Hon. Waste L. Rartmn ODlnlonNo. v-u00 AC-9

Count Attorney ? &Do;; comlnf;y Rer Whether aounty mrj i&sue # bonds or time warrants ?a’ the purpose of ptwcharing fire fightingequipmentto furnish grotectlonto cltlzens residing outside limits of incorporatedcities and Dear Slrr towns.

In, your letter o? May 14th you request the opinion oi this oiiioe on the question of whether a aountymy isme bond6 m time warrants TOP the purpose of purchm?~ing fire fighting equlpacnt to furnish IPotectionto CltlGen? nridl “& outside limits of Incorporated cities and tofins. As poln ed out infyour letter, the only statute that anthorimr countles’under 350,000 populationto furnish fire protaotlon?or such purposesand purchaseequimnt therefor Is Artiole 235la-1,V.C.S. This statuteauthorizesthe purehem of such equilxnent, however, only after an election far 4bnt pubpose is held, which electioncarriesby a msjmity *sk. In this comect$~, APtlele 235&x, which,appllesto aountfes o? ffes,i

sted populationbra&eta, has bee thle office in A tomey Qeneml OpinionMs. O-3417

&” % held w 19&) to be twvx?nst!-tutema1 an the @OrnflB that it lo bi1oeal or l peaial law rattemptil,ng to regulate the s??airs of asunties. Art. III, Se@. 36, Tex. Con&. The valadit$ o? &t%ele

warn metrai.neB

by Attmney Gexm~a.2. 0pinRot-i

No. O-4300 8nd the opkxdm fu.&+he~ held that papnt for fire fightlB@eqnQ!msnt shouldbe Pm&. eP'Pgeat8uQcmr&ygenor81

As you mentla In your letter, th Ias-• of baa&~ m tfr* warrants for the purobue of raoh eq6Ius.mt is not expresslyauthoritedIn Artlele 235%8-l, Article %33la-4 does eSpmssly provide for tb is8Uum eoftln ‘(1y*u3~ts

and bonds far the purchase of fire fightingequip asnt 4e po4eet aornty-ownedproperty lee&tedwithin 4hs ogzty bu4 without the limits of any lneaporated uit t Ed In vlaw of theme huts, it 18 yomr opinia tb there was io legldative inknt that time warmts or bonds couldEon. myne L. Hartman,page 2 (V-1200)

be limed ander the parisions o? kticle 2351r-1. We qree tith your oonalusion.

It ie mnlfeet tbt bonds amy not be lrrued for 8u#h pmpse, for there is iio eixpese authority therefor msnted in Artlolc 235la-1. The Surname Court‘of Text&i In the oam of 217 S.Y. 373, 376 (1 ii0 tb~. 179;

6 oollpt

oh6rged burinerrrffslrs of a oo\mty Is without the power to ire me negotiable securities, degiving the aomtr of true defense8 against the imiginaloredit-.

has been from an early time." tbmqhout.) (Empbasia &dad

In the ease a? Ke Cor.~ App. 19281, the aour --tff&s&n:: :i,v;; zEe6%~?=* l8tabli8hed

doctrinemnounoed In the tht the power to Issue bonds is one wff!%% ::;id",," saopa of power of the governingbody of a olty or oounty rmlerr It.

i8 epealall~granted. Aa the statutedoes not expeosly authorize the IrLlpMaeof bonds, no suoh power exists. As to the i8- mmnoe of time warrants,a more diffl'cult 

### qtmmtiem

l.8mBrkntsd

. On September28, 1935, this offiae rendered w&t i8 IoMnm a6 the "Somervell County Opinion." It was a letter opinion sddre8sed to Han, W. P. Dume, Dallas, %bX&S. This opinionwas given wide circulationamong the mrlous counties of the State. Among other things, it held th8t tlr warrantsoould not be Issued against the gem-1 fund of a county. The opinionheld that the ollprent operatingexpenses of a county must be paid out of th+ general fund, and that present oument op8ratlngexlllpln8 8houldbe paid out of ourrent funUs. It WEB held that ftfti\Fe

tax levies for the general fund aould not be mbrskrrd to my current operattigerpen8es. The SomeOil C-t? Opinla ~6s mfflrmed In 1939 by Confermae opinion lo. 3095.

In ttm owe of bM, in effeat, tht 6Hon. W6yne L. Hartman ,page 3 **(V-1200)**

authmlty to establishpub110 roads, It had the l~~pllod r to Issue time warrants for the oonstruotlonthere-, However, It is-emphasized that in speak&g o? the le&6n~e of time wmrants, the court alw6ys referred to the -king of public lnmroveme~ts~

In the o&se of (Tex.Clv. ~App.19&O, ~146S.W. 2d 3Wt; e ‘Court held th6t under a statuteexpres ng counties to pwovide for annual exhiblts~ of hortloultursl

and agrioultau-6~ p~cdwts, such oountleshave the -plied power to iesue time warrants for the purpose of constructingpermanent Improvementsto the exhibitionbuilding. As in the

a&se, the impliedpower to issue time warrants Is to lmurovemvnte. The oomt held the ?ollowlng:

u A cotmtj, subject to **the exp~ees**  restrich& imposedby the Constitution and general laws, has the power to issue time

(146 S.W. 26 at 336.)
There are'aasesholding that the eonmissioners* ‘courtof a county has the Implied power to Issue time warmnate to eonstmmt the eoun%y oourthouse. However o we wish to emphasllse that %aa

all %hese eases only wwere InvsImd o We know of no ease 6 aounty h6a the implied power to issue warrantsagainst the Bounty general fund.

