Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1950 )


Menu:
  •                  De&ember 14, 1950
    Hon. Claude Isbell
    Executive Secretary
    Board of Regents
    Texas State TeachersColleges
    Austin, Texas                Oplnlon~No.V-1133.
    Re: Issyance of Revenue
    Bonds under Article
    2654c-1, V.C.S.
    Dear Sir:
    In your recent letter you state that the Board
    of Regents of the Texas State Teachers Colleges desires
    to Issue certain bonds in behalf of one of the colleges
    for the purpose of constructinga classroom  building and
    a boys' dormitory on the campus of the college, these
    bonds to be issued under the provisions of Article 2654c-1,
    V.C.S. (Acts 47th Leg., R.S., 1941, ch. 560, p. 908) and
    secured by a pledge of the building use fee authorized by
    such statute and a pledge of the net revenues to be de-
    rived from the operation of the boys' dormitory.
    Section 7 of the statute provides that govern-
    ing boards of the colleges "shall not be permitted to con-
    tract bonded Indebtednessunderthe terms of this Act In
    excess of eighty (80) per cent of the amount which can be
    amortized wlEh ihi rknues from -7L--
    said bulldln use fee
    estimated at the time of thexhorlza    Ion of such rev-
    enue bonds." (Emphasis added.)
    You state that the contemplatedbonds could not
    be amortized by eighty (80) per cent of the building use
    fee, but that such bonds can easily be financed by such
    fee and pledged net revenues of the~dormltory,If the llm-
    ltatlon Imposed by Section 7 would not prevent the issuance
    thereof. Therefore, you wish to know whether the llmlta-
    tlon contained In Section 7 Is applicablewhere net rev-
    enues from the operation of the dormitory are pledged In
    addition to a pledge of the building use fee.
    . -.
    Hon. Claude Isbell - Page 2   (v-1133)
    Article 2654c-1 authorizesthe Issuance of reve-
    nue bonds by the State Institutionsof higher learning
    named therein for the purpose of constructingand equlp-
    .plngbulldings and power plants, the,pavlrigot'streets,
    the purchase of land, and for'such..othercapital lmprove-
    ments as may be needed from'tlme"tot'lme;.:In~:qrderto
    pay the Interest on and principal of.s.uch'bondgj.~the
    gov-
    .ernlngboards of the Institutionsareauthorized to charge
    students a building use fee of not less than Five Dollars
    ($5.00) per semester.
    i+
    Moreover, In Section 6 of the statute it Is pro-
    .vlded:                                   .',
    ”
    . To assure the prompt payment of
    the pr&lpal and Interest of sald‘bdnds .iuch
    Board Is authorized to pledge aII or anyrpor-
    tlon of the proceeds of the bulldlng ,usefee
    :        authorized In Section 1 of,thls'Act,',anpsaid
    bonds may be addltlonaIly'secured~.bya,pIedge
    ‘_’
    .
    of the net revenues from-bulldlngs~and',facl~,l-
    ties to be constructed; acqulred,".or1,mproved
    with the proceeds of such bonds and from other
    buildings or facilities heretoforeor her,iafter
    constructed or acquired."
    Therefore, under the statute'cleariy'thegovern-
    'lng board ~hasthe authority to pledge not only,the building
    use fee but also the net revenues of the buildings to be
    constructed.
    Section 7 of the statute~provldekln part as fol-
    .lows:
    "The governing Boards of the aforesaid lnstl-.
    tutlons shall not be permitted to contract.
    bonded Indebtedness under the terms of this
    Act In excess of eighty (80) per cent of t,he
    amount which can be amortlzed.wlththe reve-
    :
    nu'esfrom said building use fee:estlmatedat
    the time of the authorizationof such revenue.
    bonds. - . .'I
    The quoted language of Section 7, standing alone,
    Is clear and unambiguous, and would appear to prohibit the
    Issuance of any bonds "under the terms of this Act" unless
    -thebonds could be paid with not more than 8% of the bulld-
    lng use fee estimated at the time that the bonds are issued,
    regardless of whether net revenues of.the Improvementsare
    Hon. Claude Isbell - Page 3   (V-1133)
    pledged also. Standing alone, the provlslons of Section 7
    would be "so expllclt that lt ~111 admlt of no construc-
    tion." City of Houston v. Allred, 
    123 Tex. 334
    , 350, 
    71 S.W.2d 251
    , 259 (1934)D
    However, It 1s a fundamentalrule of statutory
    construction that the entfre statute must be considered In
    arriving at the Intent of the Legislature. It Is our opln-
    lon that the Legislature Intended no such construction to
    be placed on the provlslons of Section 7.
    Sectl~cn6 of the statute provldes that, when the
    revenue bonds are secured solely by the bulldlng use fee,
    the overnlzigbod shall flx the amount of the fee (within
    the f5.00 maximum5 sufflclent to meet the bond requirements
    and set up a reasonable reserve In the Interest and sinking
    fund. Section 6 also provides:
    I(D 0 . When such bonds are secured In
    whole or In part by a pledge of the net Gve-
    zfrorn     bulldlngs or facllltles,lt shall
    be the duty of such governing body to fix
    rentals and charges for the buildings and fa-
    cllltles whose net revenues are thus pledged,
    at rates sufficient to pay the maintenance
    and operatlon expense of such buildings and
    facllltles and to pro&ace net revenues which,
    to ether wlth the bulldln use fee authorized
    kofloi??hdwm                    besufflclent
    to pay the interest and irlnclpal of such bonds
    as they accrue and mature." (Emphasisadded.)
    The statute in Sectlon 6 speaks of lssulng bonds
    secured ln whole by the net revenues pledged therefor. If
    Section 'ET;oere
    glven a literal lnterpretatlon,this pro-
    vlslon would be meaningless. In other words, If,bonds were
    payable solely from net revenues, as Is provided In Set-,
    tlon 6, then they could never be issued because of the 8%
    building use fee provlslon of Section 7.
    It 1s our oplnlon that, construfng the act as a
    whole, the Legislature intended that Section 7 should be
    literally followed only when the revenue bonds are secured
    solely by the bulldlng use fee. It 1s also our opinion that
    the Leglslature establishedan 8% safety rule ln an effort
    to preclude the posslbllity of lnssfflclentfunds to meet
    the bond requlrementa,
    Hon. Claude Isbell - Page 4   (V-1133)
    You are advised that It Is the opinion of this
    office that, if the requirements of the bonds can be met
    with not more than 80$ of the revenues of the building
    use fee and pledged net revenues estimated at the time
    of the authorizationof the bonds, the provisions of Sec-
    tion 7 will be satisfied.
    SUMMARY
    Revenue bonds secured by a bulldlng use
    fee and net revenues from building faclli-
    ties may pe Issued on behalf of the State ln-
    stltutlons of higher learning under Article
    2654``1, V.C.S., If the requirements of the
    bonds can be met with not more than 80$ of
    the revenues of the building use fee and
    pledged net revenues estimated at the time
    of the authorizationof the bonds, provided
    the proceedings are otherwise proper.
    Yours very truly,
    APPROVED:                            PRICE DANIEL
    Attorney General
    Everett Hutchlnson
    Executive Assistant
    BY``*)~&-~L/
    Charles D. Mathews                    Georg W. Sp ks
    First Asilstant                           Assistant
    GWS:em
    

Document Info

Docket Number: V-1133

Judges: Price Daniel

Filed Date: 7/2/1950

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017