Opinion No. (2009)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports·Decided April 28, 2009·Published

Opinion

Dear Treasurer Meacham:

This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following questions:

1. Is it lawful for the State Treasurer to transfer funds from the General Revenue Fund to the State Land Reimbursement Fund as directed by 64 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 371[64-371](B), to make payments to counties to compensate them for lost ad valorem tax revenues from state-owned lands?

2. If the total payments to reimburse counties for state-owned land exempt from ad valorem taxation, made pursuant to 62 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 194[62-194](B), exceed the balance in the State Land Reimbursement Fund, does a liability exist for any reimbursements that remain unpaid?

3. If the total monies apportioned to the State Land Reimbursement Fund are less than the amount required to be paid to the counties pursuant to 62 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 194[62-194](B), how should the Treasurer determine each county's payment from the Fund?

Your questions relate to provisions added in 2007 to 62 O.S. 2001, § 194[62-194] and 64 O.S. 2001, § 371[64-371]. See 2007 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 323, §§ 1-2. Title 62 O.S.Supp. 2008, *Page 2 § 1941 and 64 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 371[64-371]2 require the State Treasurer to transfer monies from the General Revenue Fund to the State Land Reimbursement Fund and make payments from the State *Page 3 Land Reimbursement Fund to counties in which tax-exempt, state-owned lands are located, "equal to the amount of the additional ad valorem tax revenue which would have been received in the county if the state-owned land was not exempt from ad valorem taxation." 62 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 194[62-194](B).

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS UNDER OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE V, SECTION 55
Title 64 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 371[64-371](B), which requires the State Treasurer to annually transfer from the General Revenue Fund to the State Land Reimbursement Fund "an amount equal to all monies accruing in the Public Building Fund for the previous fiscal year" must be reviewed in light of Okla. Const. art. V, § 55, which provides as follows:

No money shall ever be paid out of the treasury of this State, nor any of its funds, nor any of the funds under its management, except in pursuance of an appropriation by law, nor unless such payments be made within two and one-half years after the passage of such appropriation act, and every such law making a new appropriation, or continuing or reviving an appropriation, shall distinctly specify the sum appropriated and the object to which it is to be applied, and it shall not be sufficient for such law to refer to any other law to fix such sum.

Id.

Statutes are presumed to be constitutional. Fent v. Okla. Capitol Imp.Auth., 984 P.2d 200, 204 (Okla. 1999) (citation omitted). However, "[t]he Constitution is the bulwark to which all statutes must yield."EOG Res. Mktg. Inc. v. Okla. State Bd. of Equalization, 196 P.3d 511,520 (Okla. 2008) (footnote omitted).

"The appropriation of money is the setting it apart formally or officially for a special use or purpose . . . by the Legislature in clear and unequivocal terms in a duly enacted law. . . ." Edwards v. Childers,228 P. 472, 473 (Okla. 1924) (citation omitted). Title 64 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 371[64-371](B) makes an appropriation in that in clear and unequivocal terms in a duly enacted law, the statute directs the State Treasurer to set apart monies from the General Revenue Fund to the State Land Reimbursement Fund in an amount equal to all monies accruing to the Public Building Fund for the previous fiscal year.

In State ex rel. Murray v. Carter, 30 P.2d 700, 703 (Okla. 1934), the court said Article V, Section 55 of the Oklahoma Constitution requires an appropriation bill to meet all of the following five requirements: *Page 4

(a) Make an appropriation of money;

(b) provide for its payment within 30 months;

(c) specify the sum appropriated;

(d) state the object to which said sum shall be applied; and

(e) not require reference to any other law to fix the sum appropriated.

The appropriation from the General Revenue Fund to the State Land Reimbursement Fund does not meet at least one of the requirements necessary to constitute a valid appropriation as set forth in Carter. Section 371(B) does not provide for "payment" of the appropriation to be made within 30 months of the law's enactment as required by the Constitution. Instead, the payment of monies from the General Revenue Fund is made year after year, continuing indefinitely.

This office previously addressed a similar situation in Attorney General Opinion 01-52. In that Opinion the requester asked if it was unconstitutional "to designate a percentage of the general revenue fund for teacher retirement with the allocation to be continuing each year."See id. at 284. It was found that a continuing appropriation from the General Revenue Fund violated Okla. Const. art. V, § 55. Id. at 288.

Because the appropriation made in 64 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 371[64-371](B) from the General Revenue Fund to the State Land Reimbursement Fund is for a continuing, indefinite term and not payable within 30 months of the statute's July 1, 2007 effective date, the statute violates Okla. Const. art. V, § 55. Consequently, it is not lawful for the State Treasurer to transfer monies from the General Revenue Fund to the State Land Reimbursement Fund as directed by 64 O.S.Supp. 2008, § 371[64-371](B).

An Attorney General's Opinion stating that an act of the Legislature is unconstitutional is advisory only and not binding on a state official.State ex rel. York v. Turpen, 681 P.2d 763, 767 (Okla. 1984). Only a court of competent jurisdiction can issue a binding opinion that a legislative act is unconstitutional. Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion No. (2009), (Okla. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion No. (2009) (Opinion No. (2009)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Hawkins v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1969 OK 118 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1969)
State Ex Rel. York v. Turpen
681 P.2d 763 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1984)
Fent v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority
1999 OK 64 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1999)
Edwards v. Childers
1924 OK 652 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
State Ex Rel. Murray v. Carter
1934 OK 132 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)