Date: 01-28-2015

Case Style: Randall Edwards v. The Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County, Oklahoma, et al.

Case Number: CV-2014-265

Judge: Roger H. Stuart

Court: District Court, Canadian County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Lanita Bell Hendrickson, Mark Henricksen and Fenton Ramey

Defendant's Attorney: Daby Heather, Carol Price Dillingham and James B. Robertson

Description: 1. Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs are resident citizens of Canadian County, Oklahoma, all of whom are all both members of the tax-paying public and citizens entitled to the services which the County provides or is by law supposed to provide for the benefit ofits citizens and the public good. Further, PlaintiffRandall Edwards is the duly elected and serving sheriffof Canadian County, Oklahoma; Plaintiffs Stanley A. Wallace, Jr., and Donald L. Young are former County Commissioners of Canadian County, Oklahoma, who were sewing in office at the
time of events set forth herein; and Plaintiffs Mortimer J. Bickerstaff, Sandra Bohannon, Mary K. Hollingsworth, Kent K. Mathers, and Linda Ramey are currently serving as members of the Canadian County Citizens Advisory Board for the juvenile bureau.
2. Defendants: Defendants are the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CANADIAN COUNTY, being sued by and through their members, to-wit: Dave Anderson, Phil Carson, and Jack Sewart, all of whom are also sued in their individual or personal capacities. Defendants are the entities responsible for allocating and authorizing expenditures of the hands which are the subject of this lawsuit, which funds are for maintenance of various services and facilities as set forth herein and which funds are being jeopardized by the defendants’ actions. The respective Defendant entities are sometimes hereafter collectively referred to as “Commissioners.”
JURISDICTION AND STANDING
3. This is a declaratory action brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, as found at
12 0.5. §1651 etseq (“DJA”).
4. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action under the DJA as they are members of the taxpaying public and resident citizens of Canadian County, thus entitled to the services which the County provides or is by law supposed to provide for the benefit of its citizens and the public good, which provision and handing of such services is the subject of the requested declaratory rulings. Plaintiffs’ interest in this matter is direct, immediate, and substantial.
5. Venue is proper in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma, pursuant to Section
1653 of the DJA.
6. For purposes of the ancillary relief sought (Writ of Mandamus) PlaintifTh attach hereto the required affidavit (“Exhibit A”). Plaintiffs further state that in addition to .their common interests and general standing to sue which is set forth above, that some Plaintifl, as enumerated and identified above, are members of the Canadian County Citizens Advisory Board, which membership gives them a particular interest in the subject matter of the mandamus proceeding in that they have a statutory obligation pursuant to l0A 0.5. §2-4- 109 to aid in the more efficient administration of the statutes relating to juveniles.
7. Because of the particular standing of Plaintiffs who are members of the Canadian County Citizens Advisory Board, the mandamus portion ofthis lawsuit can be brought in their names without being brought in the name of the State.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
8. Oklahoma law requires provision by counties ofcertainjuvenile services, and in this instance, the funding of such services. See generally 1 OA O.S. ¶ 2-4-101 et seq, and specifically 1 OA 0.S. §2-4-107.
9. On May 28, 1996, the then serving County Commissioners of Canadian County, addressing the need to providejuvenile facilities and services for the county, passed RESOLUTION 96- 21, calling for a county-wide vote to authorize a 0.3 5% sales tax levy to provide for such juvenile facilities and services for the county. In part, RESOLUTION 96-21 stated:
“SHALL RESOLUTION NO. 96-21 OF CANADIAN COUNTY,
OKLAHOMA, ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR FUNDS FOR
CANADIAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; LEVYING A .35 OF
ONE CENT SALES TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OR
PROCEEDS ON CERTAIN SALES FOR AN UNLIMITED
PERIOD, SUCH TAX TO BE USED FOR FINANCING,
CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF A JUVENILE
DELINQUENTS DETENTION FACILITY AND JUVENILE
JUSTICE FACILITIES IN CANADIAN COUNh]Y,
INCLUDING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, EXPENSES,
OPERATIONS, EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS; FIXING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE; MAKING PROVISIONS
SEPARABLE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE APPROVED?”
10. RESOLUTION 96-21 went on to state, at Section 3:
