Honorable Tom Hanna Opinion No. M-1250
Criminal District Attorney
Jefferson County Courthouse Re: Questions concerning consoli-
P. 0. Box 2553 dation of funds from the
Beaumont, Texas 77701 special road and bridge tax
fund and the farm to market
and lateral road tax fund
with the general fund of the
Dear Mr. Hanna: county.
Your request for an opinion asks the following questions:
“1. Can the fifteen cent (lS$) special road
and bridge tax fund be transferred into the general
fund and used for other purposes?
“2. Can the money received from the special
road and bridge tax fund or the farm to market
and lateral road tax fund be used for any pur-
pose other than road and bridge?”
fin First State Bank and Trust Company of Rio Grande
City v. Starr County 206 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Civ.App. 1957) it was
Id that where the ioters of the county had authorized {he
cceation of a special road and bridge fund, the commissioners
court had no authority to tidns.fer such money to another fund.
Likewise it was held in Carroll v. Williams,,109 Tex. 155, 202
S.W. 504 (1918), that tax money raised ostensibly for one purpose
may not be expended for any.~other purpose.
Subsequent to the above cited cases, Section 9 of Article
VIII of the Constitution of Texas was amended so as to provide:
“Sec. 9. The State tax on property, exclusive
of the tax necessary to ay the public debt, and of
the taxes provided for t 1 e benefit of the public
free schools, shall never exceed Thirty-five Cents
(354) on the One Hundred Dollars ($100) valuation;
. and no county, city or town shall levy a tax rate
in excess of Eighty Cents (804) on the One Hundred
-6116-
. .
. .
Hon. Tom Hanna, page 2 (M-1250) :. *
Dollars ($100) valuation in any one (1) year for
general fund, permanent improvement fund, road and *
bridge fund and jury fund purposes; provided fur-
ther that at the time the Commissioners Court
meets to levy the annual tax rate for each couhty
it shall levy whatever tax rate may be needed for
the four (4) constitutional purposes; namely,
eneral fund, permanent improvement fund, road and
%ridge fund and jury fund so long as the Court does
not impair any outstanding bonds or other obli-
gations and so long as the total of the foregoing
tax levies does not exceed Eighty Cents (8Ot) on
the One Hundred Dollars ($100) valuation in any
one (1) year. Once the Court has levied the
annual tax rate, the same shall remain in force
and effect during that taxable year; and the
Legislature may also authorize an additional
annual ad valorem tax to be levied and collected
for the further maintenance of the public roads;
provided, that a majority of the qualified property
taxpaying voters of the count voting at an election
to be held for that purpose s i all vote such tax,
not to exceed Fifteen Cents (15e) on the One Hun-
dred Dollars ($100) valuation of the property sub-
ject to taxation in such county. Any county may
put all-tax money collected by the county into one
general fund, without regard to the purpose or
source of each tax. And the Legislature may pass
local laws for the maintenance of the public roads
and highwaysi without the local notice required
for special or local laws. This Section shall not
be construed as a limitation of $owers dele ated to
counties, cities or towns by any other Sect x.on or
Sections of this Constitution.”
It is noted that the constitutional provision authorizes
a levy not to exceed a tax rate in excess of Eighty Cents (80$)
on the One Hundred Dollars ($100) valuation “needed for the four
(4) constitutional purposes; namely, general fund, permanent
improvement fund, road and bridge fund and jury fund so long
as the Court does not impair any outstanding bonds or other obli-
gations . . . .*I The constitutional provision also authorizes
the Legislature to provide for an additional tax for the mainten-
ance of public roads, provided such tax is voted at an election
not to exceed Fifteen Cents (1st) on the One Hundred Dollars
($100) valuation. After providing for these levies, the consti-
tutional provision states: “Any county may put all tax money
-6117-
Hon. Tom Hanna, page 3 (M-1250)
collected
. by the county- into.one gener,al
.. fund, without regard to
tne purpose or source or eacn tax:.
It is noted that Section 9 of Article VIII is ‘self-
enacting with regard to authorizing the levy of the Eighty Cents
‘(804) tax for the four constitutional funds, whereas the levy of
the special road and bridge tax requires legislative authorization
as well as a vote of the taxpayers. Such constitutional provision.
therefore must be construed as a whole and effect given to the
special road and bridge tax. Therefore it is-our opinion ;irt the
principle of law announced in.Carroll v. Wi;ll;a;s~i~ora,
First State Bank and Trust Company of R’ G d y v. Starr
‘County, that tax money raised os:&sibly for one purpose
may not F=’ e expended for any other purpose, was not changed by the
amendment to Section 9 of Article VIII of the Constitution of
Texas. On the contrary, such amendment only authorizes the con-
solidation of the four constitutional funds involved in the
Eighty Cents (804) levy; namely, general fund, permanent improve-
ment fund, road and bridge fund, and jury fund. This principle
was recognized and followed in Attorney General’s Opinion M-369.
(1969), wherein it was stated:
“The Commissioners Court of a county may
consolidate the general fund, permanent improve-
ment fund, road and bridge fund and jury fund
into a county general fund? .as provided for by
the 1967 amendment,to Sectron 9 of Article VIII,
Texas Constitution. However, where such an
election has been made, and such consolidation
achieved, the Commissioners Court may not con-
solidatethe Officers’ Salary Bund with the
resultant general fund of the county.”
Attorney General’s Opinion M-369 [1969) was clarified
in Attorney General’s Opinion M-438 (1969), wherein it was stated:
“Attorney General’s Opinion M-369 (1969)
is applicable only to those counties in Texas
having a population of less than 190,000 in-
habitants. Counties having a population in
excess of 190,000 inhabitants may consolidate
the Officers’ Salary Fund with the general
fund of the county. The authority for doing
so being granted by Section 19(i) of Article
3912e, Vernon’s Civil Statutes.”
In view of the foregoing it is our opinion that the
-6118-
. .
Hon. Tom Hanna, page 4 (M-1250) ’
amendment to Section 9 of Article VIII of the Constitution of Texas
authorizing the consolidation of the four constitutional funds
has no application to the special Fifteen Cents (15$) road and
bridge’tax fund authorized by the provisions of Article 6790,
Vernon’s Civil Statutes, nor to the ThirtyCents (30#) farm to
market and lateral road tax fund provided by Section la of Article
VIII of the Texas Constitution and Article ?048a, Vernon’s Civil
Statutes.
You are accordingly advised that the Fifteen Cents (1st)
special road and bridge tax fund may not be transferred into the
general fund and used for other purposes. In answer to your
second question you are likewise advised that money received from
the special road and’bridge tax fund or the farm to market and
lateral road tax fund may not be used for any purpose other than
roads and bridges. Article VIII, Section la, Texas Constitution;*
Article 7048a, Vernon’s Civil Statutes.
‘SUMMARY
The ‘Fifteen Cents (154) special road and
bridge tax fund and the farm to market and lateral
road tax fund may not be transferred into the
general fund and may not be used for any purpose
other than roads and bridges.
VerYG UlY yours,
Prepared by John Reeves
Assistant Attorney General
.\ APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMMITTEE
Kerns Taylor, Chairman
W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
John Banks
Bill Campbell
Roland Allen
Jay Floyd
-6119-
Hon. Tom Hanna, page 5 (M-1250)
SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRE'DWALKER
Executive Assistant
NOLAWHITE
First Assistant
-6120-