146 S.W.2d 15 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1940
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *19
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *20 Affirming in part and reversing in part.
Judicial validation of bonds proposed to be issued by Fulton County to fund its floating debt is the subject of our review. The trial court held valid debts to the amount of $80,755.09 and approved the issuance of bonds for that sum. Warrants and notes to the amount of about $8,000 were held invalid as having been obligations created in excess of constitutional limitations. It appears that although the debt of Fulton County, valid and invalid, aggregates perhaps more than $520,000, the assessed valuation of property for the year 1933 (the basis of calculation for the bonds involved) was only $7,775,000. According to the report of the State Director of Post Audits made as of July 1, 1937, the fiscal court spent an average of $20,000 a year for a period of fifteen years in excess of the annual revenues of the county. The deplorable disregard of the law and elementary economics prior to January, 1934, with the resulting chaotic condition of the county's finances, is adverted to in Jones v. Fiscal Court of Fulton County,
Included in the aggregate debt of $520,000 above stated is $258,000 outstanding of an issue of $284,000 of road and bridge bonds voted under the terms of Section 157a of the Constitution, which, as has been many times held, are excluded from the debt limitations of Section 157 and Section 158 of the Constitution. It is conceded by all parties that these road and bridge bonds have no bearing upon questions pertaining to the validity of obligations incurred for other purposes, and are, therefore, eliminated from the consideration of the case at bar. Stratton v. Pike County,
In 1922, the people of Fulton County voted to issue $100,000 of 5% bonds to fund its floating debt. Nothing was paid in liquidation of these bonds after 1932. In Jones v. Fiscal Court of Fulton County, supra, we approved the issuance of 2% bonds to the amount of $70,000 to refund the principal and unpaid interest of these voted bonds, and the originals were so converted.
In 1928, the fiscal court, without a vote of the people, issued 5 1/4% bonds to the amount of $115,000 to fund the floating debt created subsequent to 1922. They mature September 1, 1948. The validity of this issue was assumed in the Jones case, and it will be so presumed now. Whitley County v. Hermann,
On December 31, 1933, there were outstanding notes and warrants to the amount of $88,805.91, which it is proposed to fund by the present issue of bonds.
Basic of all considerations and calculations are two questions, namely, whether on December 31, 1933, or on any particular date when an obligation was incurred, (a) the debt limitation of 2% on the value of taxable property in the county prescribed by Section 158 of the Constitution had been reached, or (b) the current debt limitation measured by the anticipated revenue from the levy of the maximum tax rate of 50 cents prescribed by Section 157, the poll tax authorized by Section 180, and that permitted or required by Section 159 of the Constitution, plus miscellaneous income, had been exceeded.
1. The circuit court ruled that both the voted bonds of 1922 and the funding bonds of 1928 were outside or excluded from the limitation of Section 158 of the Constitution. The effect of the ruling was to remove that limitation from the case since the floating debt alone was well within the permission of Section 158. But it and the bonded debt combined exceeded the limitation. Apparently the excess ranged from $48,000 on January 1, 1929, to a high of $168,700 on January 1, 1933.
There is authority for the court's ruling although it is opposed to the general current of our opinions. The discord and confusion that exists leads to a review and reconsideration of the interpretation not only of Section 158 but also of 157 of the Constitution, as they affect the point of maximum indebtedness, in the aggregate and current during the fiscal year.
Section 158 of the Constitution explicitly declares that no county shall be "authorized or permitted to incur indebtedness to an amount, including existing indebtedness, in the aggregate exceeding" the maximum of two percentum (2%) "on the value of the taxable property therein, to be estimated by the assessment next before the last assessment previous to the incurring of the indebtedness." There is a proviso, not material *24 here, concerning debts contracted before the adoption of the Constitution or for an emergency. Following that is the provision:
"Nothing herein shall prevent the issue of renewal bonds, or bonds to fund the floating indebtedness of any city, town, county, taxing district or other municipality."