“That by reason of said County being without adequate hinds with which to furnish required public services, it is deemed and declared necessary fo the preservation of the public peace, and health and safety, that said electiob be held without delay, and to that end that this Resolution shall become operstive immediately; an emergency is hereby declared to exist whereby this Resohition shall be in full force and effect immediately from and after its passage: and approvaL” [Emphasis added.]
11. In consideration of RESOLUTION 96-21, the then serving County Commissioners of Canadian County considered the need not only to build a physical plant, but to arrange for funding of the operations to be carried on within and based out ofthe actual building(s). As reported in The ElReno Tribune, at the May28 commissioners’ meeting, Donald L. Young pointed out that it was going to cost more to operate the theility than to build it, and it was discussed that the reason for the permanent tax was to provide such funding. Bond attorney and consultant Glenn Floyd made a presentation, including a lengthy and detailed analysis of long-term revenues from the proposed permanent tax increase, showing Ihat operating funds would be available, and Floyd told the Commissioners that they were ‘wise in asking
for a permanent tax,” pointing out a crisis in Los Angeles County “that built an eightymillion dollar jail which had “yet to house a prisoner because operating finds were not provided.”
12. RESOLUTION 96-21 called for an election to be held, for the voters of Canadian County to decide if the County would incur a 0.35% sales tax to fund such juvenilc facilities and services for the county.
13. During the ninety dayperiod between the time ofthe election proclamation on May 28, 1996 and the election on August 27, 1996, there was extensive public discussion and debate about the merits of the proposal and the need for provision and funding ofjuvenile facilities and services, with great discussion among the public as to the extent and need for such facilities and services as were proposed to be provided. A video presentation was aired at many public meetings; fall page newspaper ads were published in both major newspapers in Canadian County (Yukon Review and El Reno Tribune); many letters (both pro and con) were written to and published by newspaper editors; and there were a number ofnewspaper editorials, as well as numerous public meetings where the issue of the sales tax and the purposes to which it would be dedicated and applied were thoroughly examined and debated.
14. The public debate was intense and vigorous, to the extent that by election time it must be reasonably assumed that the voters well knew that they were voting as to whether Canadian County would provide and fund such juvenile facilities and services. For example, a Yukon Review editorial of August 25 clearly stated: “One of the things we like best about the proposed juvenile detention center is that it would include alternative education [programsi for up to 60 kids. State law now requires schools to offer alternative education. This will be
a way to get the job done with the entire county chipping in.” Then State Senator Bill Gustafson wrote a letter published in both major county newspapers that stated, in part: “In addition to serving as a detention facility, the [juvenile detention] center will also offer an alternative education program to as many as 60 juvenile offenders. The entire cost of building and operating the center will be covered by revenues from the [proposed sales] tax increase. It’s a small price to pay for keeping young criminals locked up and giving them a chance to change their lives before they turn to more serious crimes.”
15. The sales tax election was duly held on August 27, 1996, in which election the ballot proposition quoted from RESOLUTION 96-21 and was specifically directed to the question of whether such Resolution should be approved.
16. RESOLUTION 96-21 was decisively approved by the voters of Canadian County at the August 27, 1996 election, by a margin of 7,715 for approval ofthe proposition versus 5,234 against approval of the proposition (approved with 60% - 40%).
17. Subsequent to certification of the election results, the then serving Commissioners entered in an annual renewable contractual agreement with the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC), dated October 15, 1996, by which the OTC would collect the tax revenues generated by the additional .35% sales tax and duly remit same to Canadian County.
18. Such revenues, being dedicated by state law [68 O.S. § 1370(E)] for applicatiOn solely to the purposes of RESOLUTION 96-21, as approved by the voters of Canadian County; that is, for juvenile facilities and services for the county.
19. From and after approval ofthe ballot proposition, upon the effective implementation thereof on November 1, 1996, these revenues havebeen used in furtherance ofjuvenile facilities and
services for the Canadian County.
