Judges: GALE A. NORTON, Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/7/1994
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
GOCO purported to adopt a constitutional reapportionment of all net proceeds of the state's lottery in order to dedicate those proceeds to the state's wildlife, park, river, trail and open space heritage as well as the repayment of certain preexisting financial obligations of the state. Article XXVII, § 3(1) adopts a definition of net proceeds for every state supervised lottery game operated under the authority of article
The net lottery proceeds are allotted to the Conservation Trust Fund for distribution pursuant to the formula prescribed in article XXVII, § 4. GOCO provided for a transition period through the fourth quarter state fiscal year 1997-1998. During the transition period net lottery proceeds are to be distributed to the Conservation Trust Fund and the Division of Wildlife in amounts allocable thereto under statute as amended through January 1, 1992 and to the State Capital Construction Fund to pay certain debt service enumerated in GOCO. The remaining net proceeds, if any, are paid to the GOCO Trust Fund. The General Assembly has requested clarification of what amount of net lottery proceeds are available to the State Capital Construction Fund to pay debt service under article
Prior to answering and analyzing the specific questions posed by the General Assembly in its request of November 29, 1993, it is useful to review the standards for interpretation of the language of constitutional amendments and interpretation of the intent of the drafters.
In construing a constitutional amendment, a court would seek to ascertain and give effect to the intent of those who adopted it, Cooper Motors v. Board of County Commissioners ofJackson County,
QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND CONCLUSIONS
a. Can debt service payments due after November 30, 1998 under the terms of the original obligation be made payable from lottery proceeds through refunding of the obligation consistent with § 3(1)(a) of article XXVII of the state constitution? If so, to what extent?
No. Debt service payments due after November 30, 1998 under the terms of the original obligation cannot be made from net lottery proceeds through the refunding of the obligation.
b. If the refunding of the underlying obligation was accomplished prior to the enactment of said § 3(1)(a), are the same limitations applicable? If not, what are the limitations?
Yes. Debt service payments due after November 30, 1998 under the terms of the original obligation, even if refunded prior to the effective date of article XXVII, cannot be made from net lottery proceeds.
c. Would repayment of that portion of the "1992 Refunding Issue" which exceeds the original total amount of the obligations refunded thereunder violate the provisions of GOCO?
ANALYSISYes. Payment of refunded obligations in excess of the original permitted debt service would violate article XXVII, § 3(1)(a)(II).
d. GOCO permits refunding and/or payment from net lottery proceeds of debt service "due from and including September 1, 1993, to and including November 30, 1998, on the obligations described in Subsection (1)(c) of this § 3, but only to the extent such debt service is due during such period according to the terms of the documents originating such obligations. . . ." Colo. Const. art.
Section
e. Pursuant to article XXVII § 3(1)(a)(II), net lottery proceeds are allocated to the State Capital Construction Fund only to pay the original or refunded debt obligation for those obligations specifically described in § 3(1)(c) and originally due during the period of September 1, 1993 through November 30, 1998. Refunding of a post November 30, 1998 debt obligation prior to the effective date of GOCO does not change this result. GOCO makes no allowance for payment from net lottery proceeds of the refunded obligation any more than it does for the original underlying obligation. ". . . [T]o refund debts is to change the form and, generally, the time and manner of payment, of a debt which has already been funded . . . [T]he doctrine that funding or refunding of an existing indebtedness does not increase the indebtedness of the corporation is founded on the condition that there is merely a change in form of the debt, and the old evidences of the debt are merely to be exchanged for the new." Jones, The Law of Bonds and Bond Securities, 4th ed., Vol. I, § 101, pg. 98-100 (1935). Seealso, 56 Am.Jur.2d § 656, pg. 704; and Manley v.Board of Commissioners of Pueblo County,
The 1992 refunding did not alter the amount of the permitted debt service payable under GOCO. Article XXVII § 3(c) prevents the payment of debt service on obligations originated on or after January 1, 1992.
f. Article XXVII § 3(1)(a)(II) places a limit on the amount of net lottery proceeds which may be used to pay a refunded debt listed in § 3(1)(c)(I). Payment of such refunded debt is allowable "to the extent the debt service on such refunding obligation does not exceed the total amount of debt service payable on the applicable refunded obligation from and including September 1, 1993, or from the date of such refunding, if later, to and including November 30, 1998, according to the terms of the documents originating the applicable refunded obligation. . . ." Colo. Const. art.
SUMMARY
Article XXVII, § 3(1)(a)(II) limits payments from net lottery proceeds on the obligations of the State Capital Construction Fund to the amount of debt service due on the bonds listed in § 3(c)(I) from September 30, 1993, to November 30, 1998, according to the terms of the documents originating those obligations ($163,323,746.14). The General Assembly cannot pay any other obligations or post-November 30, 1998, debt service on the obligations listed in § 3(c)(I) from net lottery proceeds. The "1992 Refinancing" cannot modify the permitted debt service. It did not, and cannot, expand the capital construction obligations which may be paid from net lottery proceeds. It simply reduced the amount of net lottery proceeds required to pay the permitted debt service. The General Assembly cannot take these "savings" and apply them to other debt service. These savings become revenue for the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund.
GALE A. NORTON Attorney General
MERRILL SHIELDS Deputy Attorney General
STEPHEN G. SMITH Assistant Attorney General
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS STATE GOVERNMENT REVENUE BONDS
Colo. Const. art.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Article