to strict to determine if it is administer, the executive branch to necessary compelling to achieve a state judicial require. branch to addition, requires interest. In this test “Educating youth of our state is an that the state that there establish is no important performed by function our less onerous alternative its which ob- constitution, government. state Our jective may be achieved.” 606 P.2d at see, plainly expresses shall the com- 333.2 people mitment of a free to the value addressing this constitutional issue of thorough education. The school dis- withholding required funds otherwise tricts and the members of school boards equality reasoned because charged responsibility are with the through Equalization the Board of providing education to the children of county by County the elected Assessor Wyoming tangibly injured if the are under-assessed, persuaded have we are guide statutes their hands disena- 1 decision Art. the other §§ providing. them so are ble Parents provi- sections of Art. 7 as educational keenly tangible in- concerned and suffer Constitution, sion of the and ad- if jury their children do not receive a 9,10, ditionally by Wyo- Art. §§ proper education. The children them- ming Constitution: are, obviously, tangibly injured selves if legislature provide by law for uniformly do not receive best equalization.” a state Article board pro- education that tax resources can 9, Wyoming Constitution. County vide.” Washakie School Dis- Herschler, supra, trict No. One v. 606 “The duties the state board shall be at

P.2d To fix a valuation each follows: Schrader, Wyo., also, notify Johnson v. the assessment of live stock and See (1973); County and Sweetwater equalization P.2d the several boards Hinkle, (10) Planning Committee v. Wyo., days of the rate so fixed at least ten (1971). P.2d 1234 beginning as- day fixed for before sessments; val- to assess at their actual As we said in franchises, roadbed, roadway, ue the Herschler, No. One su rolling prop- rails and stock and all other pra, right 606 P.2d at to an edu erty, operation of all rail- used constitutionally cation cannot condi be carriers, except and other common roads tioned on in that such a measure wealth rolling mills and hotels shops, machine equal protection. does not afford This state; such assessed valuation impermissible court add as would now also in which apportioned to the counties inability to withhold funds because are lo- said roads and common carriers Equalization the State Board of and the cated, of such as a for taxation basis equalize assessor to local assess property; provided, that the assessment equality is denied in withhold ments. This apply incorporated to so made shall not ing justified by state resources as insuffi shall also legislation and cities. Said board ciency of state or the inaction or towns Following opinion educational excel- tee to consider education and 2. the in Washakie addition, Herschler, supra, of the in lence. In interim committees School District No. One v. 1980, extensively legislature the sub- addressed of Public Instruction ject. Lynn appointed Simons a blue ribbon commit-

