Atwood v. Regional School Dist. No. 15

• Decision Date: 25 November 1975
• Citation: 169 Conn. 613,363 A.2d 1038
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Mary ATWOOD et al. v. REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 et al.

Page 1038

363 A.2d 1038

169 Conn. 613

Mary ATWOOD et al. v.REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Nov. 25, 1975.

Kenneth H. Murray, Clinton, for appellants(plaintiffs).

Thomas L. Brayton, Waterbury, with whom was John J. Cotter, Bridgeport, for appellee(named defendant).

Before, HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.BARBER, Associate Justice.

The plaintiffs, taxpayers of the towns of Middlebury and Southbury, brought this action in the Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment to determine whether a referendum held in those towns resulted in an authorization for the appropriation of funds for the purchase of land, for the construction of a new regional high school, for alterations to the present high school, and in an authorization to issue bonds and notes to defray that appropriation.The plaintiffs also sought incidental injunctive relief.The court overruled a claim that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary standing as taxpayers to maintain the action and decided that the referendum resulted in a valid appropriation and authorization.

The plaintiffs have appealed, raising the issue of whether the referendum required a majority vote of the regional school district as a whole, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-56, or a majority of each town, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-47c.The parties submitted the case to the trial court upon a written stipulation of facts.

On December 18, 1968, the voters of Middlebury and Southbury by referenda approved a proposal to join their school systems into a K-12 (kindergarten through grade 12) regional school system, to be known as Regional School DistrictNo. 15.Prior to the referenda a temporary regional school study committee had been established pursuant to General Statutes § 10-39, as in effect at that time.The temporary regional school study committee performed its designated function, holding meetings and submitting a report to the participating towns of Middlebury and Southbury and to the state board of education, all as required by General Statutes § 10-43, as in effect at the time.The report of the study committee recommended, among other things, that grades 9-12 be housed in the existing Southbury high school.Subsequent to the referenda, Regional School DistrictNo. 15 became operative in the two towns, its affairs being administered by a regional board of education pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 10-46.

In October, 1973, the regional board of education submitted a report recommending the purchase, building and equipping of a new school complex for Regional School DistrictNo. 15 to be located in the town of Southbury and to be known as Pomperaug Regional High School.After informational public meetings were held in both towns to explain the proposal, a referendum was held December 11, 1973, presenting the question: 'Shall Regional School DistrictNo. 15 appropriate eleven million seven hundred thirteen thousand dollars, $11,713.000, for purchase of land, construction of a new regional high school and alterations to the present high school, and issue bonds and notes to defray such appropriation?'Middlebury approved the proposal by a plurality of 434 votes, and Southbury rejected it by a plurality of 283 votes.The combined votes resulted in a plurality of 151 votes in favor of the proposal.Regional School DistrictNo. 15 maintains that a majority vote in the regional school district as a whole was sufficient to approve the proposal pursuant to General Statutes § 10-56.Subsequent to the referendum but prior to the bringing of this action, Regional School DistrictNo. 15 actually issued tax anticipation notes, purchased real estate, and paid certain items of expense under the construction agreements for said building.

It appears from the stipulation of facts that the plaintiffs are residents, electors owning real estate, and taxpayers of the towns of Middlebury and Southbury who have an interest in all the expenditures made by Regional School DistrictNo. 15.It is further stipulated that total reimbursable funds to the regional school district as a result of the bond issue will be $9,178,000.The balance required to be made up by the participating towns will amount to $2,535,000, which will be required to be paid from general funds of the towns to which the plaintiffs pay their taxes.

The plaintiffs' right to seek a declaratory judgment involves the jurisdiction of the court.Rothkopf v. Danbury, 156 Conn. 347, 352, 242 A.2d 771;Riley v. Liquor Control Commission, 153 Conn. 242, 248, 215 A.2d 402.A question of jurisdiction once raised must be considered on appeal.C.S.E.A., Inc. v. Connecticut Personnel Policy Board, 165 Conn. 448, 452, 334 A.2d 909.The defendants raised the question of jurisdiction before the trial court and have pursued it before this court.

An action for a declaratory judgment is a special proceeding.General Statutes § 52-29.Practice Book§ 309 provides that no declaratory judgment may be rendered upon the complaint of any person 'unless he has an interest, legal or equitable, by reason of danger of loss or of uncertainty as to his rights or other jural relations.'A plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment must allege and prove more than that he is a taxpayer and has an interest in the expenditures involved.Gannon v. Sanders, 157 Conn. 1, 7, 244 A.2d 397;Coyle v. Housing Authority, 151 Conn. 421, 424, 198 A.2d 709.To have standing, a taxpayer must prove that he is directly affected in a pecuniary manner.Bassett v. Desmond, 140 Conn. 426, 432, 101 A.2d 294;74 Am.Jur.2d, Taxpayers' Actions, § 20.CompareRothkopf v. Danbury, supra, 156 Conn. 354, 242 A.2d 774, where the plaintiffs claimed to have standing 'in view of their direct voice in the affairs of town government,' and this was held to be insufficient.It is clear, given the stipulated facts in this case, that the proposed bond issue would increase the plaintiffs' taxes to some extent.The trial court correctly ruled that the plaintiffs have the requisite interest to maintain this action.

Now we turn to the principal issue, which involves consideration of several sections of part III of chapter 164 of the General Statutes, pertaining to the establishment and operation of regional school districts.A brief preliminary discussion of portions of the statutory scheme set out in part III will aid in understanding the conflicting claims of the parties.

The procedure for establishing a regional school district is as follows: First, a temporary study committee is appointed by the legislative bodies of the towns involved to study the advisability of establishing a regional school district.General Statutes §§ 10-39,10-40.The temporary study committee prepares a final report which contains its findings and recommendations concerning the towns to be included, the grade levels to be provided, the facilities to be provided, the size of the board and the number of representatives from each town, estimates of the cost, and similar matters.§ 10-43(a).The state board of education examines the report, determines whether 'the proposed plan' complies with the pertinent state regulations, and either accepts or rejects 'the recommendations of the committee.'§ 10-43(b).If the recommendations are accepted by the state board, the towns involved then hold referenda, the question presented being whether a regional school district shall be established 'in accordance with the plan approved by the state board.'§ 10-45.Once established, a regional board 'may build, add to or equip schools for the benefit of the towns comprising the district.'§ 10-47.

The basic conflict between the parties involves two statutes restricting the powers of the regional board.Section 10-56 permits the board to issue bonds to raise funds for the building of schools, but requires a referendum beforehand with a plurality of the district as a whole approving the issuance.¹Section 10-47c provides that, with certain exceptions, 'the terms of the plan approved through referenda pursuant to section 10-45' may be amended only after referenda in each town in the district, with a plurality in each town approving the amendment.²

The plaintiffs point out that the report of the study committee prior to the establishment of Regional School DistrictNo. 15 made no mention of the construction of a new high school, and, in fact, recommended that the existing Southbury high school serve as the regional high school.Therefore, plaintiffs contend, the proposal to construct a new high school constitutes an amendment to the plan approved by the referenda of December 18, 1968, and may be approved only by a plurality in each town.The school district, on the other hand, contends that the proposal to issue bonds for the construction of the new high school falls into the category of 'bond issues,' and need only be approved by a majority in the district as a whole, pursuant to § 10-56.

The defendant contends that the provisions of § 10-47c do not apply to it, basing its argument upon the history of part III.Sections 10-56and10-47c originated as two of the twenty-eight sections of the Public Acts 1969, No. 698, which repealed the prior statutes concerning the establishment and operation of regional school districts, and substituted what is now all of part III.Public ActNo. 698 introduced the concept of a 'plan' for the regional district.Since the referenda establishing Regional School DistrictNo. 15 were held prior to the enactment of Public ActNo. 698, the question presented was not whether the 'proposed plan approved by the state board of education' should be adopted, but whether 'a regional school district . . . for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades K through 12' should be established.Public Acts 1965, No. 411, § 3.Although § 10-47c provides for the amendment of the 'terms of the...