Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

I ,379 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN GROVER fSLLLERS *rTG”NCI GSWERAL Vaoogdochee C urt House which has been built for de It ie inadequate s unleus auoh power is sxpresaly shed doctriilsin this State 2333Fatrlcio County v. sdlow 61 Ter. 316; Lasater v. .A;C.S. , proridw# : of a oounty or an iroorporetad .'~ 11 naver be leauad for anf pnr- opoaltion for the ir&uenor of bata bean rirst submitto to krr who ara property taxgivsrs , oity or towa.” 380 Article 703, V.A.C.S., proridart “The propoeltlon to be aubmittsd shall ah tin0tly apdry: 1. Iha purpoas for whioh ths bonda are to be lesued; 2. The amount theraor; 3. The rat0 or interrat; 4. Thr levy of taxaa auifioient to pey the annual lnterr8t and provide a sinking rund~ to pay the bond&at maturity; 5. Tha maturity data, or that tha bonds may be issued to mature serially within any given number of years not to rxoaed rorty.” Artlolo 718, V.A.C.S. authorlzee the oommlsslonarrl oourt he purpoas of arooting,the county courthouse Articlh 719, V.A.C.S., provides: *If a majority of the.property tax paying voters voting at au& elootlon shall vote in favor of the proposition, than such bonds shall bs thereby authorized and shall be lssuad by the oommlssloners* oourt.* Is or the foregoing artioles WI held in our OplnJon No. O-324 .that *In the absrnor of a atat+tory provision .nquirin& a pstl$lon and heerlng, the Comlsslonere* Court may, on ltr own mbtlon ‘and order, oall an rlrotlon for the purpose or authorisln# the lrsuaaoa or bonds iOr thr construotlon or a oourt- boo@@ an4 jail, Or rlthrr.” bf Brown v, Grahati,58 Tax. 254, the ~Supreme ,tha question a8 to the authority Oi the oom- laty a.~spooial~tax ror ths.~purpo8@ot ~bullding an a4dition to and rapalrlng th8 oourthouar. Wo quota iron said Y @artho roiiowine: 'mnorabla C. C. Danman - Fage 3 "It Is olaimed that the power to argot, repair or oomplata a pub110 bullalng does not include the pOWOrto make an addition to it.. It Is true that the oounty oommissionara~ court onn levy no taxes unless the power to do ao be ~lalnly and un!!letekably OMrarrad. The authority muat be given either in express words or by necessary l~npliootlon. 2 Dillion on h?uun.Corp. B 763. It la no more than a reasonable construction of language to hold that power to eroot an entire building expressly authorizes the construo- tlon or a portion or It. It certainly doee by neoaasery implication. %hould the oommieslonere( court oome to the con- : ,;.. clusion that a largrr oourt house Is needed to meat the darvlndsof the publio business of ,thelrcounty, and they agree upon ite plan ena dimensions, and find that they oan seoura a building or.nronningto them .in every raspaot, either by areoting a new struotura, or altering, repairing and enlarging the old one, and that the lattar mode will be leas lxpanaiva by halr than the former, is there any reason in holding that they oan levy the t.:x ror the more expansive mode of attaining their object, when they oould not for the other, though the structure which is the result is precisely the same in every par- tloular? Y!ha object or the rOreqoing provlslons or our constitution and statutes vma to enable the dirrarent counties to provide suitable public edifioee, laavln(: it to the judgment of the proper authorities whether this should be dono by building new houses or by ra- pairing and adding to old ones, when they oould thus be rendered suitable to the purposes of the oounty. The word *araot*, oontalnaa In all the foregoing pro- visions, was the most'oomprahenslve term that could be need to anbraoa all suoh improvements. "To hold that a county whose court house, with proper repairs and additions, oould be rendered oom- modlous and usarul In every respaot, must pull It down and build an entirely new one, would be to oharga our law-givers with an intent to anoourage . Honorablo C. C. Denman - Fags I, an unnecessary expendltura of the publio money. Suoh a ooneldaration wrouldnot, in Itself, authorize ua to infer a power when not sxpraesly glv~n or naceeaarily implied. Yet when the len- guage used,Is oapable of lnoludlng authority to do an aot not mentioned In terms, suoh oo;lstruc- tlon of It is greatly aided by oonsldarotlons of public advantage which it would oartoinly pro- duo..” See aleo Sanders Y. Loonay, 225 ;.‘A!.280. In vlar;of the foregoing autborltles, It is our opinion that tti ComaPlzslonars’ Court hao authority to 0011 an elaotlon ror the purpozr of authorizing the isauanoa of bonds for the oonstruotlon or an addition or additions to the oourthousa if it datermines zuoh edditlon or additions are “needed to meat the denrandsof .tha pub110 buslnesr or the county.” Yours, vary truly