.~
19dvember29, 1951
Hon. A. K. Stewa& Opinion rn? ~v-1359
County .Attorneg-
Mont;gomeryCounty Re: LegalPty,of using coun-
Conroe, Texas ty ijermgelTtfWOWln9nt
funds to-remove &ah
&nd trees from the c,,,n.,-
Dear Kr. Stewart: tg~airprti~
Your request for an 0plnLon is as fol-
lows:
umrhgth8-yhim of 1942 'and 1943,
Montgomery-County-ironstructed~~an~ airport
w~.cfi~~~was later taki3ti
over ,%y:3heFed-al
G~~~~f~-th~‘~tiOn .Of the war.
W&n World War.11~wader ovBr;the Federal
GoveFnment.'turm~-,said.afrport-back Over i
tm*ontgtmtery Cotity.‘.~Durin&these years,
trees'&8 underbrush were allowed to grow
on-.the' airport and nvw'have groWn to such
an extent that it becomes necessary that
they'be removet.
"Tfie'
Connnfssi~oners'
Court of this
Coun%g.has requested an-,-op'lMonas to
wh&fier.or not the .payment for the re-
moval~of the trees and'underbrbrnshfrom
th aiFpopt may be inadefrti the county
permanent improvem?nt fund."
sectioi 2a of Article 1269h, V.C.S., a*l~.~-
izing the &stablishment~of a county airport, prw:~+~:
*&p the-purpose of ~CondeUming or
purchasing, elther.:orboth, lands to be
used and-maintained as ~provided in Sectim
1 hereof;'and improving and equipping the
same for such use, the governing body of
my city o~~*e~~&mm&sslOtiers Court of
.any-comty, falling wlthfn~the terma of
such Section, may-issue,negutiable bonde
of the'city or of the county, as the cass
may be, and levy taxes to provide for thp
Hon. A. K. Stewart, page 2 (V-1359)
lnterest~.andsinking funds of any
such bonds's0 issued, the authority
hereby given for the Issuance of such
bonds and levy and collection of such
taxes to be -exercisedin accordance
vith~theprotisions of Chapter 1 of
Title 22 of the Revised Civil Statutes
of 1925.'
Section 4 of Article 1269h, V.C.S., pro-
vides:
('
"That in addition-to and exclusive
of:'anytaxes which may be levied ~for the
interest ,and~slnklngfuud of anybonds ls-
sued under the authorityof this Act, the
gwernhg body of any city or the Comvls-
sioners-'Court of any county, falling
within the terms hereof, may and is here-
by empowered to levy and collect a special
tax not to exceed for any one year five
cents on-each One Hundred Dollnrs for the
purposeof improving, operating, maintaln-
ing aud conducting any Air Port uhich'such
city or county may.acqui.reunder the pro-
vision of this A&,-and to provide all
suitable structures, and facilities there-
In; Provided that nothing In this Act
shall be construed aspauthorizing any city
OF county to exaeed the llmi~tsof iudebt-
edneas placed upon It under the Constltu-
tion.'
Section 9, Article VIII of the Constltu-
tlon of the State.of Texas protides in part:
"The State tax eon property, exclus-
lve of thata.necessary to-pay the pub-
lic debt, aud of thee-taxes-providedfor
the ~benefitof-thepubl~cfree scfiools,
shall never exceed thirty-~five (35) cents
ou-theme one hundred.dollars valuation; and
no.couuty~,~cityor town shall levy more
than twenty&five (25) cents for city or
couutypurposes, -..aud not exceeding fifteen
-(lfj..uents forroads aud~bridges, and-not .
e&eediug*Pifteen.(15) ,centsto pay-Jurors,
on the one huudred dollars valuation, ex-
cept for the payment of debts incurred
-’
Hon. A. IS. Stewart, page ,3 (V-1359)
( prbrt~ the ado tfun of the Amendment
September~2!5,1883; and~for the erec-
titm of--puhlidbuildings. streets. sew-
era. waterworks and other permanent lm-
not to exceed ,twenty-five
on the. one hundred dollars
va%uatlon;in anyone year, and except
as is ln'thls Constitution otherwise
"provtded; . . .* obphasls added.,)
In Bexa; County v. Mann, 138 Tex. 99,
157 S.W.2d 13b (1 411, the Court said:
~aAll~countyexpenditures lawful-
l~-aut~ize~to~~e.made, by a county
must be-pa5d out of tfrecounty's gen-
eral fur&unless there is some law which
makes them a charge against a special
fund.".
