B-138834, JAN. 4, 1960

B-138834, JAN. 4, 1960

TO HONORABLE ROBERT E. MCLAUGHLIN, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF OLUMBIA:

LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 27, 1959, FROM THE ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CONCERNS THE INVESTMENT AND REINVESTMENT OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARMORY BOARD UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM ACT OF 1957, 71 STAT. 619, AS AMENDED, 72 STAT. 421, WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR CURRENT EXPENDITURES. THE ACTING PRESIDENT, IN EFFECT, REQUESTS A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THESE FUNDS FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 7 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATION ACT, 1957, 70 STAT. 439, 453.

SECTION 7 OF THE LAST CITED ACT PROVIDES:

"HEREAFTER THE COMMISSIONERS ARE AUTHORIZED IN THEIR DISCRETION TO INVEST AND REINVEST AT ANY TIME IN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ANY PART OF THE GENERAL, SPECIAL, OR TRUST FUNDS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOT NEEDED TO MEET CURRENT EXPENSES, TO DEPOSIT THE INTEREST ACCRUING FROM SUCH INVESTMENTS TO THE CREDIT OF THE FUND FROM WHICH THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE, AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IS AUTHORIZED TO SELL OR EXCHANGE SUCH SECURITIES FOR OTHER GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, AND DEPOSIT THE PROCEEDS TO THE CREDIT OF THE APPROPRIATE FUND.'

THE ACTING PRESIDENT SAYS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 7 AUTHORIZES THE INVESTMENT OF THE FUNDS IN QUESTION AND THAT THE ARMORY BOARD (WHICH IS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM) HAS APPROVED THE INVESTMENT OF STADIUM FUNDS NOT REQUIRED FOR CURRENT EXPENDITURES. HE ALSO SAYS THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IS RELUCTANT TO INVEST THESE FUNDS BECAUSE HE COULD NOT FIND ANY SPECIFIC AUTHORITY EITHER IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 1959, B 138834, 39 COMP. GEN. 98, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM ACT OF 1957, AS AMENDED. IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 1959, WE SAID, IN PART, THAT:

"INASMUCH AS THE BONDS ISSUED BY THE ARMORY BOARD UNDER THE STADIUM ACT, AS AMENDED, ARE GUARANTEED AS TO BOTH PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST BY THE UNITED STATES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS SHOULD BE REGARDED AS PUBLIC MONEYS REQUIRED TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. 482 AND 31 U.S.C. 521, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY PERMITTING SUCH FUNDS TO BE DEPOSITED IN COMMERCIAL BANKS OR OTHER PRIVATE DEPOSITORIES.

"WHILE THE STADIUM ACT IS SILENT AS TO WHETHER FUNDS RECEIVED FROM SALE OF THE BONDS SHOULD BE EXPENDED IN THE SAME MANNER AS PUBLIC FUNDS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IT EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STADIUM IS "TO PROVIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WITH A STADIUM" (SEE SECTION 2 OF THE ACT). ALSO, SECTION 10 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHALL CERTIFY AS TO ACCURACY THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT THE ARMORY BOARD IS REQUIRED BY THE SECTION TO FILE WITH THE CONGRESS EACH YEAR. MOREOVER, PROVISIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE ACT (SECTION 9) UNDER WHICH THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILL, IF NECESSARY, OBTAIN AND FURNISH FUNDS TO THE ARMORY BOARD IN ORDER TO INSURE PROMPT PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE BONDS, ALTHOUGH SUCH AMOUNTS ARE REIMBURSABLE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OUT OF AVAILABLE MONEYS IN THE "SINKING FUND," ESTABLISHED BY THE ACT. * * * IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE BOND PROCEEDS SHOULD BE EXPENDED IN THE SAME MANNER AS ARE PUBLIC FUNDS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.'

WHILE THE MATTER IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT, IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT WE SAID IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 1959, CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH STADIUM FUNDS ARE TO BE EXPENDED AND THE BASES FOR OUR CONCLUSION, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT FUNDS RECEIVED UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM ACT OF 1957, AS AMENDED, MAY BE CONSIDERED SPECIAL OR TRUST FUNDS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 7 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATION ACT, 1957. THEREFORE, WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY APPROVING THE INVESTING AND REINVESTING OF THE FUNDS IN QUESTION AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 7 OF THE LAST-CITED ACT.