Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )


Menu:
  •                   THE    ATTORNEY          GENERAL
    OFTEXAS
    Gerald C. Harm                Awmrx~. -
    -0-
    Hr.~0, A. Eight
    Chief A.ocountant
    Board of County and Dfrtrlct   Road Indebtedness
    Austin, Texas
    Dear Sir:
    Open      lumberO-1293
    : Constrnotlon ef cortaln
    protirions   of Howe Bill j&M,
    ssed by the Fortr-sixth  Le i
    r rlaturo, Bogular gerrion,``l Fi
    39
    Uo kare your letter of Augupt 16, 1939, in rrhlsh you
    ask our oplnlon of soteral questions  vdxlch have arisen oat
    of the above captioned bill which outlines the proordure of
    the bard in the administration of that Act.
    Under dato ef.Juue 9, ~1939,   in our 0 Inion lo. O-908
    we deterrlned the constitutionalit      efthlr   bi E1. It uas our
    opinion that.the purpose d this bI 11 as not violative        of
    Art&lo 8, Section 7, or Article 3, Section 51 of our Cod-
    .titution,   but insofara. thd bill before u8 at that     time
    the hill payment of all obligations al-
    attempted, g rlor to E"
    ready eligi le for      rticipat on, to devote the swplus
    accumulated in the ounty and Road District Highwaytund
    to the aymqnt of Obligation. made ell lblr for such par
    ticipet 9 en for the fir8t tim   by' such %ill and to other
    purposes,was unconstitutlonel      and would constitute a direr-
    sion of a 8 ecial fund in violation of the Constitution.
    House Bill #b8 as finally pasrod by the Legislature and
    signed by the dovernor in our opinion has satisfactorily
    removed the provision &o which we sxce~ted.
    We shall take u your question8 in the order in tiich
    they are presented, your Plrst question being --
    Mr. G. AL. Hight, page #2
    wSection 5 of the bill, after allocating
    one-fourth of the occupation or exaire tax on
    gasoll8r to the oredit of the available free
    school fund, provides that one-fourth shall
    go to and be placed  to the credit of the fund
    to be known as *County and goad Mstrlct     High-
    way Fund’ 8ubject to the      visions 8nd llml-
    tations of Section 3 of t $”is Act. Will you
    please advise u8 what the limitations   referred
    to are and what effect such limitations     'if
    any, would be upon the use to be made 08 the
    County and goad Distriat Hi hway Fund and the
    operations of the Board of Eounty and Dlstriat
    Road Indek&ednessPm
    By reference    to Section 3 we find that It expres$ly
    dealswith the duties     df the Highway Department and directs
    developent of highways and the maintenance thereof “from.
    funds available   to the State Highway Department.” Section
    5 divides   the proaeeds of the occupation tax on the business
    of selling gasoline as follows:      One-fourth to the Available
    School F’und, one-fourth to the County and Road District kilgh-
    way Fund subject to the revisions and limitations        of See-
    tion 3 08 this Act, and t g e remainder to the State Highway
    Department. A careful reading of Section 3 of the Act re-
    reals no limitations,    whatever upon the one-fourth allo-
    aated to the County 8nd Road Dkriot       Highway Fund. Under
    the rules of etatutory constrB?tlon it has been decided.
    that a statute or a provision::thereof     should not be given
    a construction   rendering it meaningless, if the langtmge aan
    otherwise be construed.     See City of Hopston Y.’ Allred     71'
    S. W. (261 2510 Galveston H & Ii. Bi 00; t.Anderson,      
    249 S.W. 998
    ; Stoipe v. Karren, 
    191 S.W. 600
    ; Texas k Pacific
    Ry. Co. v. Taplo+, 
    118 S.W. 1097
    . It is. obvious from the
    reading of Section 3 that there are no limitations      at all
    relative to the one-fourth of the oocupation or excise tax
    that is ‘allocated to the Board of County and District goad
    Indebtedness under Section 5 of the Act, and it is there-
    fore our conclusion that the llmitatlon imposed in Section
    5 u n the funds allocated to the County end Road Metrict
    Higr way Fund Is meaningless.     To 8o hold does not in anywise
    Impair the provision of the Act.
