U.S. Elevator Corp. v. City of Tulsa

• Decision Date: 29 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 51805,51805
• Citation: 1980 OK 69,610 P.2d 791
• Parties: UNITED STATES ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Appellee, v. The CITY OF TULSA, Appellant, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 791

610 P.2d 791

1980 OK 69

UNITED STATES ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Appellee, v. The CITY OF TULSA, Appellant, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 51805.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 29, 1980.

Appeal from the District Court, Tulsa County; Richard V. Armstrong, District Judge.

Appellants appeal from an order of the District Court enjoining the City of Tulsa from complying with the terms of a contract between it and Otis Elevator Company and declaring such contract invalid because of the failure of the City of Tulsa to comply with the provisions of the Public Competitive Bidding Act of 1974, 61 O.S.1974 Supp., §§ 101 et seq., in letting such contract.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Alfred K. Morlan, Tulsa, for appellant City of Tulsa.

Arthur E. Rubin, Richard B. Noulles, Tulsa, for appellant Otis Elevator Co.

Jack R. Givens, Tulsa, for appellee.

IRWIN, Vice Chief Justice.

The issue presented is whether the Public Competitive Bidding Act of 1974 (61 O.S. §§ 101 et seq.), insofar as it relates to the advertising, receiving bids and awarding public improvement contracts, applies to a "Home Rule" municipality which has charter provisions for competitive bidding on public improvement contracts. If the Act is applicable we must then determine if the contract involved here is within its terms.

We hold the Act is not applicable ¹ and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The City of Tulsa (City), a "Home Rule" city, followed its charter provisions instead of the Act in advertising, receiving bids and awarding a contract for elevator maintenance service for two public buildings. Otis Elevator Company (Otis) was the successful bidder, and United States Elevator Company (USEC) was an unsuccessful bidder. After the contract was awarded to Otis, USEC brought an action seeking an injunction enjoining City from complying with its contract with Otis. In turn, City sought to have its contract with Otis declared invalid in the event USEC was granted its requested relief.

USEC's action is based upon its contention that public improvement contracts are of statewide concern, and City should have followed the Act instead of its charter provisions in advertising, receiving bids and awarding the service contract. On the other hand, City and Otis contend that since City (Tulsa) is a "Home Rule" city, and its charter provides for competitive bidding on contracts such as the one involved here, the Act was not applicable and the charter provisions were properly followed.

The parties stipulated that if the Act is applicable, its provisions were not followed. USEC does not contend that the charter provisions were not followed if they are applicable.

The trial court granted summary judgment to USEC and declared the contract between City and Otis invalid. City and Otis appealed.

The parties recognize that municipalities may adopt charters containing provisions not in accord with the general law, and insofar as such charter provisions conflict with the state law on subjects relating to purely municipal matters, the state law is thereby suspended. City of Muskogee v. Senter, 186 Okl. 174, 96 P.2d 534 (1939). Under this rule, the conflict between the supremacy of the state law and the exercise of municipal power under its charter is resolved by determining "whether such law pertains to general matters of the state and its government or pertains to municipal affairs." Lackey v. State, 29 Okl. 255, 116 P. 913 (1911).

The application of this principle in the light of the various decisions has been likened to cutting a path through a jungle. Merrill, "Constitutional Home Rule for Cities Oklahoma Version", 5 Okl.L.Rev. 139, 159 (1952). Professor Merrill said that in searching for the "harmonizing principle" to be applied in determining which items are "municipal affairs," we may not simplify the process by concluding that matters of general concern, and hence not "municipal affairs", are those which concern the state at large or affect the people generally. Nearly every function of any local government may be said to affect "the people generally" in this mobile society. Practically any action of a city will have an impact upon persons not permanent residents of that municipality.

There are no constitutional guidelines for awarding public improvement contracts by a municipality that are comparable to those involving municipal bonded indebtedness over which the state maintains its complete sovereignty. Sublett v. City of Tulsa, Okl., 405 P.2d 185 (1965). However, USEC urges that this case may be resolved by resort to such constitutional provisions and other statutory provisions which arguably evidence an overriding state concern in the "economic" welfare of the municipalities of this state.

We do not find this argument persuasive. Article X, §§ 26, 27, and 35 of the Oklahoma Constitution, cited in this regard by USEC, relate to limitations on municipal indebtedness and procedures for incurring such indebtedness. They do not speak to the manner in which municipalities may carry on ordinary business affairs or for letting public building contracts. And we are not concerned here with how the contract in question will be paid or financed. Nor does the fact that the legislature has enacted numerous statutes concerning the financial affairs of a municipality, and the procedures to be used in providing for payments from certain funds dictate a finding that the Act pertains to...