Hon. John W. Crudgington
County Auditor
Potter County
Amarillo, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-6863
Re: Under the Constitutional
Amendment to Article 8,
Section 9, known as the
"Re-allocation of County
Fund Amendment," may
bonds be issued to mature
more than six years from
date when their validity
rests on the probability
of reaffirmation by voters
in six years.
We are in receipt of your letter of September
26, 1945, which reads as follows:
'The constitutional amendment (House Bill
#1.8)of Article 8, Section 9, which was voted
by the people in November, 1944, and known as
re-allocation of county fund amendment requires
that the tax paying voters of each county vote
'uponthe matter before the Commissioners' Court
is legally empowered to act under its provisions;
in addition, the people of the county must con-
firm by their vote each six years the right of
the court to operate under its provisions.
"The previous 25 cent restriction for
improvements may now be expanded, which would
allow greater bonding capacity, however the
added bonding capacity might be taken away by
failure of the people to renew the use of the
amendment at any six year period.
"In view of this, would the Attorney General
approve bonds (maturing more than six years from
Hon. John W. Crudgington, page 2 (O-6863)
date), the validity of which rested on the
probability of an affirmative vote six years
after the issuance of same?"
Section 9 of Article 8 of the Constitution of
the State of Texas, as amended in November, 1944, pro-
vides as follows:
"The State tax on property, exclusive of
the tax 'necessaryto pay the public debt, and
of the taxes provided for the benefit of the
public free schools, shall never exceed thirty-
five (35) cents on the one hundred dollars
valuation; and no county, city or town shall
levy more than twenty-five (25) cents for city
or county purposes, and not exceeding fifteen
(15) cents for roadsand bridges, and not ex-
ceeding fifteen (15) cents to pay jurors,'on
the one hundred ollar valuation, except for the
payment of debts incurred prior to the adoption
of the Amendment September 25, 1883; and for
the erection of p,ublicbuildings, streets,
sewers, waterworks and other permanent improve-
ments, not to exceed twenty-five (25) cents on
the one hundred dollars valuation, in any one
year, and except as is in this Constitution
otherwise provided; provided, however, that
the Commissioners Court In any county may re-
allocate the foregoing county taxes by changing
the rates provided for any of the foregoing
purposes by either increasing or decreasing
the same, but in no event shall the total of
said foregoing county taxes exceed eighty (80)
cents on the one hundred~dollars valuation,
in any one year; provided further, that before
the said Commissioners Court may make such re-
allocations and changes in said county taxes
that the same shall be submitted to the
qualified property tax paying voters of such
county at a general or special election, and
shall be approved by a marjority of the
qualified property tax paying voters, voting
in such election; and, provided further, that
if and when such re-allocations and changes
in the aforesaid county taxes have,been ap-
proved by the qualified property tax paying
voters of any county, as herein provided,
Hon. John W. Crudglngton, page 3 (O-6863)
such re-allocations and changes shall remain in
force and effect for a period of six (6) years
from the date of the election at which the same
shall be approved, unless the same again shall have
been changed by a majority vote of the qualified
property tax paying voters of such county, voting
on the proposition, after submission by the Commis-
sioners Courtata general or special election for
that purpose; 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 tax paying voters of the county
voting at an election to be held for that purpose
shall vote such tax, not to exceed fifteen (15)
cents on the one hundred dollars valuation of the
property subject to taxation in such county. And
the Legislature may pass local laws for the
maintenance of the public roads and highways,
without the local notice required for special or
local laws. This section shall not be construed
as a limitation of powers delegated to co,unties,
citle5, or towns by any other section or sections
of this Constitution."
Since you do not state the amount of .PotterCounty
permanent improvement taxes now obligated, or the present
authorized levy, we will, for the purpose of more clearly
answering your question, state a hypothetical question and
answer ,It.
When we use the term "Permanent Improvement Fund,"
we mean the constitutional twenty-five cent ad valorem tax
authorized by the Texas Constitution for co,untypermanent
improvements as provided for in Section 9, Article 8, above
quoted.