    Mr. G. A. Right, page #3
    Tour second question   is as follows:
    “Should this Board now include In the credit
    allowed to each oouuty the total amount aid by
    such county for the years 1933 to 1937 !&clualve
    on their debt service, or should this bard limit
    the oredit to amounts paid by each county on
    issuer now outstanding and pay such credits to
    the counties over the life period of the out-
    standing bonds? In this oonnection you arc re-
    .ferredto   Conference Opinion No. 3021 rendered
    by Honorable William IcCraw, Attorney General, on
    Au@& 11, 1938.”
    In re ly to your second question we direct your at-
    tention to the x lclaration of policy contained in House Bill
    6&3, Section 1, wherein It providear
    “By reason of the foregoing,   a heavy and undue
    burden vms placed and still re8te upon the aounties
    and defined road district     and their inhabitants,
    and both a legal and moral obligation rest upon
    the State to compensate and reimburse such counties
    and defined road distrfcts,     which, as aforesaid,
    shave performed functions resting upon the State and
    have paid ex enses which were and are properly State
    expenses, al E for the use and benefft of the State,
    and to the extent provided herein that the State
    provide funds for the .further construction of roads
    ;;;.esignated     as a part of the State Highway Sys-
    Thi.    ovision Is preceded by others which call at-
    tention to the Fact that the State recognires and declares
    that all highways now or heretofore constitutlag   a part of
    the system of State highways and that all roads not conatl-
    tuting a    rt of such system which have been constructed in
    whole or p”n part from the proceeds of bonds,,warrants or
    other evidence of indebtedness issued by counties and de-
    fined road district8    of the State of Texas under the la-
    authorislng the same, have been and are anh will continue
    to be beneficial   to the State of Texas at large and have
    Mr. 0. A. Eight, page #4
    contributed to the general welfare, settlement and develop-
    ment of the entire State.  hanifestly It was Intended that
    the counties or defined road dlstriatr  should be corn ensated
    for money expended in the construction of roads whit % by the
    declaration of policy have oontrlbuted to the general welfare,
    settloment and development of the entire State.   We, there-
    fore, answer your question as follows:
    In our opinion this Board should Include in the aredit
    allowed to each county the total 8mount paid by such county
    for the years 1933 to 1937, Inclusive,  on their debt service
    on issues now outstanding or issues which may have been out-
    standing at the time of the enactment of Chapter 13, Acts of
    the Third Called Session of the Forty-second Legislature    of
    1932. Ye think that from the language of the bill ltsel!
    that Is, House Bill 688, as found In paragraph 2, subsection
    (h)< Section 6, which reads as follows:
    WASsoon as practicable  after the passage of
    this Act and before the Lateral Read Account is
    allocated to the counties, the Board 8hall de-
    termine the amount each aount and each defined
    ``````r~v~:o~i~is``he
    Third Called Session of the Forty-Second Legis-
    lature, as amended, toward its debt serviae u n
    bonds which at the time of payment were lligi go
    la
    to participate  in the County and Road Mstrict
    gighway F’und.”
    it Is plain that the Intention of the Legislature is that the
    counties and defined road districts     be full   reimbursed for
    all aoney8expended on eligible     issue8 for J ebt service durd
    ing the years 1933 to 1937, irrespective      of whether or not
    there are issues now outstanding.      We think the declaration
    of policy is clear on this point.
    The third   question you have submitted reads as fol-
    low. :
    ?In connection with the deductions of advance-
    ments~made by the State from the amount credited
    to the counties as provided, is it intended by
    Mr. G. A. Ught,     page #S
    the Act that such deduction be made where possible
    overthe life perled of the bonds of each county
    affected, as we are now doing under authority of
    the above quoted lpinlon?a
    It mast be borne in mind that the express basic pur-
    of this law is to lift the burden of ad valorem taxes,
    the eit$9eps of the vprlous counties-
    - -     and defined-read _
    districts     which may have Often uaed for the con8truCtlon of
    State higl&ys or fer the retirement of obligations        incurred
    in the construction of highways. In our opinion there Is
    uple authorit       under this law for the Board of County and
    Dldrlct     Road L debtedna. to make .uch deduction over the
    life period of the bonds. And insofar as Opinion No. 3021,
    above mentioned, luthorises and directs the payment of sums.
