Empathy List Archives

TN

Teresa Nowlin

Thu, Dec 3, 2020 2:49 PM

Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable).

Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney
211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037
918-299-5883 Office

Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable). Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney 211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037 918-299-5883 Office

CT

Chuck Thompson

Thu, Dec 3, 2020 7:30 PM

For what it's worth United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) has a brief discussion of the principle that one legislature cannot bind succeeding legislatures and may lead you in its citation of authority or through Shepherds to something closer to what you're looking for.

When a State impairs the obligation of its own contract, the reserved powers doctrine has a different basis. The initial inquiry concerns the ability of the State to enter into an agreement that limits its power to act in the future. As early as Fletcher v. Peck, the Court considered the argument that "one legislature cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature." 6 Cranch at 10 U. S. 135https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/10/87/case.html#135. It is often stated that "the legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State." Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/814/case.html, 101 U. S. 817https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/814/case.html#817 (188). [Footnote 20https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/1/#F20] This doctrine requires a determination of the State's power to create irrevocable contract rights in the first place, rather than an inquiry into the purpose or reasonableness of the subsequent impairment. In short, the Contract Clause does not require a State to adhere to a contract that surrenders an essential attribute of its sovereignty.
In deciding whether a State's contract was invalid ab initio under the reserved powers doctrine, earlier decisions relied on distinctions among the various powers of the State.

Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
General Counsel & Executive Director
D: 202-742-1016
P: (202) 466-5424 x7110
M: (240)-876-6790
[facebook icon]https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/[twitter icon]https://twitter.com/imlalegal[linkedin icon]https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./

[logo]https://imla.org/
51 Monroe St. Suite 404
Rockville, MD, 20850
www.imla.org http://www.imla.org/

Plan Ahead!

IMLA's 2021 Mid-Year Seminarhttps://imla.org/seminars/, April 23-26, 2021 in Washington, DC!
IMLA's 86th Annual Conferencehttps://imla.org/annual-conference/, Sept. 29-Oct. 3, 2021 in Minneapolis, MN!

From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:50 AM
To: OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable).

Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney
211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037
918-299-5883 Office

For what it's worth United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) has a brief discussion of the principle that one legislature cannot bind succeeding legislatures and may lead you in its citation of authority or through Shepherds to something closer to what you're looking for. When a State impairs the obligation of its own contract, the reserved powers doctrine has a different basis. The initial inquiry concerns the ability of the State to enter into an agreement that limits its power to act in the future. As early as Fletcher v. Peck, the Court considered the argument that "one legislature cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature." 6 Cranch at 10 U. S. 135<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/10/87/case.html#135>. It is often stated that "the legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State." Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/814/case.html>, 101 U. S. 817<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/814/case.html#817> (188). [Footnote 20<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/1/#F20>] This doctrine requires a determination of the State's power to create irrevocable contract rights in the first place, rather than an inquiry into the purpose or reasonableness of the subsequent impairment. In short, the Contract Clause does not require a State to adhere to a contract that surrenders an essential attribute of its sovereignty. In deciding whether a State's contract was invalid ab initio under the reserved powers doctrine, earlier decisions relied on distinctions among the various powers of the State. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. General Counsel & Executive Director D: 202-742-1016 P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240)-876-6790 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! IMLA's 2021 Mid-Year Seminar<https://imla.org/seminars/>, April 23-26, 2021 in Washington, DC! IMLA's 86th Annual Conference<https://imla.org/annual-conference/>, Sept. 29-Oct. 3, 2021 in Minneapolis, MN! From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.org> On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:50 AM To: OAMA luistserv <OAMA@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable). Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney 211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037 918-299-5883 Office

MR

Mark Ramsey

Fri, Dec 3, 2021 7:04 PM

Aren't the debt limit cases because of contracts that attempt to bind future councils or boards to appropriate money? Any contract with the city or town that says the city or town won't do something like enforce a parking ordinance for five years or adopt an ordinance regulating alcohol would be not permitted because the legislative body can't cede its authority by contract. I think it is akin to a non-delegation issue. Sorry, no cases, but I'm sure its correct.

From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:50 AM
To: OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable).

Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney
211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037
918-299-5883 Office

Aren't the debt limit cases because of contracts that attempt to bind future councils or boards to appropriate money? Any contract with the city or town that says the city or town won't do something like enforce a parking ordinance for five years or adopt an ordinance regulating alcohol would be not permitted because the legislative body can't cede its authority by contract. I think it is akin to a non-delegation issue. Sorry, no cases, but I'm sure its correct. From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.org> On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:50 AM To: OAMA luistserv <OAMA@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable). Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney 211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037 918-299-5883 Office

DD

david davis

Fri, Dec 3, 2021 7:53 PM

Atlas Life Insurance Company v. Board of Education of City of Tulsa, 83 Okl. 12, 200 P. 17, it was held that school board had authority to enter into 99 year lease.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

s/ David A. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS
4312 N. Classen Blvd.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
405 840-6353
405 557-0777 (FAX)
ddavislaw@live.com mailto:ddavislaw@live.com

From: Mark Ramsey MRamsey@soonerlaw.com
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:04 PM
To: Teresa Nowlin tnowlin@jenksok.org; oama@lists.imla.org oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Aren’t the debt limit cases because of contracts that attempt to bind future councils or boards to appropriate money? Any contract with the city or town that says the city or town won’t do something like enforce a parking ordinance for five years or adopt an ordinance regulating alcohol would be not permitted because the legislative body can’t cede its authority by contract. I think it is akin to a non-delegation issue. Sorry, no cases, but I’m sure its correct.

From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:50 AM
To: OAMA luistserv OAMA@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we’ll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable).

Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney

211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037

918-299-5883 Office

Atlas Life Insurance Company v. Board of Education of City of Tulsa, 83 Okl. 12, 200 P. 17, it was held that school board had authority to enter into 99 year lease. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. s/ David A. Davis LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS 4312 N. Classen Blvd. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118 405 840-6353 405 557-0777 (FAX) ddavislaw@live.com<mailto:ddavislaw@live.com> ________________________________ From: Mark Ramsey <MRamsey@soonerlaw.com> Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:04 PM To: Teresa Nowlin <tnowlin@jenksok.org>; oama@lists.imla.org <oama@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Aren’t the debt limit cases because of contracts that attempt to bind future councils or boards to appropriate money? Any contract with the city or town that says the city or town won’t do something like enforce a parking ordinance for five years or adopt an ordinance regulating alcohol would be not permitted because the legislative body can’t cede its authority by contract. I think it is akin to a non-delegation issue. Sorry, no cases, but I’m sure its correct. From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.org> On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:50 AM To: OAMA luistserv <OAMA@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we’ll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable). Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney 211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037 918-299-5883 Office

JM

Jon Miller

Mon, Dec 6, 2021 3:18 PM

If you are looking for some general discussion of the authority of one legislature to bind a succeeding legislature, you might take a look at United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977). It has a brief discussion of the principle that one legislature cannot bind succeeding legislatures and may lead you in its citation of authority or through Shepherds to something closer to what you're looking for. The reserved powers doctrine, although founded on a different concept, concerns the ability of the state to enter into an agreement that limits its power to act in the future. See, Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U. S. 135; and Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814, 101 U. S. 817 ("The legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State").

Jonathan E. Miller
City Attorney
City of Mustang
1501 N. Mustang Road
Mustang, Oklahoma 73064
Telephone: (405) 376-7746
Facsimile: (405) 376-7721

This email is sent by the City Attorney and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the email and any attachments. If you are a and officer, employee or agent of the City of Mustang, you should not share this email with others. Sharing this email may result in a loss of the attorney-client privilege.

