‘;_-’394
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
G-G.-
a--au
-...-.$A
Eonoreble Ton:L. Hartley %@..s
Criml.nalDlatriot Attorney
Edinburgi Tsxa6
Dear air;
Your recent x-0
upon the queotf
paartanent
r0aoiTOtL
Et3QUotS froa yc
awl6tlp)
of 1940 m-
on or lass tllan
filbial Qonsa6 or
populatlionin emeBB
unty hes newer a0nt4tineaend
tein a city having a gegulatTon
go County'hacrin the past levied sod
rviL1lo the future levy the croastitutioiaal
Umit
of S!S#on the $lfM.SO valuation for general
aountg pUrpQ8esr mwever, lo# of this annual
leq~rhas been allmated to the lre%M.caitigOf
outat?ldliagirtdeatadneasin gursuanes Q$ a r(*r
funding dearsa entered by the U. IB.Dirt&at
~0~33 for the aotathera.mretdcPtof %mfh6, tha
\
~--w4lcArlOH
IS
TO.ICOI(srR"W
AsADWUTYTNTAL
OrlnlON
"NL".
ACC~OYSD
rnI
1111
ATTO"N8V
Ol"l"AL
011
Fl"ST
*U,CIAM
Honbrable Tom 1. Hartley, Page E
remelnfn6 lS# of the levy does not pro&me
euffiolectrcvcnue to defray the ordinary
5ovnm1zett~lexpenses of the county.
%Y the prOViEiO~k3 Or Chapter 16 of tha
Aotliof the 35th Legleisture,ae e~r,endedby
Chc+ter 3 of s&id Aots and as further amad-
ed and ocrtlnued in ioroe by the provisions
of Chapter 138 OS the Aots of the 87th tieis-
&ture, in oountios bating a populatlon or
100,000 or more and also containinga alty
0r 70jOC0 or more, the %strlet Judgea of
such countieswere made membsre at a Juve-
nile Board aud their srjlarieexere inoreeaed
by the BUR of $l,SOO.OOper year, myable out
of the @men11 funds of eu4h Bountyupoa order
or the c~ami~i~~~erd a0wt. Howanor,In
ts0 aodirioati00 0r the hvi60a ci7il Btat-
utse of lOi% the rs&renent that a uounty
contain a city havine a population 0r 70,OcO
or aore beram such Jut~ilo Btmd would be
onated end the ~lwy or 6ueh Distritit
Judgee would be fnareaae4,wan omitted firm
Artiale 5133.
*In rlew~cr there Aettraed the4aobi-
tication or the %rioed Civil Statutes
of IPer;an4 Getion 8 ol:the repealing
olauae OS the final title of the I.088
Bcvieed Civil Statuter, are the Di8trlot
Judges o r F lda lgCo
c unty lntitlad to
@,500.00 additioanlm~.~u+kl &my iOr
their aertiees ~8 member8 oi the County
3urenlla Boer47
We are familiar Pith your ~pi.ato~~
p$umbsrO-N32 sddrem84 to the Eononble
Mom A, Craven, county Auditor of kW&.Qan
county with rersrems to the statue or
tdc&snnanCounty and with your ruling in
said opinion that the Cfmmisaionere*Court
hae DE legal baaia foT exeroieing a dls-
cretion in determlnin!whether or uot to
order the payment of the additional amount
specified in the statute. Eowwer, taking
inix ocnaidsratinnthe additioml feQt
that the 15# Of the levy ab0Pe ref0rre4 to
soaorable To% L. Hartley, page 3
does not produce surrlaient revenue to
defray the ordinary gwernnental sx~hses
of the county, would this in any rnaxmer
affeot the ri&ht of the %mtnissloners~
C0U.dto exercise their dislcretion iA
ordering geyLmentout of the general r3dt3
or the county?"
In view of our opinion No. O-2.932,your first quea-
tlon an quoted abwe ia respeottullyanswered In the efflrma-
tlve. V&at was said in that opinion is equallyap;llcable to
the question hare aonsidorsd.
With rererennceto your second question you are ad-
rlsed that It is our opinion that the Oomlssionara~ Court or
Hidalgo Oounty has IX legal basis for exerelslng its dlsore-
tlon in determiningwhether or not to order the payment of
the eddltional amount specified in Article 5139, Vermn*a
Annotated Civil Statutes, regardless or the fact that the
IZi#of the&wy referred to in your letter does not pxoduoe
aufiloient'~revenue to defray the ordlnarg gee6mmsntal BX-
ppS0 Of the COUUty. A8 above stated in vitm of our opinion
No. O-2932 and the euthorltio$olted therein, ne think that
this opinion speaif'loally answer8 both or the questions sub-
mitted In your inquiry as above indicated. Se are enclosing
a copy Or this opinion for your inr0rpaatlOn.
Trusting that the foregolugfully answers your
inquiry, we am
very truly your8
ATTOXVZY
f3lQXEIvi.z
Q TEXAS
(Q&&?e&
BY
ATTORNEY GENERAL Nrdell ~llllama
Aeei6tant