20. In later December 2010 through April2011 efforts were made to divert some ofthe revenue from its dedicated purposes of providing juvenile facilities and services for the county, in order to use some of the finds for construction and operation of county jail facilities. In December 2010 the Commissioners voted to submit a proposal to modil, the provisions of RESOLUTION 96-21 by diverting .10% out of the .35% dedicated sales tax “for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, renovating, equipping, fbrnishing, and operating county jail facilities . .
21. An election to submit the proposition to the voters of Canadian County was eventually set for April 5, 2011.
22. As before, during the period preceding the original election about RESOLUTION 96-21 (summer of 1996), there was intense public scrutiny and debate about the proposed diversion, which had come to be known as “The Anderson Plan” after Commissioner Dave Anderson, who had developed the diversionary plan as a method to devise finding jail needs.
23. In the course of the public discourse concerning the modification of the existing sales tax revenue flow (“The Anderson Plan”), both proponents (for the modification to divert some of the revenue flow into jail facilities and services) and opponents (to keep the dedicated revenue flow solely for juvenile facilities and services) conducted a spirited public debate. During the entire debate, all parties and the general public were acutely aware that under either the rejection of the proposed modification (all finds to remain for juvenile facilities and services) or upon approval ofthe proposed modification (“The Anderson Plan” to divert 2/7ths of the revenue stream to jail facilities and services), the finding would be used for physical buildings and also to fund operations conducted in conjunction therewith, such as salaries for case workers or deputies, etc., as the case may be. On December 8, 2010, The ElReno Tribune first reported about the decision to call an election concerning the proposed modification, stating in the lead paragraph that “Commissioners are ready to pose the $8.5 million question to voters — are they willing to divert sales tax from county juvenile services to fund a new fail?” On April 3, 2011, The El Reno Tribune quoted Commissioner Anderson as stating that the sales tax diversion was crucial to fund the needed construction costs and to pay annual operating expense for the new jail.
24. During the debate preceding the election concerning the proposed modification, newspaper ads placed by concerned citizens in opposition to the proposed modification stated (by Dean Rinehart, on March 30, 2011) that “the people of Canadian County exercised good judgment, several years ago, by setting aside .35 of the counties [sicj sales tax to underwrite the expenses of a youth center, which was to benefit young men and women who had difficulty with drugs, alcohol, school truancy or family problems that had become disruptive.” On April 3, 2011, an ad by Linda Ramey listed the programs and benefits ofthe Childrens’ Justice Center, to which the county wide sales tax was already directed. The Yukon City Council and the El Reno City Council both passed identical resolutions against the proposed modificationplan. The resolutions stated, in part, that the proposed redirection offiands would cause irreparable harm to the childrens’ justice center programs. The ElReno Tribune editorial ofApril 3, 2011, opposed the modification, in part because of concern that the reduction in funds would not “allow the [juvenile] center to maintain present levels of service, let alone meeting the future demands county growth will [place upon the facility.”
25. On April 5, 2011, the proposed modification failed, by a vote of 4331 for the change (47%) to 4,806 against the change (53%). The vote was a second affirmation by county voters of the county juvenile facilities and services for which the 1996 election had been called.
26. The dedicated fUnds generated by the .35% county sales tax, as first called for by the August
27, 1996, election approval, continued to be used solely for the said juvenile facilities and services, until November 6, 2014 and again on November 10, 2014, when the Commissioners abruptly ceased the authorized stream of fUnding from the dedicated sales tax and announced they would henceforth fund the juvenile facilities and services at a reduced interim level until some future modification proposal might later be submitted to a vote of Canadian County citizens.
27. There is no legal authority for such reduction of funding, as the sales tax revenue stream is dedicated and must be used for the purposes (juvenile facilities and services) for which it was presented to the voters and ultimately voted upon [68 O.S. § 1370(E)].
28. The reduction or cessation of such fUnding will cause irreparable harm and damage to the citizens of Canadian County generally by a loss of the benefits of the facilities and services provided by the juvenile center, and directly to the Childrens’ Justice Center itself by impairing its purposes and the extent and quality of its programs and services. Canadian County might also become subject to civil suits for its failure to abide by the statutory mandate to fUnd such programs, as provided by 1OA O.S. §2-4-107.
