Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1963 )

Hon. Bill F. Griffin, Jr. Opinion No. C- 39
County Attorney
Shelby County Re: The legality of certain ex-
Center, Texas penditures 'by Shelby County
and whether-those expendi-
tures may be paid out of the
Dear Mr. Griffin: Permanent Improvement Fund.
Reference is made to your request which reads in part
as follows:
"Shelby County, Texas, by and through its
Commissioners Court, is interested in investing
the sum of $1,200.00 in connection with the em-
ployment of Forrest and Cotton, Inc., Consult-
ing Engineers and Marvin Springer & Associates,
Urban Planning and Development Consultants for
the purpose of developing a planning program for
the Shelby County Area, primarily concerning the
development of areas surrounding the proposed
Toledo Bend Reservoir. . . . .~
(1
. . .
"1 would like to have the benefit of your
views concerning the legality of such an expendi-
ture on the part of Shelby County. . . .
"Assuming that such an expenditure by Shelby
County would be legal, our first:question is
whether same could be paid out of the Permanent
Improvement Fund of Shelby County. . . .'I
The decisions of the Texas courts have repeatedly he:Ld
that 'the Commissioners I Court is a court of limited jurisdiction
and has only such powers as are conferred upon it, either by ex-
press terms or by necessary implication, by the statutes and C'zn-
stitution of this State. ess Counts v. State, 127 'kc. 1343,
92 S.W.2d 1011 (1936);Vo berg v. Lovett l/5 S.W. 508 ('Tex.
Civ.App. 1915, error ref.); Rooer v. Hall 280'S.W. 289 (Tex.Civ.
App. 1925); Article 23.51,Vernon's Civil 6tatutes; 11 Tex.Jur.
632, Counties, Sec. 95.
-IO?-
t .
. . : *
Hon. Bill F. Griffin, Jr., page 2 (C-39)
In order for Shelby County to have the authority to
make expenditures for the planning of a county development
program, there must be a granting of such authority by the Con-
stitution or by the Legislature of the State of Texas. The only
statute which would seem to apply to such an expenditure would
be Acts 54th Leg., R.S. 1955, Ch. 351, p. 899, which reads in
part as follows:
"'Section 1. That all counties in the State
of Texas may appropriate from the General Fund of
said counties an amount not exceeding Five Cents
(5$) on the One Hundred Dollars (#lOO) assessed
valuation, for the purpose of advertising and pro-
moting the growth and development of such county;
providing that before the Commissioners Court of
any county may appropriate acy sums for such pur-
pose, the qualified taxpaying voters of said county
shall, by a majority vote of the persons voting at
such election, authorize the County Commissioners
to thereafter appropriate not to exceed Five Cents
on the One Hundred Dollars ($+OO) assessed
%ll,tion . I
.-
". . .
YSec. 2. The authority to levy the tax pro-
vided for herein shall be restricted to counties
of more than one hundred thousand (lOC,OOO) popu-
lation, according to the most recent United States
Census.
"Sec. 3. The authority to appropriate the
amount authorized in this bill out of the General
Fund shall be restricted to counties of more than
fifty thousand (50,000) population according to
the last preceding Federal Census."
The manner in which Article 2352d is reported in Ver-
non's Civil Statutes, Volume 7, is somewhat misleading in that
Sections 2 and 3, quoted above, are found in the note following
the compilation of Article 2352d rather than as a part of the
present statute. Article 2352d, as it was amended and passed by
the Legislature in 1955, has two Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5. (Acts
54th Leg., R.S. 1955, Ch. 351, p. 899). Tie second Sections 2,
3, 4 and 5, are carried in Verr?on!s Civil Statutes as a note to
Article 2352d.
The second Section 2 limits the authority to lavy a
tax for this purpose to counties of 100,000 population or more,
_,_
:. .
_”
. ?
Hon. Bill F. Griffin, Jr., page 3 (C-39)
; .’
and the second Section 3 of Article 2352d limits the authority
to appropriate funds to counties which have a population in ex-
cess of fifty thousand (50,000) according to the last preceding
United States Census. The last United States Census was taken
in 1960, and at that time Shelby County had a population of twenty
thousand four hundred and seventy-nine (20,479). Texas Almanac,-
1961-1963. Therefore Shelby Countjrwould not be included in the
authority granted under Article 2352d. We know of no other stat,-
ute which would grant Shelby County such authority.
Shelby County does not have the authority to expend
money'for the development of a planning program for the Shelby
County Area.
In view of the answer to your first question, it is no,t
necessary to answer the second question posed.
SUMYARY
Under the facts stated, Shelby County is not
authorized to expend money for the development of
a planning program for the Shelby County Area.
Yours very-truly,
WAGG OXER CARR
Attorney General
BZ7Z???or~;a
JN:wb Assistant
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Pat Bailey
Frank Booth
Howard Kays
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Stanton Stone
-165-