Opinion ID: 2524503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Inadequacies

Text: [ถ 130] The legislature has financed two independent studies since 1995 that identified capital construction needs. Following Campbell 's order that constitutionally adequate funding be provided to remedy these needs, the legislature should have understood that it was obligated to enact a resource allocation plan to rebuild Wyoming's schools over some reasonable period of time. It is insufficient to simply categorize and prioritize unmet needs by DOE regulations and then place the financial burden primarily on the school districts. The legislature is required to shoulder that burden and fund those needs with statewide revenues. [ถ 131] As the trial court found, the current grant and loan program does not address inadequate facilities nor does it ensure that even emergency or immediate needs funding will be provided at all or in a timely manner. In other words, the financing scheme has little relation to providing sufficient funds for what it actually costs to provide constitutionally adequate facilities. In fact, ง 21-15-107(c) requires the state superintendent to annually identify school districts which are inadequate and in immediate need. As Richard H. Miller testified, in order for a project to qualify for aid under ง 21-15-107(e), the facility must be both inadequate and in immediate need. This effectively excludes all buildings which are deemed inadequate but do not qualify as in immediate need from receiving state funds and, thus, fails to place the wealth of the state at stake to remedy admittedly inadequate facilities. [ถ 132] Pursuant to the DOE rules, a study by MGT scored all buildings in each school district based upon various categories of capital construction needs. Neither the challengers nor the state complains that either the complex methodology used to assess the facilities or the resulting assessment was flawed or inaccurate. The evidence was uncontroverted, and review of the assessment indicates it sufficiently identified those educational facilities which were deficient. [ถ 133] The DOE emergency rules in effect at the time of trial defined inadequate facilities in part as having a score of 69 or below (based upon a scale of 1-100) and immediate need facilities in part when scored poor or lower which is defined as 49 or below. To illustrate the existing deficiencies, a review of the scores for safety/building code systems compliance resulted in a score of a 46.26 out of 100. Furthermore, a review of scores for educational suitability [51] identified 40 school buildings that scored a 49 or below, requiring $18,736,693 to remedy the deficiencies. [52] In addition, 138 buildings were identified with a score of 69 or below, requiring $52,666,525 to remedy the deficiencies. The statewide average for technological readiness [53] was determined to be 31.65 out of 100 despite the statutory requirement that schools provide programs in applied technology and computer applications. Section 21-9-101(b). Uinta County School District No. 4 received a technological readiness score of a 2.4, and Park County School District No. 16 and Converse County School District No. 2 each received a score of 10. To remedy those facilities that are in immediate need in technological readiness would require $26,475,754, and $31,982,542 would be required to remedy all facilities which are deemed inadequate. A total of $84,649,067 is required to remedy the facilities which have been found by the state to be inadequate and in immediate need of repair in both categories of technological readiness and educational suitability. Additionally, the study identified $67,251,450 as necessary funding to assure each school district will meet the required square footage standards established by the DOE. [54] [ถ 134] We agree with the particular methodology used in the MGT study and conclude that legislative adherence to the standards established by the DOE rules, which rely on that methodology, is required to assure [s]afe and efficient physical facilities with which to carry on the process of education. Campbell, 907 P.2d at 1275. The following tables illustrate the statewide overview of the needed repairs and renovations by category: EXHIBIT 9 NEEDED REPAIRS BY SEVERITY OF BUILDING CONDITION STATEWIDE-ALL BUILDINGS Categories Subtotal Cumulative Total Replacement of Unsatisfactory Buildings (below 30) $ 4,190,457 $ 4,190,457 Buildings in Poor Condition (30-39) $ 6,115,318 $ 10,305,775 Buildings in Poor to Fair Condition (40-49) $ 41,646,164 $ 51,951,939 Buildings in Fair Condition (50-59) $ 84,259,994 $136,211,933 Buildings in Fair to Good Condition (60-69) $107,612,766 $243,824,699 Buildings in Good