Okla. Stat. » Title 62 — PUBLIC FINANCE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 62, § 431 (2026)

Sinking fund - Levy for - Readjustment of annual bond

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

accrual. A. It shall be the duty of the officers of each municipal corporation in the State of Oklahoma by law authorized to levy taxes to make a levy each year for a sinking fund, which shall, with cash actually on hand and lawful investments in such fund, excluding taxes in process of collection, be sufficient to pay: 1. All the bonded indebtedness of such municipality coming due prior to April 1 of the second ensuing fiscal year for which no prior levy has been made; 2. The interest accrued but unpaid and to accrue on all outstanding bonds of such municipality to April 1 of the second ensuing fiscal year for which no prior levy has been made; 3. A sinking fund to pay any interest payable on the last and final bond maturity coming due after June 30 of the ensuing fiscal year but before the tax levy of the succeeding fiscal year may be made and collected; 4. A sum, after reserving from said cash and investments on hand for bond and bond-interest accruals as aforesaid and judgment accruals theretofore levied for bonds unpaid, equal to one-third (1/3) of the original amount of all outstanding judgments against the municipality when one-third (1/3) or more of such judgment remains due and unpaid, and in case less than one-third (1/3) of such judgment remains due then for the entire amount of such judgment yet remaining unpaid; and 5. The interest accrued but unpaid and to accrue on all unsatisfied judgments within the ensuing fiscal year but not beyond June 30 of such year. B. The foregoing formula shall be applied by said taxing officials each year in determining the amount necessary to raise by tax levy for sinking fund purposes, independently of actions taken in previous years; and, if by omission to make a levy which could

have been validly made for any judgment, bonds or interest coupons, or where from any cause the cash and valid investments in the sinking fund does not equal the accrual liabilities, it shall be the duty of said taxing officials to readjust the annual bond accrual in accordance with the foregoing formula in order that said bonds shall be paid when due, save and except only that where the cash and valid investments in the sinking fund at the close of any fiscal year, after reserving for interest accrued and accruing under the priority therefor as contained in Section 28 of Article X of the Oklahoma Constitution, is insufficient to pay and retire any bonds matured or to mature before another tax levy may be made and collected and no action has been instituted to refund such matured bonds or to convert them to judgment, it shall be the duty of said taxing officials to include, in addition to interest thereon or aforesaid, an accrual therefor in an amount equal to the bonds so matured or to mature or the annual accrual first lawfully applicable to the issue thereof, whichever is the lesser. C. It is the sole intention of this section to require that the pledge contained in Sections 26, 27 and 35 of Article X of the Oklahoma Constitution, be fulfilled, and that sinking funds be applied as provided by Section 28 of Article X of the Oklahoma Constitution. R.L.1910, § 6771; Amended by Laws 1933, c. 27, p. 57, § 1; Laws 1951, p. 170, § 1; Laws 1991, c. 73, § 2, eff. July 1, 1991; Laws 2006, c. 279, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2006.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Clay v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa Cnty., 1997 OK 13, 935 P.2d 294.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clay v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa Cnty., 1997 OK 13, 935 P.2d 294. · cites it 14× “When an expense is to be paid from the ordinary tax revenues and those revenues are expended without payment of the expense, the resulting payment of the judgment from the sinking fund could result in an additional property tax levy on the citizens to pay the judgment.”
Kay Elec. Coop. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 815 P.2d 175 (Okla. 1991). “” See also, 62 O.S.1981 §§ 431 and 435, (providing for the payment of judgments from a municipality's sinking fund) and 11 O.”
Russell v. Cnty. Com'rs of Carter Cnty., 2000 OK CIV APP 21, 1 P.3d 442. “See 62 O.S.1991 §§ 431 and 435. 6 . See State ex rel.”
Ellis v. Grimes, No. 4:17-cv-00325 (N.D. Okla. May 7, 2024). · cites it 4× “The interest rate on any judgment when payment is extended more than three (3) years shall be at the rate prescribed by law for the first three (3) years and at the rate of six percent (6%) for each remaining year.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Muskogee Cnty. Excise Bd., 727 P.2d 108 (Okla. Civ. App. 1986). “See also 62 O.S.1981 §§ 431 and 435. It is further significant that 11 O.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commisioners v. City of Muskogee, 820 P.2d 797 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 3× “62 The very notion that a validly imposed statutory obligation could ever be defeated by a municipality’s failure to include its amount in the annual budget is enough to show the fallacy of the City’s position that this mandamus order may not operate here qua executable…”
Question Submitted by: The Honorable Wade Roussellot, State Rep., Dist. 12, 2014 OK AG 5 (Okla. Att’y Gen. 2014). · cites it 2× “1940) (holding that the use of "authorized" in 62 O.S.Supp.1933, § 431, did not mean a town was "mandatorily directed" to provide for a special tax levy for the payment of matured bonds that could not be paid from an underfunded sinking fund, as opposed to undertaking other…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.