Case Title: Application of Campbell County

Citation: 

Docket Number: 86-80

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1987-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Application of Campbell County1987 WY 6731 P.2d 1174Case Number: 86-80Decided: 01/27/1987Supreme Court of Wyoming
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
APPLICATION OF CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING, TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY COLLEGE 
DISTRICT.

 
 

CAMPBELL 
COUNTY, WYOMING, 
PETITIONER,

 
 
v.

 
 

WYOMING COMMUNITY COLLEGE 
COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

 
 
Petition for review from 
the Community College Commission.

 
 
Thomas D. Roberts, 
Morgan, Brorby, Price & Roberts, Gillette, for petitioner.

 
 
A.G. McClintock, Atty. 
Gen., Peter J. Mulvaney, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary B. Guthrie, Sr. Asst. Atty. 
Gen., and Donna Rice McCrea, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

 
 
Before BROWN, C.J., THOMAS, CARDINE, and MACY, 
JJ., and HANSCUM, District Judge.

 
 
Hanscum, District 
Judge.

 
 

[¶1.]     Campbell County, Wyoming, 
applied to the Community College Commission of the State of Wyoming ("Commission") 
seeking to form a community college district.

 
 

[¶2.]     The Commission is 
entrusted by statute with the responsibility to approve or disapprove the 
formation of any new community college districts in the state. The Commission is 
charged with scrutinizing a variety of statutory criteria, including the 
financial and educational needs of the state as a whole. After hearings, the 
Commission issued "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order" 
disapproving the application for a community college district as filed by 
Campbell County, Wyoming. CampbellCounty filed a Petition for Review in the 
district court. This case was subsequently certified to this Court under an 
Order of Certification entered by the district judge.

 
 

[¶3.]     Acting in conformity 
with well-known standards of appellate review of administrative action, this 
Court concludes that the Commission's action resulting in the disapproval of 
CampbellCounty's application is 
supported by substantial evidence, is not arbitrary and is otherwise consistent 
with the statutory and procedural authority vested in the Commission for 
reviewing applications for community colleges. Accordingly, this Court affirms 
the Commission's action. To sum it up, it seems that unfortunate timing and 
attendant temporal and environmental circumstances created the legal rationale 
for the Commission justifiably to disapprove the formation of a community 
college at Gillette at this time.

 
 

[¶4.]     Initially, on 
certification to this Court from the district court, we must review the decision 
of the Commission under the appellate standards applicable to a reviewing court 
of the first instance. Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Public Service Commission, 
662 P.2d 878 (Wyo. 1983). Those standards are well-known1 and do not require detailed 
recital. Suffice it to say, this appeal involves both evidentiary sufficiency 
and legal compliance, requiring appellate review of the record at the 
administrative level and analysis of the pertinent statutory framework 
empowering the Commission to exercise its 
responsibilities.

 
 

[¶5.]     Considering an 
application for a community college district, the law requires the Commission to 
examine four criteria:

 
 
1. the need for a 
community college in the proposed district;

 
 
2. the need for the 
community college in the state;

 
 
3. the financial ability 
of the proposed district to support a college; and

 
 
4. the educational 
soundness of the proposed community college plan. (W.S. 21-18-312, 1977, as 
amended).

 
 

[¶6.]     While the law 
structuring and empowering the Commission changed at about the time CampbellCounty's application was under review, the 
criteria for examination did not change. Under the "new" law, the Commission was 
granted rule-making authority. The rules implemented and provided a procedural 
framework for the new law. CampbellCounty argues that the rules were 
retroactively applied to its application, which was filed prior to the effective 
date of the rules. This Court is unable to understand how CampbellCounty could be prejudiced by this alleged 
retroactive application of rules or law because we have reviewed both the old 
law and new law and find that the standards for approval under both laws are the 
same. CampbellCounty cannot complain that 
any prejudice could arise out of application of the same standards, whether 
under the old or new law or rules and regulations. We find no 
prejudice.

 
 

[¶7.]     CampbellCounty also complains of procedural 
defects in the hearing process, i.e. early adjournment of one of the two 
required hearings, the one in Rawlins which was the non-petitioning county site. 
Though there is no statutory requirement for a public hearing, the rules so 
prescribe, although no detailed guidelines are offered for the conduct of the 
hearings. Advertisement was accomplished and notice was given. The Commission 
appeared, convening the hearing at the appointed time. Two persons also appeared 
to give testimony. After completing the offered testimony, the Commission waited 
another one-half hour and adjourned after posting a notice on the meeting room 
door that written comments would still be accepted. To do otherwise would have 
been an exercise of futility and a waste of time. Finally, written comments were 
solicited and permitted post-hearing. CampbellCounty has not argued that any one 
appeared after adjournment to give oral testimony but declined to submit written 
comments. CampbellCounty's argument has no 
merit whatsoever.

