Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

Hon. Ray Lackey Opinion No. o-7214
county hiitor Re: Authority of Commissioners’ Court to
Yoakum County expend Permanent Improvement Funds for Com-
Plains, Texas nunity Buildings in county parks when said
funds were derived from taxes levied for
permanent improvement purposes prior to the
election authorizing the establishment of
Dear Sir: county parks o
We are in reoeipt of your letter requesting the opinion
of this department on the above stated matter. We greatly appre-
ciate the supplemental information which you have furnished us
with reference to the subject of your inquiry.
It is our understanding that Yoakum County has recently
held an election whereby the Commissioners’ Court has been author-
ized to levy a tax not to exceed Five Cents (5Q) on the One Hun-
dred Dollars ($100.00) valuation for county park purposes. We
assume that said election was held pursuant to the provisions of
Article 6078, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes. Prior to the
holding of said election, you requested our opinion as to whether
the Commissioners’ Court is authorized to expend from $14,000.00
to q/20,000.00 out of the Permanent Improvement Fund for the pur-
pose of building Community Buildings in two towns in Yoakum County.
You have recently advised us that it is now contemplated that the
above mentioned Community Buildings will be built as improvements
in the county parks.
In view of the above circumstances, the following pro-
position is raised3 After an election has been held in accordance
with the provisions of Article 6078 and the Commissioners’ Court
has been authorized to establish county parks, is the Commission-
ers’ Court, authorized to expend funds from the Permanent Improve-
ment Fund (which were on hand prior to the holding of said elec-
tion) for the purpose of constructing Community Buildings in
county parks to be established pursuant to the above mentioned
elect ion?
Article 6078, V.A.C.S., in part providesr
“Each Commissioners Court is authorized to levy
and collect a tax not to exceed five (5’) cents on each
one hundred dollars assessed valuation of the county
for the purchase and improvement of lands for use as
Hon. Hay Lackey, page 2 (O-7214)
county parks * No such tax shall be levied and col-
lected until the proposition is submitted to and ratl-
fled by the property taxpaying voters of the county at
a general or special election called for that purpose,
provided, a two-thirds majority of the property tax-
paying voters of such county, at an election held for
such purpose shall determine in favor of said tax. If
said court desires to establish two or more of such
county parks, they shall locate them in widely separ-
ated portions of the county. Said court shall have full
power and control over any and all such parks and may
levy and collect an annual tax sufficient in their judg-
ment to properly maintain such parks and build and con-
struct pavilions and such other buildings as they may
deem necessary, lay out and open driveways and walks,
pave the same or any part thereof, set out trees and
shrubbery, construct dit ehes or lakes, and make such
other improvements as they may deem proper. Such parks
shall remain open for the free use of the public under
such reasonable rules and regulations as said court may
prescribe.”
Under the above quoted provisions, the method of estab-
lishing a county park system is specifically set forth, end, pur-
suant to said provisions, thecommissioners’ Court is authorized to
levy a tax not to exceed Five Cents (5$) on the One Hundred Dollars
($100.00) valuation for the purpose of purchasing and imarovinn
lands for use as county parks. It is a well recognized principle
of law that when the Legislature prescribes a definite, certain
and fixed method of procedure for a county to follow in the execu-
tion of its governmental functions, other methods are by im lica-
tion of law excluded. Foster v. City of Waco, 255 S.W. llor: (Sup.
Ct.). We point out further that it has been held generally that
money raised by taxation for any particular purpose shall be ap-
plied to that particular purpose and to y (Carroll v.
Williams, 202 S.W. 504; 11 TexOJurulrop0
It is apparen,t that the $14,000.00 to $20,000.00 in the
Permanent Improvement Fund to which you refer was derived from &
levy or levies of taxes for permanent imorcvemer&aurooses otha
fo cow oarks~ fOP as stated by you the above mentioned
balance: were on hand uri& to the recent election which author-
ized the Commissioners i Court to levy a specific tax fox county
park purposes e
In view of the above and foregoing, it is our opinion
that the Commissioners I Court is not authorized to expend the above
mentioned balances in the Permanent Improvement Fund (derived from
taxes levied prior .to the time the Commissioners0 Court was author-
ized to levy a specific tax and expend county funds for park pur-
poses) for the purpose of constructing Commuuity Buildings in county
L
. .
Hon. Ray Lackey, page 3 (O-7214)
parks in Yoakum County. You are further advised that the funds
for any improvements in the county parks must be derived from
a specific tax levied for park purposes in accordance with the
provisions of Article 6078, supraQ We polnt out further that al-
though the tax levied in accordance with Article 6078 is a speci-
fic tax, this department has held that a tax levied under said
Article for the purpose of making permanent improveuents in county
parks must be construed as a specific levy or allocation within
the constitutional limitation for nermanent improvements, and such
levy for improvements in county parks eannot operate to increase
the total amount levied by the county for permanent improvement
purposes beyond the constitutional limitation for permanent im-
provements. Likewise, such amount of annual tax that may be lev-
hd for the operating expenses of said parks must be dealt with
as a specific levy or allocation within the levy for general pur-
poses and cannot operate to increase the total general fund levy
beyond the constitutional limitation for general purposes, For
a further discussion of this matter we refer you to our Opinion
No. o-1082, a copy of which is encl,osed for your convenience.
When a tax not exceeding Five Cents (5#) on the One Hun-
dred Dollars ($100.00) valuation has been levied in accordance with
the provisions of Article 6078, the Commissioners9 Court may expend
the funds derived from such levy for “the purchase and m
of lands for use as county parks.” With reference to the c,“e of
improvements which may be made in county parks, we call your atten-
tion to Our Opinion No. 0-6700 wherein it was pointed out that it
was contemplated by the Legislature that funds raised by taxation
under a specific levy for county park purposes should be used prf-
in&ly for the purpose of providing facilities for the wsement.
recreation and e of the people of the county. We are e:-
closing herewith a copy of the above mentioned opinion wherein this
matter is fully discussed. In view of the foregoing, you are ad-
vised that if the Commissioners s Court, within its sound discre-
tion, has determined that the contemplated use or uses of the Com-
munity Buildings to be constructed as improvements in the county
park system are primarily for the amusement, recreation and enjoy-
ment of the people of the county, the Commissioners p Cour,t would
be authorized to expend funds derived from the special tax levied
for park purposes for the construction of such buildings0
We trust that the above and foregoing will satfsfactor-
ily answer your inquiry.
APPROVED MAY319 1946 Yours very truly
/s/ Carlos C, Ashley ATTOFNEY GENERALOF TEXAS
FIRST ASSISTANT By /s,’ J. A. Ellis
ATTORNEY GENERAL J+ h. Ellis, Assistant
APPROVED:OPINION COMMI!CTES
BY: BWB, CHAIRMAN
JAE: d jm:wb