Laramie Citizens for Good Government v. City of Laramie
| Decision Date | 22 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 5271,5271 |
| Citation | 617 P.2d 474 |
| Parties | "LARAMIE CITIZENS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT", a nonprofit Wyoming Corporation, Appellant (Plaintiff), Members of the Board of Directors, namely, the Honorable Roy Marion, Francina Wymore, Don Everett, Cynthia Chavez Kelly, Zadabeth Marion, Lloyd Dixon, Iris Brunett, Evelyn Overman, Thomas Murphy, individually, (Plaintiffs), v. CITY OF LARAMIE, Albany County, Wyoming; and its City Council, the Honorable Germaine St. John, Mayor, Randy L. Burnett, Charles E. Goudey, Cal Kenneth Hull, Michael S. Kanaly, Donald R. Lamb, W. Hugh McGinley, Larry M. Mickelson, and Max Valdez, in their official capacities as the duly elected members of the Laramie City Council, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
E. George Rudolph, Laramie, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of appellant's position.
Michael W. McCall of Borthwick & McCall, Cheyenne, filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Wyoming Ass'n of Municipalities in support of appellees' position.
Michael M. Hoch, Laramie, signed the briefs and appeared in oral argument on behalf of appellant.
Thomas S. Smith, Laramie, signed the brief and appeared in oral argument on behalf of appellees.
Before RAPER, C. J., and McCLINTOCK, THOMAS, ROSE and ROONEY, JJ.
This action was instituted by appellant and eight residents of the City of Laramie for a declaratory judgment, and injunction and similar relief designed to prevent appellee-municipal corporation 1 from implementing and continuing a procedure whereby receipts from an increase in water user rates would be used to finance a "lease" of a ranch now owned by Monolith Portland Cement Company (hereinafter referred to The purpose of the proposed lease 2 is to obtain a source of water to meet anticipated future needs of appellee's municipal water system. The lessor is a nonprofit corporation organized under the general corporation laws of the state. It holds an option from the ranch owner to purchase the ranch, and it intends to finance such purchase by issuing its corporate bonds redeemable by means of income derived from the rental payments to be received from appellee. Appellee counterclaimed for damages resulting from the delay in issuance of such bonds caused by this litigation.
as ranch) with its appurtenant water rights. The appellant also alleged the rate increase to be discriminatory.
The parties stipulated to most of the pertinent facts, and pertinent documentary exhibits were placed in evidence. The trial court made some additional findings of fact after a trial to it, and it entered judgment against appellant and the other plaintiffs on their complaint. It also entered judgment against appellee on its counterclaim after finding that the claim for damages therein was based on that which would be incurred by the lessor and not by appellee.
Appellant appeals from the judgment as it pertains to its complaint. Although we approve the objective of appellee in acquiring a source of additional water for its future needs, the procedure here attempted for doing so is not pursuant to law. Therefore, we reverse the holding of the trial court in this respect. We do not reverse that holding insofar as it applies to the nondiscriminatory aspect of the increase in the water user rates, but the receipts therefrom must be expended in accordance with a lawful procedure.
Historically, appellee has maintained and operated a municipal water supply and distribution system. The current supply and system is projected to be sufficient to meet the demand therefor until 1985. The ranch is in the immediate vicinity of the City of Laramie. It comprises 11,326 acres and has a 20.1 c. f. s. first priority Laramie River water right. Additionally, it has considerable potential for development of well water from the ranch lands. The 20.1 c. f. s. water right is appurtenant to approximately 1,502 acres of the ranch land. The 20.1 c. f. s. water right is estimated to be sufficient to supply appellee's water supply needs for 20 to 40 years. However, there is no assurance as to what portion of the water right can be transferred from agricultural to municipal use.
In November 1978, the appraised value of the 20.1 c. f. s. water right was $1 million and appellee offered to purchase it for $800,000. The offer was refused. Appellee believes that it cannot condemn the entire water right because it does not have an immediate need for the entire right. The fair market value of the entire ranch is $21/2 million.
