No.

CourtColorado Attorney General Reports
DecidedFebruary 7, 1994
StatusPublished

This text of No. (No.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
No., (Colo. 1994).

Opinion

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 XVIII, § 2, of the Colorado Constitution. All such net proceeds are "set aside, allocated, allotted, and continuously appropriated" for the preservation, protection enhancement and management of the state's wildlife, park, river, trail and open space heritage.

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 XXVII, § 3 of the Colorado Constitution.

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, 131 Colo. 78, 83, 279 P.2d 685 (1955), and therefor words used in the constitution are to be given the natural and popular meaning usually understood by the people who adopted them, A-B Cattle Company v. United States,196 Colo. 539, 545, 589 P.2d 57, 61 (1978). The General Assembly has authority to facilitate carrying out constitutional provisions but it may not make a limitation other than that by the constitution. Yenter v. Baker, 126 Colo. 232, 248 P.2d 311,316 (1952). A constitutional provision should be construed liberally in view of "the object to be accomplished and the mischief to be avoided . . . in such a manner as will prevent an evasion of its legitimate operation." Colorado Common Causev. Bledsoe, 810 P.2d 201, 206-207 (Colo. 1991).

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?

Yes. Payment of refunded obligations in excess of the original permitted debt service would violate article XXVII, § 3(1)(a)(II).

ANALYSIS

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. XXVII, § 3(1)(a)(II) ("permitted debt service"). The language of article XXVII appears clear and unambiguous. Net lottery proceeds may not be used to pay either the debt service due after November 30, 1998 pursuant to the terms of the original obligation or any refunding of debt originally due after November 30, 1998 pursuant to the terms of the original obligation. Net lottery proceeds available to the State Capital Construction Fund ($163,323,746.14)1 are only available to pay the permitted debt service. If the permitted debt service can be paid off for a lesser amount by refinancing, then any funds remaining from the $163,323,746.14 are not available to pay other capital construction obligations, including those refinanced by the 1992 refinancing. The $163,323,746.14 is legally a "not to exceed" amount within the meaning of the GOCO Amendment and no portion of it is available to be used for other obligations once the permitted debt service has been satisfied. The money saved would be available to the GOCO Board to fund other projects.2

Section 33-60-103(1)(c)(I)(D), C.R.S. (1993), requires payment of refunded state capital construction obligations on the 1989 Master Lease Purchase Agreement in the original amount of $66,894,861.85 for the portion of the certificates which matureon and after November 1, 1999. Additionally, the State of Colorado refunded certain other obligations listed in GOCO § 3(1)(c)(I) in October, 1992. This refunding increased the debt service due through November 30, 1998, from $163,323,746.14 to $169,921,223.14 and included the transfer of some principal amounts due after November 30, 1998 under the documents originating such obligations into debt service due prior to November 30, 1998.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cooper Motors, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners
279 P.2d 685 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1955)
Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe
810 P.2d 201 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1991)
Yenter v. Baker
248 P.2d 311 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1952)
Manly v. Board of County Commissioners
46 Colo. 491 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
No., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/no-coloag-1994.