KAUGER, Justice.
The issues presented are whether the Pottawatomie County Excise Board (Board), appellee, failed to examine the Sheriffs estimate of needs and provide adequate funding; whether the Board improperly considered a nonrecurrent revenue source in the final budget; and whether the County Commissioners failed to follow statutory procedures in preparing a financial statement. We find that: 1) when the items budgeted are excessive, the Board has the authority to reduce the proposed budget; 2) the Board may not consider nonrecurrent sources of revenue when determining the budget appropriation; and 3) a financial statement submitted by the County Commissioners to the Board will not be set aside on a mere technicality.
On October 4, 1985, the Sheriff of Pottawatomie County filed a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Board to approve his estimate of needs for the fiscal year of July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986. He alleged that the Board’s reduction of the estimated budget violated the procedures delineated in 68 O.S.1981 § 2487,
and that the County
Commissioners had failed to certify both the county’s financial statement and the estimate of needs as required by 68 O.S. 1981 § 2483.
The trial court issued an alternative writ directing the Board to approve the Sheriffs budget as submitted, or to show cause why it should not be approved. The Board responded that it had approved a budget for 1985-86 in the amount of $434,235.34, and that the Sheriff had received an increase in funds compared to the amount actually spent the previous year. (For the 1984-85 fiscal year, the Sheriff received $433,018.49 and returned $16,306.81, thus spending, $416,711.68.) The trial court denied the application for the writ of mandamus on December 6, 1985.
I
THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH 12 O.S. SUPP.1985 CH. 15. APP. 2, RULE 1.26.
The Sheriff timely lodged his appeal on January 3, 1986. Eighteen days later, January 21, 1986, he filed an application to assume original jurisdiction, asserting that the ordinary appellate remedy was too slow, and, therefore, inadequate. Because the appeal process has been expedited pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.1985 Ch. 15, App. 2, Rule 1.26,
this Court determined that the Sheriffs remedy was by appeal, and the writ was denied. However, the Sheriff failed to follow the rules for speedy dispo
sition of budget appeals. Rule 1.26 provides that the record shall be transmitted to this Court within 30 days after the final judgment is entered. The record was not completed until May 21, 1986 — five months later, and the briefing cycle was not completed until July 24, 1986. During this time, the fiscal year lapsed.
Any attempt to adjust the 1985-86 budget after its expiration would only create confusion,
and as a practical matter, the Sheriff cannot hire additional employees for a fiscal year which has ended, nor can he pay for expenses incurred in one fiscal year with revenues from a subsequent year. It is evident from the nature of the budgeting process that the time has expired in which actual or practical relief could be afforded.
Ordinarily, this Court will not decide abstract or hypothetical questions which are disconnected from the granting of actual relief nor will we make adjudicative determinations where no practical relief may be granted.
This proceeding is, for all practical purposes, moot. However, because there is a matter of public interest involved; because 68 O.S.1981 § 2484, which was disregarded by the Board, has never been construed; and because of the possibility that similar questions will arise in circumstances under which judicial review might never be available, we will address the allegations of error presented.
II
THE REDUCTION SCHEME PROVIDED IN 68 O.S.1981 § 2487(5) APPLIES ONLY WHEN THAT YEAR’S FISCAL BUDGET EXCEEDS THE COUNTY’S LAWFUL AVAILABLE INCOME
The Sheriff argues that the Board disregarded the actual budgetary needs of all county departments, and that it did not consider the priorities of offices with constitutional functions. The Board counters that it acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously,
but well within the scope of its authority.
The applicable statutes and the authority of county excise boards was discussed by this Court in
Summey v. Tisdale,
658 P.2d 464, 468-70 (Okla.1982) and
Rogers v. Excise Board of Greer County,
701 P.2d 754, 759 (Okla.1984). In
Summey
and
Rogers,
we held that pursuant to 68 O.S.1981 § 2487(2)
and 19 O.S.1981 § 180.65(F), (G),
in the absence of arbi
trary or capricious behavior, the Board may strike or disregard any item which it determines to be in excess of needs.
The record reveals that in the 1984-85 fiscal year, the Sheriff’s personnel budget was increased by $52,000 over the previous fiscal year. Even though additional employees were not added at that time, when funds were available, the Sheriff contends that they are needed now. It is unrefuted that the Sheriff did not avail himself of other available financial resources, to meet his personnel needs, e.g., supplemental appropriations. Salaries had been increased for the two previous years, with a substantial increase for 1984-85, the year in which the Sheriff returned $16,306.81 in unspent funds. The Sheriff also admits that he did not pay overtime as required by
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,
469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985), after he was advised that lawsuits would be filed for back pay.
