Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    GREG       ABBOTT
    March 30,2011
    The Honorable Jeff Wentworth                           Opinion No. GA-0852
    Chair, Select Committee on
    Open Government                                   Re: Meaning of the term "enacted revenue
    Texas State Senate                                     measures" for purposes of section 17.10 of article
    Post Office Box 12068                                  IX of the 2010-2011 General Appropriations Act,
    Austin, Texas 78711-2068                               which relates to the funding of rail relocation and
    improvement (RQ-0925-GA)
    Dear Senator Wentworth:
    You ask about the meaning of the term "enacted revenue measures" for purposes of section
    17.10 of article IX of the 2010-2011 General Appropriations Act, which relates to the funding of
    rail relocation and improvement.!
    Article IX, section 17.1 O( a) of the current General Appropriations Act allocates $91 million
    per year for state fiscal years 2010 and 2011 from the State Highway Fund to the Texas Rail
    Relocation and Improvement Fund for purposes authorized by Texas Constitution article III, section
    49-0. See General Appropriations Act, 8lstLeg., R.S., ch. 1424, art. IX, § l7.IO(a), 2009 Tex. Gen.
    Laws 4483, 5374 (the "Appropriations Act"). The allocation is contingent on a "finding of fact"
    issued by the Comptroller of Public Accounts (the "Comptroller") that certain "items result in a net
    increase for the 2010-2011 state fiscal biennium of at least $182 million over the 2008-2009 state
    fiscal biennium." [d. § 17 .1O(b). The item in question here is as follows:
    (1) the net impact of enacted revenue measures on incoming revenue
    of the State Highway Fund that is not dedicated under Article 8,
    Section 7 -a of the Texas Constitution;
    [d. § 17.l0(b)(1) (emphasis added).
    You ask specifically whether sources of revenue for the State Highway Fund 006 listed in
    the Appropriations Act constitute "enacted revenue measures" within the meaning of article IX,
    'See Letter from Honorable Jeff Wentworth, then Chair, Select Committee on Veterans' Health, Eighty-first
    Legislature, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, at 1 (Oct. 19, 2010) (on file with the Opinion
    Committee, also available at http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov) [hereinafter Request Letter].
    The Honorable Jeff Wentworth - Page 2                      (GA-0852)
    § 17 .lO(b )(1). Request Letter, supra note I, at 1. You state that the Comptroller's ability to make
    the required findings of fact turns on the legal meaning of the term "enacted revenue measures" as
    used in article IX, section 17.1 O(b)(1) of the Act. 
    Id. at 2.
    The Office of the Comptroller opines that
    the determination under section 17.1 O(b)( I) requires an analysis of net impact limited to enactments
    promulgated by the Eighty-first Legislature? You contend, however, that "the term refers to
    measures passed by the Legislature that place revenue into State Highway Fund 006, regardless of
    when such measures were enacted." Request Letter, supra note I, at 2.
    The Appropriations Act does not define the term "enacted revenue measure," nor are we
    aware of any other statute, rule, judicial opinion or administrative opinion that defines the term. We
    observe, however, that section 17.lO(b)(I) by its terms does not limit the determination of the net
    impact of "enacted revenue measures" only to new revenue legislation. 3 The word "enacted" denotes
    a time in the past, but it does not suggest any further temporal restriction. Construing the phrase as
    limited to newly enacted revenue measures would add a qualifier that is not in the statute.
    Ordinarily, courts do not "insert additional words into a statutory provision." Hunter v. Fort Worth
    Capital Corp., 620 S.W.2d 547,552 (Tex. 1981): Moreover, courts presume that the Legislature
    chooses its words carefully, that each word in a statute is included for a purpose, and that words not
    included were purposefully excluded. Kappus v. Kappus, 284 S.W.3d 831,835 (Tex. 2009); In re
    M.N., 262 S.W.3d 799,802 (Tex. 2008). Had the Legislature intended to limit the Comptroller's
    determination to revenue measures enacted by the Eighty-first Legislature, it could easily have done
    so. See, e.g., Appropriations Act, art. IX, §§ 17.25-.121,2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 4483,5378-97.
    (providing appropriations contingent on various legislation by the "Eighty-first Legislature"). We
    conclude that legislative enactments which provide for incoming revenue for the State Highway
    Fund constitute "enacted revenue measures" under article IX, section 17.1O(b)(1) of the
    Appropriations Act, regardless of when they were enacted. Whether the items described in
    2See Brief from Ashley Harden, General Counsel, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, at 1 (Nov. 8, 2009)
    (stating that "the Section 17.\O(b)(I) test focuses on the enactment of additional revenue measures and not on the
    increase in appropriations levels" (emphasis added» (on file with the Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Comptroller's
    Brief\.
    3In this context, a "measure" can refer to an existing statute or to a legislative proposal such as a bill. See TEx.
    GOY·TCODEANN. § 572.059(a) (West 2004) (defining "legislative measure" to include "a bill, resolution, order, or other
    proposal to adopt, enact, amend, or repeal a statute, ordinance, rule, or policy of general application" and certain other
    proposals); Calvert v. McLemore, 
    358 S.W.2d 551
    , 552 (Tex. 1962) (determining that statutory tax on entertainment
    tickets was "plainly a revenue measure" rather than a regulatory measure); Tex. All'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0093 (1999) at
    6 (noting that statutes for user fees designed as reimbursement for use of government-owned facilities are not true
    "revenue measures").
    'The Office ofthe Comptroller states that it bases its construction of article IX, section 17 .1O(b)( 1) consistently
    with judicial and administrative authorities that consider the meaning of "revenue measure." Comptroller's Brief at 1
    (citing Hurt v. Cooper, 1 \0 S.w.2d 896 (Tex. 1937); Tex. All'y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0093 (1999), M-443 (1969), M-370
    (1969), WW-1482(1962), WW-714 (1959), WW-694 (1959». In the authorities cited, the issue generally was whether
    a particular measure was a tax statute or a licensing statute, and they do not illuminate the issue of whether "enacted
    revenue measures" should be construed as "the enactment of additional revenue measures." Comptroller's Brief at 1
    (emphasis added).
    The Honorable Jeff Wentworth - Page 3           (GA-0852)
    section 17.1 O(b) produce the "net increase" required forthe appropriation in section 17.1 O( a) remains
    a matter for determination by the Comptroller. involving questions of fact beyond the purview of the
    opinion process. See Appropriations Act, art. IX, § 17.1O(a-b), 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 4483, 5374;
    Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0485 (2006) at 4 (observing that questions involving issues of fact are
    outside the attorney general opinion process).
    The Honorable Jeff Wentworth - Page 4       (GA-0852)
    SUMMARY
    Legislative enactments that provide incoming revenue for the
    State Highway Fund constitute "enacted revenue measures" under
    article IX, section 17.10(b)(1) of the Appropriations Act, regardless
    of when they were enacted.
    DANIEL T. HODGE
    First Assistant Attorney General
    DAVID J. SCHENCK
    Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
    JASON BOATRlGHT
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    William A. Hill
    Assistant Attorney General, Opinion· Committee
    

Document Info

Docket Number: GA-0852

Judges: Greg Abbott

Filed Date: 7/2/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017