Judges: J.D. MacFARLANE, Attorney General
Filed Date: 3/30/1977
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Office of State Auditor Suite 2410, 1660 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203
Attention: John W. Mathews, Deputy State Auditor
Gentlemen:
QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION
This memorandum responds to the Legislative Audit Committee's request for advice concerning legally permitted uses of the Highway Users Tax Fund.
Highway-related revenue is constitutionally limited to use for the construction, maintenance and supervision of the public highways, which terms should be accorded a broad interpretation. The comprehensive statutory structure for appropriating such funds is constitutional and may be modified, but modification may be only by substantive legislation, not by a general appropriations bill.
ANALYSIS
Article
The primary statutory provisions governing the fund are found in C.R.S. 1973,
Net revenue is then subject to division according to various statutory enactments. For example, payments are made to the highway crossing protection fund as provided in C.R.S. 1973,
The Legislature has also created a special account within the highway users tax fund for motor vehicle emission control activities of the Departments of Health and Revenue. Expenditures from this account are subject to appropriation by the Legislature. C.R.S. 1973,
We have carefully examined the above statutes and have found them to be consistent with the constraints of article
Pursuant to the statutory standard, the balance of net revenue following all statutorily authorized deductions, is allocated in the following proportions for the uses set forth in the appropriate statutory provisions: sixty-five percent to the state highway fund, C.R.S. 1973,
As stated previously, the Legislature may pass enabling legislation which alters the general statutory trust fund structure. It has done so in specific instances besides those mentioned above. For example, by enactment, the Legislature has appropriated monies from the state highway fund to pay the cost of judgments rendered against the state for negligent design, supervision, or maintenance of highways. As an example, see 1973 Colo. Sess. Laws Ch. 1 at p. 1. Also see C.R.S. 1973, 33-30-110(4) where the Legislature, by special enactment, has authorized itself to appropriate money from the state highway fund for the purpose of construction and maintenance of roads and highways in state recreation areas and parks.
The effect of a special enactment is to amend the general provisions of the highway user tax fund statutes, C.R.S. 1973,
If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, it shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later adoption and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.
Having set up a comprehensive statutory structure for allocation of highway user tax fund money pursuant to continuing appropriation, the Legislature may alter or modify that structure only by substantive legislation. It may not effect such an amendment or modification through the vehicle of a general appropriations bill. For example, there is no statutory requirement or authorization to fund, from tax fund revenue, the anti-litter program of the Department of Natural Resources established by C.R.S. 1973,
While there is no inconsistency between Colo. Const. art.
Accordingly I am in agreement with the opinion expressed by Attorney General Dunbar in his opinion No. 72-4687 to the effect that the Legislature, by the General Appropriation's Act alone, cannot authorize expenditures out of the highway users tax fund in the absence of enabling legislation. A general appropriation bill does not constitute substantive legislation.
As to whether transfer of funds or reimbursement of accounts is in order due to past actions of the Legislature which may not have been in accord with the proper practice, I am of the opinion that a court does not have jurisdiction to order such a transfer and past matters stand as they are unless and until the Legislature adopts an act requiring and implementing a transfer. This question is presently the subject of pending litigation, and a judicial resolution of the issue may therefor be expected.
In answer to some of your remaining questions the Highway Commission, in its discretion, is authorized to expend state highway fund money with respect to any public highway in the state, C.R.S. 1973,
Costs associated with meeting environmental requirements imposed by federal, state or local law, or incurred for mitigation or elimination of adverse environmental impacts from highway construction or operation, are proper expenditures of the highway users tax fund. This includes the costs of preparing environmental impact statements, obtaining necessary permits (such as those relating to air pollution, water pollution and land reclamation), as well as implementation of measures for pollution control, revegetation, aesthetics, and wildlife and stream flow protection, and the like.
Costs associated with meeting occupational, safety and health standards which apply to highway construction activities are also proper uses of the highway users tax fund. These environmental and safety costs can generally be categorized as costs of constructing or maintaining a highway.
The term "costs of administration" as used in C.R.S. 1973,
SUMMARY
In summary, the Colorado constitution provides that the highway users tax fund must be used for the cost of maintaining the fund's revenue generating system and for costs related to the construction, maintenance and supervision of public highways. These terms are susceptible to broad interpretation by the Legislature and a presumption of constitutional validity attaches to the uses authorized or permitted by the Legislature. The Legislature, by enactment, must determine how and by whom deposits in the fund may be administered and expended. It has provided a general structure for appropriation through the Highway Commission and the cities and counties. It has also passed various legislative enactments which authorize the General Assembly itself to make appropriations from the highway users tax fund, or, by which, the Legislature has chosen to make a particular appropriation from the fund.
However, the Legislature cannot make an appropriation out of the highway users tax fund by means of a general appropriations bill alone. The Legislature must have passed, or pass, a substantive piece of legislation enabling appropriation from the fund for the highway-related purposes it wishes to finance. Where the Legislature chooses to do this, its activity should be closely coordinated with the Highway Commission in order that revenues in the fund will not be overspent. Such coordination is required because the Legislature has given the Highway Commission general authority to fix state highway program priorities and to budget expenditures, without the necessity of seeking legislative approval. When the Legislature chooses to reassert itself in the process by substantive legislation, the Commission must necessarily readjust its plans and programs in light of the legislative action.
Very truly yours,
J.D. MacFARLANE Attorney General
PUBLIC FUNDS HIGHWAYS LEGISLATURE APPROPRIATIONS
C.R.S. 1973,
Colo. Const. art.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH Auditor, Office of State General Assembly Legislative Audit Cte. HIGHWAYS, DEPT. OF
Highway-related revenue is constitutionally limited to use for the construction, maintenance and supervision of the public highways, which terms should be accorded a broad interpretation. The comprehensive statutory structure for appropriating such funds is constitutional and may be modified, but modification may be only by substantive legislation, not by a general appropriations bill.