Honorable Robert S. Calvert Opinion No. C-687
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas Re: Questions relative
to College Building
Bond Amendment,
Article VII, Sectior
17 of the Texas Consti-
Dear Mr. Calvert: tut ion
You have requested the opinion of this office
In regard to the following questions relative to
the College Building Bond Amendment, Article VII,
Section 17 of the Texas Constitution:
"1 . What is the effective date of the
amendment?
2. Is the 54 tax levied in 1965
a. To be shared by the 12 colleges that
were sharing prior to November 2, or
b. To be shared by the 17 schools named
In the amendment adopted November 21
c. If shared by the 17, does the sharing
begin with the first collection by the
county tax collector in October, 1965
or after the effective date of the
amendment?
NOTE: Deposits to College Building
Fund 1958-1967 are $4.50l.q83.14
and Coiie e-Pklding %&d'i9&8-
1957 are $ l&,395.97, as of March
31, 1966.
-3299-
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (c-6&7 )
3. Delinquent taxes :
a. Will the 12 schools (and not the 17)
continue to share collections of
delinquencies for lg58-64?
b. Will the 14 schools (and not the 12 nor
the 17) continue to share collection
of delinquencies for 1948-1957?
If so, each county tax collector
will have to classify collections.
(See Note in 2c above).
4. Does Arlington State share in the fund?
5. If the amount required to retire bonds (which
is known) plus the amount required to retire
notes outstanding (which may or may not be
known) equals more than the cash on hand plus
the collections from 1965 levy, how will the
1966 and 1967 levy be divided?
6. If there is sufficient cash and 1965
collections to retire bonds and notes
outstanding November 2, how will the
1966 and 1967 levies be distributed?
7. Can any of the original 12 schools or
those added in the November 2 amendment
issue notes after November 2, 1965?
8. Will the Comptroller be required to
establish a new fund series for:
a. The lo-cents tax on assessment
rolls of January, 1966 to be
collected October, 1966 and after
or
b. The 5-cents addition on assessment
rolls of January, 1966 and 1967 and
clear the remaining 5 cents Into funds
-3300-
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 3 (c-687 )
already established by prior authority
and obligated to retire notes out-
standing.
In either "a" or "b" above, the entire
10 cents is to go into new funds for
taxes collected on January, 1968
Assessment Rolls.
9. Is the allocation percentage computed as
of June 1, 1966, to be applied to
actual receipts for the period ending
May 30, 1972?
10. May funds other than those funds
received from Ad Valorem Taxes be used
to retire note obligations incurred
under the College Building Amendment?
11. Can the State Comptroller be required
to register notes issued under the
College Building Amendment?"
It is axiomatic in interpreting constitutional
provisions that "when the significance of a phrase
or clause is plainly discoverable from the words
thereof, there is no reason to resort to rules
of construction and effect should be given to the
meaning thus ascertained. Words will be con-
sidered to have been used in their natural sense
and ordinary signification, unless the context indicates
the contrary". 12 Tex. Jur. 2nd, 362, Constitutional
Law, Sec. 14 and cases cited thereunder.
Article VII, Section 17, of the Constitution of
Texas, as adopted in 1965, is self-enacting and apply-
ing the above axioms to the language used in the
amendment several of your questions can speedily be
resolved as the answers appear in clear and unambiguous
language therein.
Your first question, regarding the effective
date of the amendment, is answered In the last
paragraph thereofi whereinit i&stated that "It
shall become operative or effective upon Its adoption..."
-3301-
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 4 (c-687 )
The Constitutional amendment was adopted on the 19th
day of November, the date the election returns were
canvassed. Wilson v. State, 15 Tex. Ct. A p
(1883); Attorney General's Opinion S-146 $!1954
* '7"
Your question four Is answered in the amend-
ment wherein it is stated that certain institutions
shall be eligible to receive funds raised from the
ten cent tax levy and lists the schools. The first
name on this list is "Arlington State College at
Arlington", thus the answer to your question must
obviously be in the affirmative.
Your question eleven is answered in the
negative because there is no mention anywhere in
the amendment of any duty on the part of the
State Comptroller to register "notes" issued
under terms of the amendment. The duty of
the State Comptroller to register bonds issued
under 'the amendment is set out in the second para-
graph thereof, but no similar duty is imposed
as to notes.
In regard to your seventh question, we
again need only to look at the clear language
of the November, 1965 amendment, By Its
specific terms It acts to "supersede and repeal
the former provisions of this Section." Thus
the on1 authority to issue notes would have
to be + ound in the November, 1965 amendment
after its adoption by the people. In the
tecond paragraph we find the following language:
. . ..the governing board of each such institu-
tion of higher learning is fully authorized to
pledge all or any part of said funds allotted to
such institutions as hereinafter provided, to
secure bonds or notes . ...". (emphasis added). Go-
ing further we find that no funds shall be allo-
cated, i.e. allotted, under the November 1965
amendment until June 1, 1966. Until such allotment
is made it is clear that none of the schools named
in the amendment can issue any notes under its terms.
As to your tenth question, there is no duty
imposed on the State Comptroller under Article VII,
Section 17 regarding any funds other than those
received from Ad Valorem Taxes and we therefore
treat this question as superfluous.
-3302-
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 5 (c-687 )
The remainder of your questions we have con-
solidated for purposes of clarity and brevity into
the following:
1. Should the proceeds of the five
cent tax levied for the year 1965
be allocated among the twelve
colleges sharing in such proceeds
prior to the amendment of November,
1965, or among the seventeen institu-
tions named in the amendment?
