Kiowa County Excise Bd. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., LOUIS-SAN
| Decision Date | 08 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | LOUIS-SAN,No. 37194,37194 |
| Citation | 1956 OK 157,301 P.2d 677 |
| Parties | KIOWA COUNTY EXCISE BOARD, Plaintiff in Error, v. ST.FRANCISCO RY. COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. House Bill No. 964, Act of the Twenty-fifth Oklahoma Legislature, Chapter A, Title 70, Oklahoma Session Laws 1955, 70 O.S.Supp.1955 § 4-40, contains a provision to the effect that in determining the eligibility of a school district to make an emergency levy under the provisions of Section 9(d) of Article 10, Oklahoma Constitution, as amended, (1955) 'the expenditures for transportation of pupils' shall not be taken into account. The constitutional provision contains a clear expression that the 'legal current expense of the school district' shall be used in the calculation of the levy. Held, the legislative act as to the provision above noted is in conflict with the Constitution and is invalid.
2. Under the constitutional provision, supra, the average daily attendance for 'all pupils' is declared a factor in the calculation for need of levy, accordingly all pupils in lawful attendance are to be taken into account.
Appeal from Court of Tax Review; W. J. Monroe, C. R. Board and John Boyce McKeel, Judges.
Protest by St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, a corporation, against school district general fund levy by the Kiowa County Excise Board. Protest sustained, and Kiowa County Excise Board appeals. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
Lloyd Reeder, County Atty., Kiowa County, Hobart, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., J. H. Johnson and James C. Harkin, Asst. Attys. Gen., for plaintiff in error.
G. E. Bailey, St. Louis, Mo., Satterfield, Franklin & Harmon, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
Charles B. Duffy, Ponca City, for Ponca City Board of Education, amicus curiae.
Walter A. Lybrand, Oklahoma City, for Oklahoma City Board of Education, amicus curiae.
Claude H. Rosenstein, Tulsa, for Tulsa Board of Education, amicus curiae.
The Court of Tax Review sustained a protest by the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, a corporation, against 1.61 mills of a total ad valorem tax levy of 25 mills made to finance the general fund of Independent School District No. 4 of Kiowa County for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956. The Kiowa County Excise Board appeals.
The facts are not in dispute. A 25 mill levy was made for the general fund of the school district and to the extent of 5 mills thereof involves the emergency levy of 5 mills mentioned in subsection (d) of Section 9 of Article 10 of the Constitution as amended on April 5, 1955. The said subsection (d) provides:
After April, 1955, the Legislature adopted House Bill No. 964, Chapter A, Title 70 Oklahoma Session Laws 1955, which amends 70 O.S.1951 § 4-40 to provide:
'* * * In determining the eligibility of the school district to make an emergency levy under the provisions of Section 9(d) of Article X, Oklahoma Constitution, as amended, the legal current expense of the district shall be all the expenditures from the general fund of the district during the preceding year, except (1) expenditures for transportation of pupils; (2) capital outlay; (3) debt service; and (4) the amount appropriated from any previous emergency levy; and the per capita cost index for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, shall be Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00), and thereafter shall be increased or decreased by the State Board of Education in proportion to the increase or decrease in the per capita income of Oklahoma citizens. * * *'
Herein, under a determination of the eligibility of the school district there was made a 5 mill emergency levy based on the provisions of the statute, supra, and the prescribed formula of the Constitution, there being used a figure in the calculation representing all the expenditures from the general fund of the district during the preceding year but not including the expenditures for transportation of pupils.
The Court of Tax Review sustained the protest of the levy in the amount of millage that the 5 mill levy would be reduced by the inclusion of expenditures for transportation of pupils, under an application of the formula set out in the Constitution and without consideration of the statute, supra.
The Court of Tax Review sustained the protest under a holding that the legislative act, supra, is invalid; it being at variance and in conflict with the provisions of the constitutional amendment, supra, insofar as the legislative act provides that 'the legal current expense' of a school district shall not include 'expenditures for transportation of pupils', in determining the eligibility of a school district to make the emergency levy under the provisions of the Constitution.
The Kiowa County Excise Board and others, amici curiae, here contend the judgment of the court is erroneous as based on a holding that the legislative act is, in part, invalid.
It is argued that the term 'legal current expense' appearing in the constitutional provision here involved, nor the included term 'current expense,' has no one generally accepted, ordinary meaning, and that the legislature is authorized to define such term for the purposes involved in said provisions of the Constitution, or to declare a legislative construction of the provisions of the Constitution that are of doubtful meaning.
It is suggested the term 'current expense' as used in field of accountancy is given a variety of meanings according to the contingencies as arise in a business operation and in municipal operations; that in this state some school districts have expenditures for transportation of pupils and some districts do not transport pupils, and in this view the wording of the portions of the Constitution under consideration suggests an intendment of ancillary legislation to define 'current expense' so as to give the constitutional formula for the levy of taxes of the same effect to all school districts. We are cited expressions of this court from various cases, such as:
'A legislative construction of Constitution is deemed highly persuasive, particularly where amendment is construed by Legislature that framed it.' State ex rel. Kerr v. Grand River Dam Authority, 195 Okl. 8, 154 P.2d 946, 947.
'Where the meaning of a constitutional provision is doubtful or open to question, when considered in connection with other provisions of the Constitution, the construction placed upon it by the Legislature is entitled to great weight.' Board of Com'rs of Marshall County v. Shaw, 199 Okl. 66, 182 P.2d 507, 513.
'Acts of the Legislature will not be held invalid unless they are clearly in conflict with some constitutional provision, and that all doubt, where there is doubt, will be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the act. * * *' Excise Board of Ottawa County v. St Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 176 Okl. 641, 57 P.2d 261, 265.
We do not regard the term 'legal current expense' or 'current expense' when used in relation to municipal financing as being of doubtful or uncertain meaning. Since statehood, the legislature in various acts has used the term as synonymous with, or of clear reference to, the expenditure from the general fund of a municipality and there have been like expressions by the courts in the interpretation of such acts.
70 O.S.1951 § 1-19, in part read:
'The General Fund of any school district shall consist of all moneys which may legally be used for current expense purposes within a fiscal year, * * *.'
In Excise Board of Oklahoma County v. Board of Education, 178 Okl. 545, 61 P.2d 693, 695, 62 P.2d 986, it was said:
Note said sections 10 and 27 authorize special levies, after approval by vote of the people and respectively for the erection of buildings and creation of sinking fund in purchase and repairs of public utilities.
We are of the opinion that the wording of the portions of the Constitution under consideration is clear and unambiguous, and further that said provision of the Constitution is an enactment complete in itself and self-executing. It provides a right of levy and states clear rules for the attainment of the right given, and accordingly appears to be effective and operative without an aid of other or further legislation.
The act of the Legislature, supra, contains the expression 'the legal current expense of the district shall be all the expenditures from the general fund of the district during the preceding year, except (1) expenditures for transportation of pupils.'
Beyond question, expenditures for transportation of pupils are in fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial