Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1963 )


Menu:
  •           .,
    s.   -   . ..-
    Honorable Tom Blackwell        Opinion No. C-53
    District Attorney
    Travis County                  Re:   Various questions re-
    Austin, Texas                        latlng to unimproved
    property on the Hlgh-
    land Lakes within
    Travis County, to be
    Dear Mr. Blackwell:                  made into a county park.
    Your request for an opinion reads in part as fol-
    lows:
    "The County Auditor has requested that
    your legal opinion be obtained concerning
    the expenditure of County funds on land leas-
    ed by the County from the LCRA for Public
    Park purposes.
    "FACTS: The LCRA and others own fee simple
    title to unimproved property locat-
    ed on certain of the Highland lakes
    within Travis County and not within
    the boundary of any incorporated city,
    town or village. This land has been
    offered to Travis County on long term
    leases (50-99 years) without cost pro-
    viding Travis County will make and
    maintain a public park out of the land.
    'QUESTION No. 1. Out of what funds canTravis
    County legally pay for the construc-
    tion of permanent improvements on such
    land?
    "QUESTION No. 2. Do the construction of roads,
    boat ramps, and other conservation mea-
    sures come under the same rule as perma-
    nent improvements.
    "QUESTION No. 3. Out of what Funds can Travis
    County legally pay for the necessary
    cost of maintenance and supervision
    of such park?"
    -261-
    Hon. Tom Blackwell, Page 2 (c-53)
    Section 1 of Article 6078, Vernon's Civil Statutes,
    provides:
    "Each Commissioner Court is author-
    ized to levy and collect a tax not to exceed
    five (5~)cents on each one hundred dollars
    assessed valuation of the county for the pur-
    chase and Improvement of lands for use as
    county parks. No such tax shall be levied and
    collected until the proposition is submitted
    to and ratified by the property taxpaying
    voters of such county at a general or special
    election called for that purpose, provided, a
    two-thirds majority of the property taxpaying
    voters of such county, at an election held for
    such purpose shall determine in favor of such
    tax. If said court desires to establish two
    or more of such county parks, they shall locate
    them In widely separated 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 construct pavilions and such other build-
    ings as they may deem necessary, lay out and
    open driveways and walks, pave the same or any
    part thereof, set out trees and shrubbery, con-
    struct ditches 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 such court may prescribe."
    In construing the above quoted provisions, it was held
    in Attorney General's Opinion 0-1082 (1939):
    "Article 6078, Revised Statutes, author-
    izes the commissioners' court of any county
    to levy and collect a tax not to exceed five
    cents on each one hundred dollars of assessed
    valuation of the county 'for the purchase and
    improvement of lands for use as county parks,'
    after the proposition has been submitted to
    and ratified by the property tax-paying voters
    of the county. The full power and control over
    such a park Is vested in said court and it 'may
    levy and collect an annual tax sufficient in
    their judgment to properly maintain such parks
    -262-
    Hon. Tom Blackwell, Page 3 (c-53)
    Andybuild and construct 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 ditches or lakes,
    and make such other Improvements as they
    may deem proper. Such parks shall remain
    open for the free use of the'publlc under
    such reasonable rules and regulations as
    said court may prescribe.'
    "It is obvious that the money with which
    to purchase a park site and to Improve the
    same must be paid from the general purpose
    or the permanent Improvement fund of the
    county derived from the ad valorem tax levied
    and collected under the authority conferred
    and limitations Imposed by Section 9, Article
    
