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

Heading: Needed Legislation

Text: We see no manner in which ad valorem taxes for school purposes can be made equal and uniform unless it is done on a state-wide basis. In other words, all property owners within the state should be required to pay the same total mill levy for school purposes. Art. 15, § 17, Wyoming Constitution, provides there shall be levied each year in each county a tax of 12 mills on the dollar for the support and maintenance of public schools. This tax is collected by the county treasurer and disbursed among the school districts within the county. Inasmuch as this levy is mandatory and a constitutional requirement, it will necessarily continue. Art. 15, § 15, Wyoming Constitution, authorizes a state tax not exceeding six mills on the dollar to be levied each year for support of public schools in the state. There is no need for any change in what is being done with respect to the levy of this tax and the distribution of funds derived from such levy. While we do not mean to encroach upon prerogatives of the legislature, we think it might be helpful if we would suggest a possible method by which equal and uniform taxes can be accomplished for school purposes. In doing so, we exclude from our consideration funds derived from the six-mill state levy; funds from motor vehicle fees; funds from fines and forfeitures; Forest Reserve funds; Land Income funds; Taylor Grazing funds; and all State or Federal funds or other funds not derived from ad valorem taxes levied at the county level. The legislature would need to provide for determination of the total amount of school funds which must be derived from ad valorem taxes at the county level, exclusive of funds listed in the preceding paragraph, for each classroom unit as defined in § 21.1-228, W.S. 1957, 1971 Cum.Supp. When the amount per classroom unit is multiplied by the number of classroom units in the state, a total for the state (of the funds we are considering) will be known. It can then be determined each year what mill levy would be necessary, when applied to all assessed property in the state, to produce the total for the state (of the funds we are considering). Each year the state department of education would need to notify the county commissioners in each county what mill levy must be levied, in addition to the county 12-mill levy provided for in Art. 15, § 17. Funds derived from the additional levy (exclusive of those from the 12-mill county levy) would need to be transmitted by each county treasurer to the state treasurer. The state department of education would then need to notify the state treasurer what proportion of these funds must go to each school district in the state in order that each district will receive the same share per classroom unit, when its allotment from the countywide 12-mill school levy and its additional allotment from the state treasurer are added together. Although we have been referring in this opinion to a classroom unit as the unit of measurement for a district's share in funds, we do not mean to imply that a different unit of measurement may not be adopted at any time in the future. We have been speaking only about the operation and maintenance of public schools and not about the financing of capital improvements. Such financing will in the future have to be done by each school district separately, unless and until otherwise authorized. No invidious discrimination will be involved if bonds are voted by any school district for capital improvements, and if special levies are made within the district to retire such bonds. Also, we will not consider any invidious discrimination involved if the legislature sees fit to permit local initiative within any district, for expenditures other than for capital improvements, to the extent of 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the level of income guaranteed for the district by the state in any year. In making the suggestions we have set out concerning needed legislation, we have been considerably influenced by the decision of the California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241. We cite it as authority for our conclusions in this case.