From: david davis ddavislaw@live.com
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:53 PM
To: Mark Ramsey MRamsey@soonerlaw.com; Teresa Nowlin tnowlin@jenksok.org; oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [CAUTION: SUSPECT SENDER] [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Atlas Life Insurance Company v. Board of Education of City of Tulsa, 83 Okl. 12, 200 P. 17, it was held that school board had authority to enter into 99 year lease.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

s/ David A. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS
4312 N. Classen Blvd.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
405 840-6353
405 557-0777 (FAX)
ddavislaw@live.com mailto:ddavislaw@live.com

From: Mark Ramsey <MRamsey@soonerlaw.com mailto:MRamsey@soonerlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:04 PM
To: Teresa Nowlin <tnowlin@jenksok.org mailto:tnowlin@jenksok.org>; oama@lists.imla.org mailto:oama@lists.imla.org <oama@lists.imla.org mailto:oama@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Aren't the debt limit cases because of contracts that attempt to bind future councils or boards to appropriate money? Any contract with the city or town that says the city or town won't do something like enforce a parking ordinance for five years or adopt an ordinance regulating alcohol would be not permitted because the legislative body can't cede its authority by contract. I think it is akin to a non-delegation issue. Sorry, no cases, but I'm sure its correct.

From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.org mailto:oama-bounces@lists.imla.org> On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:50 AM
To: OAMA luistserv <OAMA@lists.imla.org mailto:OAMA@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable).

Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney

211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037

918-299-5883 Office

If you are looking for some general discussion of the authority of one legislature to bind a succeeding legislature, you might take a look at United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977). It has a brief discussion of the principle that one legislature cannot bind succeeding legislatures and may lead you in its citation of authority or through Shepherds to something closer to what you're looking for. The reserved powers doctrine, although founded on a different concept, concerns the ability of the state to enter into an agreement that limits its power to act in the future. See, Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U. S. 135; and Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814, 101 U. S. 817 ("The legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State"). Jonathan E. Miller City Attorney City of Mustang 1501 N. Mustang Road Mustang, Oklahoma 73064 Telephone: (405) 376-7746 Facsimile: (405) 376-7721 This email is sent by the City Attorney and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the email and any attachments. If you are a and officer, employee or agent of the City of Mustang, you should not share this email with others. Sharing this email may result in a loss of the attorney-client privilege. From: david davis <ddavislaw@live.com> Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:53 PM To: Mark Ramsey <MRamsey@soonerlaw.com>; Teresa Nowlin <tnowlin@jenksok.org>; oama@lists.imla.org Subject: [CAUTION: SUSPECT SENDER] [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Atlas Life Insurance Company v. Board of Education of City of Tulsa, 83 Okl. 12, 200 P. 17, it was held that school board had authority to enter into 99 year lease. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. s/ David A. Davis LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS 4312 N. Classen Blvd. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118 405 840-6353 405 557-0777 (FAX) ddavislaw@live.com<mailto:ddavislaw@live.com> ________________________________ From: Mark Ramsey <MRamsey@soonerlaw.com<mailto:MRamsey@soonerlaw.com>> Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:04 PM To: Teresa Nowlin <tnowlin@jenksok.org<mailto:tnowlin@jenksok.org>>; oama@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama@lists.imla.org> <oama@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama@lists.imla.org>> Subject: [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Aren't the debt limit cases because of contracts that attempt to bind future councils or boards to appropriate money? Any contract with the city or town that says the city or town won't do something like enforce a parking ordinance for five years or adopt an ordinance regulating alcohol would be not permitted because the legislative body can't cede its authority by contract. I think it is akin to a non-delegation issue. Sorry, no cases, but I'm sure its correct. From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama-bounces@lists.imla.org>> On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:50 AM To: OAMA luistserv <OAMA@lists.imla.org<mailto:OAMA@lists.imla.org>> Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable). Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney 211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037 918-299-5883 Office

KC

Keith, Craig B.

