State ex rel. City of Shawnee v. Williamson
| Decision Date | 19 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | 29364. |
| Citation | 97 P.2d 74,186 Okla. 278,1939 OK 563 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. v. WILLIAMSON, Atty. Gen. and Ex Officio Bond Commissioner. CITY OF SHAWNEE |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
As Corrected December 28, 1939.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a city has an indebtedness, a portion of which is incurred under Section 26, Art. 10 of the Constitution Okl.St.Ann., and a portion of which is incurred under Section 27 thereof, and an existing sinking fund raised by reason of the indebtedness incurred under both sections, in determining the net indebtedness to which the limitation prescribed in Section 26 applies, there should first be deducted from the gross debt that portion thereof incurred under Section 27 and from the remainder there should be deducted that portion of the sinking fund raised to pay the indebtedness incurred under Section 26. The balance remaining, after making such deductions, constitutes the "existing indebtedness" to which the limitation of Sec. 26 applies. That portion of the sinking fund raised by reason of the indebtedness incurred under Sec. 27 may not be so deducted.
2. Section 6383, O.S.1931, 11 Okl.St.Ann. § 645, as to improvements of a general nature not specifically provided for by the Constitution, or by subsequently enacted legislation, is still vital and effective, and may be relied upon for authority to issue bonds to provide for improvements within its scope.
3. A proposed bond issue for the construction of a railroad crossing, voted by the citizens of a community under authority of Section 6383, O.S.1931, 11 Okl.St.Ann. § 645, is not invalid for the reason that the cost of paving is included therein, where such paving is incidental to the construction of the crossing, and the crossing is an improvement of a general nature.
Original action for writ of mandamus by the State of Oklahoma, on the relation of the City of Shawnee, Okl., against Mac Q Williamson, as Attorney General and ex officio Bond Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, to require the approval of a bond issue, which the respondent had refused to approve.
Writ granted.
Randall Pitman, Tom C. Waldrep, and William R. High, all of Shawnee, for relator.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Stephen D. Holloway, of Oklahoma City, for respondent.
This is an original action for a writ of mandamus, filed by the relator, City of Shawnee, against respondent, Williamson, as Attorney General and ex-officio Bond Commissioner, to require the approval of a bond issue. Respondent refused to approve the bonds on two grounds, first, that the proposed issue would make relator's debts exceed the limits contained in section 26, Article 10, of the Oklahoma Constitution, Okl.St.Ann., and second, that the proposed issue is not for a legally authorized purpose. The parties have, at the suggestion of the Court, filed a stipulation as to the financial condition of the City of Shawnee, which is as follows:
"It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the above named Relator and Respondent that the total indebtedness including judgments of the City of Shawnee is $1,781,400.00; that the above amount includes bonds issued under and by virtue of Section 27, Article 10 and Section 26, Article 10 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and includes the bond issue under consideration in this cause. That part of said indebtedness represented by bonds issued exclusively under authority of Section 27, Article 10 amounts to $1,379,303.82, and that part of said total indebtedness including the issue under consideration incurred under authority of Section 26, Article 10 Oklahoma Constitution is $402,096.18.
It is further stipulated that the assessed valuation of said City for the fiscal year 1938 and 1939, after deducting homestead exemptions, is $6,244,149.00, and that the assessed valuation of said City for the fiscal year 1939 and 1940, after deducting homestead exemptions, is $5,891,246.00.
It is further stipulated that said City of Shawnee has and maintains only one sinking fund which is not treated for the purpose of paying sinking fund obligations as being allocated for the payment of the several classes of sinking fund debt. Out of said sinking fund all of the bonded debt and the interest thereon is paid, regardless of how or under what authority said bonded debt was incurred. Said fund is also the source of payment of the judgment indebtedness of said City. It is further stipulated that at the present time there is the total amount of $321,280.61 in said sinking fund.
It is further stipulated that by referring to the books and records of the City of Shawnee, Oklahoma, the parties hereto have ascertained that of said total sinking fund balance of $321,280.61, the sum of $39,837.92 was levied and collected exclusively by reason of the existence of the indebtedness incurred exclusively under authority of Section 27, Article 10, Oklahoma Constitution and the sum of $281,442.69 was levied and collected exclusively by reason of the existence of indebtedness incurred exclusively under the provisions of Section 26, Article 10, Oklahoma Constitution."
1. It is clear that the City may incur a debt not to exceed $294,562.30 for purposes other than those specified in section 27, Article 10, of our Constitution. In determining the amount of the present indebtedness to which the limitation of Sec. 26 of Art. 10 of the Constitution applies, we must deduct from the aggregate gross debt the sum of $1,379,303.82 incurred under section 27 of Art. 10 of the Constitution. State ex rel. City of Shawnee v. Short, 1925, 113 Okl. 187, 240 P. 700; Faught v. City of Sapulpa, 1930, 145 Okl. 164, 292 P. 15; City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 1926, 118 Okl. 201, 248 P. 336. After making this deduction it appears that the gross debt not incurred under authority of section 27 is $402,096.18. But section 26 has been held to apply to the net debt only, which is arrived at by deducting from the gross debt the sinking fund on hand. State ex rel. City of Shawnee v. Short, supra. Prior to the filing of the stipulation the parties were in disagreement as to whether the total sinking fund should be deducted from the sum of $402,096.18. Relator contended that such deduction was authorized by State ex rel. City of Shawnee v. Short, supra, while respondent as strongly argued that the single sinking fund theory rendered that decision inapplicable, and that such deduction would violate section 26 for the reason that a portion of the sinking fund must be applied to retire section 27 debts.
In view of the stipulation it seems clear that so much of the sinking fund as was raised by reason of indebtedness to which the limitation of section 26 applies may be deducted in computing the City's net indebtedness,...
To continue reading
Request your trial