dissenting.
I dissent from the majority’s decision in this case because I am of the opinion that the Board was derelict in its duties when it declined to exercise jurisdiction over Union Pacific’s petition. I would reverse and remand the case to the Board for a decision on the merits.
The plain language of Wyo.Stat. § 39-1-304(a)(iv) (1994) establishes that the Board has the responsibility to interpret the applicable statutes to determine the proper point of valuation. Section 39-l-304(a)(iv) directs the Board to “[djecide all questions that may arise with reference to the construction of any statute affecting assessment, levy and collection of taxes.” In order to answer the question posited in Union Pacific’s petition, the Board had to interpret Wyo.Stat. § 39-2-202 (1994) to determine the proper point of valuation.
The Board recognized that ‘W.S. 39-1-304(a)(iv) may [have been] a sufficiently broad grant of authority to support [Union Pacific’s] argument on Board jurisdiction.” However, the Board declined to exercise jurisdiction over the petition. The Board could not simply refuse to perform one of its statutory directives. Like all administrative agencies are, the Board was bound to follow the applicable statutes. See Fullmer v. Wyoming Employment Security Commission, 858 P.2d 1122, 1124 (Wyo.1993).
I am not persuaded by the Board’s argument that it did not have appropriate rules in place with which to decide Union Pacific’s petition. The Board’s rules of procedure are sufficiently broad to cover this situation. Further, the “[statutory designation of an administrative agency function encompasses a reasonable delegation of process determination required or adopted for performance.” Cody Gas Company v. Public Service Commission of Wyoming, 748 P.2d 1144,1147-48 (Wyo.1988). When the Legislature directed the Board to decide questions which involve the interpretation of relevant statutes, it necessarily delegated sufficient procedural powers for the Board to fulfill that mandate.
I would hold that the Board’s decision to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Union Pacific’s petition was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with the law. Wyo.Stat. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) (1990).