JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.
This is an application by the Oklahoma. Planning and Resources Board for the approval of state park improvement bonds,, which it proposes to issue for the making of park improvements on numerous state owned parks and for .refunding $850,00Q’ park bonds issued and -improved by this-court in In re Application of Oklahoma. Planning and Resources Board, 201 Okl. 178, 203 P.2d 415. The amount of bonds, proposed to be issued is in the sum of $7,-200,000. The. application for our approval! [62]*62was filed pursuant to authority given in section 17, Ch. 12a, Title 74, S.L.1947, p. 611, 74 O.S.1947, Supp. § 356.17 as amended by the Laws 1953, p. 420, Sec. 3, 74 Okl.St., Supp., Secs. 356.1-356.20. Notice of the hearing of the application was duly published; no protests were filed nor objections made, and the matter came on for hearing on the written application and the instruments attached thereto and made a part thereof.
Examination of the application and instruments submitted shows that the issuance of the bonds are in substantial conformity with the provisions of the law (see statutes cited above) which was enacted for the purpose of enabling the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board to make improvements in the various state parks and to pay the cost of such improvements out of the fees chargeable for their use and the use of the various facilities of the parks as provided in said acts.
It appears that the prospective purchasers of the bonds have raised certain questions as to the constitutionality of the law, and also as to the plan of the operation of the development program as set out in the resolution of the Board authorizing the issuance of the bonds. We will consider these •questions in the order in which they appear in the application.
The first question is: Are the bonds as authorized to be issued an indebtedness of the State of Oklahoma in violation of Section 23, Article 10 of the State Constitution as amended on March 11, 1941, and Sections 24 and 25, Article 10, State Constitution? The bonds expressly provide that they shall be payable solely from the revenues derived from the operation of the parks and shall not be an indebtedness of the State of Oklahoma or the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board. In the case •of In re Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, supra, we held that such bonds were not violative of these sections of the Constitution if in accord with statutory provisions, supra, the bonds expressly provided that they were payable solely from the revenues to be derived from the operation of the state parks, and not an indebtedness of the State of Oklahoma or the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board. The bonds herein meet the requirements of the statute and the above decisional rule.
The second question presented is whether the lease agreements to be entered into by and between the Board and the lessee prior to issuance of the bonds cover all of the facilities which are required by the statute to be under lease, and are such lease agreements sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of Title 74, Chapter 12a, Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1953, 74 O.S. Supp. § 356.8, supra.
This question is identical to the second question in the case of In re Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, supra. The statutory provisions involved and the factual situation herein is practically the same as therein, except that more than one park is included in the subject matter of the leases. The rule announced there is applicable here. It is not necessary herein to again discuss the facts and legal principles involved. We are of the opinion that the lease agreements sufficiently satisfy the requirements of the statute.
The third question presented is whether the Board may refund presently outstanding State Park Bonds payable from the revenues of the facilities at Lake Murray State Park into this issue of bonds payable from the combined revenues of the parks of the state and overlapping interest be paid to January 1, 1955.
Section 16 of Chapter 12a, Title 74, Session Laws of 1947, 74 O.S.1951 § 356.16, expressly provides for the issuance of refunding bonds refunding any obligations of the Board. Section 16 reads:
“The Board may issue bonds hereunder for the purpose of refunding any obligations of the Board theretofore issued hereunder, or may authorize and deliver a single issue of bonds hereunder in part for the purpose of refunding such obligations and in part for the acquisition of additional properties or improvements. Where bonds are issued under this Section solely for refunding purposes, such bonds may either be sold as above provided or delivered in exchange for the outstanding [63]*63obligations. If sold, the proceeds maybe either applied to the payment of the obligations refunded or deposited in escrow for the retirement thereof. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the refunding of any outstanding obligations whi-ch are not either maturing, callable for redemption under their terms, or voluntarily surrendered by their holders for cancellation. All bonds issued under this Section shall in all respects be authorized, issued and secured in the manner provided for other bonds issued under this Act, and shall have all of the attributes of such bonds. The Board may provide that any such refunding bonds shall have the same priority of lien on the revenue pledged for their payment as was enjoyed by the obligations refunded thereby.”
