Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
February 20, 1939 !lonom,bls J. Ii. Jones
County AUditor
Aiohita Palls, Tsxaa A
Dear Sir:
Opinion I::,. O-30
Ho 1 Xn:n moo tax If aupport * oounty ho al. 41
Imticlo 4478 I?. 3. 1925
and collect taxes for the
established nnd provides in part as fol-
Article\$ Xov%>ntuLes, lows 1 to such votora at a speciul or regular election suhit
t1:e ?ropoaitlon cf ionuin; bonds in such orw.roi;ate mount ac uay be desisnnted in said petition for the Lhoncver ostnblichinC or onlariing of suoh hoopit:tl. shall receive a i;iaJority of the shy such proposition votes of tho qualified property tax payera voting at shall ilstabllsh euoh el.eotlon, mid oowim?ionere court and lialntain such hospital and nhalL1 have the following povcera r
I' -.
. .’ . ” _ ‘. . i ,‘ , ,. i
,
Hon. J. .R. Jones, February 20, 1939, ?a.-e 2
“3. To cn\lae to be aemssed, levied rind oolleoted, such tflxos upon the real and porso:ir;l property o~;nod in the ccunty ne it ahnll dem neccssnry to provide the func!s for t!le ::.aintennnce theroof, and for 011 ot:ror necon?ary argcnditures tliorcfor.” In hydler ,v. Dorder, 115 S. Y . (2d) 702, error re&ed,
the nbove ctntute w-ii? hold to ba constitutional Ln nclthorizln; .‘,B a naccsonr;r co;lponent -t::a ostablish::ient of a countp hos?itnl. part or the rifiht and poser to ostablieh the hospItn1, the ri,:ht ; :m also ;:iven to tim corr~~lasionern’ oourt to levy taxes for the cmintenance thereof. ‘hs vnlidlty of such provlslon rmld Cm?ubtlesa follow; t:le validity of the statute authorizing the conotluotion of the hoo:litnl.
hrtiale 8, seation 9, Cmstitution of ‘Lexris, provic~es that “no ooun.ty, city or tom shall levy &or0 than %Sg for city or county purpOsOs.n And Article 2352, Revised Civil ;tatutes, f~llowa the swe \tith the grovision!,bat “said cwrt (oo:~:~isaionars) sknll hive the power to levy and collect a tax for county gur?oses not to exceed 25# on the $100.00 valuation.
Tha lavy of a tax for county purposes t::~lild inolude the li3vy of a tax to itillillt.niIl .hoopltal. In that view, therefore, the3 your question is given an affimiative nnnrier.
TIml;ovor, your attention 3s called to t~?e 1l:tit of 256 on the zlOO.00 valuation for oounty purposes, :lnd 1~6 vo.a16 ;;mtiln t,>nt no tax can be levied for the rnaintennnce, of the hosplt&l. Afoh v~ould !lave the effect of 6wallln:: the levy for genernl ptirpo~:‘es to exceed the 25$ limit.
Your8 rory truly Olenn H. Lewis Aesistant