Honorable TomHanna

Criminal District Attorney Opinion No. M-1250 Jefferson County Courthouse Re: Questions concerning consoliP. 0. Box 2553 dation of funds from the Beaumont, Texas 77701 special road and bridge tax fund and the farm to market and lateral road tax fund Dear Mr. Hanna: with the general fund of the county. Your request for an opinion asks the following questions:

“1. Canthe fifteen cent (lS$) special road and bridge tax fund be transferred into the general fund andused for other purposes?

“2. Canthe moneyreceived from the special road andbridge tax fund or the farm to market and lateral road tax fund be used for any purpose other than road and bridge?” fin First State BankandTrust Companyof Rio Grande City v. Starr County 206 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Civ.App. 1957) it was Id that where the ioters of the county had authorized {he cceation of a special road andbridge fund, the commissioners court hadno authority to tidns.fer such moneyto another fund. Likewise it was held in Carroll v. Williams,,109 Tex. 155, 202 S.W. 504 (1918), that tax money raised ostensibly for one purpose maynot be expended for any.~other purpose.

Subsequent to the above cited cases, Section 9of Article VIII of the Constitution of Texas was amendedso as to provide:

“Sec. 9. The State tax on property, exclusive of the tax necessary to the taxes provided for 1ay the public debt, and of t e benefit of the public free schools, shall never exceed Thirty-five Cents (354) on the OneHundredDollars ($100) valuation;

. andno county, city or town shall levy a tax rate in excess of Eighty Cents (804) on the OneHundred

-6116-

. .. .

Hon. TomHanna, page 2 (M-1250) :. *

Dollars ($100) valuation in any one (1) year for general fund, permanent improvement fund, road and * bridge fund andjury fund purposes; provided further that at the time the Commissioners Court meets to levy the annual tax rate for each couhty it shall levy whatever tax rate maybe needed for the four (4) constitutional purposes; namely, % eneral ridge fund, permanent improvement fund, road and fund andjury fund so long as the Court does not impair any outstanding bonds or other obligations and so long as the total of the foregoing tax levies does not exceed Eighty Cents (8Ot) on the OneHundredDollars ($100) valuation in any one (1) year. Once the Court has levied the annual tax rate, the sameshall remain in force andeffect during that taxable year; and the Legislature mayalso authorize an additional annual ad valorem tax to be levied and collected for the further maintenance of the public roads; provided, that a majority of the qualified property taxpaying voters of the count voting at an election to be held for that purpose siall vote such tax, not to exceed Fifteen Cents (15e) on the OneHundred Dollars ($100) valuation of the property subject to taxation in such county. Anycounty may put all-tax moneycollected by the county into one general fund, without regard to the purpose or source of each tax. Andthe Legislature maypass local laws for the maintenance of the public roads and highwaysi without the local notice required for special or local laws. This Section shall not be construed as a limitation of $owers dele ated to counties, cities or towns by any other Sect on or x. Sections of this Constitution.” It is noted that the constitutional provision authorizes a levy not to exceed a tax rate in excess of Eighty Cents (80$) on the OneHundredDollars ($100) valuation “needed for the four (4) constitutional purposes; namely, general fund, permanent improvement fund, road and bridge fund andjury fund so long as the Court does not impair any outstanding bonds or other obligations

. . . .*I The constitutional provision also authorizes the Legislature to provide for an additional tax for the maintenance of public roads, provided such tax is voted at an election not to exceed Fifteen Cents (1st) on the OneHundredDollars ($100) valuation. After providing for these levies, the constitutional provision states: “Any county mayput all tax money

-6117-Hon. TomHanna, page 3

collected by the county-

. (M-1250)

into.one gener,al fund, without regard to

.. tne purpose or source or eacn tax:.

It is noted that Section 9of Article VIII is ‘selfenacting with regard to authorizing the levy of the Eighty Cents

‘(804) tax for the four constitutional funds, whereas the levy of the special road and bridge tax requires legislative authorization as well as a vote of the taxpayers. Such constitutional provision. therefore must be construed as awhole and effect given to the special road and bridge tax. Therefore it is-our opinion ;irt the principle of law announced in.Carroll v. Wi;ll;a;s~i~ora, First State BankandTrust Companyof R’ G d y v. Starr

‘County, that tax moneyraised os:&sibly for one purpose maynot F=’

e expended for any other purpose, was not changed by the amendmentto Section 9of Article VIII of the Constitution of Texas. Onthe contrary, such amendmentonly authorizes the consolidation of the four constitutional funds involved in the Eighty Cents (804) levy; namely, general fund, permanent improvement fund, road and bridge fund, andjury fund. This principle was recognized and followed in Attorney General’s Opinion M-369. (1969), wherein it was stated:

“The Commissioners Court of a county may consolidate the general fund, permanent improvement fund, road andbridge fund andjury fund into a county general fund? .as provided for by the 1967 amendment,to Sectron 9of Article VIII, Texas Constitution. However, where such an election has been made, and such consolidation achieved, the Commissioners Court maynot consolidatethe Officers’ Salary Bundwith the resultant general fund of the county.” Attorney General’s Opinion M-369 [1969) was clarified in Attorney General’s Opinion M-438 (1969), wherein it was stated:

“Attorney General’s Opinion M-369 (1969) is applicable only to those counties in Texas having a population of less than 190,000 inhabitants. Counties having a population in excess of 190,000 inhabitants mayconsolidate the Officers’ Salary Fundwith the general fund of the county. The authority for doing so being granted by Section 19(i) of Article 3912e, Vernon’s Civil Statutes.” In view of the foregoing it is our opinion that the -6118-

. .Hon. TomHanna, page 4 (M-1250) ’

amendmentto Section 9of Article VIII of the Constitution of Texas authorizing the consolidation of the four constitutional funds has no application to the special Fifteen Cents (15$) road and bridge’tax fund authorized by the provisions of Article 6790, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, nor to the ThirtyCents (30#) farm to market and lateral road tax fund provided by Section la of Article VIII of the Texas Constitution andArticle ?048a, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. You are accordingly advised that the Fifteen Cents (1st) special road and bridge tax fund maynot be transferred into the general fund andused for other purposes. In answer to your second question you are likewise advised that moneyreceived from the special road and’bridge tax fund or the farm to market and lateral road tax fund maynot be used for any purpose other than roads andbridges. Article VIII, Section la, Texas Constitution;* Article 7048a, Vernon’s Civil Statutes.

‘SUMMARY The‘Fifteen Cents (154) special road and bridge tax fund and the farm to market and lateral road tax fund maynot be transferred into the general fund andmaynot be used for any purpose other than roads and bridges.VerYG UlYyours,

Prepared by John Reeves Assistant Attorney General .\ APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman John Banks Bill Campbell Roland Allen Jay Floyd

-6119-Hon. TomHanna, page 5 (M-1250)

SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL Staff Legal Assistant ALFRE'D

WALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant

-6120-