Different views, reflected in many opinions, have existed among the members of the court as to whether this last quoted provision is confined to debts created before the adoption of the Constitution, or is authority for funding debts subsequently incurred. The reasons for the latter view, which has prevailed as the ruling of the court, are summarized in Hall v. Fiscal Court of Fleming County,
In Vaughn v. City of Corbin,
That part of the Vaughn opinion, to which we refer, was quoted in City of Frankfort v. Fuss,
In City of Winchester v. Nelson,
"In estimating the amount of indebtedness permissible under this section of the Constitution, it is necessary to include in the estimate the proposed indebtedness and all outstanding contracted indebtedness, contracted in a previous year or years, whether bonded, floating, or of whatever kind [Citations], but the current expenses of the city for the current year are not to be included in the estimate of total indebtedness under Section 158 (O'Bryan v. City of Owensboro), supra [
113 Ky. 680 ,68 S.W. 858 , 69 S.W. 800], although they must be included in estimates of indebtedness under the limitations of Section 157."
It had been previously written in O'Bryan v. City of Owensboro,
Counsel for appellees construe the judgment as having included the voted bonds in the consideration of the limitations of Section 158, but the judgment expressly states otherwise. They take the position in reference to the non-voted bonds of $115,000 that only the annual appropriation to the sinking fund and current interest need be regarded in applying the 2% debt limit, and it seems such was the ruling of the court. Appellees rely upon the Vaughn case and its quotation in the Fuss case, and upon an expression in Hogan v. Lee Fiscal Court,
"The only thing which it is necessary to consider and charge up against the county in a current year is the amount of interest and the sinking fund that must be set apart to take care of the outstanding funded indebtedness."
As presently pointed out, this was said in relation to the construction of Section 157 as it pertains to charges against current revenues. It is a misconstruction of that opinion to say that it holds that a funded debt is excluded from the limitations of Section 158.
As we have shown, Vaughn v. City of Corbin, supra, is out of line with all others. To that extent it is, therefore, hereby overruled. It was error for the court to disregard the limitations of Section 158 of the Constitution. This will apparently adversely affect the rights of those who hold warrants or notes of the county issued for non-governmental obligations.
As has been said in reference to the adoption of a written constitution that the people have protected themselves from themselves, so it may be said that by Section 158 the people of Kentucky have protected themselves from excessive public local debt, even though the largest majority might desire and vote for it. Excepting *27 the specific provisos and the possible exigencies of carrying on necessary and essential governmental functions, imported into them as a more imperative policy, the limitations of debt prescribed by Section 158 are mandatory prohibitions of public officials and, as well, of those who may contract with them. It must be regarded by all under the penalty of malfeasance in office by the one group and of loss of property by the other. The aggregate of all debts of a taxing unit of government in whatever form they are is the sum to be considered in relation to the maximum permitted by Section 158. Whenever that amount shall be reached any subsequent obligation is void.
2. We turn to the application of Section 157 of the Constitution. Its pertinent part is here quoted for ready reference:
" The tax rate of * * * counties * * * shall not, at any time, exceed * * * fifty cents (50c) on the hundred dollars ($100.00) * * *. No county * * * shall be authorized or permitted to become indebted, in any manner or for any purpose, to an amount exceeding, in any year, the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the voters thereof, voting at an election to be held for that purpose; and any indebtedness contracted in violation of this section shall be void. Nor shall such contract be enforceable by the person with whom made; nor shall such municipality ever be authorized to assume the same."
This plainly prohibits any indebtedness for any purpose beyond the revenues of the year without the assent of two-thirds of the voters of the county and protects the people from the improvidence of their officers. Until the opinion of Payne v. City of Covington, supra, the term "revenue provided" was construed to mean the revenue provided by and in the same section of the Constitution rather than that particularly provided each year by the local taxing body. Since the fiscal court of Fulton County always levied the maximum regular rate of 50 cents, the difference is not important here except in relation to an extra levy for the satisfaction of the voted bonds as we shall presently see.