29. There is no other adequate remedy for this situation than the relief sought herein.
30. There is a clear conflict, and in fact actual controversy, concerning the rights, status, and
legal relations of the county finding stream created by the .35% sales tax to the county government as embodied by the Board ofCounty Commissioners, and the Childrens’ Justice Center and its facilities, services, and activities.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs seek three forms of relief, as follows:
FIRST REQUEST FOR RELIEF - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
31. Pursuant to CJA, Plaintiffs ask for declaratory rulings clari1’ing the nature and limitations ofuse ofthe revenue stream created by the countywide .35% sales tax, (RESOLUTION 96- 21, as approved on August 27, 1996 and implicitly reaffirmed on April 5, 2011).
32. Plaintiffs specifically ask the Court to determine that it is a dedicated revenue stream which must be used solely and fhlly for the fhnding purposes of the juvenile facilities and services as conducted from and at the Childrens’ Justice Center.
33, Plaintiffs Ilirther ask the Court to determine that the actions of the Commissioners which are detrimental to or in violation ofthe fill and unfettered application ofthe said revenue stream as aforesaid are improper and unlawfiil.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
PENDING DECLARATORY RULINGS
34. Because of the irreparable harm which will result from any reduction or cessation of the revenue finding stream for the juvenile facilities and services during the pendency of this litigation and until declaratory rulings are issued, Plaintiffs ask for the Court to issue a Temporary Injunction, pendente lite, upon notice and hearing, requiring the Conimissioenrs to maintain finding at the levels and according to the processes in effect from 1996 through
and until the adverse actions taken in November 2014.
ANCILLARY RELIEF
Pursuant to the issuance of the requested declaratory rulings and as allowed by 12 O.S. § 1655, Plaintiffs request further relief as follows:
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
35. Pursuant to 12 O.S. §145l et seq, Plaintiffs seek a Writ of Mandamus to compel the performance by the Commissioners of acts required by law and by contract with the OTC, to fully and solely use the revenue stream created by the .35% sales tax for the juvenile facilities and services.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The revenues generated by the 1996 implementation of a county wide .35% sales tax are dedicated funds available solely and fully to fund Canadian County juvenile facilities and services. They cannot be changed, restricted, modified or diverted without affirmative action by a majority of Canadian County voters in any future election properly called for such purpose. Any attempts to restrict or divert such funding stream are improper and unlawful, and should not be allowed to continue.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask for the requested declaratory rulings, for issuance of a temporary injunction, pendente lite, and for ancillary relief in the form of a Writ of Mandamus requiring the Commissioners to properly and fully apply such revenue to funding the juvenile facilities and services, and for all such other relief to which they may properly and justly be entitled.

Outcome: THE MATTER comes on for hearing this 8th day of January, 2015 on the Plaintiff’s application for a temporary injunction. The Plaintiffs appear in person and with their attorneys Mark Henricksen, Lanita Henricksen and Fenton R. Ramey. The Defendants Jack Stewart and Dave Anderson appear in person and with their attorney Assistant District Attorney James Robertson.
The court proceeds to hear the testimony of witnesses sworn and examined in
open court, receives and reviews evidence and hears the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises finds as follows:
That the plaintiffs have proved by clear and convincing evidence the following:
1. That they are likely to prevail in their request for declaratory judgment seeking to fmd an opinion of the attorney general relating to the use of a certain sales tax approved by the voters of Canadian County in 1996 is invalid and is not a legal basis for the defendants to cease using the proceeds from said tax to fund the ongoing operations of the Canadian County Juvenile Justice Center.
2. That the defendants will not suffer irreparable harm if the temporary injunction is issued.
3. That the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the temporary
injunction is not issued.
The defendants are ordered and enjoined to continue to fund the services of the Canadian County Juvenile Justice Center from proceeds generated from the 1996 .035% sales tax unless said tax is modified by vote of the citizens of Canadian County or further order of the court, whichever event is earlier.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: