Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Application of
| Decision Date | 14 July 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 42009,42009 |
| Citation | 1966 OK 139,416 P.2d 860 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | Application of the OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY for the Approval of not Exceeding $190,000,000 Oklahoma Turnpike System Revenue Bonds for the Construction of Section B of the Eastern Turnpike, the Muskogee Turnpike and an Administration Building and the Refunding of the Turner Turnpike Bonds, the H. E. Bailey Turnpike Bonds and Section A of the Eastern Turnpike Bonds. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The official actions and proceedings of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority respecting the authorization and the approval of the location, construction and financing of the specified Section B of the Eastern Turnpike Project and the Muskogee Turnpike Project, and for the refunding of the outstanding bonds of the Turner Turnpike, H. E. Bailey Turnpike and Section A of the Eastern Turnpike, and the authorization for issuance of the bonds and the authorization for execution and delivery of the trust agreement and the provisions of the trust, are valid and in conformity with the Oklahoma Turnpike Act and other applicable law. Held: that under the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Turnpike Act and other applicable law the $190,000,000 Oklahoma Turnpike System Revenue Bonds when issued in accordance with the law as expressed in this opinion will be valid.
2. The Will Rogers Turnpike Bonds do not have any vested rights in the prospective future revenues of the Turner Turnpike when it attains the status of a 'paid out' project (69 O.S.1961, Sec. 667), for the reason that the portion of Sec. 667 providing that a 'paid out' project should be continued as a toll facility and the revenues therefrom applied to the outstanding bonds of other turnpike projects was enacted by the Legislature subsequent to the issuance of the bonds of said Will Rogers Turnpike.
3. The provisions of the Oklahoma Turnpike Act authorizing this proceeding in this court do not constitute violation of any constitutional provision as to due process of law.
4. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is not subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S.Supp. 1963, Sec. 301--325, for the reason that the Oklahoma Turnpike Act, 69 O.S.1961, Secs. 651--687, as amended, and in particular Sec. 671, evidence a legislative intent to exclude the Authority from the provision of the Administrative Procedures Act.
5. The apportionment of motor fuel excise taxes to the Authority by 69 O.S.Supp.1965, Secs. 680, 682, 683, does not violate Art. 10, Sec. 19, of the Oklahoma Constitution, which provides that a tax levied and collected for one purpose shall not be devoted to another purpose.
6. The provisions of 69 O.S.1961, Sec. 667, that a 'paid out' turnpike project shall continue to be operated as a toll facility until all bonds of the Authority shall have been paid and such revenues used and applied in behalf of other turnpike projects, does not create a debt or obligation against the State in violation of Art. 10, Sec. 23, of the Oklahoma Constitution.
7. The apportionment of motor fuel excise taxes to the Authority by 69 O.S.Supp.1965, Secs. 680, 683, does not authorize the creation of a debt in violation of Art. 10, Sec. 23, and does not constitute a gift or donation in violation of Art. 10, Sec. 15, of the Oklahoma Constitution.
8. Legislative authorization (69 O.S.Supp.1965, Secs. 680, 683) to the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to grant to holders of turnpike bonds a vested right to the State's continued apportionment to said authority of 97% Of excise taxes collected on motor fuel consumed on all state turnpikes, subject to the right of the state to raise, lower or repeal said tax, is not unconstitutional.
9. Facts examined, and Held: That under the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Turnpike Act and other applicable law the holders of the bonds issued and secured under the trust agreement will have an accrued and vested contract right not only in and to an exclusive pledge by the Authority under the trust agreement of deposits accumulated in the trust fund but also in and to the continued apportionment to the Authority, each calendar month, until all of the bonded indebtedness is paid in full, of 97% Of an amount equal to the motor fuel excise taxes computed on 97 1/2% Of the total gallonage of all fuels consumed, during the calendar month during which the tax being apportioned accrued, on all Oklahoma turnpike projects and to the continued deposit in the trust fund of the full amount of each such apportionment; provided that no such pledge or vesting of said contract right shall be deemed to restrict in any way the State's power to change the rate of the motor fuel tax levy or to repeal said levy.
10. Under the provisions of 69 O.S.Supp.1965, Sec. 669, and Sec. 1201 of the trust agreements securing the bonds of the Turner Turnpike, the H. E. Bailey Turnpike, and Section A of the Eastern Turnpike, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is empowered to refund the outstanding bonds of the named turnpikes.