Mon, Dec 6, 2021 3:54 PM

Thanks David.
I need to re-read that case.
83 Okl. 12, 200 P. 171

From: david davis ddavislaw@live.com
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:53 PM
To: Mark Ramsey MRamsey@soonerlaw.com; Teresa Nowlin tnowlin@jenksok.org; oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Atlas Life Insurance Company v. Board of Education of City of Tulsa, 83 Okl. 12, 200 P. 171, it was held that school board had authority to enter into 99 year lease.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

s/ David A. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS
4312 N. Classen Blvd.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
405 840-6353
405 557-0777 (FAX)
ddavislaw@live.com mailto:ddavislaw@live.com

From: Mark Ramsey <MRamsey@soonerlaw.com mailto:MRamsey@soonerlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:04 PM
To: Teresa Nowlin <tnowlin@jenksok.org mailto:tnowlin@jenksok.org>; oama@lists.imla.org mailto:oama@lists.imla.org <oama@lists.imla.org mailto:oama@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Aren't the debt limit cases because of contracts that attempt to bind future councils or boards to appropriate money? Any contract with the city or town that says the city or town won't do something like enforce a parking ordinance for five years or adopt an ordinance regulating alcohol would be not permitted because the legislative body can't cede its authority by contract. I think it is akin to a non-delegation issue. Sorry, no cases, but I'm sure its correct.

From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.org mailto:oama-bounces@lists.imla.org> On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:50 AM
To: OAMA luistserv <OAMA@lists.imla.org mailto:OAMA@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils

Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable).

Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney

211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037

918-299-5883 Office

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain privileged and confidential information protected by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail, destroy this message and delete any copies held in your electronic files. Unauthorized use and/or re-disclosure may subject you to penalties under applicable state and federal laws.

Thanks David. I need to re-read that case. 83 Okl. 12, 200 P. 171 From: david davis <ddavislaw@live.com> Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:53 PM To: Mark Ramsey <MRamsey@soonerlaw.com>; Teresa Nowlin <tnowlin@jenksok.org>; oama@lists.imla.org Subject: [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Atlas Life Insurance Company v. Board of Education of City of Tulsa, 83 Okl. 12, 200 P. 171, it was held that school board had authority to enter into 99 year lease. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. s/ David A. Davis LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS 4312 N. Classen Blvd. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118 405 840-6353 405 557-0777 (FAX) ddavislaw@live.com<mailto:ddavislaw@live.com> ________________________________ From: Mark Ramsey <MRamsey@soonerlaw.com<mailto:MRamsey@soonerlaw.com>> Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 1:04 PM To: Teresa Nowlin <tnowlin@jenksok.org<mailto:tnowlin@jenksok.org>>; oama@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama@lists.imla.org> <oama@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama@lists.imla.org>> Subject: [Oama] Re: Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Aren't the debt limit cases because of contracts that attempt to bind future councils or boards to appropriate money? Any contract with the city or town that says the city or town won't do something like enforce a parking ordinance for five years or adopt an ordinance regulating alcohol would be not permitted because the legislative body can't cede its authority by contract. I think it is akin to a non-delegation issue. Sorry, no cases, but I'm sure its correct. From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama-bounces@lists.imla.org>> On Behalf Of Teresa Nowlin Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:50 AM To: OAMA luistserv <OAMA@lists.imla.org<mailto:OAMA@lists.imla.org>> Subject: [Oama] Authorities re can't bind future City Councils Is anyone aware of any good caselaw that states that a City Council cannot find future City Councils by contract on matters of policy? I know there are plenty with respect to the constitutional debt limitation, but I am looking for one that states that a previous Council cannot by contract restrain future Councils from changing or repealing ordinances or other policies. This is of course a multi-year contract with a funding out clause (but we'll assume arguendo that that provision is acceptable). Teresa Nowlin | City Attorney 211 North Elm | P.O Box 2007 | Jenks, OK 74037 918-299-5883 Office CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain privileged and confidential information protected by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail, destroy this message and delete any copies held in your electronic files. Unauthorized use and/or re-disclosure may subject you to penalties under applicable state and federal laws.