Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
Hon. Charles R. Nartin
County Auditor i.
Harrison,County
Marshall, Texas
Dear Sir:
Opinion No. O-7423 Your letters requesti
set out the folloning pertinent
The 1946 budget of H
the Permanent Improvement
ing proposed expenditures .::,
Your question then becomes: Caq the Commissioners' Court
Expend money from the Permanent Improvenent Fund for the creation of stack bottoms to be used for the purpose of storing lumber?
Section 9, Article VIII, of the State Constitution pre- : scribes the.maximum rate of taxes for general purposes, for roads and bridges, for juries and permanent improvements, respectively.~ These monies arising from texes levied and collected for each of the enumerated purposes are constitutionalfunds and the Commission- ers' Court has no power to transfer money from one fund to another and to expend for one pur ose tax money*raised ostensibly for another purpose. (Terre1 va. E ~cJilliams;202 S. Isl. 504; Commission- ers' Court of Henderson County vs. Burke, 262 S.2. 94)
Article 2351, Vernon's Civil Statutes, setting forth the power and duties of the Commissioners ' Court, reads In part as follows:
Vet. 7. Provide and keep In repair Courthouses, jails, and all necessary public buildings." There Is no question that it is wlthin the power and duties of the Commissioners' Court to erect, furnish and repair necessary public county buildings and offices and where a right is thus con- ferred or obligation imposed, said 6ourt hashplied authority to exercise a broad discretion to accomplish the purposes intended, (11~ Tex, Juris. 565, Dodson vs. Marshall, 118 S. lie 2d 621)
Taxes levied ostensibly for any specific purpose or class of purposes designated in Sec. 9 of Article VIII must be applied thereto in good faith; and in no event and under no circumstances may there be expended, legally, for one such purpose or class of pur- poses, tax money in excess of the amount raised by taxation declared for that particular pur ose or class of purposes; And further in f this connection, the ru e is generally speaking, no expenditure of
the funds of the county shali be made except in strict compliance with the budget as adopted b the Court except for emergency expen- ii ditures, in case of grave pu llc necessity, to meet unusual and un-
foreseen conditions which could not, by reasonable diligence, thought and attention, have been included in the original budget.
The type of construction contemplated by the Commissioners' Court of Harrison County would be classified permanent improvement. The Commissioners? Court levied and collected taxes for the Permanent Improvement Fund and set funds out in the 1946 budget for proposed expenditures in terms broad enough to include the proposed stack bottoms. The power and duty of the Commissioners' Court to provide and keep in repair courthouses, J 'ails and all necessary public bulld- j.ws, carries with it the right of acquiring materials for such im- posed dut,ies,and the providing of a permanent construction for the
.
81 storing of such materials would be incident to such right. Even though soue of the lumber stored on the stack bottoms would be used for road construction, it is our opinion that the Commissioners' Court has the authority to expend money out of the Permanent Im- provement Fund for the erection of said stack bottoms.
Yours very truly ATTORXEY GENERAL OF TEXAS JCK:djm