Citation Numbers: 67 Op. Att'y Gen. 77
Judges: BRONSON C. La FOLLETTE, Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/28/1978
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/15/2017
RALPH E. OSBORNE, District Attorney, Monroe County
You ask whether a town, city or village which operates its own waste collection and disposal facility may be taxed for any portion of the cost of a county solid waste management system established under sec.
Section
*Page 78". . . For the purpose of operating the solid waste management system, the board may exercise the following powers:
"(1) Appropriate funds and levy taxes to provide funds for acquisition or lease of sites, easements, necessary facilities and equipment and for all other costs required for the solid waste management system except that no town, city or village which operates its own waste collection and disposal facility, or property therein, shall be subject to any tax levied hereunder to cover the cost of operation of these functions. Such appropriations may be treated as a revolving capital fund to be reimbursed from proceeds of the system." (Emphasis supplied.)
The phrase "cost of operation" is not defined in ch. 59, Stats. As a general rule, where words used in a statute are not specifically defined, they should be accorded their ordinary and accepted meaning, which may be established by the definition contained in a recognized dictionary. Town of Lafayette v. Cityof Chippewa Falls,
"Cost of operation" is a well-established term of art in tax and business parlance. It is used to designate the day-to-day costs of running an enterprise, as distinguished from long-term expenditures chargeable to the capital account. According to Volume 9A Words and Phrases, p. 604, "`operating expenses' and `costs of operation' are interchangeable terms . . . ." Regarding "operating expenses" Bouvier's Law Dictionary, pp. 2416-2417 (Rev. 8th Ed.), declares "[t]hey are, broadly speaking, those which it is reasonably necessary to incur for the purpose of keeping up [an enterprise] as a going concern."
No actual definition of "cost of operation" appears in either the Wisconsin or federal taxation statutes. However, the distinctions made in sec.
My opinion that "cost of operation" encompasses only those costs incurred by the county in the day-to-day running of the system is supported by an examination of sec.
The legislative history of sec.
Assembly Bill 13 as originally introduced provided for the establishment of a waste management system simply by extending sec.
". . . levy a tax to create a working capital fund to maintain and operate dumpage facilities, construct, equip and operate incinerators and other structures for disposal of wastes . . . levy taxes to provide funds to acquire sites and to construct and equip incinerators and other structures for disposal of wastes . . . ."
Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 13 deleted "levy a tax to" and "levy taxes to" in the above phrases and specifically stipulated that nonusers were not to be taxed for costs either "to commence or maintain" a waste disposal system.
Senate Substitute Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 13 rejected both Assembly proposals — including the one which would have made users alone liable for all costs of the system — and created present sec.
I believe the above legislative history, while neither clear nor conclusive, tends to support the position that the Legislature by using the phrase "cost of operation" demonstrated its intent not to allow nonparticipants to escape all costs whatever for the countywide system, but only day-to-day operating expenses. *Page 80 Legislative Purpose
The view that "cost of operation" should be read broadly is not only contrary to the established meaning of the phrase and the legislative history of the statute, but it also reflects a fundamental misconception of the purpose of the Legislature in enacting sec.
If the purpose of the Legislature was to promote a countywide solution to this problem then a broad construction of "cost of operation" in a large measure thwarts it. County boards must be able to look to the towns, cities and villages as partial sources of revenue if they are ever to receive sufficient funds to develop a countywide solid waste management system. Construing "cost of operation" to encompass capital as well as operating costs would mean that it would be in municipalities' best interest to drag their feet, allowing those who do participate at the outset to bear the burden of the initial capital investment.
"[T]he cardinal rule in interpreting statutes is that the purpose of the whole act is to be sought and is favored over a construction which will defeat the manifest object of the act." Student Asso., U of Wis.-Milw. v. Baum,
74 Wis.2d 283 ,294 ,295 ,246 N.W.2d 622 (1976).
I must conclude then, that the most reasonable construction of the statute, one compatible with its language and purpose, is that municipalities with their own solid waste collection and disposal systems may be taxed for all costs for the system of a capital nature, but may not be taxed for day-to-day operating costs.
In closing, I note that pursuant to sec.
BCL:DJH *Page 81