Section 3 of Chapter 12a, Title 74, Session Laws of Oklahoma 1953, 74 O.S.Supp. § 356.8, provides:
“The Board shall prescribe and collect reasonable rates, fees, tolls or charges for the services, facilities and commodities rendered by all property of the Board, the revenues of which have been pledged to the payment of bonds issued hereunder, and shall revise such rates, fees, tolls, or charges from time to time whenever necessary to insure that the revenues to be derived therefrom shall be fully sufficient to pay principal of and interest on such bonds. The gross revenues derived by the Board from the operation of any part or parts of the properties of the Board, but no revenues derived by the Board through legislative appropriations or from sources other than operation of the properties of the Board, may be pledged to the payment of such principal and interest. Provided, that the Board is hereby authorized to construct improvements in several parks and/or recreation areas and authorize the issuance of one issue of bonds for all such improvements, and to pledge for the payment of such bonds and the interest thereon, revenues derived by the Board from the operation of any or all of the parks and/or recreational areas for the construction of improvements in which any such consolidated bond issue has been authorized.”
The second paragraph of Section 2 of Chapter 12a, Title 74, Oklahoma Session Laws 1953, 74 O.S.Supp. § 356.6, provides:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.
This is an application by the Oklahoma. Planning and Resources Board for the approval of state park improvement bonds,, which it proposes to issue for the making of park improvements on numerous state owned parks and for .refunding $850,00Q’ park bonds issued and -improved by this-court in In re Application of Oklahoma. Planning and Resources Board, 201 Okl. 178, 203 P.2d 415. The amount of bonds, proposed to be issued is in the sum of $7,-200,000. The. application for our approval! [62]*62was filed pursuant to authority given in section 17, Ch. 12a, Title 74, S.L.1947, p. 611, 74 O.S.1947, Supp. § 356.17 as amended by the Laws 1953, p. 420, Sec. 3, 74 Okl.St., Supp., Secs. 356.1-356.20. Notice of the hearing of the application was duly published; no protests were filed nor objections made, and the matter came on for hearing on the written application and the instruments attached thereto and made a part thereof.
Examination of the application and instruments submitted shows that the issuance of the bonds are in substantial conformity with the provisions of the law (see statutes cited above) which was enacted for the purpose of enabling the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board to make improvements in the various state parks and to pay the cost of such improvements out of the fees chargeable for their use and the use of the various facilities of the parks as provided in said acts.
It appears that the prospective purchasers of the bonds have raised certain questions as to the constitutionality of the law, and also as to the plan of the operation of the development program as set out in the resolution of the Board authorizing the issuance of the bonds. We will consider these •questions in the order in which they appear in the application.
The first question is: Are the bonds as authorized to be issued an indebtedness of the State of Oklahoma in violation of Section 23, Article 10 of the State Constitution as amended on March 11, 1941, and Sections 24 and 25, Article 10, State Constitution? The bonds expressly provide that they shall be payable solely from the revenues derived from the operation of the parks and shall not be an indebtedness of the State of Oklahoma or the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board. In the case •of In re Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, supra, we held that such bonds were not violative of these sections of the Constitution if in accord with statutory provisions, supra, the bonds expressly provided that they were payable solely from the revenues to be derived from the operation of the state parks, and not an indebtedness of the State of Oklahoma or the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board. The bonds herein meet the requirements of the statute and the above decisional rule.
The second question presented is whether the lease agreements to be entered into by and between the Board and the lessee prior to issuance of the bonds cover all of the facilities which are required by the statute to be under lease, and are such lease agreements sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of Title 74, Chapter 12a, Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1953, 74 O.S. Supp. § 356.8, supra.
