STATE ex rel. BOARD of ED. v. EXCISE BOARD OF PAYNE COUNTY et al.

Oklahoma Supreme Court1932-01-26No. No. 23153

155 Okla. 227

Summary · law.co

Holding. The excise board was without authority to reduce the school district's budget estimate or the 15-mill tax levy after voters approved it at a properly conducted election and the levy was within constitutional and statutory limits. The writ of mandamus is granted.

A school district sought a court order to require the county excise board to levy a 15-mill property tax that had been approved by voters at a properly conducted election in May 1981. The excise board refused to implement the full levy, instead reducing it to 13 mills after adjusting the district's budget estimate downward. The school district argued the excise board lacked authority to reduce either the estimate or the levy once voters had approved the 15-mill rate.

The court agreed with the school district. Under Oklahoma law, when a school district's estimated budget needs can be met through a tax levy that falls within constitutional and statutory limits and has been approved by voters, the excise board must implement that levy and cannot unilaterally reduce it. The court rejected the excise board's argument that the election was invalid because voters did not directly approve the specific budget estimate, finding that independent school districts operate under different statutory procedures than municipalities and the election complied with applicable law.

The excise board also contended that a subsequent reduction in assessed property values meant the 15-mill levy would no longer generate sufficient revenue. The court acknowledged that if this were true, the excise board could reduce the district's estimated needs under applicable statute, but even so, it remained obligated to implement the full 15-mill levy approved by voters.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Authority of excise board to reduce school district tax levies approved by voters
Validity of school district election for tax levy increase
Applicability of municipal tax procedures to independent school districts
Effect of changed property valuations on approved tax levies

Procedural posture

The school board brought an original action in mandamus in the state supreme court against the county excise board to compel implementation of a voter-approved 15-mill tax levy.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

HEFNER, J.

This is an original action in mandamus brought in this court by the board of education of independent school district No. 6, Payne county, against the excise board of that county to compel It to levy a tax of 15 mills against all the property located within that district. It appears that on the 19th day of May, 1981, at an election duly called for that purpose, the 15-mill levy was approved by a majority of the qualified voters who voted at the election of that district. The election returns were duly canvassed by the board of education and certified to the excise board. Notwithstanding #his election, the excise board refused to make a levy of 15 mills a,nd, after reducing the estimated needs of the school district as prepared and filed by the board of education, made a levy of 13 mills.

It is the contention of the school district that the excise board had no authority to reduce the estimate made by it and the levy of 15 mills necessary to meet the same after the approval thereof by a majority vote of the electors of that district at an election held for that purpose. With this contention we agree. It is not denied that, according to the valuation of the property located within that district, a 15-mill levy would have raised revenue sufficient to care for the estimated needs of the district. This being true, the excise board was without authority to reduce either the estimate or the levy.

In the case of In re Tax Levies of City of Woodward v. Reid, 143 Okla. 204, 288 P. 458, the court held:

“If the estimated needs of a municipality for the general fund expense of the municipality can be supplied within the statutory limitations, it is the duty of the excise board to make the appropriations therefor in the amounts estimated to be needed for that purpose, and the excise board is not authorized to make the appropriations in a lesser amount than that estimated to be needed if the amount estimated to be needed can be appropriated within the statutory limitations.”

The Woodward Case was followed in the recent case of School District No. 4, Garfield Co., v. Independent School Dist. No. 4½, Garfield Co., reported in 153 Okla. 171, 4 P. (2d) 1031. It is there said:

“An estimate made by a school district for the conduct of a school may not be reduced by the excise board, if the rate of levy authorized by the voters of the school district under the statutory and constitutional limitations is sufficient to produce the amount of the estimate made.”

The excise board maintains that the election purporting to authorize the levy j§. void for the reason that the estimate filed by the district was not submitted to the people at the election and approved by them. Section 9696, O. O. S. 1921, is cited in support of this contention. Independent school districts, in making excessive levies, are governed by chapter 86, art. 10, C. O. S. 1921, sections 10447 to 10451. Section 10404 is as follows:

“Each city of the first class, and each incorporated town maintaining a four years high school fully accredited with the State University, shall constitute an independent district and be governed by the provisions of this article.”

It is not claimed that the procedure governing elections of this character, as provided by these sections, was not complied with. Under the express provisions of the statute above referred to, independent school districts are governed by chapter 86, art. 10, O. O. S. 1921, and section 9696 has no application thereto. Since the election was conducted in accordance with these provisions, it was valid.

By virtue of section 9, art. 10, of the Constitution, the annual rate for school purposes may be increased by any school district by an amount not to exceed 10 mills on the dollar valuation, on condition that a majority of the voters thereof voting at an election vote for the increase.

It is also urged by the excise board that, since the filing of this action, the assessed valuation of the district has, on appeal from the board of equalization, been reduced in the sum of $59,000 and that a 15-mill levy, therefore, will not raise revenue sufficient to meet the estimated needs of the district. If this be true, it will be the duty of the excise board, under section 9698, to reduce the estimated needs of the district, but it still would be its duty, under the law, to make a 15-mill levy.

The writ is granted.

LESTER, O. J., CLARK, V. O. J., and RILEY, CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, JX, concur.