    8, supra
    . The statute is silent as to which
    of these funds is the proper one~to bear,the
    expense. It is provided In Article 6079,
    Revised Civil Statutes, 'All revenue from the
    sale of such privileges or concessions shall
    go into a fund for the maintenance of said parks.'
    "The Legislature has authorized any county
    of this State to establish and maintain public
    parks. Such parks are established for the bene-
    volent purpose of promoting health, happiness
    and general welfare of not only the citizens
    of the county, but of the people generally.
    The character of the improvements specifically
    mentioned in the statute are designed to ac-
    complish that purpose. Lewis v. City of Fort
    Worth (Sup.Ct.) 89 S.W.(2d) 975.
    II. . .
    11      Article 6078 specifically author-
    izes the lo&t to purchase land and improve the
    same by constructing buildings thereon, etc. It
    follows that the land for park purposes may be
    acquired and paid for out of the same fund a-
    vailable for the erection of public buildings
    and other permanent improvements. It is our
    further opinion that current operating expenses
    of such parks must be paid out of the general
    purpose fund of the county."
    Likewise, it was held in Attorney General's Opinion
    v-744   (1948) :
    -263-
    Hon. Tom Blackwell, page 4 (c-53)
    "Tax levied for park improvement is
    a charge against the County Permanent Im-
    provement Fund and that levied for malnte-
    nance is a charge against the County General
    Fund."
    In Carroll v. Williams, 
    109 Tex. 155
    , 
    202 S.W. 504
    ,
    509 (1918), the Court stated:
    "Taxes levied ostensibly for any spe-
    cific purpose or class of purposes designat-
    ed in section 9 of 
    artlcle~VII1, supra
    , must
    be applied thereunto, in good faith; and In
    no event and under no circumstances may there
    be expended, legally, for one such purpose or
    class of purposes,.tax money in excess of the
    amount raised by taxation declaredly for that
    particular purpose or class of purposes."
    Under the facts submitted with your request, Travis
    will obtain the use and~benefit of the property on
    long  term leases (50-99 years), in consideration for the
    County establishing and maintaining a public park out of the
    land. It is our opinion that such purpose constituted a
    public purpose and is within the expressed power ranted the
    commissioners   court by the provisions of Article 2078, ver-
    non's Civil Statutes.
    In view of the foregoing authorities, you are advised
    that the construction of improvements on such land must be
    paid out of the Permanent Improvement Fund. You are further
    advised that the construction of boat ramps and other perma-
    nent structures (Including necessary repairs and improve-
    ment of such structures) must be paid out of the Permanent Im-
    provement Fund. The construction of roads (including mainte-
    nance and repair of such roads), however, must be paid out of
    the Road and-Bridge Fund of themCounty. Carroll v. Williams,
    In Attorney General's Opinion v-831 (1949), it was
    he1
    T    that the Permanent Improvement Fund may not be utilized
    for the purpose of purchasing materials and supplies for the
    construction of fences for adjacent landowners on rights of
    way on new county roads and highways, stating that if such ex-
    pense was a necessary expense to the construction of the road,
    it would have to be paid out of the Road and Bridge Fund of
    the County. We believe the same principle is applicable to
    the construction of roads for the proposed county park. You
    are therefore advised in answer to your second question that
    the construction of roads must be paid out of the Road and
    Bridge Fund of the County (including necessary maintenance
    and repair of such roads).
    -264-
    Hon. Tom Blackwell, Page 5 (c-53)
    In ansner to your third question, you are.advised
    that the necessary cost of maintenance and supervision of
    such park 1s paid out of the General Fund of the County.
    Attorney General's Opinions V-744 (1948) and O-1082 (1939).
    However, as pointed out above, the necessary repairs and
    improvements to structures built in the park must be paid
    out of the Permanent Improvement Fund, and necessary malnte-
    nance and repair of roads in the park must be paid out of
    the Road and Bridge Fund.
    SUMMARY
    The Commissioners Court of Travis County
    may legally pay for the construction of
    permanent improvements (including neces-
    sary repair and improvement of Buch struc-
    tures) on a proposed county park out of the
    Permanent Improvement Fund. The construc-
    tion of roads in such park (including mainte-
    nance and repair of such roads) is paid out
    of the Road and Bridge Fund. The cost of
    maintenance and supervision of such park is
    paid out of the General Fund of the County.
    However, any repairs and improvements to
    structures built in the park must be paid
    out of the Permanent Improvement Fund, and
    maintenance and repairs of roads in the park
    must be paid out of the Road and Bridge Fund.
    Yours very truly,
    WAGGONER CARR
    Attorney General
    Assistant
    JR:ms
    -265-
    Hon. Tom Blackwell, page 6 (C-53)
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    W. V. Geppert, Chairman
    J; C. Davis
    V. F. Taylor
    Ernest Fortenberry
    James N. Stofer
    APPROVED FOR THE'ATTORNEY GENERAL
    By: Stanton Stone
    -266-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C-53

Judges: Waggoner Carr

Filed Date: 7/2/1963

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017