Smith v. CANTON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 41-1, 20573.

• Decision Date: 18 August 1999
• Docket Number: No. 20573.,20573.
• Citation: 1999 SD 111,599 N.W.2d 637
• Parties: Brian SMITH, Amy Smith, James W. Frankman, Debra Deknikker, Kevin J. Meuret, Bethany Meuret, and Twin Creek Development, LLC, Appellees, v. CANTON SCHOOL DISTRICT # 41-1, Appellant.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

599 N.W.2d 637

1999 SD 111

Brian SMITH, Amy Smith, James W. Frankman, Debra Deknikker, Kevin J. Meuret, Bethany Meuret, and Twin Creek Development, LLC, Appellees, v. CANTON SCHOOL DISTRICT # 41-1, Appellant.

No. 20573.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued February 24, 1999.

Reassigned June 21, 1999.

Decided August 18, 1999.

Rehearing Denied September 23, 1999.

A.J. Swanson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for appellees.

Larry A. Nelson and J. Montgomery Harris of Frieberg, Rudolph & Nelson, Canton, South Dakota, for appellant.

SABERS, Justice (on reassignment)

[¶ 1.] Brian and Amy Smith, James Frankman, Debra DeKnikker, Kevin and Bethany Meuret, and Twin Creek Development, LLC (collectively, Petitioners) appealed the denial of their petition for a minor boundary change by the Canton School Board (Board) to the circuit court. The circuit court reversed the Board's decision. Canton School District appeals. We affirm the circuit court.

FACTS

[¶ 2.] Twin Creek Development (Twin Creek) comprises approximately 72 acres of land platted into 33 lots in section 21, Springdale Township, Lincoln County, South Dakota. The entire development is part of an approximately 200-acre pocket of land assigned to the Canton School District. The development, as geographically situated, is an "island," completely surrounded by the Harrisburg School District (see attached map). Twin Creek lies five miles north, northeast of Harrisburg and thirteen miles north, northwest of Canton and seven or eight miles south, southeast of Sioux Falls. Until 1997, Twin Creek was unoccupied land.

[¶ 3.] In 1997, the Petitioner families moved from Sioux Falls into newly constructed homes in Twin Creek. Included in these families are seven children, five of whom are school age and who have attended Harrisburg schools under a tuition waiver program since their move. This program allows the children to attend Harrisburg schools without Canton School District's having to pay tuition on their behalf.

[¶ 4.] Sioux Falls, the largest city in South Dakota, is the economic center of this area of the state. The families continue to drive the seven or eight miles to Sioux Falls for shopping, medical services, and to attend religious and social activities. Some petitioners are employed in Sioux Falls, however two of the petitioners work in the Harrisburg area. All of the petitioners' children's school activities are in Harrisburg. Petitioners pay their property taxes and obtain vehicle licenses in Canton, the county seat of Lincoln County.

[¶ 5.] On August 28, 1997, Petitioners petitioned the Canton and Harrisburg school districts for a minor boundary change pursuant to SDCL 13-6-85.¹ The petition was signed by 100% of the voters residing in Twin Creek. The property comprises .0035% of the assessed value of the Canton School District and its boundaries are coterminous with the Harrisburg School District.

[¶ 6.] Harrisburg School District approved the petition on September 27, 1997. On October 23, 1997, following a hearing held ten days earlier, the Canton School Board denied the petition. Petitioners appealed the Board's decision to the circuit court which reversed, determining that the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. Canton School District appeals.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[¶ 7.] This Court does not determine the propriety of the Canton School Board's decision. Strain v. Rapid City Sch. Bd., 447 N.W.2d 332, 338 (S.D.1989). Our scope of review is limited to determining the legality of the Board's decision. Colman-Egan Sch. Dist. No. 50-5 v. Jones, 520 N.W.2d 890, 892 (S.D.1994) (citing Moran v. Rapid City Area Sch. Dist., 281 N.W.2d 595 (S.D.1979)). We are not bound by a presumption that the circuit court decided correctly. Strain, 447 N.W.2d at 338.

[¶ 8.] The circuit court reviewed the Canton School Board's decision for a determination "whether the board possessed the administrative power to make the decision [it did] and whether the board acted unreasonably or arbitrarily, or whether the board manifestly abused its discretion." Colman-Egan, 520 N.W.2d at 892. The Board's administrative power is not at issue in this case. The only issue on review is whether the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. This is a threshold issue that must be examined before determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Board's decision. Id.

