Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Authority, Application of
| Decision Date | 11 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 39237,39237 |
| Citation | 355 P.2d 1028 |
| Parties | Application of the OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY for the approval of the issuance of $10,000,000 State Office Building Revenue Bonds and the sale thereof to the State Treasurer of the State of Oklahoma. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
1. In matters of general public interest, matters which directly affect the sovereign rights and powers of the state, the Legislature has power, under Art. 7, Sec. 2, Oklahoma Constitution, to confer original jurisdiction upon this court.
2. In construing the constitutionality of a statute, the Supreme Court is not authorized to consider its propriety, desirability, wisdom, or its practicability as a working proposition. Those questions are clearly and definitely established by our fundamental law to a certainty as functions of the legislative department of government. The function of the court is clearly limited to the determination of the validity or invalidity of the Act. There is a presumption that the Act is constitutional.
3. The Legislature, unless prohibited by the Constitution, has the right to declare fiscal policy, and the question as to the wisdom of the policy is not within the scope of the authority of the Supreme Court.
4. Courts must sustain statutes, if possible, and nullify them only when they are clearly unconstitutional.
5. Bonds issued by Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, created a body corporate and politic, and designated an instrumentality of the State (Title 62, Chap. 1c, Oklahoma Session Laws 1959; 73 O.S.1959, Supp., §§ 151-166) to be paid exclusively from revenue earned or received by facilities of the instrumentality in their authorized operation would not create a debt in violation of constitutional prohibition against the state or any department, institution or agency thereof.
6. Where lease agreement of state department for indeterminate term does not prescribe a definite and certain total sum to become payable, but prescribes payment on a quantum basis, only that quantum of time may be paid for that had elapsed up to the time that the appropriation therefor became legally exhausted, and not thereafter.
7. Record examined and bonds of Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority in principal amount of $10,000,000 are approved and purchase of said bonds by State Treasurer as an investment of public monies in his possession in excess of that needed to meet current expenditures payable therefrom in accordance with Title 62, Chapter 1c, Oklahoma Session Laws 1959, approved.
Original proceeding brought by Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority for the approval of the issuance and purchase by the State Treasurer of the State of Oklahoma of State Office Building Revenue Bonds in the principal sum of $10,000,000.
Issuance and purchase of bonds approved.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., George J. Fagin, Norman E. Reynolds, Oklahoma City, for Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority.
This is an original proceeding instituted in this court by Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority for the approval of the issuance and the purchase by the State Treasurer of the State of Oklahoma, of State Office Building Revenue Bonds proposed to be issued by said Authority in the principal amount of $10,000,000 under the provision of Title 62, Chapter 1c, Session Laws 1959 (73 O.S.1959, Supp., §§ 151-166), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The application was filed pursuant to and is presented to this court after giving the notice provided for in said Act. The Act confers original jurisdiction on the court to hear and determine the application. Transcript of the proceedings of the Authority and supporting documents are attached to the application. No protest or opposition has been filed or made to the application.
The Act has the stated purpose of providing space for offices for departments and agencies of the state, particularly those now or hereafter required to pay rent. The Act creates the Authority as a body corporate and politic and as an instrumentality of the state, with authority to acquire land and to erect, equip, operate and maintain a building or buildings for use of the state and for federal agencies and departments. The project is to be financed by the issuance and proceeds from the above mentioned bonds, and interim bonds, which are to be retired solely from the revenues from the office buildings. Provision is made for refunding the bonds. It is specifically stated in the Act (and in the bonds and proceedings of the Authority) that the bonds shall not be an indebtedness of the state. Provision is made in the Act for sale to, and required purchase of the bonds, by the State Treasurer, with the written approval of the State Depository Board, as an investment of public monies not needed to meet current expenditures. The Act further provides that upon confirmation by the State Budget Director and State Depository Board that uninvested cash was needed to meet demand orders on the State Treasury, the State Treasurer was to sell the bonds to meet such demands. The Authority, in cooperation with the State Board of Public Affairs, is authorized to require state departments to occupy space in the buildings and pay rent. When the bonds are retired the building is to become the property of the state.
The Act need not be here copied in full.
In proceeding under the Act the Authority adopted a resolution providing for the construction of two office buildings upon sites to be acquired by it and for the issuance and sale to the State Treasurer of the above described bonds in the amount of $10,000,000. The resolution is in substantial conformance with the Act. The Authority also adopted a proposed form of lease for use in renting office space.
