Hankins v. District Boundary Bd. of Natrona County, 4117
| Decision Date | 02 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 4117,4117 |
| Citation | 502 P.2d 368 |
| Parties | Thomas HANKINS et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. The DISTRICT BOUNDARY BOARD OF NATRONA COUNTY, Wyoming, et al., Appellees(Defendants below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Harry E. Leimback and Ronald W. Hofer, of Leimback, Aspinwall & Hofer, Casper, for appellants.
William T. Schwartz and Robert H. McCrary, Casper, for appellees Natrona County School Dist. and Board of Trustees.
Clarence A. Brimmer, Atty. Gen., and Jerome F. Statkus, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee State Committee Established by Organization Law of 1969.
John Burk, County and Pros. Atty., Casper, for appellees The Dist. Boundary Board of Natrona County, Wyoming, and Tom Sutherland, County Assessor of Natrona County, Wyoming.
Before McINTYRE, C. J., and PARKER, McEWAN and GUTHRIE, JJ.
In Board of Trustees of School District No. 3 v. District Boundary Board, Wyo., 489 P.2d 1393, 1394, we held, regardless of whether legal and proper steps had been followed in all respects, it was apparent the formation of a countywide unified school district in Natrona County was an accomplished fact. At 489 P.2d 1396, we said such district was the only school district in existence in the county; and even though it be de facto, it must continue to operate and control school affairs until it either becomes de jure or until a de jure district supersedes it.
Section 21.1-214, W.S.1957, 1971 Cum.Supp., provides the maximum rate of school district tax that may be levied for all school purposes, exclusive of bond interest and redemption, in any school year. As indicated in subdivision (d) of this section, the maximum in a 'unified school district' is two mills higher for combined elementary and high school purposes than it would be in a district that is not unified.
Trustees of the countywide district in Natrona County (the district we have called a de facto district) caused the additional two mills to be levied in 1972, and certain taxpayers in the county are challenging the legality of the 1972 additional two-mill assessment, which was allowable only to a 'unified school district.' The district court gave summary judgment to the defendants and plaintiffs have appealed.
The suit of plaintiffs started out as one for injunction. The prayer for injunction apparently became moot, however, and plaintiffs sought to make the suit one for recovering taxes which had been paid. Of course, if the assessment was proper and legal, it becomes immaterial whether plaintiffs' suit was for an injunction or to recover taxes paid. Plaintiffs fail in either case, if the assessment is upheld. And we think it must be upheld.
Appellants assert a 'unified school district' can only be one legally organized under the Wyoming School District Organization Law of 1969. Section 21.1-214 does not say so, however, and we fail to find anything in Chapter 14 (the School Finances Chapter) of The Wyoming Education Code of 1969 which so specifies.
Chapter 6 of the code is entitled School District Organization and § 21.1-105 () specifies that this chapter may be cited as Wyoming School District Organization Law of 1969. The definition of a 'unified school district' is set out in § 21.1-107 (a part of Chapter 6), but such definition applies only 'as used in this chapter.' In Chapter 3 of the code, which is entitled School Districts In General, every school district in the state offering an educational program in grades kindergarten or one through twelve is declared to be a 'unified school district.'
The legislature has not been too precise in its use of the term 'unified school district' and we do not intend to be either. We merely suggest appellants have not supported their contention that the legislature intended the additional two mills authorized in § 21.1-214(d) to be available only to a 'unified school district' which is legally and properly organized under Chapter 6 of the Wyoming Education Code of 1969.
Implicit in our original opinion for the case of Board of Trustees of School District No. 3 v. District Boundary Board, Wyo., 489 P.2d 413, is a recognition that the district boundary board of Natrona County had not legally consolidated all of the school districts in the county into a single countywide district. However, in our supplemental opinion, at 489 P.2d 1394, we specifically said the formation of a countywide unified school district in Natrona County was an accomplished fact and such district was a de facto school district. If we did not make it clear in our supplemental opinion, we do so now; our intention was to say the school district referred to at that time was a de facto 'unified school district.'
For appellants to argue the school district which caused the additional two mills to be levied in 1972 was not legally organized as a unified district under the 1969 school district organization law is a waste of time. That fact is recognized and admitted. The district nevertheless, as we have already held, was a de facto district-and it was indeed a de facto unified district.
We expressly held, in the supplemental opinion we have been referring to, at 489 P.2d 1396, that the state committee's approval of the district boundary board's plan at least afforded the necessary color of law to make the 'unified district' a de facto district and to make the trustees...
To continue reading
Request your trial