For a while Section 157 was construed as requiring that a valid debt at the close of the fiscal year must be *28 carried over and taken into consideration in the financial operations of the succeeding year. See, among others, City of Winchester v. Nelson, supra; Payne v. City of Covington, supra. But the court, influenced by the necessity of reading Section 158 and 157 together in order to make a complete regulation, later imported into Section 157 the provision of Section 158 which authorizes the funding of a floating debt and changed the interpretation. It found in this provision a means of easier liquidation of an accumulated legal indebtedness. By funding the debt, the county or municipality is required to consider and charge up against its current revenues in succeeding years only the amount of interest and sinking fund payable during the year. Hogan v. Lee Fiscal Court, supra.
The construction of Section 157 (departing from the principle of Nelson County Fiscal Court v. McCrocklin,
It has been held right along that a fiscal court may make its contracts in reasonable, conservative and good faith anticipation of its revenues for the year and borrow money upon the faith thereof, taking into consideration the experiences of the past in relation to failures of collection. Shearin v. Ballard County,
(a) The court did not take into consideration any expenditure or liability for interest or annual sinking fund charges for the two bond issues. It appears that at least during the years involved there was no special levy made and, therefore, no special revenue collected or sum allocated to this purpose. Section 159 of the Constitution is as follows:
"Whenever any city, town, county, taxing district or other municipality is authorized to contract an indebtedness, it shall be required, at the same time, to provide for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on said indebtedness, and to create a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof, within not more than forty years from the time of contracting the same."
The section is self-executing; but Section 4281u-2, *31
Kentucky Statutes, puts it in operation. Whenever a taxing district creates a bonded indebtedness it must provide by taxation, to be collected annually throughout the life of the bonds, a sum sufficient to amortize the debt and pay it when and as it shall become due. This is mandatory upon all local legislative bodies as well as the General Assembly of the State. Ballard v. City of Shelbyville,
The imperative law of the Constitution and of the Statutes applies alike to bonds issued by authority of a special referendum vote and to bonds issued by resolution, order or ordinance of a local legislative body to fund a valid floating debt. Herd v. City of Middlesboro,
For a debt created or, as in the present instance, specially assumed by a vote of the people, the county or other taxing district is authorized by Sections 157 and 159 of the Constitution to levy a special tax in addition to the regular maximum rate prescribed by Section 157 which, in the case of a county, is 50 cents on the $100. McCrocklin v. Nelson County Fiscal Court,
(b) The obligation to satisfy according to its terms the annual interest and proportionate part of the principal of the bond issue of 1928 for $115,000 to take up a floating debt is in a different category. Those charges must have been and must be paid out of the regular, general and current revenues (the bulk of which is from the maximum of 50 cents ad valorem tax). Parsons v. Arnold,
(c) Section 2739g-2d of the Statutes gives to each of the respective counties for its county road fund 1/240 of the registration fees of motor trucks. The trial court mingled this money with the general funds and charged all expenditures against a single fund. We think this was error. Cf. Fiscal Court of Scott County v. Davidson,
(d) As we understand the record, the full amount *34 that it was possible to realize by the hypothetical application of the maximum rates was used by the court in the calculations, and then the delinquent taxes for that year were added to the hypothetical revenues of the succeeding years in which collected. Unless the possibility of failure of 100 percent collection was taken into consideration and allowances therefor made in the estimate of the revenues of the previous years in which those taxes were payable, it is apparent that the inclusion of delinquent taxes collected was a duplication.
3. Because of the failure of taxing districts to respect the tax limitations of Section 157 and the debt limitations of 158 of the Constitution, the court has been confronted several times with a situation which required the importation of an exception into those sections, namely, that obligations for essential governmental services and functions are valid though they exceed the limitations. But the authorities generally are not uniform on this point, some courts holding all excess is void; that it is immaterial that the debts are incurred for governmental expenses and the courts may not extend pay-as-you-go provisions by implication. However, our interpretation seems founded on sound reasoning and apparently is in accord with the majority view where the constitutional provision is similar. Smartt v. Com'rs of Craig County,
The question is presented as to how the situation is to be regarded, particularly in a retroactive accounting. It was at all times the duty of the fiscal court to earmark enough of the legally anticipated revenue to take care of all the governmental expenses for the year and to reserve that sum. Nelson County Fiscal Court v. McCrocklin,
Because the establishment of the sinking fund and payment of interest on bonds is a provision of the Constitution, and the fund often declared to be inviolate (also Section 4281u-3, Statutes), we are not sure that such fixed charges should not be placed next in order as preferential and that the validity of non-government expenditures and warrants be held to depend upon whether such charges added to the reserve for governmental expenses had exhausted the revenues. It does not appear that this has been the construction of the law heretofore, since the theory is that funding bonds are but substitutes for warrants and notes whose integrity is dependent upon the financial status of the county or municipal corporation at the time the debts were incurred, the bonds being but evidences thereof. Were these voted bonds issued for a special purpose, as for a particular public improvement, the preferential character of the annual charges could not be doubted. But in view of the strict accounting now being required by the County Budget Act, Section 1851c-1 et seq., Statutes, with both criminal and civil liabilities expressly imposed for the misapplication of such funds, we need express no further opinion. The unpaid funded bonds are to be deemed as valid obligations incurred previous to the current year. The failure to reserve money for their payment does not, of course, affect the liability of the promisor. Therefore, the amount may be refunded now.
It may not be amiss to observe that the expenditure for other things of a substantial part of those funds reserved for current governmental expenses and other special purposes was a misappropriation by the officials and an unlawful receipt by the recipients. Sections 4281u-2 and 4281u-4, Statutes; Boyd County v. Boyd County Fiscal Court,
We appreciate that the conclusions herein expressed will cause a large loss to many holders of the county's obligations, who accepted them in good faith for money loaned or services rendered or merchandise sold to the county. But it must be remembered that one of the elementary as well as fundamental principles of applied political economics is that those who contract with public officers are chargeable with knowledge of *37 the limitations upon their powers and deal with them at their peril. In this case it is difficult to believe that any one dealing with the former members of the fiscal court of Fulton County did not have actual knowledge of the extreme evasion and disregard of those limitations. Since the revised calculations upon the different predicates outlined will materially change the results as to validity of many notes and warrants, we reserve other questions presented as to particular claims.
The judgment authorizes the issuance of bonds to the amount of $27,365.40, representing governmental expenses. It is conceded by all parties that the classification is correct except as to a few negligible items, which are waived. The court also regarded as valid a note due Mrs. W.H. Brown for $7,000 with interest. The original debt was created long ago. It was in part included in obligations to be funded in 1922 and entirely in the issue of 1928, but the proceeds in each instance were used for other purposes and this obligation never paid. Instead of paying it on this last occasion, resort was had to the subterfuge of re-borrowing the money as a new transaction, but in reality there was a renewal. It was subsequently renewed from year to year. The debt being valid when created, it has continued to be valid, hence it was proper to include it in the present issuance of bonds. The judgment is affirmed as to these two items.
The American Surety Company was made a party defendant on the idea of a possible contingent liability to the county. A demurrer to the petition as against it was sustained. That was manifestly proper and it is agreed by all parties that the judgment as to that defendant should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
As this was a proceeding by the county seeking to have its action in funding its debts validated, and the statute placed the burden upon the county to establish their validity, costs of the suit should be paid by the county, and it is so ordered.
The judgment is affirmed on cross appeals of the Universal Laboratories and Germo Manufacturing Company
To the extent the judgment held claims or obligations void and therefore not subject to being bonded it is affirmed. *38
The application of the several principles and rulings declared to other particular items not expressly made, and other questions not herein disposed of, are reserved.
Except to the extent stated, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded for consistent proceedings.
Whole court sitting except Judge Perry.
Judge Cammack dissents from so much of the opinion as continues to hold that funding bonds may be issued for floating debts created subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution, and that the tax limitations of Section 157 of the Constitution may be exceeded to liquidate bonds voted by the people. It is his view that on the first proposition the court should return to the holding in Nelson County Fiscal Court v. McCrocklin,