*1 likely be act- would most recommendations Board, in fact upon by and ed the School ARTHUR, Badger, Dan Anna Allan upon. relied Banks, Brown, Brown, Don W. Gene Larry Brown, Bruner, fairly Myral allegations may us T. before Willma Young Arthur and Bruner, George Carney, showing that Cummins,
read Irene exercise reasonable Company’s failure to Cummins, Richard L. Clarence M. Cun plain- of harm to the increased the risk care ningham, Cunningham, Janet K. Otis C. ease, allegations, if being tiff. Dermer, Dorris, duBois, Troy Thora Sam reasons, would be defective for other not Durham, Jr., Engh, Benny B. M. Ev J. liability. allega- to establish sufficient ans, Fawcett, Ewing, Robert M. Bracie are, however, rea- defective for other tions Ferguson, George Gorin, Justin J. Re sons, and thus did not state a cause Harris, Stephen Harris, becca Ann M. E. Young. against Arthur action Kohnke, Kuhlman, Jr., E. L. Nel Robert allege Although plaintiffs Latham, Leftwich, H. da Richard Car have Young Company Arthur would Lehnert, Macneil, D. men Katherine it recommendations had made different Maxwell, Pybus, James Nani Ruth Flor proper study, allegations these conducted Pybus, Ragan, ence Elnor S. William W. not factual. are conclusional in nature and Rambo, Stone, Stephen John F. Tweed are we told what petition Nowhere ie, Margaret Vitek, Billy Wallace, C. were- Arthur recommendations made Wolfe, Wolfe, Appel Carol A. and John Young, petition nor indicate what does the lants, the School Board action taken v. Young, might reliance Arthur the risk of harm to the have increased The CITY OF STILLWATER and short, plaintiff has failed plaintiff. Authority, Stillwater Utilities allege to state a cause of facts sufficient Appellees, certainly While it is conceivable action. proper study that a failure to make a could McMahan, Dan Amicus Curiae. could have result recommendations which plaintiff, are increased the harm to the we 54164. No. possibilities, conjure up free to such but Supreme of Oklahoma. Court rely upon alleged. facts As there must | must hold allegations, Iwere no factual we petition failed state a cause Young Company. against May 23, Arthur Rehearing Denied action reasons, stated we hold For above
that the trial court committed no reversible dis- sustaining
error in the demurrers and all
missing against causes action
named defendants.
AFFIRMED. J., J.,
LAVENDER, IRWIN, C. V. C.
WILLIAMS, HODGES, HARGRAVE
OPALA, JJ., concur. JJ., DOOLIN, dissent.
SIMMS
created for the use and benefit of the 176-180.3; O.S.Supp.1976 to 60 §§ for the levy and assessment of an addi- one tional cent sales tax on all taxable sales city. Propositions within the Four *3 Proposition submitted to voters. 1 is the pertinent appeal. Proposition to this proposed City of Stillwater be au- the thorized to an in an incur by amount not to exceed dollars million $12 general obligation pro- issuance of to bonds portion a the funds to con- vide of needed Pierce, Couch, Hendrickson, Johnston & improvements to the struct additions and Couch,Jr., by R. Baysinger John Oklahoma system; City’s levy water and to and collect appellants. City, for tax, taxes, annual in addition to all an other Jr., Stillwater, D. Draper, Daniel upon City all the property taxable Brown, Fagin, Tinney by Bush & Wm. Don to pay sufficient the interest on the bonds Kiser, City, for appellees. Oklahoma sinking pay- to constitute a fund for the Wilkinson, Chapel, Riggs, Abney & Keef- principal. Proposition ment of the In 3 the Bullock, Tulsa, by er Louis for amicus W. were to empower City voters asked to the curiae. sewer, water, elec- lease its solid waste and utility system term of
tric to the Trust for a fifty years. Trust proposed It also that the HODGES, Justice. by be authorized to incur an indebtedness brought by group This action was a of issuance of revenue bonds in an amount attorney interested the taxpayers [before sufficient, when combined with the mil- $12 in Bond general capacity his as ex-officio bonds, general obligation dollars of to lion approved disapproved Commissioner1 has or provide the funds to construct additions general challenge obligation the to bonds] City’s system. improvements to the water validity authorizing the the of an election Nothing on the ballot reflected that of issuance the bonds. project total cost of the water was from $25 dollars, On the Board of Commis- so definite to million that no $30 Stillwater, Oklahoma, City sioners of the of upper limit on the amount of revenue bonds adopted might by No. 1834 No. 1835. Trust was Ordinances be issued provided leasing Proposition These for the of ordinances endorsed the electorate. sewer, water, autho- City’s question electric and solid submitted the of whether to disposal levy rize the and assess an addition- systems waste to the Stillwater deposit al one cent sales tax and to Authority [Trust], public trust Utilities provided by procedure provided It is of be incon- 62 O.S.1971 13: forms testable so any court in State of Oklahoma duty “It shall be the Bond Commis- brought in a court unless suit thereon shall be having jurisdiction prepare prescribe sioner to a method uniform forms thirty within same procedure under the laws of the approval days thereof from the date of the State in all where it is desired to issue cases Bond Commissioner.” bonds, any county, public town- securities or City, Beauchamp v. Oklahoma ship, municipality political sub-divi- other (Okl. 1970) an this held that P.2d Court Oklahoma; thereof and it sions shall be of the State may challenge the le maintained to action be duty further of said Bond Commis- perform prior gality of a bond election to the pass se- sioner curity examine into and passing issued, on security, of the Bond Commissioner ance so when de- and such validity. by the their clared certificate said Bond Commis- to be with the sioner issued accordance sought declaratory and in- account trust special in a junctive relief which was denied the trial trustees.2 used They court. asserted that the sales tax approved by All of ordinance, null void be- No. voters,3 and the majority of the simple , art. the Okla.Const. cause it violated sales collecting the additional City began 1) ap- it was not 264 as enumerated: tax. provided: ballot 2.The The vote on The vote on The vote was as It is vote on provided Proposition Proposition Proposition 3 2 was: 4 was: the Okla.Const. follows: was: 2,176 2,443 for 2,113 for - (cid:127) [1741] art. against against against 10, 26: -(cid:127) - 58% -- § 52% 50.5% county, city, other amount “Except any State, political exceeding, manner, town, township, herein be allowed corporation, or for any year, otherwise any purpose, to become or subdivision school *4 provided, no income district, indebted, to an a n voters; 2) I majority
proved
legal obligation was incurred
argument of
the income and
which exceeded
pay a debt
assumption that art.
premised on the
year
fiscal
for the
revenue of
taxpayers’
com-
applicable.
§
3)
tax reve-
prohibited; and
sales
which is
basics,
plaint,
down to
is that if
when boiled
the Trust for an in-
pledged
nues were
the election is validated an undetermined
in excess of the
period of time
definite
over an
money
spent
amount of
will be
period. The
twenty-five year
period
simple
on a
permitted
undisclosed
of time based
majority
that the direct
voters
not know
also concerned
who could
taxpayers are
they
voting
argu-
what
for. Their
Trust
revenues to the
of the tax
payment
premised
assumption
ment is
on the
payment
prohibition
portion
applicable.
art.
26 is
general fund consti-
tax revenues into the
any city
prohibits
the constitution
from be-
statutory
effort to circumvent the
tute an
manner,
any
or for
coming
any
indebted in
of tax
appropriation
of annual
procedure
exceeding
purpose, to an amount
addition, the
by municipalities. In
provided
revenue
year, the income and
the ballot
taxpayers allege that
year
the assent of three-fifths
such
without
disastrously from that
Proposition 3 varied
election.
voting at
of the electorate
it did not
No. 1834 because
of Ordinance
option to renew
the Trust had an
state that
apply
26 does not
We find art.
fifty years, and
for an additional
the lease
Proposition
and 4.
Propositions
*5
proposi-
nor the
neither the ordinances
that
utility
its
the
to lease
which authorizes
amount of the
tions disclosed the total
Authori
property to the Stillwater Utilities
project.
trust, does not create an indebt
ty, public
invalidity of
parties agree that the
The
City.
the
The indebtedness
against
edness
impossible
make it
either ordinance will
the
of revenue bonds under
by the issuance
pro-
project,
Trust,
and that the
finance the total
not
of the
Trust is the indebtedness
exclusively by
Barton,
owned
posed utilities will be
358 P.2d
City.
the
In Harrison v.
lease
municipality.
validity
211,
(Okl.1960)
The
held that
the
this Court
unchallenged
by trustees
agreement are
are issued and sold
and the trust
where bonds
inden
part
public
the
trust
to a bond
taxpayers and are not a
of a
by the
ture,
did
proceeds
or
therefrom
the bonds
appeal.
record on
furniture,
buildings,
acquiring
year,
fix-
provided
or
school
without the
for such
revenue
assent of three-fifths
ing
thereof,
equipment;
to such
and such assent
vot-
tures or
indebtedness
of the voters
election,
purpose,
shall be deemed to be a sufficient
held for that
at an
to be
need,
assent,
showing
unless other-
requiring
of such absolute
such
nor in cases
further,
Provided,
by
provided
wise
law.
be incurred to an
be allowed to
indebtedness
town,
district,
indebtedness,
any county, city,
amount,
or other
including existing
school
in the
political corporation,
(5%)
subdivision of the
exceeding
per
or
aggregate
of
to
five
centum
State,
requiring
incurring any
the
property
the taxable
therein
the valuation of
aforesaid, shall, before
assent of the voters as
assessment for
from the last
be ascertained
so,
doing
provide
previous
for the
the
county purposes
at the time of
to the in-
or
collection
interest
and also to
payment
State
pay
Provided,
curring
of an annual tax sufficient
that if
indebtedness:
of such
due,
therefor,
it falls
on such indebtedness as
need
has an absolute
a school district
sinking fund for the
may,
constitute a
with the assent of three-
such district
twenty-
principal
voting
thereof within
at an election
of the voters thereof
fifths
to be held for that
contracting
(25) years
the
from the time of
purpose,
five
incur indebtedness
indebtedness,
same,
nothing
provided
in this
amount, including existing
further that
to an
prevent any
from
exceeding
per
school district
aggregate
Section shall
five
centum
peri-
personnel
contracting
(10%)
for
exceeding
per
with certificated
(5%)
ten
centum
but not
(1)
therein,
year beyond
extending
current
the
property
ods
one
valuation of the taxable
of the
to be ascertained
year,
limita-
conditions and
under such
for
fiscal
tions as shall be
from the last assessment
prescribed by law. As amend-
county purposes previous
in-
to the
State and
368,
indebtedness,
Question
Petition
purpose
No.
Referendum
curring
State
ed
No. 109.
for the
of such
sites,
Adopted special election
acquiring
improving
con-
or
school
of
structing, repairing,
remodeling
equipping
or
debt,
public
III
not create or constitute a
legal,
valid
that the bonds when issued
allegation
by
The
is made
the tax
obligations
the Trust.
binding
payers that the transfer of funds as deline
charter,
by
provides
No.
which
4.2(1)(2),re-
ated Ordinance
city
Art. IV §
payment
for the direct
of tax revenues to
any city
the sale or lease of
quired that
$50,000,
the
the
prohibits payment
than
Trust and
property valued at more
fund,
public utility
general
owned additional sales tax into the
the lease of an entire
authority
only by
statutory proce
the
an effort to circumvent the
by
City,
the
be made
at an election
approved
appropriation
of an ordinance
dures of annual
of revenues
majority of the
by municipalities.6
O.S.Supp.1978
an affirmative vote of a
Title 11
City.
The reason
qualified
prohibits
electors of
17-101
funds
the transfer of
3 on the ballot
placing Proposition
No.
appropriation
unless there
been an
has
approval of the voters to
gain
was to
taxpay
provided by
the manner
law.
City’s
to the Trust. There
lease the
utilities
charge
ers
that 68
which
O.S.1971 §
statutory authority
is no constitutional
requires all revenues from sources [other
requires that the electorate authorize
except
pro
than ad valorem taxation
of revenue bonds
the Trust.
the issuance
of bonds and those
ceeds from the sale
ballot,
surplusage
was
on
specifically required by
law to be
appli-
and neither art.
26 or 27 were
§§
deposited
sinking
deposit
into the
fund]
Therefore, the amount of the reve-
cable.
city
general
ed in the
revenue fund of the
the Trust
nue bonds to be issued
did
levy
and that an annual
be made to meet
simple majority
need to be stated and
city’s obligations.
only requirement
the electorate
taxes,
Except
for ad valorem
passage.
authorized
2701 to assess
O.S.1971 §
specific purposes
general
taxes for
II
municipal government
legislature
argue
may levy
purposes
and collect for
of state
statute,
1835 and the
*6
adoption
government.
together
of Ordinance No.
with 68
Proposition
4
passage
permits
pas-
of the sales tax
the
O.S.1971
1323and
§§
legally obligated
City
pay
to
specific pur-
the
the
sage of the sales tax for
period beyond
to the
the current
public
trust for a
How-
pose
improving
of
utilities.
proscribed
year’s
ever,
revenue and constituted a
compliance with 68 O.S.1971 2489
§
by
City.
disagree.
the
We
deposited in
requires that all revenues be
obligation imposed on
There is no financial
general
appropriated annually
the
fund and
City
pay
to
the sales tax
We, therefore,
the
other than
city
the
commissioners.
Authority for the fiscal
revenues to the
portion
find that
of
4 of Ordinance No.
§
which it is collected. There is no
year in
1835, prohibiting
proceeds
the
of the addi-
on the
pledge
contingent
or
encumbrance
being paid
sales tax from
or transfer-
tional
beyond
year in
City
funds of the
the fiscal
fund,
general
red to
to be violative of 68
the
received,
are
and
which the sales tax funds
hereby stricken.
O.S.1971
2489.
It
is
§
3 the
to
No. 1835 §
Ordinance
may
repealed
any
at
time
a
21 of Ordinance No.
sales tax
be
Section
provides
severability
any
however
majority of the voters.5
repealed by majority
provides:
repealed
registered
1835 3 which
unless
a
of the
§
5. See Ordinance No.
City voting
repeal
to
voters
the
and be
“This Ordinance shall become
required
subject
July
same in the
approval.”
as was
for its
to
manner
and after
effective on
approval
majority
registered
of a
voters
voting
same in
of the
the
of Stillwater
on the
particularly
Supp.,
The
are
troubled
prescribed by
11 O.S.1978
manner
2482-2492,
especially
seq.; provided
and
§
O.S.1971 §§
that
Section 16-101 et
above,
approval by
required
O.S.Supp.1978
this
17-101.
the
voters
in effect and not be
Ordinance shall remain
misleading, and
free from uncer-
held inval-
that it be
the ordinance which is
portion of
test is
competent
tainty
ambiguity.
and
The
whether
by any court of
unoperative
id or
opportunity
the re-
are
an
fair-
Finding no
with
the voters
afforded
jurisdiction.
fault
ordinance,
will,10
whether
express
we hold
to
their
the
ly
the
maining sections of
apprise
to
question
sufficiently
re-
is
definite
with the additional
the ordinance
valid
accuracy as
with
to
the voters
substantial
quirement
compliance with
O.S.1971
approve.
are
they
what
asked to
complete
published
was
The
ballot
IV
No. 3
paper. Proposition
the local
does
trial
taxpayers contend that
the
being more fully
to the lease term as
refer
concluding
that
the ballot
court erred
1834, out in Ordinance No.
the
set
title
No. 1834 was sufficient.
of Ordinance
where
newspaper
the voters
informed
is that while the ordinance
contention
the
be
copy of
lease could
obtained
municipal
City to
the
provided for the
lease
appeal
Appellants contend on
examined.
fifty
the Trust
a term of
utilities to
misleading
the ballot title was
addi-
years
option
an
to renew for an
with
the
lease.
specify
failed to
term of the
Yet
language of
fifty years, the ballot
tional
allegation
petition by the
there is no
op-
the
No. 3 failed to mention
Proposition
or
citizens that
citizen
defrauded
although
court
The trial
held that
tion.8
mislead;
presented at
nor was
evidence
the
might
how
reasonable men
differ on
support
trial to
such an assertion.
the
articulated,
have
proposition should
been
contrary, a
absence of evidence to the
the title was not defective.
regulari
presumption arises in favor
validity of
The bur
ty and
the election.11
construing
requirements
Cases
contesting the
persons
on the
election
den is
question
question
of the ballot
hold that the
to
with constitu
prove
comply
failure
to
popular
on
vote
the ballot submitted to
statutory requirements.12
tional and
permit
electorate must
in a form
citizens failed to meet the burden.
reach an informed decision
voter to
the meas
approve
disapprove
whether to
V
it
specific, but
question
ure. The
must be
invalidity
Taxpayers
argue
be
also
proposition
from
need not include
enough
Proposition
It is
is
2 which authorizes
ginning to end.9
sufficient if
indebtedness of
printed
identify
subject
matter
incur an
Stillwater
by the issuance of
purpose of the
twelve million dollars
to reflect the character and
Having
Generally,
requirement
general operation
found
bonds.
proposition.
argument
Propositions 3 and
their
concerning
of ballot
valid
submission
deceptive
admittedly
moot.
question
not be
*7
813,
(Tex.
McCoy,
England
provides:
815
1
v.
269 S.W.2d
§
7.
No. 1834
9.
Ordinance
Civ.App.1954);
City County
v.
&
of
McNichols
Water,
Sys-
“Approval of
Sewer and Electric
Denver,
380,
(1949);
120
fusal of the district
limited to the
decision is
accomplish
purpose
tive relief. Our
of the Bond issue.
pertaining to
validity of the election
sample
Examination of the
ballot shows a
intended, and
It is not
propositions.
ballot
proposition 3
appearing
cross-reference
construed,
approval
cannot be
proposition
2.
I think the extraneous
duty
of the Attor
bond issue. This is
2
3 and
statement between
and
General,
ney
position
in his
as bond commis
separate-
the cross-reference violates the
Oklahoma, pursuant
sioner of the
State
required by
Supp.
16-
ness
O.S.1979
§
11-14.
to 62 O.S.1971§§
PART,
IN
AFFIRMED IN
REVERSED
grave
provi-
I
that the
entertain
doubts
PART.
sions of Art. Ill
Constitution
§
Oklahoma,
equal
guaranteeing free and
IRWIN,
J.,
LAVENDER,
J.,
V. C.
C.
by the ex-
elections have not been violated
SIMMS,
WILLIAMS, BARNES,
HAR-
pre-
in the
traneous statement referred to
OPALA, JJ., concur.
GRAVE and
ceding paragraph.
cannot be tol-
Coercion
DOOLIN, J., dissents.
election, electioneering
spe-
erated
an
cifically prohibited,
Supp.
7-
O.S.1979
§
DOOLIN, Justice, dissenting:
of the extraneous mate-
existence
majority opinion,
The vice of the
at least
question
whether or not
rial raises a
as to
me,
apparent
respects.
in several
the voter’s free choice has been affected.
eight page transcript
Examination of the
Although we
law
have no case
or statuto-
made in the trial court reveals there was no
ry provision
language
as to what
must be
adversary hearing
controversy
nor was
special
used on a ballot for
elections con-
presented, argued or
Jurisdiction
decided.
issues,2
cerning
persuaded
bond
I am
justiciable
of a
issue is vested in the district
language
likened to
title should be
Constitution,
7(a)
court
VII
of our
Art.
§
requirements
the ballot title
made under
although
fully
not as detailed or
ex-
provisions.
initiative
referendum
That
pressed
Controversy provi-
as the Case and
9(a)
language as stated in 34 O.S.1971 §
Constitution, Art.
sions of the United States
requires
gist
proposition
to be
issue)
(justiciable
Ill
it
is nonetheless as
persons
in language
stated
understood
necessary.1
engaged
practice
of law.
Secondly,
Supp.
pro-
16-113
O.S.1979
words,
clear,
other
should be
proposi-
vides: “.
.
.if more than one
plain
unambiguous.
It cannot be seri-
submitted, they
arranged
be
so
tion is
fifty
ously
years
doubted that the term of
proposition may
that each
be voted
and the fact that the term was renewable
only
provisions
separately.” Not
must the
fifty year
for another
term must be stated
physically arranged
separate
in a
man-
plain language.
The fact
ner, they
separately
must stand
on their
(the gist)
is not
amount
own bottoms and should not be cluttered
clearly
plainly
open-ended
stated but is
with extraneous material or cross-refer-
case,
present
In the
inserted be-
likewise renders the election invalid to me.
ences.
McCoy,
examples
people: England
1. For
of cases deemed controversies
ed on
v.
*8
Summers,
see,
813,
justiciable
(Tex.Civ.App.1954);
and thus
In re:
S.W.2d
McNi
561,
1307,
(1945),
Denver,
County
U.S.
65 S.Ct.