This question is identical to the second question in the case of In re Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, supra. The statutory provisions involved and the factual situation herein is practically the same as therein, except that more than one park is included in the subject matter of the leases. The rule announced there is applicable here. It is not necessary herein to again discuss the facts and legal principles involved. We are of the opinion that the lease agreements sufficiently satisfy the requirements of the statute.
The third question presented is whether the Board may refund presently outstanding State Park Bonds payable from the revenues of the facilities at Lake Murray State Park into this issue of bonds payable from the combined revenues of the parks of the state and overlapping interest be paid to January 1, 1955.
Section 16 of Chapter 12a, Title 74, Session Laws of 1947, 74 O.S.1951 § 356.16, expressly provides for the issuance of refunding bonds refunding any obligations of the Board. Section 16 reads:
“The Board may issue bonds hereunder for the purpose of refunding any obligations of the Board theretofore issued hereunder, or may authorize and deliver a single issue of bonds hereunder in part for the purpose of refunding such obligations and in part for the acquisition of additional properties or improvements. Where bonds are issued under this Section solely for refunding purposes, such bonds may either be sold as above provided or delivered in exchange for the outstanding [63]*63obligations. If sold, the proceeds maybe either applied to the payment of the obligations refunded or deposited in escrow for the retirement thereof. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the refunding of any outstanding obligations whi-ch are not either maturing, callable for redemption under their terms, or voluntarily surrendered by their holders for cancellation. All bonds issued under this Section shall in all respects be authorized, issued and secured in the manner provided for other bonds issued under this Act, and shall have all of the attributes of such bonds. The Board may provide that any such refunding bonds shall have the same priority of lien on the revenue pledged for their payment as was enjoyed by the obligations refunded thereby.”
Section 3 of Chapter 12a, Title 74, Session Laws of Oklahoma 1953, 74 O.S.Supp. § 356.8, provides:
“The Board shall prescribe and collect reasonable rates, fees, tolls or charges for the services, facilities and commodities rendered by all property of the Board, the revenues of which have been pledged to the payment of bonds issued hereunder, and shall revise such rates, fees, tolls, or charges from time to time whenever necessary to insure that the revenues to be derived therefrom shall be fully sufficient to pay principal of and interest on such bonds. The gross revenues derived by the Board from the operation of any part or parts of the properties of the Board, but no revenues derived by the Board through legislative appropriations or from sources other than operation of the properties of the Board, may be pledged to the payment of such principal and interest. Provided, that the Board is hereby authorized to construct improvements in several parks and/or recreation areas and authorize the issuance of one issue of bonds for all such improvements, and to pledge for the payment of such bonds and the interest thereon, revenues derived by the Board from the operation of any or all of the parks and/or recreational areas for the construction of improvements in which any such consolidated bond issue has been authorized.”
The second paragraph of Section 2 of Chapter 12a, Title 74, Oklahoma Session Laws 1953, 74 O.S.Supp. § 356.6, provides:
“Any resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds under this Act may contain covenants, including, but not limited to, (a) the purpose or purposes to which the proceeds of the sale of bonds may be applied, and the deposit, use, and disposition thereof; (b) the use, deposit, securing of deposits and disposition of the revenues of the Board, including the creation and maintenance of reserves; (c) the issuance of additional bonds payable from the revenues of the Board; (d) the operation and maintenance of properties of the Board; (e) the insurance to be carried thereon, and the use, deposit and disposition of insurance monies; (f) books of account and the inspection and audit thereof and the accounting methods of the Board; (g) the non-rendering of any free service by the Board; and (h) the preservation of the properties of the Board, so long as-any of the bonds remain outstanding, from any mortgage, sale, lease or other encumbrance not specifically permitted by the terms of the resolution.”