[¶ 9.] School boards enjoy broad discretion in decisionmaking and need only make sure their decisions are not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Kellogg v. Hoven Sch. Dist. No. 53-2, 479 N.W.2d 147, 149 (S.D.1991). A decision is arbitrary and capricious when it is "not governed by any fixed rules or standard." Black's Law Dictionary 104 (6th ed. 1990).² The "fixed rules or standard," previously set forth by this Court, to which the Canton School Board's decision must adhere to avoid a finding of arbitrariness on review includes the following:

1. Whether the petitioners are more closely aligned to the economic, social and religious life of the community into which they are being transferred.

2. Whether there is bus service to the residence.

3. Whether the district line which places their property in the current district was drawn in an arbitrary fashion.

4. Whether petitioner's child has special needs best met in the District petitioners are attempting to join.

5. Whether the petitioners live closer to the school district they are joining as opposed to the district they are leaving.

Oelrichs School Dist. v. Sides, 1997 SD 55, ¶ 11, 562 N.W.2d 907, 911; Colman-Egan, 520 N.W.2d at 892; Oldham-Ramona Sch. Dist. v. Ust, 502 N.W.2d 574, 581 (S.D. 1993). A review of the record indicates these factors were rewritten or ignored by the Canton School Board when it denied the petitioners' request in this case.³ We examine the factors individually and with regard to the errors made by the Board in its decisionmaking process.

[¶ 10.] 1. Whether the petitioners are more closely aligned to the economic, social and religious life of the community into which they are being transferred.

[¶ 11.] This factor asks for a comparison between the district in which petitioners currently live and the one in which they seek transfer by the minor boundary change. The Board rewrote and therefore misapplied this factor when it refused to perform this comparison and instead declared the petitioners' alignment with Sioux Falls. The answer, when this question is properly applied to the facts, is that the petitioners are more closely aligned with Harrisburg than with Canton.

[¶ 12.] Petitioners have no alignment with Canton except as the county seat when they pay property taxes and obtain license plates. By contrast, two of the petitioners work at Frankman Motors, located in the Harrisburg School District, and their families receive the economic benefit thereof. Their children attend school in the Harrisburg schools and their related school activities are in Harrisburg. Petitioners live closer to Harrisburg than to Canton. A telephone call to the children's school is a local call from petitioners' residences, in contrast to the long-distance charges to Canton. District's claim that the only alignment petitioners have with Harrisburg is a telephone number is clearly repudiated by the facts on record.

[¶ 13.] Although many of the petitioners work, worship, and socialize in nearby Sioux Falls, the Board's comparison of Sioux Falls and Canton is not proper under this factor. The Board arbitrarily introduced a third community (Sioux Falls) into the query. Geographically, Harrisburg is situated between Canton and Sioux Falls. The Board had to reach further north of and beyond Harrisburg and hence, further afield of its own district to find support for its denial of petitioners' request for a minor boundary change. This is farcical. When properly considered, the facts support alignment with Harrisburg, not Canton.

[¶ 14.] 2. Whether there is bus service to the residence.

[¶ 15.] There is presently bus service from Canton Schools to the petitioners' residences. Also at present, under a tuition waiver program, Harrisburg school district is providing free bus service to the residences. According to Harrisburg school superintendent, this program provides a "stop-gap" between former school law and the new open enrollment law, which became effective July 1, 1998. SDCL 13-28-38 (repealed by SL 1999, ch. 86, § 1); 13-28-40. Under Harrisburg school district's written open enrollment policy, however, no bus service would be provided to out-of-district children. Therefore, this factor favors the change to Harrisburg.

[¶ 16.] 3. Whether the district line which places their property in the current district was drawn in an arbitrary fashion.

[¶ 17.] The Board ignored this question completely. On appeal, the Canton School District urges the Board's failure to consider this factor was due to a lack of evidence shown by petitioners rather than for any substantive reason. However, the attached district map of Lincoln County was an exhibit at the hearing on this petition. It provides sufficient evidence on its face to answer this question in the affirmative.

[¶ 18.] The map shows that petitioners' residences stand on a separate "island" of the Canton School District, cut apart from the whole of the district's boundaries. As such, they are surrounded by the Harrisburg School District yet would remain adrift from that district based, in part, on the Board's ignoring this factor in its decisionmaking. This factor supports granting the petition.

[¶ 19.] 4. Whether petitioner's child has special needs best met in the District petitioners are attempting to join.

[¶ 20.] There are no issues involving children with special needs in this case.

[¶ 21.] 5. Whether the petitioners live closer to the school district they are joining as opposed to the district they are leaving.

[¶ 22.] Again, the answer...