Instead, a $50.00 raise per month was implemented during the last month of the 1984-85 fiscal year. After considering all these factors, the Board reduced the 1985-86 budget by approximately 2%.
Before the Board approved the county budget, it told all county officials that there was a revenue shortfall, and that every office would need to conserve funds. The Sheriff testified that his third estimate of needs contained the bare essentials necessary for him to perform his constitutional duties. In the 1985-86 budget approved by the Board, the Sheriff received the amount requested in his travel budget and he received an additional $7,000.00 in his maintenance and operation budget to provide for training and for uniforms. His capital outlay budget, which included requests for new radio equipment, computers, and linens for the jail, was not funded — nor were like requests funded for any other county official.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KAUGER, Justice.
The issues presented are whether the Pottawatomie County Excise Board (Board), appellee, failed to examine the Sheriffs estimate of needs and provide adequate funding; whether the Board improperly considered a nonrecurrent revenue source in the final budget; and whether the County Commissioners failed to follow statutory procedures in preparing a financial statement. We find that: 1) when the items budgeted are excessive, the Board has the authority to reduce the proposed budget; 2) the Board may not consider nonrecurrent sources of revenue when determining the budget appropriation; and 3) a financial statement submitted by the County Commissioners to the Board will not be set aside on a mere technicality.
On October 4, 1985, the Sheriff of Pottawatomie County filed a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Board to approve his estimate of needs for the fiscal year of July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986. He alleged that the Board’s reduction of the estimated budget violated the procedures delineated in 68 O.S.1981 § 2487,
and that the County
Commissioners had failed to certify both the county’s financial statement and the estimate of needs as required by 68 O.S. 1981 § 2483.
The trial court issued an alternative writ directing the Board to approve the Sheriffs budget as submitted, or to show cause why it should not be approved. The Board responded that it had approved a budget for 1985-86 in the amount of $434,235.34, and that the Sheriff had received an increase in funds compared to the amount actually spent the previous year. (For the 1984-85 fiscal year, the Sheriff received $433,018.49 and returned $16,306.81, thus spending, $416,711.68.) The trial court denied the application for the writ of mandamus on December 6, 1985.
I
THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH 12 O.S. SUPP.1985 CH. 15. APP. 2, RULE 1.26.
The Sheriff timely lodged his appeal on January 3, 1986. Eighteen days later, January 21, 1986, he filed an application to assume original jurisdiction, asserting that the ordinary appellate remedy was too slow, and, therefore, inadequate. Because the appeal process has been expedited pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.1985 Ch. 15, App. 2, Rule 1.26,
this Court determined that the Sheriffs remedy was by appeal, and the writ was denied. However, the Sheriff failed to follow the rules for speedy dispo
sition of budget appeals. Rule 1.26 provides that the record shall be transmitted to this Court within 30 days after the final judgment is entered. The record was not completed until May 21, 1986 — five months later, and the briefing cycle was not completed until July 24, 1986. During this time, the fiscal year lapsed.
Any attempt to adjust the 1985-86 budget after its expiration would only create confusion,
and as a practical matter, the Sheriff cannot hire additional employees for a fiscal year which has ended, nor can he pay for expenses incurred in one fiscal year with revenues from a subsequent year. It is evident from the nature of the budgeting process that the time has expired in which actual or practical relief could be afforded.
Ordinarily, this Court will not decide abstract or hypothetical questions which are disconnected from the granting of actual relief nor will we make adjudicative determinations where no practical relief may be granted.
This proceeding is, for all practical purposes, moot. However, because there is a matter of public interest involved; because 68 O.S.1981 § 2484, which was disregarded by the Board, has never been construed; and because of the possibility that similar questions will arise in circumstances under which judicial review might never be available, we will address the allegations of error presented.
II
THE REDUCTION SCHEME PROVIDED IN 68 O.S.1981 § 2487(5) APPLIES ONLY WHEN THAT YEAR’S FISCAL BUDGET EXCEEDS THE COUNTY’S LAWFUL AVAILABLE INCOME
The Sheriff argues that the Board disregarded the actual budgetary needs of all county departments, and that it did not consider the priorities of offices with constitutional functions. The Board counters that it acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously,
but well within the scope of its authority.
The applicable statutes and the authority of county excise boards was discussed by this Court in
Summey v. Tisdale,
658 P.2d 464, 468-70 (Okla.1982) and
Rogers v. Excise Board of Greer County,
701 P.2d 754, 759 (Okla.1984). In
Summey
and
Rogers,
we held that pursuant to 68 O.S.1981 § 2487(2)
and 19 O.S.1981 § 180.65(F), (G),
in the absence of arbi
trary or capricious behavior, the Board may strike or disregard any item which it determines to be in excess of needs.
The record reveals that in the 1984-85 fiscal year, the Sheriff’s personnel budget was increased by $52,000 over the previous fiscal year. Even though additional employees were not added at that time, when funds were available, the Sheriff contends that they are needed now. It is unrefuted that the Sheriff did not avail himself of other available financial resources, to meet his personnel needs, e.g., supplemental appropriations. Salaries had been increased for the two previous years, with a substantial increase for 1984-85, the year in which the Sheriff returned $16,306.81 in unspent funds. The Sheriff also admits that he did not pay overtime as required by
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,
469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985), after he was advised that lawsuits would be filed for back pay.
Instead, a $50.00 raise per month was implemented during the last month of the 1984-85 fiscal year. After considering all these factors, the Board reduced the 1985-86 budget by approximately 2%.
Before the Board approved the county budget, it told all county officials that there was a revenue shortfall, and that every office would need to conserve funds. The Sheriff testified that his third estimate of needs contained the bare essentials necessary for him to perform his constitutional duties. In the 1985-86 budget approved by the Board, the Sheriff received the amount requested in his travel budget and he received an additional $7,000.00 in his maintenance and operation budget to provide for training and for uniforms. His capital outlay budget, which included requests for new radio equipment, computers, and linens for the jail, was not funded — nor were like requests funded for any other county official.
The Sheriff urges that any budget reduction must be made in compliance with 68 O.S.1981 § 2487(5),
and that because the Sheriffs office falls within the purview of a constitutional governmental function, it should be the last office to receive reductions. His analysis is incorrect here because the reduced items were considered to be in excess of needs pursuant to 68 O.S. 1981 § 2487(2) and 19 O.S.1981 § 180.-65(F), (G) and the Sheriff failed to file for supplemental appropriations. Section 2487(5) is applicable
only
after the excise board has approved the budget requests, and if that year’s fiscal budget exceeds the county’s lawful available income.
Neither party contends the 1985-86 fiscal budget was in excess of the available income. The Board’s reductions complied with 68 O.S.1981 § 2487(2) and 19 O.S.1981 § 180.-65(F), (G).
Ill
THE BOARD MAY NOT CONSIDER NONRECURRENT SOURCES OF REVENUE WHEN DETERMINING THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION
The Sheriff receives income from the service of civil summons. According to
68 O.S.1981 § 2484,
it is unlawful for an excise board to diminish the allotment of state revenue received by a county office because that office receives such funds. This statute is designed to assure adequate funding, and to prevent dependence on variable sources of income. The August 21, 1985, minutes of the Board reflect that it suggested that those departments receiving special fees should use such funds to supplement cuts in their estimate of needs. This, coupled with the fact that an estimated amount for the special fund was noted on the budget, indicates that the Board considered the fund and reduced the Sheriffs budget accordingly. The Sheriff argues that the Board should have disregarded the probable income from nonrecurring sources, and that when it reduced his appropriation by including these revenues, it ignored its non-discretionary statutory duty. We agree that the inclusion of nonrecurring income is impermissible under the clear language of § 2484.
IV
A FINANCIAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO THE EXCISE BOARD WILL NOT BE SET ASIDE ON A MERE TECHNICALITY
The Sheriff also suggests that the Board of County Commissioners failed to perform its statutory duty to certify, as true and correct, the financial statement of the fiscal condition of Pottawatomie County at the end of the 1985-86 fiscal year.
In
Protest of Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co.,
149 Okl. 166, 300 P. 713 (1931), we held that if the estimate is within constitutional and statutory limits, and if it is necessary for the proper management of the affairs of a governmental unit, it should not be set aside on a mere technicality. We, therefore, find that the financial statement should not invalidated.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
DOOLIN, C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, WILSON, SUMMERS, JJ., concur.
OPALA, J., concurs in all parts except part II; dissents from part II.