 
 

[¶8.]     Turning to a detailed 
review of the record, the sufficiency of evidence premising the Commission's 
decision to disapprove the application is unquestionable. The Commission 
received information from three sources: information obtained by the 
"Commission" from state agencies; information submitted by CampbellCounty via a report and study entitled "CampbellCountyCommunity 
College: A Report to the Wyoming Community College 
Commission"; and, finally, from public input.

 
 

[¶9.]     Rather than address the 
alleged deficiencies at the administrative level in the sequence presented by 
the petitioners, we have arranged them according to the four categories of 
information the Commission must consider. While we do find sufficient evidence 
to support the Commissioner's decision, we do note that it is not a model of 
precision. Section 16-3-110, W.S. 1977, requires that: "Findings of fact if set 
forth in the statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit 
statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. . . ." This court has 
repeatedly emphasized that the basic findings of fact must be made on all 
material issues and ultimate facts. Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. 
Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, 446 P.2d 550 (Wyo. 1968); Powell 
v. Board of Trustees, 550 P.2d 1112 (Wyo. 1976); Larsen v. Oil and Gas 
Conservation Commission, 569 P.2d 87 (Wyo. 1977); Foremost Life Insurance 
Company v. Langdon, 633 P.2d 938 (Wyo. 1981); Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. 
Public Service Commission, 662 P.2d 878 (Wyo. 1983).

 
 

[¶10.]  In spite of these requirements, the 
burden of proving a lack of substantial evidence is on the party appealing the 
agency's determination. Western Radio, Inc. v. Two-Way Radio Services, Inc., 718 P.2d 15 (Wyo. 1986) Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. Public Service Commission, 
662 P.2d 878, 883 (Wyo. 1983). It is a burden which CampbellCounty has not carried. With these 
preliminaries resolved, we turn to an evaluation of the various criteria the 
commission actually considered.

 
 
THE NEED FOR THE COLLEGE 
IN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT

 
 

[¶11.]  The Commission found that the median age 
in CampbellCounty was 25, as opposed 
to 46 for the state, but refused to equate a young population "with the need for 
a new community college district." CampbellCounty argues on appeal only that "The 
arbitrary nature of such a decision is so obvious it does not need further 
comment. Quite obviously, the overall age of a community should be considered 
with regards [sic] to the need of a community college in a specific 
locale."

 
 

[¶12.]  The minutes of the Commission meeting on 
August 18, and 19, 1985, reflect a concern with more than age in considering 
need; for example, enrollment projections and alternative services were 
evaluated. The Commission did, however, go on to find that "CampbellCounty needs the services of a community 
college. The need for educational services may be greater than what is presently 
offered." The Commission further found "that a new community college will not 
meet the needs of many potential students who need graduate and upper division 
courses." The Commission found that needs which existed could be met by other 
programs.

 
 

[¶13.]  The Commission said need could be met by 
expanding the Sheridan College Gillette Campus program in academic transfer 
areas, and that strengthening the Sheridan College program would promote course 
continuity. CampbellCounty complains on appeal that the record is "totally 
devoid of any evidence whatsoever" of a guarantee that Sheridan College (Northern Wyoming Community College) would do so or that 
additional state funding would be provided. CampbellCounty argues that the Commission reached 
an ultimate fact without benefit of any basic facts to support 
it.

 
 

[¶14.]  While the record does not contain an 
expressed guarantee that SheridanCollege would provide services to 
Gillette at current levels in the future, the Commission staff rendered the 
following advice: "SheridanCollege has made every attempt, within 
their resources and capabilities, to provide the services necessary and we have 
no reason to believe that this would not continue." Presumably, acting on this 
advice and the evidence, the Commission so found.

