History
  • No items yet
midpage
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
V-508
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 1948
|
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 -RICE DANIEL February 20, 1948 u7ounsY GENERAL

Ron,-Jill1 R. WSlson District attorney NO. v-508 opinion . . . Re: The proper fund from which

Dallas County to pag.the matdhlng con- Dallas, Texas \ tribution of the County

for; County Rmployee Re- tirement System.

Dear Sir: Reference-is made to your re&nt.reque& for an opinFbn from this Department relative to theabove captioned matter.~ It reads, in part, as follows:

"Dhllas County is-settliig QiLa'.Couhty . Rmployee Retl.rement.System as prescribed in Section 62-b of Article 16‘of the-Constitu- tlon of the State of Texas. In view'of the fact that some employees of Dallas ~County .' ~ _ are paid out of funds other than the“gener- aI fund, for example, the Road and Bridge Fi+d,.the question is presented as to vheth- er the five percent to be paitd‘bg.the Coun- ty under the provision of the constitutional amendment, to match'the~deduction iuade:from the employees' salaries, must be paid out t 'of-the General Fund~or may the County pay - such five percent out of the fund from which the employee is paid . . . .

"It is, therefore, requested that you furnish this offiqe ,with an oplx+on on the question above presented, . . z

So far as is pertinent to your-inqudry, Sec- tion 9, Article VIII, of the State Constitution pro- vides: . .

II . . . . and no count . Llali.1ei-y ieAts for . . . more than twenty-five (25 county purposes .'. . on the one hundred dollars valuation, . . . provided, however, that the Commissioners Court in any county *2 Hon. Will R. Wilson, page 2 (V-508)

may re-alldcate the foregoLug county taxes by changing the rates provided for any of the foregoing purposes by either tincreasing or decreasing the same, . . .a

Subdivision (b) of Section 62 of Artii%e XVI, of the State Constitution is, In part, as follows:

"(b) Each county shall have th& right to provlde for and adminlstel' a Retirement, Disability and Death Compensation Fund for the appolntlve officers and employees of the county; provided same-la authorized by a majority vote of the qualified voters of such county and after such election has been advertlsed.by being publlshed'in at least one newspaper of general circulation In said counti once~each week for four con- secutive weeks; provided that the amount contributed by the county to such Fund shall, equal the'amount paid for the same purpose from the Income of e&&such person, and shall not exceed at any time five per cen- tum (5%) of the compensation paid to each .such person by the county, and shall in iio 6ne gear'exceed the sum'of Cne'&uidHd &id Eighty Dollars ($180) for any such person,'

We believe that provldlng fiinds by'the' county for such Retirement Dlsabillty Lnd Death CompBnss'tion Fu.ucl~ls a county purpose wit&n $hfimeanTng of'AHi%iile ~II,~S~ctio~'~9,'suplis: -The Supreme~ Cotit'ln-tti 'case df Be&-County v.. Maxi&-157 S:'W. (26) 1;34,"in,deter; mXning?whetheti the CoMtisloners ( Cotit was ~authorised to pu5chase'voting machines and pag .for same out of the General +nd of t&e county, had this to say:

I) .The ptatute does not in express. w&&*provlde that th6 bonds iSsu&d.the&e- vinclbr sEall,be.z~ aharge against the gener- al fund; .but,'in-our opinion, .lt; doea so provide by necessary %mpllc&tldni~ 'this isust be trrie because the.Leglsl;&ture by' 6nactlhg the stitute'here involved has pro- vided for the expendltme of county funds for a.county purpose. Such expendLiz&e does not oome or ,fall under any purpose for which a specisl fund has b&&n provid- led. All oounty expenditures layfully : *3 i..

autho+zed to be:inade.bg a oountji must :..I~ be.:paid &t-of t,ha eounty!rj gbneral. fund ~es~~'thez+is.sdme'l~w which makes'$hem a charge against a.spedal-fundi.. .

We belleve~that the same rule-of latr Invoked in the;above case is appll&able'to the question present- -. . . . ed here. Therefore, you'are respectfxilly advlped that

if ls.~.our cipl.n.lon t& five-per cent to.be id by-the County undid the provisions-‘of Bubiie&loxi b), Sebtlon r 62.of $rtlOle ~'of~tfie'State.Constltuti~~ to'm&tch

.the.dedu&t;lon made from oounty employetis' salaries, must be paid out of the General Fund of the Couuty.

SUMMARY - Th6 five pez iiefit'~to be~pai~~by~t~ couutg‘~.er the provision of Subsection .(bJ; Seatibii 62-of~Brtible‘XVI:..of~.thE,‘--. .State~Dbnstltiitlti~'to niatch-the adhc- --

ti0n~maae from'cpunty employees salaries, must be n&id out of-the General Fund of the qou&y. f Yours. very trply, , :a.

ATTORFJEP td?ZRAi OF 'TE#lS . :

BHice JIllen Assistant

Case Details

Case Name: Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Court Name: Texas Attorney General Reports
Date Published: Jul 2, 1948
Docket Number: V-508
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Att'y Gen.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.