The following procedure was inaugurated: A nonprofit corporation (herein referred to as "lessor") was created, with the name "The City of Laramie Facilities and Improvement Authority," with the stated purpose to "promote, assist and extend financial support to effect the desired and necessary facilities and improvements throughout the City of Laramie, Wyoming, and owned or to be owned by the City * * *," and with the provision that nine of the eleven members of the board of directors be the mayor and eight members of the council of the city. Lessor obtained an option from the owner to purchaser the ranch for $2,545,024.54 plus $682.19 for each day between September 4, 1979 and the date the transaction is closed after the option is exercised. Lessor proposes to issue its corporate bonds in the amount of $31/2 million to finance the purchase price, the bond issuance costs and some well development. The bonds will mature over a period of 15 years. Principal and interest cost will approximate $6 million. A security interest in the ranch will exist in favor of the bondholders until bond redemption. Lessor would lease the ranch to appellee for 15
years. At the end of the 15-year period, the title would be transferred to appellee. Appellee intended to sell or lease some of the excess ranch acreage. On June 19, 1979, appellee passed Enrolled Ordinance No. 586, which increased the water usage rate to an amount estimate to be sufficient to provide funds for the rental payments, i. e., $465,000.00 a year. The increase would effect typical water user costs as follows:
Per Cent
Meter Size Water Used Present Cost Proposed Cost Increase
---------- ---------- ------------ -------------- --------
3/4" 10,000 9.17 19.36 111
3/4" 30,000 15.37 28.96 88
3/4" 90,000 33.97 57.76 70
1" 30,000 20.37 39.96 96
1" 90,000 38.97 68.76 76
1" 150,000 57.57 97.56 69
1-1/2" 90,000 49.97 95.76 92
1-1/2" 150,000 68.57 124.56 82
1-1/2" 250,000 99.57 172.56 73
2" 150,000 82.57 157.56 91
2" 250,000 113.57 205.56 81
2" 350,000 144.57 253.56 75
4" 250,000 193.57 387.09 100
4" 350,000 224.57 437.56 95
4" 500,000 271.69 509.56 88
6" 350,000 340.57 707.56 108
6" 500,000 387.07 779.56 101
6" 750,000 464.57 899.56 94
6" 1,000,000 542.07 1,019.56 88
6" 3,000,000 1,162.07 1,979.56 70
6" 5,000,000 1,782.07 2,939.56 65
Approximately 3,000 signatures of Laramie residents were gathered in approximately four days requesting appellee to rescind Ordinance No. 586 and the entire acquisition plan.
MOTION TO DISMISS
Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal for the reasons: (1) that appellant had no interest in the subject matter and was not an aggrieved party with a legally recognized interest in the subject matter injuriously affected by the judgment; and (2) that appellant had not submitted a portion of the record on appeal. Subsequently, appellant did submit the portion of the record, the omission of which was one of the grounds for the motion. The motion was denied subject to renewal at the time of oral argument. The motion was renewed at oral argument insofar as it pertained to appellant's standing to appeal.
The first of the facts stipulated to by the parties and incorporated by the trial court into the Findings of Fact is:
There is nothing in the record to controvert the agreed upon finding that appellant "has the capacity to proceed herein." The record does not reflect whether or not appellant is a user of appellee's water supply. It reflects " * * * (I)n the usual case the question of whether the action is prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest is affirmative matter to be sustained by a party claiming to the contrary. * * *" Wyoming Wool Marketing Association v. Urruty, Wyo., 394 P.2d 905, 908 (1964).
that the other plaintiffs were members of appellant. It reflects nothing else in this respect.
Beyond that, appellant's interest in asserting a constitutional claim in this matter has an identity or "nexus" with that of its members. Although such is not a "legal" interest, it is sufficient to qualify appellant as a real party in interest. National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama, ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958); Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton School District No. 32, 8th Cir. 1966, 365 F.2d 770....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura
...and abundance of the supply will be well in advance of actual needs of the community) Laramie Citizens for Good Government v. City of Laramie (Wyo.1980) 617 P.2d 474, 484 (rates should take into account the cost of construction and operation, necessary expansion, reserve for depreciation an......
-
Coulter v. City of Rawlins
...rules of law are for the most part inapplicable. We are of the opinion that our decision in "Laramie Citizens for Good Government" v. City of Laramie, Wyo., 617 P.2d 474 (1980), requires us to decide this secondary issue in favor of In the last above-cited opinion we noted that, although th......
-
Platt v. Town of Torrey
...discriminatory and unreasonable." Inland Real Estate, 99 Ill.Dec. at 910, 496 N.E.2d at 1002; see also Laramie Citizens for Good Gov't v. City of Laramie, 617 P.2d 474, 484 (Wyo.1980) ("The burden of proof is on the party contesting the reasonableness and nondiscriminatory nature of the cha......
-
Baessler v. Freier
...laws. Green River v. Debernardi Constr. Co., 816 P.2d 1287, 1290–91 (Wyo.1991); see also Laramie Citizens for Good Government v. City of Laramie, 617 P.2d 474, 482–83 (Wyo.1980).4 “[T]he decision to impose liability, and under what circumstances, upon the suppliers of alcohol for the torts ......