2. Upon what basis should delinquent
taxes collected for the years 1948
through 1965 be distributed (allocated),
and should the same basis be used
in the future for delinquent collections
for the years 1966 through 1978?
3. How should the proceeds from the ten
cent tax be allocated among the seven-
teen schools named in the amendment
of November, 1965?
Turning first to the matter of the distri-
bution of the proceeds of the five cent tax
levied for the year 1965, it is our opinion that
these collections should be apportioned and dis-
tributed in accordance with the allocations made
in Article VII, Section 17 as it existed prior to
the November, 1965 amendment.
It is a fundamental rule that money from
taxes levied and collected for a certain purpose
may be expended for such purpose only. Carroll v.
Williams, 109 Tex. 155, 202 S.W. 504 (19
V. City of South Houston, 137 S.W. 2c' 197
? Civ.
App. 1940, affd. 13b Tex. 218, 150 S.W. 2d 74).
The five cent tax levied for the year 1965 was
levied for the purposes set out in Article VII,
Section 17 prior to the November, 1965 amendment and
therefore should be distributed among the twelve
schools listed at the time the tax levy was made.
-3303-
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 6 (C-687 )
The same general rule cited above would
apply as regards the distribution of delinquent
tax collections from past years, I.e. such
funds should be distributed to the schools
named in and in the proportion provided In
Article VII, Section 17 as it existed at the
time the particular tax was levied. This
would also apply to any delinquent collections
in the future. Thus whether based on the tax
levied under the 1947, 1956, or 1965 amendments
the distribution of funds would depend on which
allocation was in effect at the time the
particular tax was levied.
The final question to be resolved involves
how the proceeds from the ten cent tax levied
should be allocated among the seventeen schools
named in the November, 1965 amendment. The
language of the amendment is so clear and un-
ambiguous as to leave no question that the in-
tent is that the entire ten cents be divided
among all seventeen schools on the basis of the
allocation formula set out in the amendment,
starting with the tax levied for 1965 and con-
tinuing each year thereafter.
However, the amendment also provides "that
nothing herein shall be construed as impairing
the obligation Incurred by any outstanding notes
or bonds heretofore ?ssued by any state instltu-
tions of higher learning under this Section prior
to the adoption of this amendment but such notes
or bonds shall be paid, both as to principal
and interest, from the fund as allocated to any
such institution".
Thus the Comptroller of Public Accounts should
allocate the entire anticipated proceeds of the ten
cent tax levy among the Institutions named in the
November, 1965 amendment in accordance with the pro-
visions of such amendment, which will hereafter be
referred to as the "regular allocation." However,
if it appears that an institution, named in Section
17 of Article VII, prior to the 1965 amendment, has
incurred valid obligations by the issuance of notes
or bonds in accordance with the terms of Article VII,
Section 17 as it existed prior to the 1965 amendment,
and that under the regular allocation it will re-
ceive less than it would have received under the
-3304-
.
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 7 (c-687 )
terms of Section 17 of Article VII before the
1965 amendment, and that the regular alloca-
tion will not be sufficient to meet these
outstanding obligations, then the regular
allocation must be revised to the extent neces-
sary to give such institutions an amount suffi-
cient to meet such obligations as they become
due. However, in no case can the additional
amount thus allocated, together with the instl-
tution’s regular allocation total more than the
amount that an institution would have received
by virtue of the five cent levy under Article
VII, Section 17 as it existed prior to the 1965
amendment. The remaining funds to be received
from the ten cent tax levy, should then be allo-
cated in accordance with the regular allocation.
SUMMARY
----_--
The proceeds of the five cent
ad valorem tax levied under Article VII,
Section 17 of the Constitution of Texas
for the year 1965 should be distri-
buted among the schools listed and
on the basis provided in said Article
as it existed at the ~time the tax was
levied.
Delinquent ad valorem tax collections
should be distributed as provided by the
terms of Article VII, Section 17 as it read
at the time the particular tax was levied.
The Comptroller of Public Accounts
should allocate the entire anticipated pro-
ceeds of the ten cent tax levy among the
institutions named in the November, 1965
amendment in accordance with the provisions
of such amendment which will hereafter be re-
ferred to as the “regular allocation”.
However, if it appears that an institution,
named in Section 17 of Article VII, prior
to the 1965 amendment, has incurred valid
obligations by the issuance of notes or
bonds in accordance with the terms of Article
VII, Section 17 as it existed prior to the
-3305-
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 8 (c- 687 )
1965 amendment, and that under the regular
allocation it will receive less than it
would have received under the terms of
Section 17 of Article VII before the 1965
amendment, and that the regular alloca-
tion will not be sufficient to meet these
outstanding obligations, then the regular
allocation must be revised to the extent
necessary to give such institutions an
amount sufficient to meet such obligations
as they become due. However, in no case
can the additional amount thus allocated,
together with the institution's regular
allocation, total more than the amount
that an institution would have received
by virtue of the five cent levy under
Article VII, Section 17 as it existed
prior to the 1965 amendment. The remain-
ing funds to be received from the ten
cent tax levy, should then be allocated
in accordance with the regular allocation.
Respectfully submitted,
WAGGONER CARR
Attorney General of Texas
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
John Reeves
Malcolm Quick
Kerns Taylor
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
By T. B. Wright
-3306-