Court Opinion

ID: 9515206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:54:33.083648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:26.116418
License: Public Domain

ZINTER, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶ 19.] I write only to make explicit the dispositive fact that this “minor” boundary change had little to do with our five factors that concern the convenience and education of the children residing on the property to be transferred. Rather, the evidence reflects that the three Kirby children were only nominally involved, and this change was sought primarily for political and economic reasons; i.e., a perceived economic imbalance in the two school districts. That purpose, however, does not, justify a “minor boundary *910change” under SDCL 13-6-85 and our precedent. Instead, the Legislature has provided alternative methods to change boundaries for the purposes these petitioners espoused. Therefore, I join the court’s opinion.
[¶ 20.] Under our precedent, proposed boundary changes are examined under five factors. See Johnson v. Lennox School Dist. No. Jl-k, 2002 SD 89, ¶ 11, 649 N.W.2d 617, 622. If “the record indicate[s] the board rewrote or ignored the factors applicable to consideration of such petitions,” its decision is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 10, 649 N.W.2d at 621. Moreover, a “Board’s decision [that] relies on factors not intended to be considered ... [also] renders the decision arbitrary and capricious, warranting reversal.” Id. at ¶ 30, 649 N.W.2d at 625.3 (emphasis added).
[¶ 21.] Here, the boundary change was sought for purposes not intended to be considered. The real purpose of this proposed “minor” boundary change is reflected in the trial court’s findings of fact, entered after it heard the evidence and witnesses presented at trial. Those unchallenged findings reflect that:
(1)This petition sought to move more than fifty-four, quarter-sections of land, having an assessed valuation of over $3 million. Although this was the maximum amount of property subject to transfer under the minor boundary change statute, the change would only accommodate the three children in the Kirby family, and that family owned only eleven of those fifty-four quarter sections.
(2) Only the Kirby family had children with educational needs, and those children already attended school in Gettysburg under open enrollment.
(3) Seven of the nine petitioners had no minor children needing an education, and except for the Kirby children, no children resided on any of the affected land.
(4) Three of the petitioners have never resided on the land they included in the petition.
(5)Only one quarter-section of the land was needed to connect the children’s residence to the Gettysburg School District. Moreover, the large, checkerboarded land mass tacked on to the Kirby property was located at the end of an extremely narrow peninsula of land (generally only a quarter section wide) extending three miles to connect it to the Gettysburg School District.
(6) Even though the children’s residence was 3 miles east of the Gettysburg School District, the proposed boundary change included land four and one-half miles further east of the Kirby children’s residence, two miles south of their residence, and one and one-half miles north of their residence.
(7) The other land was not used for residences, was not contiguous to the *911Gettysburg school district, and was “included by the other petitioners for the sole purpose of reforming the imbalance perceived by the petitioners between the Gettysburg school district and Hoven school district.” 4
(emphasis added). Thus, even though the presence of three children made it possible for Petitioners to fashion an argument under the five factors, the trial court’s findings reflect that the sole purpose of this petition was political and was unrelated to the five factors used to determine minor boundary disputes.
[¶ 22.] Consequently, this type of political dispute must be resolved through other alternatives provided by the Legislature. Those alternatives include school district (or voter initiated) reorganizations, and school district initiated and voter approved boundary changes. State action is also possible if taxable property in both districts is insufficient “to provide educational opportunities equal in comparison.” SDCL 13-6-2(2).
[¶ 23.] Absent such State action, the two local alternatives provide relief. First, individual school boards or district voters may initiate a reorganization under SDCL 13-6-10 et seq. to correct the problem at issue here. Second, if a reorganization is not feasible or desired, the Legislature has provided a “release valve” by which the Gettysburg School District alone could have initiated this boundary change. See SDCL 13-6-84.2 (which provides for public hearings in both districts and a public vote).
[¶ 24.] Significantly, the Legislature specifically dictated that this second alternative is the method for changing boundaries in cases like this. The Legislature expressed its policy that political boundary changes, proposed for reasons other than children “residing on the property to be transferred,” must be initiated by the school board under the alternative procedure in SDCL 13-6-84.2, rather than the minor boundary change procedure utilized by petitioners under SDCL 13-6-85. See SDCL 13-6-84.1(2).
[¶ 25.] Here, it is acknowledged that the problem at issue is broader than three children residing “on the boundary.” As even the dissent concludes, “it should be obvious to the objective viewer that, at a minimum, almost all real estate currently in the Hoven School District south of the northern tier of Gettysburg Townshipfe] should be in the Gettysburg School District to eliminate the current arbitrariness of the school district boundaries.” Infra ¶ 39 (emphasis original). However, this problem with relative property values and boundaries in both districts is a matter not properly addressed under the minor boundary change statute and the cases interpreting it.
[¶ 26.] Therefore, the Hoven District did not err in concluding that the petition for a “minor” boundary change was not the proper remedy. As the trial court correctly noted after hearing the witnesses testify:
The purpose of the law allowing the minor boundary change [under SDCL 13-6-85] is to accommodate students. Two arguments support this conclusion. First, children must reside in the area to be transferred. SDCL 13-6-84.1(2). Second, the factors which the school board is required to consider deal pri*912marily with' the convenience of the student. (Citation omitted). It is not the purpose of the minor boundary change to reform districts for political, social or economic reasons (like supporting your alma mater or running for school Board or undoing a perceived imbalance).
This reasoning, is correct, and there is overwhelming evidence that this petition was initiated for a political purpose not intended to be addressed under SDCL 13-6-85. Therefore, Petitioner’s remedy lies with the other legislative alternatives for boundary changes.
[¶ 27.] KONENKAMP, Justice, joins this special writing.

. See also, Smith v. Canton School Dist. No. 41-1, 1999 SD 111, 599 N.W.2d 637 (considered factors); Oelrichs School Dist. 23-3 v. Sides, 1997 SD 55, 562 N.W.2d 907 (substantial evidence supporting the factors, also supported the Board’s decision to deny the boundary change); Colman-Egan Sch. Dist. No. 50-5 v. Jones, 520 N.W.2d 890 (S.D. 1994) (finding that the Board's disapproval of the boundary change was substantially supported by the record); Oldham-Ramona Sch. Dist. V. Ust, 502 N.W.2d 574, 584 (S.D. 1993) ("Because the board weighed the appropriate factors in considering Jensens’ petition, its disapproval of the petition was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.”); Kellogg v. Hoven Sch. Dist. No. 53-2, 479 N.W.2d 147 (S.D. 1991) (reversed because decision not based upon the factors); Shumaker v. Canova Sch. Dist. No. 48-1, 322 N.W.2d 869 (S.D. 1982) (considered factors).

. The circuit court also found that the Hoven School District offered to grant the boundary change to the affected family's land as well as unaffected land owned by relatives, but: “petitioners refused the offer because it would not serve their purpose of reforming the perceived imbalance between the Gettysburg School District and the Hoven School District.” Petitioners have not attacked this finding of fact.