Opinion ID: 1396313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sweetwater Problem

Text: The trial judge, as we understand his decision, has made it quite clear he considers there is no solution to the Bairoil problem if the Bairoil district has to be consolidated into a unified district which is an efficient administrative unit, and if the consolidation is confined to the boundaries of Sweetwater County. As previously stated, the judge suggested a satisfactory solution would possibly be for the Bairoil district to become a part of the Rawlins (Carbon County) district. He also held the Sweetwater county committee was completely arbitrary for not considering this possibility. Counsel for the county committee of Sweetwater County argues that county committees of two counties could, up to December 1, 1971, mutually agree on the crossing of county lines in the forming of a unified district. [3] He claims, however, the state committee, after December 1, 1971, has no authority or power to effect a unification where county lines are crossed. Such power is claimed on behalf of the state committee under § 21.1-113, W.S. 1957, 1971 Cum.Supp. It is true § 21.1-113 does provide, if an approved plan has not been filed for any territory in any county or counties, by December 1, 1971, the state committee is authorized to reorganize such territory into a unified school district. As far as we know, however, the only controversial territory involved in the unapproved plan, as far as this case is concerned, is the territory which the Sweetwater County committee intended to become unified District No. 1, all of which is in Sweetwater County. We assume the adjacent territory in Carbon County was a part of a unified district as of December 1, 1971. Moreover, the 12-mill school levy mandated by Art. 15, § 17, of the constitution must be disbursed among the school districts within the county. This levy produces considerable revenue from Bairoil. It would be difficult to keep it all within Sweetwater County, if Bairoil was consolidated with a Carbon County district. Or, if it was kept in Sweetwater County, Rawlins' reason for wanting to be consolidated with Bairoil would be largely gone. Be that as it may, the district court ordered the state committee to reject the plan of organization devised by the county committee of Sweetwater County. We are informed the court's order has been carried out, and apparently the districts of Sweetwater County are now as they were immediately prior to the time when the state committee approved the county committee's plan for unification. We are going to retain jurisdiction of this case until the legislature has met and thereafter adjourned in 1973. Until adjournment of the legislature in 1973, or until further order of this court, we direct that all districts in Sweetwater County shall operate and remain as they were immediately before the state committee approved the county committee's plan for unification. If the legislature undertakes to equalize ad valorem taxes for school purposes on a statewide basis, and we expect it to do so, we suggest it give consideration to clarifying § 21.1-113 in light of what we have said about the section. We think of two possible solutions. First, unification can be restricted within the respective counties, with provisions for payment of tuition or costs when it is more convenient for children to attend school in another county. Second, there can be no objection to the organization of a unified school district involving territory in two or more counties, providing proper arrangements are made for prorating the 12-mill county levy prescribed by the constitution, in keeping with the provisions of Art. 15, § 17. Such prorating will be facilitated if and when legislation is adopted which will equalize ad valorem taxes for schools on a statewide basis.