State ex rel. Reorganized School Dist. R-9 of Grundy County v. Windes

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: State ex rel. Reorganized School Dist. R-9 of Grundy County v. Windes, 513 S.W.2d 385 (Mo. 1974)
• Decision Date: 09 September 1974
• Docket Number: No. 58233,R--6,No. 1,R--9,58233,1
• Parties: STATE of Missouri ex rel. REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICTOF GRUNDY COUNTY, Missouri, Appellant, v. Ted WINDES et al., Respondents, Reorganized School Districtof Grundy County, Missouri, Intervenor

Page 385

513 S.W.2d 385

STATE of Missouri ex rel. REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT R--9 OF GRUNDY COUNTY, Missouri, Appellant, v. Ted WINDES et al., Respondents Reorganized School District R--6 of Grundy County, Missouri Intervenor.

No. 58233.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Sept. 9, 1974.

Pickett, Andereck, Hauck & Sharp, by Marvin L. Sharp, Trenton, for appellant.

Sapp, Woods, Dannov & Orr, by Carl F. Sapp, Columbia, for respondent-intervenor.

HIGGINS, Commissioner.

Appeal by relator, Reorganized School District R--9 of Grundy County, Missouri, from order and judgment sustaining motion for judgment for intervenor, Reorganized School District R--6 of Grundy County, Missouri, quashing writ of certiorari issued upon petition of relator and affirming award of respondent Board of Arbitration, asserting presence of questions involving construction of the Constitutions of the United States and of this state.

On November 3, 1970, the City of Trenton, Missouri, by an election, extended its city limits to include part of Reorganized School District R--6 of Grundy County, Mossouri. Section 162.421, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., provides that such extension 'shall automatically extend the boundaries' of the school district of that city, Reorganized School District R--9 of Grundy County, Missouri, to include the annexed area. Section 162.031 provides:

'Whenever * * * any part of any school district is annexed to any other district * * *, the board of the school district from which land has been taken and the school board of the district to which land has been annexed, * * * shall make a just and proper adjustment and apportionment of all school property, real and personal, including moneys and a like apportionment of indebtedness, if any, to and among the school districts. * * * In making the adjustment and apportionment * * *, the assessed value of land acquired by or taken from the districts, as compared with the assessed value of the other land in the districts, as well as the value of the school grounds, together with the buildings thereon, and the furniture and equipment therein, and any other school property in the districts, shall be taken into consideration in determining the amount, if any, that shall be paid by one district to another, or in apportioning the indebtedness, if any, that shall be assumed and paid by any of the districts.'

The school boards of the R--9 and R--6 Districts were unable to agree upon the adjustment and apportionment of property and indebtedness as provided in Section 162.031. Section 162.041 provides that when such disagreement occurs, 'the board of either district may appeal to the state board of education, which shall appoint three persons as a board of arbitration to make an adjustment and apportionment of property and indebtedness in accordance with section 162.031. The board of arbitration shall proceed in the manner provided by section 162.691 but it may hold hearings after giving the affected districts reasonable notice thereof before making its award. * * * Any sum awarded by * * * a board of arbitration to any school district shall be a legal and valid claim in its favor and against the school district charged therewith. The amount of debt, if any, apportioned to any school district shall be a legal and valid claim against the school district charged therewith. * * * * the claim or indebtedness charged against any school district may be collected in the same manner as other claims against a school district.' Section 162.691, RSMo 1969 (repealed by Laws 1973, p. ---, H.B. No. 158, § 1, effective July 1, 1974), provided, at the time of this controversy, that boards of arbitration in disagreements as to formation of a new district or boundary change 'shall call a meeting of the board in some convenient place within ten days after the board is selected. * * * The decision * * * shall be rendered not more than thirty days after the matter is referred to the board. * * * The chairman of the board of arbitration shall within five days thereafter transmit the decision to the clerks of the various districts involved * * *.'

Upon the failure to agree of the school boards of R--9 and R--6 Districts, the board of R--6 appealed to the state board of education for appointment of a board of arbitration to make the adjustment and apportionment of property; the state board appointed a board of arbitration consisting of Ted Windes, Lamar, Missouri, Marshall Pile, Albany, Missouri, and Ronald Schneider, Cosby, Missouri.

The board of arbitration, upon notice, conducted a hearing June 20, 1972, in Albany, Missouri. R--6 District was represented by counsel and its principal, and two members of its school board were also present; R--9 was represented by counsel, and its superintendent was also present.

Following the hearing, the board of arbitration made its award and transmitted it to both districts as follows:

'TO: Mr. Russell Joiner, President, Grundy County R--9 School District Mr. Larry Meservey, President, Grundy County R--6 School District

'FROM: Mr. Ted Windes, Chairman, Board of Arbitration

Mr. Marshall Pile, Board of Arbitration

Mr. Ronald Schneider, Board of Arbitration

'Exhibits one thru ten are a part of the records of these proceedings.

'The following judgements handed down by the Board of Arbitration are the results of a mature consideration of the evidence, suggestion, and the law. It is felt that a fair and just hearing, following due notice of the hearing, date and time, was given both parties involved. The said hearing took place on June 20, 1972 in Albany, Missouri in the assembly room of the Gentry County Bank. The hearing was opened at 9:30 a.m. and recessed at 11:45 a.m. Mr. Marshall Pile was appointed secretary for the hearing.

'The statement of the Board of Arbitration follows:

'Using section 162.031, part 2, of Missouri School Law, 1970 as our authority, $42,914.44 shall be awarded to the Grundy County R--6 district from the Grundy County R--9 to satisfy 26.1% of the bonded indebtedness of the R--6 district on November 3, 1970.

'In Exhibit 4, the Grundy County R--6 district stated a loss of income annually of local receipts of $37,764; state receipts of $55,966, county receipts of $9,107, free textbook fund receipts of $1,247; state assessed utilities receipts of $7,949 and federal receipts of $1,553 for a total annual loss of $114,543.

'Exhibit 4 also shows a reduction of operating cost of $53,793. It is the feeling of the Board of Arbitration that the loss of local receipts of $37,764 based on 26.1% of the tax evaluation should not have been included in the total overall annual loss of $114,513. That a true figure of $76,749 loss of income should have been presented, based on a 50% reduction in average daily attendance. Therefore, subtracting from the total loss, a net reduction of $53,793 in operating costs leaves.$22,956 loss to the Grundy County R--6 the first year after annexation. The Board of Arbitration awards.$22,956 for a loss of approximately 50% of the students in average daily attendance in the Grundy County R--6 district the first year. It is the feeling of the Board, that the Board of Arbitration was set up to resolve the problems of annexation between Grundy County R--9 and Grundy County R--6 as of November 3, 1970 and that these considerations were made due to the fact that the Grundy County R--9 district will have an increased income of approximately $55,000 per year from average daily attendance and taxes from the newly annexed territory. It is further felt that the Grundy County R--6 district will have a higher tax base per student and will continue to operate as a school system. The Board of Arbitration feels at the time of arbitration, a secondary value for the Grundy County R--6 building should not be taken into consideration.

'Total amount awarded to the Grundy County R--6 District to be $65,870.44.'

The referenced exhibits were all submitted by R--6 and may be described as follows:

Exhibit 1--Letter of February 8, 1972, from counsel and school board of R--6 to state department of education requesting appointment of board of arbitration.

Exhibit 2--Xerox copies of Sections 162.031 and 162.041, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.

Exhibit 3--Xerox copy of Section 162.691, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.

Exhibit 4--Board of Arbitration information sheet containing information submitted by Claude M. Eckert, principal, applicable to detached district R--6 due to the boundary change covering valuation of district prior to boundary change, loss of valuation and pupils, reduction in expenses and receipts, bus miles eliminated, rise in per pupil cost, fund balances, bonded indebtedness and payment schedule, and a 2 1/2 page position paper showing how R--6 felt the adjustment and apportionment should be made.

Exhibit 5--Guidelines (6) For Board of Arbitration.

Exhibit 6--Opinion No. 362, Attorney General of Missouri, covering effective dates involved in an annexation of school territory.

Exhibit 7--Letter of February 18, 1972, from Bunten's Insurance & Real Estate to R--6 containing opinion of maximum secondary value of R--6 property.

Exhibit 8--Letter of February 17, 1972, from a. R. Hammett, realtor, 'to whom it may concern,' containing similar opinion.

Exhibit 9--Letter of February 8, 1972, from the County Clerk of Grundy County to R--6, containing amount of decrease in valuation of R--6 as a result of the annexation.

Exhibit 10--Statement of cost of educating students in annexed ares.

On July 19, 1972, R--9 filed its petition for writ of certiorari naming the board of arbitration as respondents. On September 22, 1972, pursuant to its motion, R--6 was joined as an intervenor. The writ was ordered issued...