    due the various counties * the form of increased percentages.
    of     rtieipation,   ue readopt same and further state that any
    ret gaod thus designed to accomplish the pur ose for which this
    law was passed would in our opinion be wit iiin the authority.
    ef the Board. Under the Attorne General’s opinion above
    aited, your Board undertook to aI locate the .o-call~ed .ur lua
    by my of Increased percentage. of participation        o nlligi 1le
    issue.     and this, we think, was a proper a plicatloo and will
    effectively     accomplish the pur ose of the LW.    You are there-
    fore, advised that in our opln Eon the Board should continue the
    method adopted pursuant     to the authorization canferred by law
    and as interpreted by Section 5 of 0 inion No. 3021, rendered
    by the Attorney General, August 11, E938.
    The fourth question you submit is as follows:
    “1s it the duty of the Board to audit or other-
    wise verify the records of expenditures er obll-
    gations of each county to determine the amount of
    bonds, warrants or other legal obligations   issued
    prior to January 2, 1939, the proceeds of which
    were actually expended in acquiring rights-of-way
    for State designated highways?”
    To answer this question    we rrfer to paragraph 2 under
    subsection    (h) , Section 4 of the let, whiah reads, in part, as
    follow. :
    Mr. 0. A. Sight,       page #6
    ‘The moneys allocated  to each county from the
    Lateral      Road Account ebhell be used by aid county,
    r paying the~ar``atere8t                   and rink-
    apart sufficient   money to pay off and dlecharge
    8aid outstandin    obligations incurred for right-
    of-way acqulsit f on.”
    In this we find a doclaratlon of legislatlto    Intent
    and to properly effectuate this Intention we arc of the
    opinion that It till be necessary for the Board to adopt the
    same method followed     in the matter of recording itors of in-
    debtedness incurred in the construatlon of highways which
    have been desi     ated as a part of the State Highway Sydea,
    that zir, the r k?ght-ef-way obligation should be handlod In
    like manner as the presently “eli lble obllgatlona~.      There-
    fore, it is .our opinion that it w‘I11 be the duty of tho
    Board to audit or otherwise verify the record of expendi-
    tures or obligations     of each county to determine the amount
    of money aotually expended in acquiring rights-of-way ,fw
    State designated highway8 in order to carry out the mandate
    of this provision of the Act.
    Ye quote here your fifth          question,     which reads as
    follows:
    mt       are the    Board’s   dutloa   as tho    refund-
    ing   egentof each county.as provided in the
    second paragraph of subsection (I) of Section
    6 and *hat are the limitations    on refunding
    lhgible   and ineligible  Indebtedness under this
    subeectiont~
    We think that in order to properly interpret the
    meaning of    this  provlaion of the bw wherein the object or
    Mr. G. A. Hi&t, page #7
    urpoae of the provision of the statute is not lain, it
    1 ecomes necessary to read the entire section.    t nder thd
    rule of &atutory conetruction,     all of the language used
    rrhould be taken Into consideration when lndoavoring to.
    ascertain the object or urpose, and in this connection
    it must be noted that su1 section(i) of Section 6 begins
    as follows:
    *The county ~ommi88ioner8~ court ef any county
    may exercise the authority now.conferred by law
    to issue refunding obligations for the purpose of'
    refunding an lli ible debt of the count
    any defi.nea-%````i``%
    ligation.   when.validly issued shall be eligible
    obligations within the meaning of this Act, if
    mid Board of County and District     I&ad Indebted-
    ness shall approve the maturities of said refund-
    ing obligations and the rate of interest borne by
    them.,’
    Then pas&g over to the last sentence of the seconds parae
    graph of the same section, we find:
    'All actual expenses inourred in the refund-
    ing of an elinible  indebtedness    including the
    cost of proceedings, printing    fegal   approval
    and interest adjustment, shali be chargeable
    against the moneys theretofore   or thereafter
    collected from ad valorem taxes, or at the op
    tion of the commisslonerr~ conrt conduating such
    refunding, may be paid from\any other wne under
    its control and available for the purpose. z
    We have underscored the term neligible    lndebtednossw
    for the purpose of strengthening our aonclueion,that this
    section refers to pnd contemplates only that mch items of
    Indebtedness shall be submitted to the Board for ap roval
    rior to a refunding thereof.    We refer you toSect Eon 2 of
    Rouse Bill 688, which contains the definition    of term8 and
    expressionsused throughout the Act, and find there -- "the
    expression teligible  obligation'  as used in this Act shall
    mean obligations the proceeds of which were actually ex-
    ended on State highways." We think the expression "eli i-
    Ele indebtedness" synonymous with the expression "ellgib f e
    Hr. 0. A. Eight, page #8
    obligationw and therefore comes within this definition.