Condition (70 +) $121,055,140 $364,879,839 EXHIBIT 10 SUITABILITY COSTS BY CONDITION CATEGORY Categories Subtotal Cumulative Total Replacement of Unsatisfactory Buildings (below 30) $ 5,335,590 $ 5,335,590 Buildings in Poor Condition (30-39) $ 3,411,313 $ 8,746,903 Buildings in Poor to Fair Condition (40-49) $ 9,989,790 $18,736,693 Buildings in Fair Condition (50-59) $16,600,625 $35,337,318 Buildings in Fair to Good Condition (60-69) $17,329,208 $52,666,525 Buildings in Good Condition (70+) $46,080,850 $98,747,375 EXHIBIT 11 TECHNOLOGY COSTS BY TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY Categories Subtotal Cumulative Total Replacement of Unsatisfactory Buildings (below 30) $16,605,706 $16,605,706 Buildings in Poor Condition (30-39) $ 5,410,211 $22,105,918 Buildings in Poor to Fair Condition (40-49) $ 4,459,837 $26,475,754 Buildings in Fair Condition (50-59) $ 2,709,095 $29,184,849 Buildings in Fair to Good Condition (60-69) $ 2,797,693 $31,982,542 Buildings in Good Condition (70+) $ 2,251,010 $34,233,552 EXHIBIT 12 DISTRICTS AND GRADE GROUPINGS WHERE GROSS SQUARE FEET PER PUPIL IS BELOW STATE STANDARDS County/District Type Existing GSF Per Percent of Amt. Where Amt. Where GSF Standard Standard Below 75% Below 100% of Standard of Standard Albany 1 Middle 155,649 191,800 81% $ 2,711,325 Converse 1 Elementary 101,162 104,020 97% $ 214,350 Fremont 1 Middle 56,000 64,575 87% $ 643,125 Fremont 25 Elementary 121,802 163,940 74% $ 3,160,350 $ 3,160,350 Middle 86,104 128,975 67% $ 3,215,325 $ 3,215,325 High 194,102 214,620 90% $ 1,538,850 Goshen 1 Elementary 89,800 93,380 96% $ 268,500 Laramie 1 Elementary 856,753 1,049,300 82% $14,441,025 Middle 470,396 574,350 82% $ 7,796,550 High 514,227 598,290 86% $ 6,304,725 Lincoln 2 Elementary 164,742 168,140 98% $ 254,850 Middle 67,869 69,650 97% $ 133,575 High 104,210 172,410 60% $ 5,115,000 $ 5,115,000 Natrona 1 Elementary 814,518 938,420 87% $ 9,292,650 Middle 491,950 514,850 96% $ 1,717,500 Park 1 Elementary 97,321 119,700 81% $ 1,678,425 Sublette 1 Middle 22,365 26,775 84% $ 330,750 Sweetwater 2 High 198,739 249,690 80% $ 3,821,325 Teton 1 Elementary 113,154 127,400 89% $ 1,068,450 Middle 81,196 92,400 88% $ 840,300 High 105,340 127,890 82% $ 1,691,250 Washakie 1 Elementary 97,790 111,300 88% $ 1,013,250 Totals 5,005,189 5,901,875 85% $11,490,675 [55] $67,251,450 The following was taken from the statutorily required report pertaining to the School Capital Construction Program submitted to the legislature in November of 2000 by the state superintendent: [55] NOVEMBER 2000 SCHOOLS IN IMMEDIATE NEED OF CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION District Town Site Name Condition Big Horn 4 Basin Hyatteville Elementary 44.45 Campbell 1 Gillette Paintbrush, portable 1 49.00 Campbell 1 Gillette Twin Spruce Jr. High, portable 3 48.00 Campbell 1 Gillette Twin Spruce Jr. High, Parish 47.88 Campbell 1 Gillette N.E. Vo-Tech main building 41.82 Carbon 2 Saratoga Hanna Elementary 45.43 Crook 1 Hullett Hullett K-12, main building 44.95 Crook 1 Sundance Sundance Jr/Sr Little Red School House 46.15 Crook 1 Sundance High School IV 37.21 Fremont 1 Hudson Hudson Elementary n/a Fremont 1 Lander Lander H.S. n/a Fremont 38 Arapahoe Dist-owned metal building 49.34 Goshen 1 Ft. Laramie Ft. Laramie middle school 40.43 Goshen 1 Torrington S.E. Jr/Sr Old gym 30.00 Goshen 1 Torrington S.E. Jr/Sr Red Brick School 23.91 Goshen 1 Torrington Torrington HS Auto Mechanic Bldg. 43.01 Johnson 1 Buffalo Buffalo HS 48.34 Johnson 1 Kaycee Kaycee, 7-12 31.49 Laramie 1 Cheyenne Clark Building 43.48 Laramie 1 Cheyenne Churchill Elementary 45.74 Laramie 1 Cheyenne Churchill Elem. portable 33.33 Natrona 1 Casper CY Junior High, portable # 2 29.17 Natrona 1 Casper CY Junior High, portable # 3 31.58 Natrona 1 Casper Natrona HS portable # 2 20.00 Natrona 1 Casper Kelly Walsh HS portable # 2 37.50 Natrona 1 Casper Grant School portable 33.33 Natrona 1 Casper Garfield School 33.53 Natrona 1 Casper Verda James Elementary 44.26 Natrona 1 Casper East Junior High 47.72 Park 1 Powell Powell HS pool/auditorium 41.25 Park 1 Powell Powell HS main building 45.93 Sheridan 1 Ranchester Slack, main building 42.22 Sheridan 1 Ranchester Slack, kindergarten 48.86 Sheridan 2 Sheridan Woodland Park elem. main building 40.83 Sheridan 3 Arvada Arvada Elem. main building 46.08 Sweetwater 1 Rock Springs Rock Springs East Jr. High 48.96 Washakie 1 Worland Worland Middle School 47.63 Washakie 2 Ten Sleep Ten Sleep Elementary/Middle/High 45.00 Weston 1 Osage Kitty Moats, K-8 45.19  The school district marked with an asterisk was included in the DOE's 2001 capital construction budget request. [ถ 135] The deficiencies, which have been illustrated by the DOE's study, cannot stand. The state cannot rely on an inadequately funded grant program, available only to a small percentage of districts with immediate needs which have bonded to 90 percent of their capacity, to correct this unacceptable, unconstitutional condition of our state's schools. [56] According to Mr. Miller's testimony and the state's Exhibit I-1, the legislature in 1998-99 appropriated $4.2 million in state grants. The legislature appropriated $30,787,404 to be expended during the two years beginning July 1, 2000, and ending June 30, 2002, for capital construction. $20,940,612 of that amount was appropriated for a state capital construction grant to Weston County School District No. 1 for a new elementary and high school. $8,826,692 was appropriated for a state capital construction grant to Weston County School District No. 7 for a new high school. One million dollars was appropriated for 2002 state capital construction assistance as a place holder until the state superintendent's recommendation was received in November of 2000. 2000 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 76, ง 205. The DOE's 2001 capital construction budget request totals $33,074,783, which funds the needs of only two districts. [57] It is unclear how the state superintendent selected the schools that were fortunate enough to receive a recommendation and decided against seeking funding for the other multitude of schools that the DOE deemed inadequate. [58] It would be fair to assume her assessment of what amount would be politically acceptable necessarily would have been a consideration as well as the required deduction from the needed amount the districts could raise if they bonded to 90 percent of their bonding capacity. This can hardly be considered putting the wealth of the state at risk. [ถ 136] In providing a remedy in similar cases involving the constitutionality of public school finance systems, courts have taken a number of approaches including detailing requirements and setting up timetables for compliance, [59] appointing a special master, [60] or providing an initial opportunity to present a plan that assures immediate attention to achieve constitutional compliance. [61] In Campaign for Fiscal Equity, 719 N.Y.S.2d at 509, the court ordered the defendants to put in place school financing reforms designed to redress constitutional and regulatory violations. The court provided a specific date to implement those reforms. In addition, the parties were ordered to appear before the court on a specific date to describe the progress of their reforms. The court also retained jurisdiction over the matter for as long as necessary to ensure the constitutional and statutory/regulatory violations were corrected. In addition, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the broad equitable power of lower courts to remedy continuing constitutional violations, especially where there have been repeated opportunities to resolve the problems. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687-88, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978). We find this authority persuasive, and, although we are extremely reluctant to direct specific action by the legislature, it is clear from the inaction on capital construction over the last several decades, despite explicit rulings by this court, that a stronger message is needed. [ถ 137] We order all facilities must ultimately be made safe and efficient. The goal for providing facilities which are safe and efficient is to attain a score of 90 or above for building condition, an educational suitability score and technological readiness score of 80 or above, and a score of 4 for building accessibility. These scores will assure each facility achieves a rating of good. The total cost identified in the MGT study to comply with this test is $563,099,986 in 1998 dollars. We recognize that realistically these capital construction costs ought to be phased in over time. As a result, we hold that the legislature must provide a plan by July 1, 2002, to remedy these deficiencies within 6 years. In the interim, those facilities which are identified as in immediate need must be given the highest priority. In addition, we will presume that any facility which falls below the established square footage requirements is in immediate need and must also be given the highest priority. We order immediate need facilities and those facilities that fall below the square footage requirements must be remedied within two years which computes to $164,415,836 in 1998 dollars which will need to be adjusted for inflation at such time as the grants are made. Facilities that are deemed inadequate must be remedied within four years which computes to an additional $231,309,380. [62]