Opinion ID: 2366436
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: SPET Ballot Limits

Text: [¶ 29] In their complaint against TCHA, Appellants asserted TCHA could not purchase the Mantey property as an investment or for the purpose of land banking for two reasons. First, they claimed that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-15-204(a)(iii) required TCHA to use the SPET revenues only for the specific purposes authorized when the tax was approved. They claimed that TCHA's purchase of real estate not specifically designated to be used for affordable housing was outside the specific purposes authorized by voters. [¶ 30] The district court dismissed this claim under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). The court ruled: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Defendant TCHA was acting within the limitations of the SPET ballot and under the authority of Wyoming law. Thus, the Court grants the motion. To reach that conclusion, the district court said: Evidence provided by the Plaintiffs shows that the Manteys sold the Cheney Lane Parcel to TCHA with the intent that the property be used for affordable housing. Information submitted by TCHA to the Teton County Commissioners, also provided by the Plaintiffs, stated that the Cheney Lane property acquisition was for the purpose of affordable housing land banking. It is apparent from the statement of both sellers and buyers that the Cheney Lane land acquisition was to be utilized for affordable housing, either directly or indirectly if a housing project were not approved on the land. [3] [¶ 31] The district court found, on the basis of Appellants' complaint, that TCHA purchased the Mantey property to be utilized for affordable housing, either directly or indirectly. (Emphasis added). The district court also found that TCHA purchased the property for the purpose of affordable housing land banking. Based on these findings the district court ruled, as a matter of law, the Mantey purchase was within the authority granted by voters on the SPET Ballot. [¶ 32] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-15-204(a)(iii) requires SPET proceeds to be used for specific purposes authorized by the qualified electors. In 2006, electors in Teton County authorized a SPET for the Teton County Housing Authority's Affordable Housing Program. The ballot further described the program as including the acquisition, planning, improvement and financing of properties as allowed by law and to be utilized for affordable housing. . . . More succinctly, the ballot authorized use of the SPET proceeds for the acquisition . . . of properties . . . to be utilized for affordable housing. The district court found that purpose to be satisfied if the Mantey property was to be used either directly or indirectly for an affordable housing project. [¶ 33] The SPET ballot in Teton County specified that tax proceeds would go to acquire properties to be utilized for affordable housing. It did not specify that tax proceeds could be used for property purchases which indirectly would be used for affordable housing. We find this distinction significant. The terminology of the ballot, to be utilized for affordable housing is plain and unambiguous. It authorizes the use of SPET proceeds to purchase land which will actually be used in an affordable housing project. On the other hand, the phrase directly or indirectly anticipates that property purchased by TCHA might not actually be used in an affordable housing project, but instead could be purchased as an investment. If the language utilized for meant indirectly utilized for then TCHA could use the tax proceeds for any speculative investments it chose, so long as ultimately, at some day in the unknown future, it intended to sell that investment and use the proceeds for affordable housing. Such a definition is incredible, and far beyond the realm of common sense or the express language of the ballot. [¶ 34] The facts presented to the district court as exhibits to the complaint conflict as to whether the Mantey purchase is to be used as part of an affordable housing project, or only is of indirect use in financing some other land. The complaint, when read in the light most favorable to Appellants, alleges that the Mantey property is not to be utilized for affordable housing as authorized by the SPET ballot. Purchase of property for direct utilization in an affordable housing project was authorized by the 2006 SPET ballot; purchase of property for indirect utilization in an affordable housing project was not authorized. We reverse the district court's dismissal of this claim and remand it for a resolution of the factual conflict.