    We are of the opinion that the Board’s dutioa’asto the
    refunding assignment rovided in the.second paragraph of
    subsection (I) of Soae Ion 6 are limltod to the refunding
    of eligible  obligations as defined .b this Act, and that
    such duties do not extend to and lnc 1ude any 8o-called
    ineligible  indebtedness .whioh may or may not  rticipate
    in the excess funds provided herein to be are %ited to the
    account to be known as the Lateral Road’Account.
    Yhe last    ragnph of subsection (L) makes the Board
    of County and Mstr r ct Road Indebtedness the refunding agent
    ,of each count md as such agent is directed to cooperate
    with the come1rsloners’ court of each county in effecting the
    neaossary refunding of.each issue of bonds, and that the
    Board shall prepare the necessary refunding order for the
    commlrsion~rs~ court, prepare the proceedings and act In an
    advisory and su rvisory capacit        to the sad that the u-,
    pense of refund f& any lssuo of i ends may be reduced to a
    iinirun.     gaving determined in the preaedin paragra h that
    the duties of the Board in the matter of m f unding o f bonds
    extend only to weligible i88uesw, it necessarily     follows
    that   the duties 8Ileaated In this paragra h of 8ubsection
    (I) oxtend to only the l   liglble issues.   Et Is our conclusion
    that   the language of this seation Is merely directory and.
    that the Board shall bo required to act in that capacity only
    as a means of reducing the expense of refunding any Issue of
    such bonds to a mlnimum. Inasmuch as this same paragraph
    requires that any item af expense incurred in connection with
    a refunding must have the affirmative approval of the Board
    before being Incurred, we think that in their advieory and -
    supervisory capacity, they could under this law, if deemed
    expedient, prepare the necessary refunding orders,       roceed-
    lngs and perform other duties incident to the campPetion of
    a re i undiag of any issue of such bonds.
    You are therefore,  advised that in our opinion your
    duties as euch re!unding agent with respect to the pre
    tion of proceeding8 and refunding order,‘would rest wit %“in“-
    the discretion of the Board and would not become mandatory
    except in the event the prospective aosts of such proceedings
    by other agencies appear excessive.
    Ur. 8, A. Hight, page #9
    Your sixth question reads as foollowe:
    ‘1yill you lease further advise the Board
    to thorn or to w! at agency the expense of the
    Board for performing the rrervices to the coun-
    ties in the refundi     of the county issues as
    directed b the rov sions of this subsration
    shall be egargod!w ’
    In o u r o inio n, any l   ense lnuorrod in the refund-
    ing of any subh ob Elgation Is pr% arily an &nse           of the
    county, dofined road dirtriot     or political    su division   ro-
    posing such refundi        8nd should, therefore,    be charge 8 to
    such agencies..    The% et paragraph of sobsection, (i) pro-
    vides, in pa&., that :
    “All actual ex enses incurred In the refund-
    ing of an eligible  Endebtedaess including the
    cost of proceedings, printing, Algal a proval and
    Interest adjuetment, shall be chargeab Ee against
    the monoys theretofore or thereafter collected
    frem ad valorem taxes, or at the option of tho
    commlrsloners~ court conducting 8ueh refunding,
    may be paid from 8ny other money nnder its con-
    trol and available for the purpose.”