 
 

[¶15.]  The Commission also found that the 
presence of a community college in Gillette would enhance cultural and artistic 
opportunities in the community but that such was not a prime consideration in 
the formation of a district. CampbellCounty contends on appeal that ". . . the 
Commission rather cavalierly dismisses any idea that enhancement of cultural and 
artistic opportunities are [sic] to be of a prime concern. . . ." The 
Commission's rules require the proposed district to submit an educational plan, 
which includes "community service programs." CampbellCounty made such a submission and the 
Commission agreed that a community college would enhance cultural and artistic 
opportunities, thereby presumably finding the existence of a "community service 
program." "Community service program" is not defined nor do the rules require it 
be a prime concern of the Commission - it is but one of a myriad of items the 
Commission is to receive. Though apparently satisfied that the "community 
service program" needs were satisfied by the cultural and artistic programs, the 
Commission is entitled to balance the prime concerns and this criteria with the 
other criteria to reach a conclusion. We cannot argue nor is it our role to 
second-guess the product derived from this balancing process. This Court cannot 
substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency. Wyoming State 
Department of Education v. Barber, 649 P.2d 681 (Wyo. 1982). We decline to do so 
here.

 
 
NEED FOR A COLLEGE IN THE 
STATE

 
 

[¶16.]  The Commission found that if 
CampbellCounty students enrolled in the new district, 
SheridanCollege might lose four hundred twenty-one to four 
hundred twenty-eight students, and that students from JohnsonCounty might also diminish. The Commission 
also found that CasperCollege expects a small decrease (thirty to 
thirty-five) in enrollment if a CampbellCountyCollege were established. As to WesternWyomingCollege, the Commission found they 
reported "no significant impact." Similarly, the Commission found little 
potential effect on enrollment at CentralWyomingCollege. The Commission also found the 
University could potentially lose 40% of freshmen from CampbellCounty. CampbellCounty argues on appeal that all of this 
could also happen with a continuation of the current situation, i.e. the 
Gillette Campus of Sheridan County. Such an argument goes to the weight, not the 
sufficiency of the evidence. Weight to be given the evidence is for the 
factfinder. Mountain Fuel Supply v. Public Service Commission, supra. CampbellCounty has not suggested these findings 
are unsupported by substantial evidence.

 
 

[¶17.]  The Commission's order "decides that 
seven colleges are sufficient at present to serve the educational needs of the 
state's propulation." The county complains this ignores the need in the proposed 
district and thus is improper. What the county ignores is the distinction that 
need in the district is different than need in the state. In this respect, the 
record supports the Commission's findings and conclusion that the state does not 
need another community college.

 
 
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF 
PROPOSED DISTRICT TO SUPPORTCOLLEGE

 
 

[¶18.]  CampbellCounty argues with the Commission's 
finding of fact that "The availability of the current facility is subject to 
question." The Commission also found that the property on which the proposed 
campus is to be situated "is available through a will bequest so long as it is 
used for medicine or health related purposes." The Commission responds that this 
finding is supported in the "public records of the Campbell County Clerk and the 
Campbell County Commissioners minutes on or about August 16, 1984." The 
Commission does not refer us to the location of the minutes in the record and we 
have been unable to locate them. The legal instrument in the record indicates no 
restrictions on the property.

 
 

[¶19.]  The written comments contain no reference 
to restrictions on the use of the current facility. Neither the CampbellCountyCommunity 
College: A Report to the Wyoming Community College 
Commission, nor the Campbell County Monitoring Program, 1984 Report, refer to 
the will. The Minutes of the Wyoming Community College Commission, August 19, 
1985, Exhibit A, reflect that Goulding suggested including a finding of fact 
concerning the availability of current facility being subject to some question 
and that subsequently was included. The minutes also 
recite:

 
 
"The Commission discussed 
the use of the remodeled hospital as an ongoing location for college activity, 
anticipating that the entire facility of memorial hospital will be available to 
the CampbellCountyCommunity College in the foreseeable 
future. Donna McCrea noted that the current activity in that facility is ongoing 
only with the stipulation that health related programming be offered within 
it."

 
 
We, therefore, agree that 
the record contains insufficient evidence to support the Commission's finding 
that the availability of the facility currently in use is questionable. It does 
not, however, follow that this case must therefore be remanded. Section 
21-18-220(d) and § 21-18-312(d) W.S. 1977, as amended, require the Commission to 
consider the need for a community college, the financial ability to support a 
college, the educational soundness of the plan and other matters of assistance 
to the Commission. All four criteria must be evaluated. The sufficiency of the 
evidence must be viewed on the basis of this evaluation as disclosed from the 
record in its entirety. Even if one of the criteria were not met, the remaining 
criteria, if supported by substantial evidence, could sustain the decision. 
Furthermore, notwithstanding the unsupported finding within the financial 
ability criterion, the criterion of financial inability is otherwise supported 
by the evidence.

 
 

[¶20.]  The Commission found that the revenue 
sharing funds, previously utilized for capital improvements in the present 
college facility, were no longer available. CampbellCounty claims that not only does the 
record lack a factual basis for this finding, but that it is wrong. Yet the 
Commission took official notice of the fact that revenue sharing funds will be 
diminished if not cut entirely. The propriety of officially noticing this fact 
will be discussed later, but such was done.

 
 

[¶21.]  Campbell 
County attacks as "totally without factual basis" paragraph 15(a)(1) of the 
Commission's findings which states: "The Commission finds that CampbellCounty has periods of economic growth and 
economic decline." Apparently CampbellCounty neglected to read paragraph 
15(a) which shows that per capita income in CampbellCounty declined in 1982 and 1983 from the 
1981 figures. These figures are amply supported by the record. (See Exhibit S-7, 
Wyoming Housing Monitoring System, attachment to cover 
letter.)

 
 

[¶22.]  The Commission also found that coal 
production in CampbellCounty might be affected by changes in 
demand or government policy. CampbellCounty challenges the evidence supporting 
this, but concedes this finding is irrelevant. Paragraph 15(b)(2) finds 
uncertainty in the future growth of the coal industry because coal companies are 
trying to cancel contracts in SheridanCounty. Whether supported by substantial 
evidence or not, this is as irrelevant as the finding 
above.

 
 

[¶23.]  Again, this Court is unwilling to 
second-guess the Commission's "bottom line" conclusion that the state and 
district cannot afford another community college at this time. This result holds 
despite the unsupported "sub-findings" contained within the evaluation of the 
particular criteria.

 
 
SOUNDNESS OF THE PROPOSED 
EDUCATION PROGRAM

 
 

[¶24.]  CampbellCounty argues that sufficient evidence was 
presented to establish the soundness of the education program offered by the 
proposal. Yet the minutes of the Commission's meeting graphically detail the 
deficiencies in the survey responses filed by CampbellCounty relating to this criteria. The 
minutes reveal:

 
 
"Following a reading of 
the survey the Commission returned to specific areas of concern. . . 
.

 
 
The CampbellCounty response did not answer this 
question [critique of current programs] to the satisfaction of the staff nor did 
the staff find evidence that the existing advisory committee for the Gillette 
Campus of Sheridan College provided input into this response. . . 
.

 
 
"Mr. Sundby pointed out 
that on of the CampbellCounty response, the question was asked of 
the petitioning district to outline program demands and projections. The 
response had essentially been taken out of the WYOMINGCOMMUNITY COLLEGE Brochure, listing each 
program currently available at every community college in the 
state."

 
 

[¶25.]  CampbellCounty also complains there is no underlying basic 
evidence of record to support the Commission's finding that proposed transfer 
programs duplicate services of existing colleges and are not responsive to the 
specific needs of CampbellCounty. Again, we disagree. The report to 
the Commission itself illustrates the deficiencies in curriculum 
development:

 
 
"Initially, the 
anticipated transfer curriculum will be similar to that offered by other 
community colleges around the state. In view of the young population and 
industrial base, we anticipate a long-term demand for business and general 
industrial sciences.

 
 
"Transfer programs are 
courses which can be transferred and applied toward degree programs in other 
colleges and universities. Actual curriculum will be determined by the trustees 
upon formation of the district. In order to forecast curriculum for the 
specified twenty-year period, a major study would be required. At this time the 
curriculum listed will be assumed to be constant. It is understood that 
adjustments will be made as the actual observed demand dictates." CampbellCountyCommunity 
College: A Report to the WyomingCommunity 
College Commission.

 
 

[¶26.]  The Commission found the 
vocational-technical plan unclear not only in method of delivery (college or 
district) but also in "specific demand related analysis." CampbellCounty argues only that this is not 
substantiated by citation to specific deficiencies, not that it is not true. 
Again we disagree. We find that CampbellCounty's report is indeed non-specific. It 
recites:

 
 
"As in the case of 
transfer programs, vocational-technical programs are anticipated to follow 
current demand, as identified by NorthernWyomingCommunity 
College. Some courses are expected to be presented 
in cooperation with the CampbellCountySchool 
District's vocational-technical 
department."

 
 
The vagaries of this 
proposal justifiably led the Commission to question the soundness and viability 
of the proposal. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient within this criteria. 

 
 
JUDICIAL 
NOTICE

 
 

[¶27.]  An incidental issue before this court is 
the propriety of the Commission officially noticing facts not in record. Though 
the parties have not cited the pertinent statutes and rules in attacking and 
supporting these actions, we set them out below.

