Hon. Morris Holston Opinion No. O-2605
County ,Attorney Re: Authority of Commissioners1
Titus county Court to issue ,a warrant payable
Mt. Pleasant, Texas out of the permanent improvement
fund for services rendered in the
refunding of warrants theretofore
Dear Sir: issued against such fund.
We have your letter in which our opinion is request-
ed on the following state of facts, which are, briefly, that
during the year 1940 the Commissioners’ Court of Titus County
issued certain warrants to remodel the courthouse, and in
June of 1940 the court ,published notice of intention to do
all things necessary to refund such warrants into Permanent
Improvement Bonds, bearing interest at three and one-fourth
per cent with maximummaturity date 1950. On July 12, 1940,
the Commissioners1 Court issued to a bond and warrant company
a warrant in the amount of $2400 for services rendered in the
refunding of the above mentioned warrants into bonds, such
warrant being due on March 1, 1941, bearing interest at the
rate of four per cent and to be paid by the levy of a tax
against the twenty-five cent constitutional permanent improve-
ment fund levy. Your question being --
“Does the Commissioners ’ Court of Titus County
have the authority to issue a warrant to a bond
and warrant company payable out of the Permanent
Improvement Fund for services rendered by said
company in the refunding of the above described
warrants into bonds?e
The power to levy a tax for permanent improvements
is conferred in Section 9 Article 8 of the Constitution Andy
by Article 2352 of Vernonjs Annotated Civil Statutes. The per-
tinent part of the constitutional article reads as follows:
“***And no county *** shall levy more than
twenty-five cents for county purposes and not ex-
ceeding fifteen cents for road and bridges, and not
exceeding fifteen cents to pay jurors***; and for
t;hej,, *** and other im-
provements, +** not to exceed twenty-five cents on
the one hundred-dollars’ valuation in any one year
***II
Hon. Morris Holston, page 2 (O-2605)
Article 2352, above mentioned, reads the same as the
constitutional provision. In the case of Ault v. Hill County,
116 S.W. 359 the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice
Williams, heid in substance that when no improvements within
the limits of the constitutional provision are contemplated,
the power to levy the tax does not exist. This conclusion was
followed in the case of W. L. Slayton & Company v. Panola County,
283 Fed,. 330.
It seems clear that there is sufficient authority to
levy a tax of not exceeding twenty-five cents on the one hun-
dred dollars’ valuation for the erection of public buildqngs
and other permanent improvements and it is equally as clear
that the purpose for which suah levy is authorized does not in-
clude “refunding services or fees”. It may be that the obliga-
tions sought to be refunded were properly issued for purposes
within the authority conferred, but, in our oplnlon, a refinanc-
ing or refunding thereof comes strictly under the head of county
business so as to bring it under the twenty-five cent levy for
county purposes or the general fund.
You are, therefore, advised that In our opinion, the
Commissioners~ Court is without authority 40 issue a warrant of
any description to anyone payable out of the Permanent Improve-
ment Fund for services rendered in refunding time warrants or
bonds previously issued.
Trusting that this fully answers your inquiry, we are
Very truly yours
ATTORNEY
GENWALOF T&XAS
By /s/ Clarence E. Crowe
Clarence 6. Crowe, ,Assistant
APPROVED OCT 23, 1940
/s/ Gerald C. Mann
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
This opinion considered and approved in limited conference.
CEC-srwb