    We think this alearly indicates the Legislature’s
    intention that the county, defined road dletrict     or political
    subdivision 8hall bear the upenee of any such refunding, and
    ou muld properly char e any such expense accruing to the
    !ioard in aonnectlon wit t .uch refunding to the county de-
    fined road district  or political   rubdivision instlga&       such
    refunding progr8&
    We quote hero your seventh question:
    swan the several oounty commissloners~     courts
    employ on a salary or contract basis, subject to
    the oiflrmatlve approval of this Board, one or
    more persons to assist in the refunding of such
    indebtedness and pay for .uch service``~,t$
    manner provided in the Act for the
    re;st    expenses of refunding eligib r l indebted-
    ‘.
    Mr. 0. A. Bight, page #lO
    It mwt be borne in mind that this law requires that
    all actual cobts of refunding eligible        indebtedness be mb-
    Bitted to the Board for lp roval before such cost8 are in-
    curred.    It then follows t L t the Board must pa88 upon all
    suoh items of expense and if In its opinion certain items *
    of expense sought to 6e incurred are considered unnecessary,
    it should disapprove. thei.      The law states that only the
    actual lxpense of refunding, which includes cost of pro-
    ceedi    8, printing, le al approval and Interest adjustnenta,
    8hall Y e approved. Thfs itemiaation of expense is not a’
    llmitatlon thereon but Is suggestive of that which under
    ordinary conditions should constitute actual expenses.          The
    Legislature,    of aourse, contemplated that certain othor
    costs right arise    in connection with a refunding and could,
    be reasonably classified     as necessary or actual refunding
    ense. Consequently, it delegated to the Board the duty
    3    power of determlniag    the necessity for such costs by
    re uirlng    that a11antlalpated    expense of refunding ellglble
    ln%ebtednerr be submitted to the Board for approval in ad-’
    vunce of incurring same. ho appeal has been protided in
    the event the Board disapproves an item of expense; hence
    ``~8t     conclude that the Board’s ruling thereon *ould be
    The Board is vested with the fnrther power to re-
    fund &h debt itself       md charge the expense thereof to the
    oounty defined rpad dirtriot       or political    subdivl8lon in-
    stigatlng such refunding.      ‘fhy+gg;~      :~d``````~Qefv
    to hold the cost of refunding
    midmum.
    Consistent with the foregoing conclusion the Board
    would be tequired to detsmine whether or not then anploy-
    ment of a person or persons to “asside    in a refunding
    would be a necessary or actual expense Incident thereto,
    asp contemplated by the Legislature.   The word uassi8tw,
    appearing in your questions, has a very broad and inde-
    terminate meaning, but as llsecj here it must 8ean “in ald
    of”, ‘being of service” or “he1 ing”.    Such terms are llke-
    wise indefinites   hence it must Pie with the Board to de-
    termine the necessity for such em loyment and whether or
    not it is indispensable in accompPishing a refunding.     The
    fasts of each 8uch refunding must ultimately define the
    course the hoard is to follow in approving or disapproving
    r
    nr.   G. A. Uht,     page Pl
    the costs of employing a person or    rsons to assist a
    county defined road distrlot   or poE"
    itical subdivision in
    refunding Its eligible indebtedness.
    We are unabli to flnd in the Ac t ln.y mention of the
    employment .of    rsons on a salary or contract basis for the
    purpose of ass r rtlng in the refUnding of such indebtedness
    as may bo sought to be refunded, and we think that under the
    law a commissioners' court has the power and authority to
    contract for the servicer of export8 on questions of finan-
    clng and refinancing in the r8me manner as they now have au-
    thority to retain architects     attorneys, auditor8 or en-
    lnoers  but we think that the compensation for such serviceo::
    & this'eonnoctlon must, under the law, be submitted to the
    Board for aEproval rior    to incurring came. If then, In
    the dimeret on of t e Board it Is detewined      .that such cost
    is not a neaersary or actuai aoet as contemplated by this
    law, we think the Board should properly disapprove such Item
    of expense*
    Very truly   yours
    ATTORHEiYGW3RkLOF
    TEXAS
    By /s Clarence B. Crowe
    C rence E. Crowe
    Assistant
    APFBOVED
    OCT. 7, 1939
    /sf   V. ?. 'Moore
    FIBST A&ISTAllT
    ATTOFNEYGElsERAL
    CRC-.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: O-1293

Judges: Gerald Mann

Filed Date: 7/2/1939

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017