QUESTION: If the Potter County Permanent Improvement
Fund is now obligated by outstanding bonded indebtedness in a
sum that requires ten cents for the payment of 'interest,
principal and sinking fund, and the Commissioners' Court has
beenauthorized, by a vote of the people, to increase the
Permanent Improvement Fund Levy from twenty-five cents to
forty cents for a period of,six years from the date of the
Hon. John W. Crudgington, page 4 (C-6863)
election, (1) is the Attorney General authorized to approve
permanent improvement bonds for Potter County, maturing with-
in six years from the date of the election, or maturing more
than six years from the date of the election, based 'uponthe
remaining thirty cent levy; or, (2) is the Attorney General
authorized to approve Potter County Permanent Improvement
Bonds when part of the issue of bonds mature more than six
years from their date, in an amount that would require the
remaining thirty cent tax levy for a period of six years~and
the remaining fifteen cent levy beyond the six year period?
In the City of Aransas Pass v. Keeling, 247 S.W.
818, 821, the Supreme Court of Texas held that when the
Legislature remitted the taxes to a costal city for a period
of twenty years for the purpose of building a seawall and the
city issued seawall bonds payable over a twenty year period,
the Legislature would not be authorized to repeal said tax
remittance at any time during the twenty year period since
such a repeal would be an infringement of a contract. We
have a similar situation In this case, in that the Constitu-
tion authorizes the people of Potter County, by an affirmative
vote, to Increase their permanent improvement levy for a
period of six years, and after increasing said levy, they would
be authorized to obligate the increased levy for a period of
six years, and after obligating the entire levy, the county
would not be authorized to change said levy within the six-
year period, since it would be an infringement of a contract.
Assuming that the Commissioners' Court of Potter
County has submitted to the people of,the county, and the
people have approved, the proposition to increase the consti-
tutional levy for county permanent improvements from twenty-
five to forty cents, and assuming that ten cents of the twenty-
five cents, or ten cents of the forty cents is now obligated
for the payment of Indebtedness already outstanding, lt is
the opinion of this department that the Attorney General would
be authorized to approve Potter Co,untyPermanent Improvement
Bonds maturing within six years from the date the increased
levy was authorized in an amo,untthat would require the remain-
ing thirty-cent‘levy to service. However, the Attorney General
would only be authorized to approve bonds maturing more than
six years from the date of the election that fifteen cents
of the remaining thirty-five cent levy wo,uldservice. The
full thirty-cent levy cannot be obligated for a longer period
than six years since fifteen cents of the thirty-sent levy is
contingent upon the people of Potter County again authorizing
the increased levy.
. .
Hon. John W. Crudgington, page 5 (O-6863)
Section 9, Art. 8 of the Constitution, as
amended, authorizes the counties to change or reallocate
the tax levies for a period of six years with the right
to change or reallocate again at the end of said six-
year period. The amendment does not in any manner af-
fect the authority of the county beyond the six-year
period, and if the people of the co,untydo not again au-
thorize a change and reallocation the authority of the
county reverts to the twenty-five cent tax levy. If the
people of the county authorize a change or reallocation
for a period of six years, said county is still authorized
to obligate the twenty-five cent permanent improvement
levy beyond the six-year period. If Potter County
obligated the entire twenty-five cent levy beyond the six-
year period, then Potter County would not be authorized
to decrease the twenty-five cent levy at the end of the
six-year period by an election since such an act would
be an infringement of their contract.
Therefore, in answer to the second part of the
hypothetical question, you are advised that if Potter
County, in compliance with the provisions of Sec. 9,
Art. 8 of the Constitution, increases its permanent im-
provement levy from twenty-five to forty cents, and is
now obligated to pay indebtedness which requires a ten-
cent levy, the Attorney General is authorized to approve
Potter County Permanent Improvement Bonds maturing for a
longer period than six years, but the bonds of the iss'ue
maturing within six years must be within an amount that
a thirty cent levy would service, and bonds maturing
beyond the six year period must be In an amount that a
fifteen cent levy would service.
Yours very truly
APPROVED OCT 24, 1945 ATTORNEY GEXERAL OF TEXAS
/s/ Grover Sellers
By /s/R. J. Long
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
R. J. Long
RJL:EP:am Assistant
APPROVED
OPINION
COMMITTEE
By /s/ B.W.B.
Chairman