Court Opinion

ID: 9586540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:12:28.499819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:42.501529
License: Public Domain

GRAY and PARKER, Justices
(concurring in the result).
The constitutional questions presented in this case are substantially like those in Uhls v. State ex rel. City of Cheyenne, Wyo., 429 P.2d 74, and for the reasons stated in our dissent to that opinion, we do not challenge the answers thereto.
As to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, we are especially disturbed at one aspect, namely, the lack of showing of public purpose within the provisions of Art. 13, § 3. The discussion of this matter by the controlling opinion is most general. *74; While there was-ample uncontradicted evidence showing, numerous benefits to the community by the industrial project, the •'plant was privately financed prior to the ..time- of the introduction of the pertinent .ordinance and the beginning of this suit, rand in order to justify the issuance of the ¡questioned bonds, it would be necessary to show that a public purpose would be served '.by the issuance of the bonds which would not be accomplished by the private financing. Our review of the record discloses insufficient evidence .to accomplish this.
The President of the Wycon company was asked, “Is it not * *’ * true that the 'same number of men will be employed in operating the plant, the same quantities of 'natural gas will be used, and the same benefits will accrue to the people of the Cheyenne area and the State of Wyoming generally regardless 'of ’ whether the plant is financed through private sources or 'through the issuance of these municipal revenue bonds?” This' official answered, /‘Not necessarily,” and then went on to explain that if the plant was financed with municipal bonds the costs would be lowered and the company able to .compete more effectively in its products and that benefits would accrue to the public in the Cheyenne area when the plant was able to operate at full capacity. At best we think this evidence was both indefinite and speculative, not supporting the finding of the court that the lower production costs resulting from the issuance of the industrial development revenue bonds would enable Wycon to expand the market for its products, resulting in increased employment and increased use of natural: gas. However, the notice of appeal did not challenge the findings .of fact, which in any event were not questioned in brief or argument and may not now be considered in appellants’ attack upon the court’s conclusions of law as being violative of the constitutional provision relating to the restriction of municipal corporations acting other than in pursuance of law for public purpose. We, therefore, concur in the result reached by the opinion.