1124 power equalize the “Finally, on present

have valuation the Court the has issue in property the counties for all several ed of constitutionality the of 21- W.S. § the state and such other duties 13-310(c). revenue When a statute is assailed on may prescribed as be law.” Article grounds constitutionality, of the court 15, 10, Wyoming Constitution. presumes § the statue to be constitutional in property, except any “All this constitu- must resolve doubts in favor of provided, uni- constitutionality. party tion otherwise shall A be who seeks to taxation, formly deny constitutionality for and the assessed of a statute regula- legislature prescribe such heavy shall assumes Galesburg a burden. just secure a Trustees, tions shall valuation Construction Co. Board v. of property, person- real and 745, taxation all 641 (Wyo.1982); P.2d v. Meyer Ken 15, 11, Wyoming al.” Article Constitu- dig, 1235, (Wyo.1982); 641 § P.2d Moun tion. Emerson, Supply tain Fuel v.Co. 1351, (Wyo.1978); P.2d Coun Washakie also, 1, 28, Singularly, Art. §§ ty Herschler, School District 1 v. No. 3, 27, Wyoming Art. Constitution: § 310, (Wyo.1980); 606 P.2d Nicholson right opportuni- “The citizens People, v. 607 P.2d [.Nickelson] practical ties for education should have (Wyo.1980); Sorensen v. [Sorenson] recognition. legislature suit- State, 1031, (Wyo.1979). This ably encourage agencies means and cal- approached problem Court has this culated to advance the sciences and lib- precedents case with those in view. 23, Wyoming eral arts.” Article § consideration, “In the case under Constitution. Plaintiffs contend that W.S. 21-13- imposed “No tax shall without the beu 310(c) special proscribed by is a law people consent of the or their authorized Wyoming Constitution, specifically Arti- representatives. All taxation shall be provided, cle Section This statute equal 28, Wy- and uniform.” Article at times material here oming issues Constitution. presented, as follows: legislature pass shall not local or “(c) [Quoted supra special any opinion.] in this following laws of the enu- * * * cases, say: merated that is to For “The last two sentences of the statute affairs; regulating county township or quoted repealed by provi- were above * * * * * * actions; for limitation of civil Chapter 146, sions of Session Laws of providing management for the com- Wyoming 1,1985. July It effective * * * schools; remitting fines, pen- mon sentences, repealed is these two a ** * forfeitures; alties or for the as- adopted after had been * * * taxes; sessment or collection of laws, controversy session that caused the * exempting property taxation; *. now before Court. general In all other cases where law “Article Section 27 of the applicable special can made no law provides Constitution “ as follows: 3, 27, Wyo- shall be enacted.” Article legislature pass ‘The not local or ming Constitution. special following laws enu- responsibility It court cases, say: merated that is For ... apply strict-scrutiny criteria enunciated affairs; regulating county township or for educational Coun ... the assessment collection ty Herschler, No. One taxes ...’ supra, question any system that with “The Wyoming Supreme said Court has transgressions holds funds because of determining the test for segments government. other improper statute constitutes an ‘local again experienced We special’ quoted find that the trial under law the last consti judge comprehensively ana- cogently provision, tutional whether clas lyzed improvident constitutionally sification contained in the statute was impermissible penalty provision. oper reasonable and whether the statute

H25 upon person property ated alike all in ment of property; and 39-1-304 autho- § like or the same circumstances and condi rizes the State Board Equalization to Supply Compa tions. Mountain Fuel compare examine and the returns of the Emerson, ny (Wyo. P.2d assessment of property in the several 1978). see, also, Phillips And v. ABC counties and to increase or decrease as- Builders, Inc., (Wyo.1980). 611 P.2d 821 by sessments county returned the boards case, property appears “In the when the instant the Defendants ar to be over- gue that valued or clearly ‘this measure was de under-valued. signed County also to force to Assessors words, “In other legislative the act is jobs do their in order to avoid the threat being argued by being Defendants as an (De funding.’ ened reduction in school attempt equalize to funding of edu- 12-13). p. appears fendants’ Brief It to among cation the various school districts me, however, posi that the Defendants’ by punishing a school district when untenable, tion arguing, becomes in so County Assessor of in which purpose review the behind the the school district is located to com- fails Chapter total revision of on school ply with the laws as to assessment and finance, as had been mandated Was equalization property pur- for tax County hakie School District No. su poses. differently, Stated the act is an pra, specific provisions regarding and the attempt require po- school districts to County Assessors Titles 18 and responsibilities lice the of their County

Wyoming Statutes. consequences Assessor or to bear the legislature, “When the enacted legislation the assessor’s errors. Such Chapter they they is, face, recited that were arbitrary on its and without doing pursuant so the mandate of the just relationship to the allocation of County School District No. 1 capital school foundation funds and attempt provide complete, case in an a funds. system public funding uniform finding “In addition to Court’s and that were committed to reduc- arbitrary the classification is as stated in ing disparity funding education preceding paragraphs, provision among However, school districts. if the remains, be, also and must declared to argued being act is a means ‘to force there is no rea- unconstitutional because County jobs’, Assessors to do their classification, sonable and therefore provision obviously at issue in that failed ap- penalties equally law and its are not districts, seven school including the plied funding political all districts here, penalized by Plaintiffs were re- funding subdivisions who receive within of their duction foundation funds and County on the assess- Laramie based eight recapture five districts were County ments Assessor. Numer-