11. Under the provisions of 69 O.S.Supp., Sec. 669, and Sec. 1201, of the trust agreements securing the bonds of the Turner Turnpike, the H. E. Bailey Turnpike, and Section A of the Eastern Turnpike, and upon compliance with the requirements thereof relative to deposit with the trustee in said trust agreements of sufficient moneys or Government Obligations of the United States described in Sec. 669, to pay such bonds and the interest accruing and payable according to their terms to the date they may be called for redemption, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority may terminate said trust agreements, and have delivered to it all balances in the accounts and funds of such trustee other than moneys held for the redemption or payment of bonds or coupons.
12. The balances of funds and accounts described above are created by revenues of the turnpikes and when received by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority may under the powers vested in the Authority by the Act, be used by the Authority to reimburse the State Highway Commission for obligations and expenses incurred by it with approval of the Authority for traffic surveys, borings, preparing plans and specifications, and other engineering services, subject to the limitations set forth in 69 O.S.Supp.1965, Sec. 654(c).
13. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is fully authorized to construct a turnpike between McAlester and Hugo, Oklahoma (Section B of the Eastern Turnpike) and in connection therewith may enter into an agreement with the Oklahoma State Highway Department for the construction by the Highway Department of a toll-free two lane roadway from Hugo to the Red River and a 28 foot roadway bridge over the Red River, and from the bond proceeds pay the cost of constructing such roadway and a part of the cost of the bridge, not exceeding a total of $2,454,000.
14. Under the provisions of the Oklahoma Turnpike Act and particularly 69 O.S.Supp.1965, Secs. 654(b), (c), 665(c), it is lawful for the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to devote and use a portion of the proceeds of the bonds for the payment of the cost of an administration building for the use of all of the turnpikes constructed and to be constructed within the State of Oklahoma, and to charge the Will Rogers Turnpike on a fair and equitable basis for its use thereof.
15. The provisions of the Trust Agreement combining into one unit and treating as a single project the Turner Turnpike, Southwestern (H. E. Bailey) Turnpike, Section A of Eastern Turnpike, Section B of Eastern Turnpike Project, and Muskogee Turnpike Project are valid and in conformity with applicable law including particularly 69 O.S.Supp.1965, Secs. 659, 661, 669.
16. 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 in the nature of an original action for the approval of the issuance of turnpike revenue bonds of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority for defraying the cost of Section B of the Eastern Turnpike and the Muskogee Turnpike and to refund the outstanding bonds of Turner Turnpike, H. E. Bailey Turnpike and Section A of the Eastern Turnpike. Bonds approved when issued in accordance with the law expressed in this opinion.
Cook, O'Toole, Ming & Tourtellotte, by H. Dale Cook, Oklahoma City, McKeever, Glasser, McKeever & Conrad, by Douglas McKeever, Enid, R. L. Vaughan, Oklahoma City, for Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.
James W. Bill Berry, Morton Y. Loar, Oklahoma City, for C. E. McCaughey.
William N. Christian, pro se.
Crawford D. Bennett, Jr., pro se.
This is an original proceeding in this court instituted by application of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority for approval of the issuance of not to exceed $190,000,000 of Oklahoma Turnpike System Revenue Bonds dated January 1, 1966. The application for such approval is filed pursuant to legislative authorization set forth in 69 O.S.1961, Sec. 668. Notice of the hearing of the application was duly given in accordance with the provisions of said Sec. 668.
Protests to the approval of the bonds have been filed by Crawford D. Bennett, Jr., William N. Christian and C. E. McCaughey.
The funds from the sale of the bonds, with other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Authority
...a specific amount of funds for constructing a specific road or highway sometimes is possible. See, e.g., Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 1966 OK 139, 416 P.2d 860, (turnpike bonds). But the issue in Edwards was whether the Legislature could approach the problem of capital improv......
-
Fair School Finance Council of Oklahoma, Inc. v. State
...609, 612, 43 L.Ed. 909 [1899]; Kimery v. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, Okl., 622 P.2d 1066, 1069 [1981]; Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Okl., 416 P.2d 860, 879 [1966] and Board of Comn'rs. v. A.C. Davis & Sons, 184 Okl. 258, 86 P.2d 782, 783 [1939].30 See cases cited at footn......
-
In re The Application of the Okla. Tpk. Auth.
...Loop. ¶29 The Court validated the 2016 bonds relying on § 1709(A) and Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 1966 OK 139, ¶ 81, 416 P.2d 860, 878, and holding the "has the express legislative authority to issue bonds" and "to combine multiple projects for purposing of issuing bonds." I......
-
Kansas Turnpike Auth. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co.
...was based upon breach of fiduciary duty and conflict of interest allegations by plaintiffs. 23. The decision of Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Auth., 416 P.2d 860 (Okla.1966), in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the defeasance of similar bonds under Oklahoma law, although relevant ......