State v. Kemp

Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion

HYDE, J.

I cannot agree with the part of the principal opinion herein which holds that amounts not due to or received by the City during the year involved must be considered in determining the total amount to which the limitation of one-sixth, made by Sec. 84.730 RSMo., Y.A.M.S. applies. It must be conceded that Sec. 84.730 is far from being clear and definite. However, it is my view that the reasonable construction of this limitation it specified, and the legislative intent of the statute, is that the Police Board budget (if it requires it) is entitled to one-sixth of all revenue (constituting general revenue) which the City receives or has due to it during the year involved; but that during the subsequent year it is not entitled to one-sixth of any funds derived from unexpended revenue received by the City in any prior year and carried over to be used later. .In other words, I think the words,' “one-sixth of the general revenue fund of such year”, mean one-sixth of the fund derived from general revenue received by or due to the City during such year and no more. The words ‘ ‘ of such year” are particularly significant; and the same idea is suggested by the words “payable out of the revenue of said cities’’also found in See. 84.730.'

*398 I think this meaning is consistent with our long established constitutional plan of keeping all local finances on an annual basis. Ever since 1875 (Sec. 12, Art. 10, Const. 1875) we have had the provision that (without a two-thirds vote) no city or other local governmental unit shall become indebted “to an amount exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year. ’ ’ The purpose of this is to prevent annual obligations from exceeding annual revenue. The Legislature, no doubt, had this financial system in mind when it passed the Kansas City Police Act in 1939 (Laws 1939', pp. 545, 559.) See. 24, Art. 6 of the 1945 Constitution contains the additional requirement that all local governmental units have an annual budget. Sec. 26(a) thereof now provides for considering unencumbered balances of previous years in determining how much such units become indebted in any year; and while savings from previous years may be spent by the City for any lawful purpose, they clearly do not constitute revenue provided for a subsequent year as shown by the separate reference to them in this constitutional provision. I cannot believe that the Legislature meant [528] by the language used in Sec. 84.730' that the Police Board was entitled both to one-sixth of all the general revenue of the City in the year for which it was provided and also during the next year to one-sixth of any surplus of revenue carried over from the year for which it was provided. In short, the Police Board is not entitled to one-sixth of any revenue twice.

As shown by the opinion herein, the City budget is prepared and approved at the beginning of the fiscal year and appropriations are made in accordance with this budget. The City gets a better credit rating if it has financial reserves and, therefore, the budget is intentionally underestimated. Of course, as the opinion properly holds, this underestimated amount has nothing to do with the total amount the Police Board is entitled to receive, if the full one-sixth of the revenue fund of the year is required to meet the Police Board budget, because it is entitled to one-sixth of the actual general revenue of the City provided for the year and not one-sixth of an estimated amount. Therefore, when, as in this ease, the budget of the Police Board is greater then one-sixth of the actual general revenue of the year, the Board should first be given one-sixth of the estimated amount and later, as revenue in excess of the estimated amount comes in, the Board should be given additional appropriations up to the full amount of one-sixth of all revenue due the City for the year as it is received by it, even including one-sixth of delinquencies that are paid after the end of the year. However, surplus amounts, which the City has accumulated from not spending revenue due it in preceding years, are, in my view, no part of the general revenue fund of any subsequent year, as that term is used in Sec. 84.730. Therefore, if the Police Board was not entitled to one-sixth of such surplus of a previous year during such year (because its budget was not large enough during such year to *399 require it), or if it did get one-sixth of that surplus during such -year, then-in either event it is not entitled to any part of it during the-year involved herein or any subsequent year.

•' To illustrate: if the actual general revenue due the City in the ■fiscal year of 1953 was $21,000,000.00, the Police Board was entitled to $3,500,000.00 if it needed it and made such a budget request. However, if the Police Board only requested $3,000,000.00 and for that reason the City had $500,000.00 surplus, which it did not spend but carried over to the next year, the Police Board would not be entitled to one-sixth of that amount in the 1954 fiscal year even if its 1954 budget was larger than one-sixth of the total amount of the actual revenue due to and received by the City during the 1954 fiscal- year. Likewise, if in 1953 the Police Board asked for and got $3,500,000.00, but the City made a saving of $500,000.00 in the operation of other departments, the situation would be the same, namely: the Police Board could only get one-sixth of the actual revenue due to -and reeeived'by the City during the 1954 fiscal year and would not in the next subsequent year be 'entitled to any part of the $500,000.00-surplus accumulated during the previous year. Otherwise, the Police Board would get a one-sixth part of the same fund not once but twice. Therefore, while I agree that, for 1954, the Police Board is entitled to one-sixth of the next to the last item, “unappropriated surplus over and above such surplus as above estimated — $1,571,106” (and any other additions to such surplus from revenue due in that year, if any), I do not agree that the Police Board is entitled to one-sixth of item 84, “estimated prior year’s revenue — $839,178.” Likewise, I do not agree that the Police Board is entitled to one-sixth of the last item, “Contribution from: Revolving Public Improvement Fund — $544,300.00”, -because it is made up of revenue collected in preceding years; or 'of item 71-, “Starlight- Theater — $15,000.00”, which was a payment of a loan of funds made from revenue of a previous year. If the legislative intent was- in accordance with the construction made in this -dissenting opinion, it- could be made clear and definite by an amendment to See. 84.730. As to all other items and rulings, I concur in the 'principal opinion.

[529]

'Eager, J., concurs.