Thls~off3~~~neld in Attorney'General's
Opinion 0-6762~(1945)that structural Improvement
done onthe rnnxays of'a'county airport,would be
In the'natureof ~a~~peratanent
.improvementand could
be paid for from'the,-permanentImprovement fund.
This opinion-furtherstates:
'It Is aur-~@nbm-that the-expendi-
tures for~salarles~should~beallocated
'as-apart .ofthelevy ,for general pur-
poses;,and-tn nu-event .afrould.such'allo-
catbms-~have-W& effect ,ofin-creasingthe "
total levy for general purposes beyond
the constitutional limita for such pur-
poses.
"Alsb, we point-.outtbat the total
amuqt-of~theeallocation or levyfor the
purposes of.-ImproMng, operating, main-
talnf~,and,.c~~tlng~~the.'ai-rport, and
to,.provi~de-,suita~le..struct~es,
and facil-
ltiestkrereln-should notezxceed for any
oneyearthe~~~-limit~of'five (-5)cents on
th9~--one+undreddollars~valuation, even
thmgb a~~ amount.may be al-
party of 8ueh~~-
lecated.as-a.,part.of,thelevg~ for general
purposes and a as the levy
for permanent
Hon. A, H. Stewart, page 4 (V-1359)
In a similar situation, this office
held that the purchase and improvement of a oounty
park should be paid from the county permanent im-
provement fund, but the day-by-day operating and
malntenantieexpense should be char ed to the gen-
eral.fiind. Att'y Gen. 0ps. v-284 71947) and 0+1082
(19391.
In Attorney General's Oplnlon V-744 (1948)
it is stated:
'Tax-levied ~forpark improvements
is a ~+argeagainstthe~ county permanent
improvemmt fund,and that levied for maln-
tenance Is a~charge against the county
general.fund?
Prom thenfacts~Sethout.inyour request
we see that then opwration of clearing the brush Is
not forthe~,purpose of,establishing the airport or
lmprovingthepro~in- connection tith establlsh-
lng theairport. It is an operation of maintenance,
and is notea~permanent-improvement aspc-ontemplated
by Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution of
the State of-Texas.
The lax Is ~aell settled that-ths~~.crnmnlsr
sioners,'~
court-tianuotlevy a tax-forone purpose and
use the--m-y-for .another; It has no power to trans-
fer moneys raised under.constitutional levies from
one-fund'to-another.. Ault v. Hill COun 102 Tex.
335, 116 S.W.'359 (IgOg);~Sanders'v. Lo%, 225
S.W. 280 ~-(Tex-.
Civ.'ApP. 1920)';'Att'Y Gem. op. O-5595
arroll v. Hilliams;~'lO9Tex. 155, 202
(1918), the Court stated:
"Taxes levigg os~tenslblyfor any
spscffic purpose nor.class of purposes
designatedin section 9 of article aXI,
supra; must be applied thereunto, in
good fa$th; an&ln.no event and under
no'circumstances Mayo there be expended,
legally, for one such purpose or class
of purposes, taxnraney In excess of the
amount raised by taxation declaredly
for that particular purpose or class
of purposes."
It is therefore our opinion that moneys
in the county permanent6nprovement fund must be
ii..--
-
- .
Hon. A. K. Stewart, page 5 (v-1359)
i--expend%~.sale-~~~,pe~~nt.
‘- improvemnt% atidmay
not be sp%nVto clear brash and trees from the
county ~azkrpm+‘vh%iqthi-s,
clearance is,not of the
nature.oi-e-p%rmaneat~WpruWmnt atiCoMmaplated
by Section~g, Artikle VIII of the Constitution of
the State of Texas.
APPROVED5 Yours verg~~truly,
J; Ci l&tvii$..Jr ~PRICE'DARIEL-
County AffWm~~;Ktisioxr
~,..
Bvbrett Hutchinsbn
Rxecuti-veAssistant
Charles--D.IWthews
Pest ~,
Assfstant
RRFkmh