penalized by recap- a reduction their County ous other entities within Laramie (See payments. Stipulation). ture Joint funding their on receive based the Coun- already “There statutory provisions are calculations, stipu- ty yet Assessor’s County job. to force Assessors to do their lated, penalized by none of these are 18-3-306, provides See W.S. reduction of for the assessor’s failing penalties perform criminal except errors the Plaintiff School Dis- Assessor, County the duties of a or for trict.” knowingly willfully valuing equal- only add that two consti- We would now izing property at other than its fair val- wrongs do not make one statute tutional addition, 18-3-204(a), provides ue. right. for a review assessments Coun- ty Equalization; Board of 18-3-906 IV provides guilty that a Assessor MOOTNESS carry of malfeasance where he fails to Finally, out directives and orders of the State the State contends that the offending Equalization Board of relative to assess- issue is moot since the statute repealed. We could not favor crease its revenues to such a has been level even stipulated taking advantage in the face of the that conclusion of all loca- available pending judicial resolu- retention of funds tion taxes.” determining in In that the action tion. property authority The assessment in withholding improper, funds was we County Laramie and four other counties affirming relief in the trial accord full property under in their coun- assessed money court decision that should be Laramie, ties. In the under assessment Beatty Chicago paid to the district. B. percent non-agricultural was 30.76 low Q. 404; Co., supra, City 52 P.2d & B. land. The effect of under assessment this supra, 715 P.2d 1381. Griffith, Evanston v. subsidy County that the to Laramie was money infrequently in- unpaid Claims expense schools increased at the of coun- inquiry. voke mootness property. ties that did not under assess judgment is affirmed. legislature In 21-13- enacted § 310(c),W.S.1977, encourage in an effort to BROWN,. C.J., special filed a County Laramie and four other counties to concurrence. properly property. their assess BROWN, Justice, special Chief concur- reducing The statute had the effect of rence. (not eliminating) subsidy an under pays A in Kemmerer homeowner $100 assessed district the amount tax reve- per year Chey- more in taxes than does a In nues lost due to the under assessment. enne resident for a house of twice the case, applying the statute this Laramie beginning of value. Since the the school experienced No. 1 program, taxpayer foundation in the slight subsidy. reduction in its provinces has subsidized the schools 21-13-310(c), The enactment of W.S. capital city. designed just achieve agree theory subsidy I with the assessments, equitable by providing in- an Every scheme. student is en- authority centive for the assessment in the quality titled if to a education even he or properly county proper- counties assess happens geographic she in a to live area ty. Unfortunately, the statute is unconsti- generates compared tax revenue low explained tutional as in this court's well to the number of students to be educated. opinion. reasoned County School District Some method should be devised to en- Herschler, Wyo., Number One v. courage require properly the counties to (1980), succinctly explained the tax- Otherwise, property. assess their some ation scheme under the school foundation counties will continue to under assess their program. “ * property put * * an additional tax burden high local resources are [W]here on the counties the law and who follow cases, in some or no little foundation properly property. assess their paid by funds are the State to the dis- relatively large reluctantly agree opin- trict. I Schools that raise with court’s through However, I money property amounts of tax- ion. feel uncomfortable con- considerably support, curring opinion my ation if receive less with an that is to finan- advantage. any, from the Foundation Fund than cial comparable levy those districts where money.

raises a smaller amount of If a

district’s assessed valuation—its tax high, relatively

base—is it is able to raise

enough money go beyond the founda- program,

tion whereas another district

with low assessed valuation cannot in-

Case Details

Case Name: Simons v. Laramie County School District No. One

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 20, 1987

Citation: 741 P.2d 1116

Docket Number: 87-46

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.