Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas July 28. 1986 JIM MAlTOX
Attorney General Supreme Cairl Building Honorable Ray Farabt,e, Chairman Opinion No. JM-528 P. 0. BOX 1254s Committee on State Affairs
Austin. TX. 76711. 2546 Texas State Senate Re: Tax rate of a county after a 5121475.2Wl’ P.O. Box 12068 successful election under section Telex 910/674-1387 Telecopier 512/4750266 Austin, Texas 78711 26.07 of the Property Tax Code to
rollback an adopted tax rate Honorable Chet Brooks, Chairman adopted includes an 714 Jackson, Suite 70-I Health and Human Res:ources Committee increase to provide for the addi- Dallas. TX. 75202.4506 Texas State tional cost indigent health 214l742-6944 Senate
P. 0. Box 12068 care services reauired under the Austin, Texas 7871,l Indigent Health -Care and Treat- 4624 Al& wla Ave., Suite 160 ment Act El Paso, TX. 799052793 Honorable John Trae&er, Chairman 91515221 -.-.--- a464 Committee on Intergwernmental Relations r;c Texas, Suite 700 Texas State Senate ston, TX. 77002-3111 P. 0. Box 12068 2~I.i/223-5666 Austin, Texas 7871,l Gentlemen:
806 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 6W747.5236
The Sixty-nint.h Legislature enacted in special session
Indigent Health Carl? and Treatment Act [hereinafter “the act”] which, inter alia, require3 governmental entities certain 4309 N. Tenth, Suite S McAllen. TX. 76501-1665 care services ind:.gent residents. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., 1st C.S., 51216624547 ch. 1, at 1. SecUons 2 and 3 of the act amended sections
26.06, and 26.07 of the Tax Code, which set the requirements ad valorem calculation, for notice 200 MaIn Plan, suite 4w public meetings prit’r to the adoption of the tax rate, and for the tax San Anlo?fo, TX. 762052797 512/225.4191 rollback petil:ion and election procedures, respectively, with
which taxing units mu,st comply. Your question focuses upon the proper construction of the:,e amendments. Essentially, you wish to know, An Equal Opportunity/ an instance in which there has been a successful rollback Affirmative Action Employer and in whic.b the adopted rate includes a rate attri-
butable the add:ltional incurred by providing care services by the act, whether those, health is also rolled back. We conclude that the r;.te requi:red by the act is not reduced pursuant
rollback provision.
Honorable Bay Parabee
Section 26.04 of the Tax Code sets the method by which the so-called “effective tax ra:e” is calculated by each taxing unit prior to the adoption of its ad Jalorem tax rate. The “effective tax rate” is that tax rate which, when imposed upon the property that was taxed last year but using this; year’s appraised values, will produce approximately the same amout of revenue which was produced last year.
See Tex. Const. art. VIII, section 21; Attorney General Opinion MW-495 (1982). Section 26.05 of tie Tax Code provides that, if a taxing unit adopts a tax rate that exceeds the effective tax rate by more than three percent, the taxing unit must hold a public hearing, as provided by section 26.06 of the Tax Code, on the proposed and publish a specified public notice of the meeting prior its being held.
Section 26.07 of the Tax Code permits qualified voters of the taxing unit by petition to require that a tax rate rollback be held the adopted rate exceelis rate by more than eight percent. If the election is successful. the adopted rate is reduced to “a rate that exceeds ths rate calculated by Section 26.04 of this Tax Code §26.07(a). code by only eight percent.”
The amendments to sections 26.06, and 26.07 of the Tax Code contained in the act tffectively segregate out the amount of the tax rate to the costs in the first year the health required by the act. Section 26.04(e) was amended by the act to IncluLe among the items of information taxing unit is required .publicise in connection with the calcula- tion of its effective
a schedule the unit’s expenses in providing required by the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act . . showing the amount of required expense which will be paid in the next year from property tax revenues, the amount of expense paid in the preceding property tax revenues, and the amounts of state reimbursement, I? any, received or expected either year.
Tax Code 126.04(e) (4). 26.06 was am’znded by the addition of subsection (f),
which lists items of :Lnformation the published notices the ad valorem in::cease and for the vote on the adoption the tax rate must contain those taxing units that offer as required by the? act. Each notice is required to specify explicitly the percentage the tax rate increase which is attri- butable of pzoviding the required
services. Each such notice must contain the following:
(Percentage of over the tax rate required for levy amount ,loeded services) percent of the increase will be used to pay for services required by the Texas Legislature in the Indigent Bealth Care and Treatment Act.
Tax Code 526.06(f).
Finally, section 26.0; was amended by the addition of subsection It is with this section that you are concerned. (h) .
as amended, provides the fallowing in pertinent part: Election to Repeal Increase.
Sec. 26.07. If the Islverning body of a taxing unit other than a schcol district adopts a tax rate that exceeds the rate ;:alculated as provided by Section 26.04 of this co&! by more than eight percent, the qualified voters of the taxing unit by petition may require that an- election be held to determine whether or not t3 reduce the tax rate adopted for the current year-to a rate that exceeds the rate calculated as p&ided by Section 26.04 of this code by only eigt‘E percent. . . .
