TO ALLOCATE ITS REMAINING RESOURCES TO FUND A RESERVE FOR UNCOLLECTED TAXES. THE FIRST PRECLUDES AN EXCISE BOARD FROM EXERCISING DISCRETION WITH RESPECT TO THE FORCED APPORTIONMENT OF THE ONE-TENTH (1/10) MILL; THE SECOND SIMPLY PROVIDES DIRECTION TO A BOARD'S DISCRETION WITH RESPECT TO THE REMAINING FUNDS. IN SUM, THE TWO STATUTES ARE WHOLLY UNRELATED.
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION OF WHETHER THE FUNDING OF A RESERVE FOR DELINQUENT TAXES AFFECTS THE COMPUTATION OF THE MILL LEVY MANDATED BY 19 O.S. 177.2 , IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THAT THE PRIMARY GOAL OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IS TO DETERMINE AND GIVE EFFECT TO THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE BY CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE. SEE, E.Q., GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY V. STATE, 645 P.2D 1011 (OKLA. 1982). AND WHERE THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IS PLAINLY EXPRESSED IN THE STATUTE, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION OR PROVISION FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. HUGHES DRILLING CO. V. MORGAN, 648 P.2D 32 (OKLA. 1982).
HERE, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT BY ENACTING 19 O.S. 177.2 THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY AUDITS BY THE STATE AUDITOR AND INSPECTOR. LIKEWISE, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IN ENACTING 68 O.S. 3017 THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO PROTECT COUNTIES AGAINST SHORTFALLS BY REQUIRING A RESERVE FOR UNCOLLECTED TAXES. EXAMINATION OF THESE TWO STATUTES REVEALS THAT THERE IS NO LANGUAGE INDICATING THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED THE COMPUTATION OF THE MILL LEVY MANDATED BY 177.2 TO BE AFFECTED BY THE RESERVE FOR DELINQUENT TAXES ESTABLISHED BY 3017. AND BECAUSE THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IS PLAINLY EXPRESSED IN THESE STATUTES, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR FURTHER INQUIRY.
ACCORDINGLY, COUNTY EXCISE BOARDS ARE OBLIGATED TO MAKE THE ONE-TENTH (1/10) MILL LEVY AND APPORTION THE PROCEEDS THEREOF FOR COUNTY AUDIT PURPOSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH 19 O.S. 177.2, REGARDLESS OF ANY ACTION A BOARD MAY TAKE TO ESTABLISH A RESERVE FUND PURSUANT TO 68 O.S. 3017.
(K. W. JOHNSTON)