These statutes provide all power necessary for the Board to refund indebtedness, prescribe and collect reasonable rates, fees, tolls or charges for the services, facilities and commodities rendered by all property of the Board. The gross revenue derived by the Board from the operation from any part or parts of the properties of the Board may be pledged to the payment of the principal and interest of the bonds. The Board is authorized to enact a resolution containing covenants to carry into effect such obligations.
The record discloses that the revenues from Lake Murray State Park facilities produced more than was necessary to liquidate the bonds as they become due, but that [64]*64no part of the revenues pledged to the liquidation of Lake Murray bond issue could be used by. the Board for other state park improvements, and that so long as any of the bonds were outstanding the Board ■under its agreement would not issue any additional bonds or obligations payable from the revenues pledged to said issue; thus preventing other needed state park improvements which would inure to the benefit of the whole state.
Unquestionably the statutes permit the Board to refund the Lake Murray State Park Improvement Bonds into part of this issue of bonds and make the entire issue including that part which is deemed refunding bonds to be payable from revenues derived from operation of the combined park properties of the Board. Otherwise the plan intended by the amended park statutes to secure improvements for all parks of the ■state could not be carried out. The provisions of the bond resolution in this .respect are proper.
Further it was necessary to have some ■overlapping interest paid since the first day when the Lake Murray State Park Improvement Bonds were callable for redemption is January 1, 195S, while the bonds in issue are dated July 1, 1954. The statute places it within the discretion of the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board to fix and determine the time and method of refunding.
We conclude that the Board may refund •State Park Improvement Bonds payable from revenues of facilities at,Lake Murray .'State Park into this issue of bonds payable from the combined revenues of the parks •of the State, and the refunding may be so handled that a certain amount of overlapping interest be paid.
The fourth question pertains to the in■quiry of whether the provisions of the Bond Resolution which provide for the charging ■of entrance fees to the improved areas of the parks as defined in Section 7 of said Bond Resolution, violate the prohibition •against the collection of rates, tolls or ■charges for use of highways, bridges, entrance to park sites, or waterways as provided in Section 3,/Chapter 12a, Title 74, Oklahoma Session Laws 1953. It is sufficient for us" to say that the resolution and governing statute are identical to the resolution and governing statute in In re Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, supra, and for the reasons therein given we conclude that the prohibition in the statute is in no way applicable to entrance fees to an improved area within the area of one of the Board’s parks, which has been improved by this bond issue.
The fifth question presented deals with the inquiry as to the validity of the provisions of the Bond Resolution which provides that the revenues from the operation of facilities in the parks which are constructed in the future with the proceeds of other bonds of this authorized issue may be included as a source of -payment for the bonds initially to be' issued.
This is a usual and customary provision in revenue bond resolutions. Every college and other revenue bond provides that the bonds issued are payable not only from the revenues of the improvements made from the bond issue but also from additions, extensions and replacements thereto.
The Board Resolution authorizes the issuance of $25,000,000 Park Improvement Bonds, and $7,200,000 of such bonds are being issued at this time with request for approval by this Court.
It was stated in oral argument by the attorneys for the Board that it was unnecessary for this Court to approve the full $25,000,000 bond issue. We are therefore not passing on, or approving, the legality of the full amount of the proposed bond issue, but are approving only the bonds issued in the amount of $7,200,000.
Section 2 of the Bond Resolution pledges to the payment thereof all revenues and income from the operation of the parks during the period while any of the bonds authorized remain outstanding.
There is no legal objection to the provision that the bonds issued may be paid from revenues derived from the operation of the facilities in parks improved in the future with other bonds of the same issue. Section 2 of Chapter 12a, Title 74, Okla[65]*65homa Session Laws 1953 vests power in the Board as follows:
“The Board shall have power and is hereby authorized from time to time to issue its negotiable bonds in anticipation of the collection of all or any part of its revenues, for the purpose of constructing, acquiring, reconstructing, improving, bettering or extending any properties which it is authorized to acquire, maintain or operate hereunder, including park properties now owned or leased by the State or the Board and shall pledge, to the payment of the interest on and principal of such bonds, all or any part of the revenues derived from the operation of the- properties so controlled and operated by the Board.”
Section 3 of Chapter 12a, Title 74, Oklahoma Session Laws 1953, sets out the policy to allow one complete issue of bonds for improvements in several parks and/or recreation areas and to pledge for the payment of bonds and the interest thereon revenues derived by the Board from the operation of any or all of the parks and/or recreational areas for the construction of improvements in which any consolidated bond issue has been authorized.
The last question is: “Do the provisions of the Bond Resolution requiring payment into the Bond Fund of amounts that will retire the bonds issued in approximately seventeen years although the bonds do not mature until 1984, violate the statute authorizing the issuance of the bonds ?”
The Board could have fixed the maturity of the bonds as 17 years from their date because it is apparent that revenues from the properties and facilities operated by the Board will be sufficient to retire the $7,200,-000 bonds within that time. However, as á precautionary measure, the Board has seen fit to name an actual maturity date of 30 years from date of issuance.
The applicable statute does not require that the bonds mature on a specified date,' but leaves it to the discretion of the Board as to' the time the bonds shall mature, and contains only a limitation that such maturity of the bonds shall not exceed 40 years from date. Consequently, it is wholly within the discretion of the Board as to the maturity of the bonds, as long as such maturity date is within the 40 year limitation.
The arrangement of payment will not mean idle funds. The bond resolution expressly provides in the last paragraph of paragraph number (a) 1 of Section 8 as follows:
“Money remaining in the Bond Fund in each fiscal year after all interest falling due in such year has been paid or provision- for such payment made and after the Reserve Account has been accumulated to its required amount, shall be applied to the retirement of as many of the bonds as can be retired with the surplus so available. Bonds so retired shall be purchased on the open market at the best price or prices obtainable with due diligence, or, on or after. July 1, 1956, may be called for redemption, but no bond shall be purchased at a price greater than the redemption price prevailing on the next redemption date. All bonds so purchased or redeemed shall be cancelled and shall not be subject to reissuance.”
In other words surplus money remaining in the bond fund in each fiscal year after all interest falling due in each year and after reserve account has been accumulated to its required amount shall be applied to retirement of bonds either by purchase on open market or call for redemption on or after July 1, 1956. All bonds so purchased or redeemed shall. be cancelled and shall not be subject to reissuance. Within a period of three years the reserve will be fully created, and bonds can be paid off by purchase or call for-redemption whichever amount is less. Interest will be saved by such procedure.
The- Act, Section 2, Chapter 12a, Title 74, Oklahoma Session Laws, 1953, authorizes such procedure because it provides that the Board Resolution may contain such terms, covenants and conditions as' such resolutions or subsequent resolution may provide. Said Section 2 further provides that any resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds may contain covenants, in-[66]*66eluding but not limited * * * (b) the use, deposit, securing of deposits and disposition of the revenues of the Board including the creation and maintenance of reserves.
We conclude that the provisions of the Bond Resolution requiring payment into the Bond Fund of amounts that will retire the bonds issued in approximately 17 years, although the bonds do not come due according to their terms until 1984 is proper.
On July 28, 1954, after the protest period, a pleading termed a protest was filed by D. J. Diggs in which he alleges that the park facilities are and will be maintained and operated on a separate and segregated basis and that he arid others similarly situated will be denied and refused the free, full and unrestricted use of the parks and park facilities maintained and operated by the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board because of their race and color, contrary to the constitution and laws of the United States.
No justiciable question is raised by this pleading and we find nothing in the bond proceedings which would justify such complaint.
The bonds issued in the sum of $7,200,000 are approved and we fix the time within which a petition for rehearing may be filed at five days from the date this opinion is promulgated.
HALLEY, C. J., and DAVISON and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.
O’NEAL, J., concurs by reason of stare decisis.
WELCH, CORN, WILLIAMS, and BLACKBIRD, JJ., dissent.