(d) If governing body finds the petition is valid (or fails to act within the time allowed), it shall order that an election be held in the taxing unit on a date not less than 30 or more than 90 da1.s after last day on which it could have acted to approve or disapprove petition. A state law requiring local elections be held on a spe:cified date does not apply unless a specified date falls within time permitted by this section. At the election, the ballots shall be prepared to permit voting for or against the proposition: ‘Reducing the tax rate (name of taxing unit) the current year (the rate adopte’i) (the rate is only eight percent g;ester than calculated as provided by Section 26.04 of this code).’ (e) If a majo:r:tty of the qualified voters voting on the question in the election favor the proposl- tion, tax ra.te taxing unit current year is t’he tax rate is eight percent greater than calculated as provided by *4 Section 26.04 ,this code ; otherwise, the tax rate the current is the one adopted by the governing body.
. . .
(h) Notwithst~rding Subsection this section, in tl”! first year after date of this Act the governing body of a taxing unit other than a-school district increases its tax rate’ to provide Ihealth services governing body is required to provide to its resi- dents under the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act (S.B. 1, ACES of the 69th Legislature, 1st Called Session, F985) the adopted allows voters to ;eek to reduce the tax rate under this section must-exceed the rate calculated under 26.04 of -this code by eight percent plus that rate which, g>plied to the total taxable value submitted to the governing body, would impose taxes in an amount equal to amount which governing body would be required to pay out of property taxes to-provide
Indigent Bealth Fare and Treatment Act less amount the gover%ng body paid out of property taxes to provide the equivalent in the preceding year a;id less any state reimbursement which the governi& body paid out of property taxes the equivalent in the preceding year and less a,, state reimbursement which receive pursuant to governing body expects Subtitle D of Ti,zLe 2 of the Indigent liealth Care and Treatment Act. (Emphasis added).
Your question arises because the act did not expressly amend subsections 26.07(a) and 26.07(e) the code. You express conc~ern that, were the election to rollback the tax rate increase, the tax for indigent health care would be rolled back as well. Such an interpre- tation would require an isolated and mechanical reading of subsections 26.07(a) and 26.07(e) and would ignore subsection 26.07(h).
We must look :ntent of the legislature and construe statute to give effect intent. Knight v. International Credit Corp., 62;’ S.W.2d 382 (Tex. 1982); State v. Terrell, Harvester If a statute is susceptible two 588 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. 197!)). constructions, one which zill carry out and the other defeat the statute should receive former construc- legislative intent, tion. Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank, Hearne, 560 S.W.2d ? 334 (Tex. 1979). A statute should be construed as a whole; one
P. 2431 *5 Aonorable John Traeger
provision should not be given a meaning out of harmony or inconsistent even though it might be susceptible to such with other provisions, construction if standing a:lone. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc. V. Railroad Commission of Texaza. 573 S.W.Zd 502 (Tex. 1978); Barr V. Bernhard, 562 S.W.i!d 844 (l’ex. 1978). Noreover, a statute should not be construed so as to lead to a foolish or an absurd result. McKinney V. Blankenshie. 282 S.W.2d 691 (Tex. 1955); State ex rel. Childress v.
School Trustees of Shelby Czlnty, 239 S.W.2d 777 (Tex. 1951).
In a brief submitted with your request for an opinion, you point out that the legislative h:tstory of the bill supports your construc- tion of the amendments. The bill analysis of the committee substitute to House Bill No. 1843. which was the version of the act introduced the House during the reguls:c session of the Sixty-ninth Legislature, declares an intent to exclude entirely from the operation of the rollback provisions any tax rate increase attributable to additional costs incurred required by the act:
County and hosp::tal district spending to meet state mandated mfuimum standards is exempt tax rollback requirements. (Emphasis added).
See House Committee on Public Health. Bill Analysis, House Bill Littee Substitute, 69th Leg., 1st C.S. (1985). The evident intent *6 Ronorable Ray Farabee (313-528)
trigger the rollback provisions in the first place eight percent over the effective rate plus the: portion of the rate attributable to the costs of providing the services. and then to intend "rolled-back" rate be set at eight percent over the effective rate.
The legislature did not intend a construction that would impair ability of taxing units the services required by the act.
Accordingly, we construe the phrase of subsection (h! "[nlotwith- standing [slubsection ',:C this section . . ." to effect an excep- tion to subsection (a): in an instance in which there has been a successful tax rate rollbac,k election in the first year that a taxing unit has incurred additionz;l. costs services as required by the act, is set at eight percent over
plus the additional perceniage attributable
providing the required by the act.
SUMMARY In an instanw in which a taxing unit provides as required by the Indigent Health Care' and Treatment Act and in which there has been a successful tax rste rollback in the first in which those are provided, sub- section 26.07(a), when construed with subsection 26.07(h), sets :be "rolled-back" rate at eight percent over he effective plus additional percentage
act.
Very trul yours. iv% L-1 JIM HATTOX Attorney General of Texas JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney Gwleral
NARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorwy General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committela
Prepared by Jim Moellinger
Assistant Attorney General of the amendments was alscr indicated in the fiscal notes that were prepared for House Bill No, 1843, stating that the effect of the act on units of local government would include the following: Some counties would be required to increase their The bill expenditures for health care. provides an *exemption to tax rollback provision taxing units to the extent increase is necessary care. (Em&asis added). Fiscal Note, H.B. No. 1843, 69th Leg., 1st C.S. (1985). The Fiscal Note for the proposed committee substitute for House Bill No. 1843 and for Eouse Bill No. 1843, as engrossed, both contain the same language. It is clear from a reading the act the provisions amending the Tax Code, t&hen together, were meant to isolate portion tax rate increase to providing ;%ct. It would make little sense legislature to require certain taxing units to offer specified indigents, to set calculation and notice procedures segregati”8 from a tax rate that portion attrlbitable such services, and to make thiit: percentage necessary