There is also submitted to this court the written statement of the State Treasurer evidencing his readiness and willingness to purchase the bonds; the written certification of the State Depository Board that said bonds may be safely purchased by the State Treasurer, as an investment of public monies without handicapping the state in promptly meeting its obligations; and the written opinion and certificate of the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, after examination of the resolution and the above documents, finding the proceedings to be constitutional, lawful and regular and the bonds valid obligations in accordance with the Act.
Section 10 of the Act confers jurisdiction upon this court to hear the application. In Application of State of Oklahoma Building Bonds Commission, 202 Okl. 454, 214 P.2d 934, 935, we said in the first syllabus by the court:
'In matters of general public interest, matters which directly affect the sovereign rights and powers of the state, the Legislature has power, under Art. 7, sec. 2, Oklahoma Constitution, to confer original jurisdiction upon this court.'
In determining the constitutionality of the subject Act, this court is guided in its consideration thereof by well established general precedents.
In construing the constitutionality of a statute, the Supreme Court is not authorized to consider its propriety, desirability, wisdom, or its practicability as a working proposition. Those questions are clearly and definitely established by our fundamental law to a certainty as functions of the legislative department of government. The function of the court is clearly limited to the determination of the validity or invalidity of the act. There is a presumption that the Act is constitutional. The Legislature, unless prohibited by the Constitution, has the right to declare fiscal policy, and the question as to the wisdom of the policy is not within the scope of authority of the Supreme Court. Courts must sustain statutes, if possible, and nullify them only when they are clearly unconstitutional. Application of State of Oklahoma Building Bonds Commission, supra.
The question arises as to whether the Act and the bonds create a state debt in violation of Art. 10, Oklahoma Constitution, Section 23, as amended, and Sections 24 and 25.
This court has approved statutes creating 'self-liquidating' projects and the bonds issued to construct them as not creating a state debt, where only the revenue therefrom was usable for retirement of the bonds and no recourse was had to the revenue of the state for that purpose. Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 203 Okl. 335, 221 P.2d 795; Application of Board of Regents for Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges, 196 Okl. 622, 167 P.2d 883; Baker v. Carter, 165 Okl. 116, 25 P.2d 747. See also Application of Oklahoma Educational Television Authority, Okl., 272 P.2d 1027, wherein the distinction between tax revenue and other revenue as a source of funds to retire the bonds was eliminated.
Under the present Act and the resolution of the Authority and the provisions of the bonds, the bonds are expressly declared not to be a debt of the state or of the Authority but are payable solely from the rents and revenues from the buildings. In these respects the debt, resolution and bonds meet the requirement of our decision cited above. The bonds are not a debt of the state.
However, the rents and revenues are to be paid by state departments and federal agencies occupying space in the office buildings. The portion paid by state departments will necessarily be from state revenue. This situation has not previously been presented to this court for determination.
Similar situations have been presented to appellate courts of other states and the Authority has cited a number of decisions from other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Authority, Application of
...attention is drawn to Application of Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 1966 OK 6, 410 P.2d 46, and Application of Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 1960 OK 2097, 355 P.2d 1028, 1031. There, the Court characterized bonds for state office buildings as self-liquidating because the Legislat......
-
Fent v. OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVE. AUTH.
...¶ 3 In considering a statute's constitutionality, courts are guided by well established principles. Application of Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 1960 OK 207, 355 P.2d 1028, 1031. A heavy burden is cast on those challenging a legislative enactment to show its unconstitutionality an......
-
State ex rel. Hall v. Taylor, 12995
...court decisions, including a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. To the same effect, see Application of Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority (Okl.), 355 P.2d 1028. In State ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 134 W.Va. 278, 290, 58 S.E.2d 766, 773, the Court made the following 'The prov......
-
City of Pocatello v. Peterson
...v. Crowe, 363 S.W.2d 598 (Mo.1962); 405 Monroe Co. v. City of Asbury Park, 40 N.J. 457, 193 A.2d 115 (1963); Applicaton of Okl. Capitol Imp. Auth., 355 P.2d 1028 (Okl. 1960); Kelley v. Earle, 325 Pa. 337, 190 A. 140 (1937); Greenhalgh v. Woolworth, 361 Pa. 543, 64 A.2d 659 (1949); Bair v. L......