Opinion ID: 1349153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Development Process and Approval by the Board Was Characterized by Conduct Which Was Arbitrary and Capricious and an Abuse of Discretion Validity of Basic Decision as Administrative Action.

Text: Taxpayer finally contends that the supervisory decision of the Board was arbitrary, capricious and not in accord with law by its generalized attack on the increased tax and its appeal approval after the formal Board hearing. In applying our usual standard for examination of the record, we find that this attack also fails in persuasion. Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Public Service Com'n of Wyoming, 698 P.2d 1135 (Wyo. 1985). Substantial evidence is found which sustains the findings and the conclusions of the Board. As we said in Cody Gas Co. v. Public Service Com'n of Wyoming, 748 P.2d 1144, 1147 (Wyo. 1988), statutory designation of an administrative agency function encompasses a reasonable delegation of process determination required or adopted for performance and particularly so since the Board has a constitutional responsibility within the taxation instrumentalities of the state by Wyo. Const. art. 15, § 10. [5] Any constraints on methods available to the agency to exercise designated responsibilities should be emplaced by specific statutory restrictions if constitutional interests are otherwise protected. Cody Gas Co., 748 P.2d at 1148. The methodology developed by the Department for valuation as now applied belatedly to uranium has received prior approval of this court in the course of litigative examinations. Hillard, 549 P.2d 293; C F & I Steel Corp., 492 P.2d 529. Hypothetical costs which are intrinsic to Circular 5 are not acceptable. Appeal of Monolith Portland Midwest Co., Inc., 574 P.2d at 761. Trial hearing computative analysis demonstrates reliability in the actual processing cost of approximately $27.04 as compared to the result derived total through Circular 5 of $89.53 per ton or 330% more. That previously used approach does not now come unannounced to this court, since previously visited in the contract dispute involving Cheyenne Min. and Uranium Co. v. Federal Resources Corp., 694 P.2d 65, 73 (Wyo. 1985) where, even for that purpose, this court conclude[d] that the gross-proceeds figures obtained from Circular 5, as modified, were not sufficiently reliable to permit the trial court to award    [a] proper share of profits, as it there ignored the effect of technological advance in both milling and mining. Here, it also ignores economic changes from price increase. Intrinsic to government is not only the adequacy but also the fairness of revenue collection for its support. Within the context of our prior litigation for pricing purposes to determine tax as enumerated in C F & I Steel Corp. and Hillard, we would confirm exercise of discretion by this administrative agency as factually justified and not arbitrary nor capricious. Teton Valley Ranch v. State Bd. of Equalization, 735 P.2d 107 (Wyo. 1987); Bunten, 215 P. 244. AFFIRMED.