Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

December 20, 1948 Hon. James C. LIartin ’ opinion No. v-747. County Attorney Nueces county Re: The authority of Nueces Corpus Christi, Texas County to erect branch county office buildings ,in Robstown and Bishop. Dear ~I&, Martin: Your request for an opinion is substantially as follows : *Shall the Commissioners Court of Nueoes County, Texas be authorized to issue bonds of said county in the amount or $l~O,OOO;- 00, to become due and payable serially in not to exceed twenty-five ,yetirs from the date thereof, bearing interest at a rate not to exceed 4$ per annum, payable ennuel- ly or semi-annually for the purpose or se- curing funds to provide necessary public buildings to be used for county purposes and described as follows: : (1) Horticultural and agriouItur& exhib- it building in Robstown, Teus; (2) Branch county office building in Roba- town; Texas; (3) Branch office building in Bishop. Texas: and shall the Commissioners Court o?-Nueoes- County, Texas be authoriied to levy, have assessed and collected annually while said bonds or any of them are outstanding, a tax on the $100.00 valuation of .taxable yroper- ty in said county at a rate sufficient to pay interest ‘on and to provide a ainking fund to pay ,the bonds et maturity? “There is some question ‘in our minds as t0 whether the county has authority to build the branch offices buildings in Robstown, Texas, and Bishop, Texan. These ofiioes are to be used by the County Tax Assessor- Ron l Jemea C. Martin, page 2 (V-747) Colleotor, the County Agrioulture and De- monstration Agents, and to furnish offloes for other county purpmea. Neither Bishop nor Robatown had popU~etiO&s in 4xOess Of 10,000 in 1940. The pOptiSti011 Of RObirtOwQ aooording to the 1940 oensus was 6,‘?00 end ;g e3tinmted to be in the oioinity 0r 20,- The population of~Bishop in 1940 wen 1,360 and is now estimted to be in the vi- cinity 0r 3s500.” It is the established doctrine of this State and has been repeatedly held that 8 county msy not ia- sue'bonas unless such power is erpresely conferred by law. Sen Patricia County v, McClsne, l& Ter. 392; Rob- inson v. Breedlove, 61 '24x. 316. Article 2351, V. C. S., provides, in p8rtr as roliows: %aoh Cimmiseionars~ Uqurt ~shall: . .~. “7. ~Provide and keep iq repair Court Houses, $SilB and other neeerrsry pub110 buildlngs.n As to your first reotual situetion Art1014 23726, V. C. S., 'furnishes surfioient authority ior.thr County to construct 8 hortioul+ural and agriaultural exhibit buildiug in Robstown, Teua; however, mithm this nor eny others statutory or constitution8~‘prOVi- aion authorizes the voting and issuing or bonds for such 8 purpose. In the absenoe or such euthoritr, the Comaisaionera’ Court oennot issue mid bonds. (Adase v. McGill, 146 s.W, 26, 332). As to your second and third factual sitam- tions, it is the opinion of thfe offior that the Qu- missionera~ Court, of Nueoes County in the ereroieo et its sound discretion is legally authorized to puro~480 the building involved for the intended purpose ux&der and by virtue of the provisions of Section 7, Arti~cle 2351, IT, C. S,; howovor we have been unablr to rind eny authority whioh wodd suthorize the issuance of bonds for such purpose. Hon. James C. Martin, page 3 (V-747) In the csse of Danoy v. Davidson, 183 S. W. (2d) 195, the court stated 8s follows: “Rrticle 1605, together with the amend- ments thereto (including tirticle 1605a), re- late to offices which under the provisions of the original article must be maintained at the county seat. This article, or its amendments, can not be construed as restriot- ing or taking away the power of the Connis- sioners’ Court to provide public buildings to house public agencies not required by law to be locatea at the county seat. Although it is contemplated that a branch of the of- fice of the County Msessor and Collector of Taxes T,vill be looated in the building, the primary use intended is riot that of a sub- courthouse or building in which to house var- ious branch agencies whose main offfoss muet be situated at the oounty seat, whioh is the situation contemplated, and provided for by Article 1605a o “(7) We conclude, therefore, that the Commissioners’ Court of Cameron COUaty is legally authorlied to puroliere the building involved for the purposes intend44, provid- ed, of oourse, that in making the ftianoial arrangements for such purchase, the provl- sions of the Uniform Budget Law (Artiole 689a-9 to 689a-12, inclusive, Vernon,‘s AM. Civ. Stats., relating to counties) were aoa- plied with, ” Therefore, it is the opinion or this 0rri00, base4 on the foregoingauthorities, that N~oee County does not have the authority to issue boll48 for thm pur- pose of securing funds to provide neoparary publio buildings enumerated in your opinion TeqUdeta rJwosr County dees not heve suthoritr til lesue bond8 for t& p pose of scouring funds to ersot pub110 buiY dings for horti- oultural and agrioultursl purposes, branoh Hon. James C. Martin, page I+ (V- 747) office building in Robstown, Texas, and branch office building in Bishop, Texas. Yours very truly, W T!GXA$ ATTORNEYGriifSEBAL BW:mw:bh