Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Authority, Application of, No. 39237
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | DAVISON; DAVISON |
| 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. |
| Docket Number | No. 39237 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1960 |
Page 1028
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.
Page 1029
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.
Page 1030
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.
DAVISON, Chief Justice.
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
Page 1031
General of the State of Oklahoma, after examination of the resolution and the above documents, finding the proceedings to be...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Authority, Application of, 90101
...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 Legislature appropriated to the tenant sta......
-
Fent v. OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVE. AUTH., 92,390.
...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 and every presumption is to be in......
-
State ex rel. Hall v. Taylor, 12995
...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 provisions of Section 4 of Articl......
-
City of Pocatello v. Peterson, 10646
...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. Layton City......
-
Grimes v. City of Oklahoma City, No. 96,836.
...the act. There is a presumption that the Act is constitutional." Application of Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 1960 OK 207, ¶¶ 8, 9, 355 P.2d 1028, ¶ 9 Petitioners argue Const. Art. 13, § 1 limits funding of public school systems to state funds.3 As such, they reason that 11 O.S.2001, ......
-
In re Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Authority, No. 97,936.
...of petitioners' argument addresses the reasoning of the Court in Application of Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 1960 OK 207, 355 P.2d 1028. ¶ 39 In Application of Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 1960 OK 207, 355 P.2d 1028, this Court examined whether the bonds were a state d......
-
State ex rel. Hall v. Taylor, No. 12995
...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 provisions of Section 4 of Articl......
-
Fent v. OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVE. AUTH., No. 92,390.
...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 and every presumption is to be in......