 
 
Section 16-3-107(r), W.S. 
1977, as amended, provides:

 
 
"Findings of fact shall 
be based exclusively on the evidence and matters officially 
noticed."

 
 
Section 16-3-108(d), W.S. 
1977, as amended, states:

 
 
"Notice may be taken of 
judicially cognizable facts. In addition notice may be taken of technical or 
scientific facts within the agency's specialized knowledge or information, data 
and material included within the agency's files. The parties shall be notified 
either before or during the hearing or after the hearing but before the agency 
decision of material facts noticed, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to 
contest the facts noticed."

 
 
Furthermore, Rule 201, 
W.R.E. provides:

 
 
"(a) Scope of rule. - 
This rule governs only notice of adjudicative facts.

 
 
(b) Kinds of facts. - A 
judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it 
is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial 
court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources 
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

 
 
(c) When discretionary. - 
A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not. * * 
*

 
 
(e) Opportunity to be heard. - A party is entitled upon timely 
request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial 
notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior 
notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been 
taken.

 
 
(f) Time of taking 
notice. - Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. * * 
*"

 
 

[¶28.]  Thus, the rules allow an administrative 
agency to take notice of:

 
 
1. adjudicative facts 
generally known in the agency's territory;

 
 
2. adjudicative facts 
capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy 
cannot reasonably be questioned;

 
 
3. technical or 
scientific facts within the agency's specialized knowledge; 
and

 
 
4. information, data and 
material in the agency's files.

 
 

[¶29.]  As an initial proposition, an 
administrative agency possesses the same ability to take judicial notice of 
adjudicative facts as a Court. Phelps Dodge Corporation v. Ford, 68 Ariz. 190, 203 P.2d 633 
(1949). Specifically, the rules, statutes, and case law permit agencies to take 
official notice of their administrative files. 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, 
Section 385.

 
 

[¶30.]  CampbellCounty identifies three items which are 
asserted to have been improperly noticed by the Commission: That the 
availability of the present facility is questionable, that revenue sharing funds 
will be diminished, and the contents of the minutes of the Campbell County 
Commissioners' meeting held on or about August 16, 1984. The Commissioners' 
files contained this information. Though the minutes of the Commissioners' 
meeting do not appear in the record on appeal, the Commission and CampbellCounty refer to these minutes during the 
course of the administrative process. Accordingly, since the minutes were 
contained within the agencies' files, it is not improper for the commission to 
notice them. Moreover, CampbellCounty was aware of the importance of the 
minutes, as reflected by the dialogue in the administrative process. 
Accordingly, CampbellCounty had the opportunity to discuss and 
contest the facts and was afforded an opportunity to be heard. We see no 
improper use of administrative notice in the proceedings.

 
 

[¶31.]  In view of the foregoing, this court 
concludes that the Commission's findings and conclusions, though inarticulately 
expressed, do have a basis in the record. This court concludes that there is 
substantial evidence to support the findings, conclusion and order, and that the 
decision was not characterized by abuse of discretion nor was it arbitrary or 
capricious. Though the expression of findings is deficient in some areas, and 
the financial soundness criteria is partially unsupported, the record in its 
entirety sufficiently demonstrates a balance of the criteria resultant in the 
disapproval of the college in Gillette.

 
 

[¶32.]  It is ordered that the Commission's 
action is affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1 Monahan v. Board of 
Trustees, 486 P.2d 235, 237 (Wyo. 1971); Employment Security Commission of 
Wyoming v. Young, 713 P.2d 198 (Wyo. 1986); Sage Club, Inc. v. Employment 
Security Commission, 601 P.2d 1306, 1310 (Wyo. 1979); Mountain Fuel Supply v. 
Wyoming Public Service Commission, 662 P.2d 878, 882 (Wyo. 1983); Board of 
Trustees of School District No. 4, Big Horn County v. Colwell, 611 P.2d 427, 428 
(Wyo. 1980); Employment Security Commission v. Laramie Cabs, Inc., 700 P.2d 399, 
404 (Wyo. 1985); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Wyo. Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 693 P.2d 227, 239 (Wyo. 1985); Board of Trustees, Laramie County School District No. 
1 v. Spiegel, 549 P.2d 1161, 1178 (Wyo. 1976); Mountain Fuel Supply v. Public 
Service Commission, 662 P.2d 878, 883 (Wyo. 1983).