In the d6i3e s &he amrt oonsldered l?HiQler

29!Ta, s%cr%u%e au%howPir?les

oountlmo to purchasevo%ing eaohixaea und p8y TOP %he mm by the isspnsnce

of bonds, wamah%s, aer%ZMsatea of ltiebtednoes, OP sther obligatkms. The QQUP% upheld %he walldlty oi the ststute~and8bl.d t % the hods in question crhou3.d be paid out of &he generaP fund. The cotawt, in effect, held that there W&B no oom~tf%u%foml fnlhfbltion whloh would prevent the Legiekatme from pm8ing 6 statuts6uthowlslg the lssuanemof Oblig&%iQEM9 payable in f'utme years hsmEan. W6yhe L.Hsrtm, page 4 (V-X00)

the general fund. The court did mt hold that there was en Implied power to issue warrants or,otkr obligrflons pry8ble from the gemalfumd. 'Rm et&Me Itsell 6u- %horlze8the lake of w&rr&at8.

The originalvotl A@48 418t be., nmchine 6at (Son&e bill 34,

4th C.S..%O, ah. 33, pe 601 povided:

I

. for the purpose of pJing for voting r&h&es, such ConbslonerB~ Con& Is hereby authorizedto Issue bonds, aertlfloaGs of Indebtednessor other obllg6tions

. . ..*

r This languagew&s ohm ed by House Bill 121, A&r 8., 2nd C.S. 1937, ch. !b Seotion 6 of Artiab 2998): 

### p. 1953,to read 6s fol1,

. ?Qr tlm puPpow of p&ylng Toll wotlng m&es, suah Comlssloners Court is **hereby** ruthorlzedto issue bonds, and o~rtlflaatesof i&ebta$mse, **yuT&ntg,** or **other** Obllg&%i~8

. . . . The Legislaturemu8t have Oonslderedthat the orlgsot did not inolude tIm power to issue-warrants,~+ ottaerwlse

it would not have added "warrants" by the 1937 amendment.



### The am&, in the '"yc~un~" 6pporrl the c6se of Hidalfzo 0 that case the v&lldlts of certain time wrrrants Issued z&%;%&the general ?&I for tick eradioatlonpurposeswas

The court held the warrants to be valid. Eowever, th;,

qtmstlonwhether tin@ W&rmtitsOmld be Issued agrlnat the gemera fund without express le lslatlveauthmlty ma ntit

involved,for Se&ion 5 of irtlole 1525e,
v.r.a., ezqmzsslyauthorlml the issurnoea? such wmrm4s **in** tha **?OlbBWing hll@l&@!:** 

. and it is hereby mado their duty to &&pi&e Bonqw e&o? the meral ?kmds of their oow%les, to incur indeb can es8 by the ( issu6noe of warm&s, and te lewy tama to par thm IMerest thereon,rap9 to moolde 6 sinking fund fcm the pyment thvreo?

. . *."
The other 06se involviHon. W6yne L. Iiartmm, page 5 (V-1200)

with sonroval in the Bex@Y&an%z c&se. However, as in the _- BsxaP cowl ,sesa a stetuteexm8ly atithorlzsd Fi$estlon. The ihatu%o&uthorlzed funding ae&ain indebtednesses Into bonds.

We have not found any o&se which has held t&t 6, COMty IMY iSSUe tillil! Wl'l'ZUltS 8@ll8k8t the @liCT6l rpRd without express authority. Conversely,in the cases which held that there Is an impliedpower to Issue time W&rP&nt8, only permanent-type improvements

were involved.

As we mentionedearlier In this opinion,Ar%iele 25518-4 ex~essly suthorlzesthe issuance of time warr8nte and bonds to purchase fire fighting equiment to be,wed for the pro%ectf.on o? county-owned

property located in the oounty but without tbe,llmi%sof an incorporated city or town. This statutewas enscted In 1949 b l8ture (Senate

Bill 401, ch. 575, p. T the 51st Legis1121

. Section 2 of the rot provides, in part, as follovs:

This Is clear legl,sPatlve reoognitlonthat expreee legislativeauthi5M.t.y 4s mandatopy'before time warrentaagalnst the general fund may be isljued.Of course, the Legislature must be presumea to know that Rrtlele 2351a-l;vur slready effective.

Two opfnionswritten dwf ,previous adminis tfonm OS this offfoe,Nos. 0-4475~1942) and o-7054 1%6), P held that the power to issue time warrantsaglnst the general fund was Implied ?rom the power to make expendittherefrem. These opinionsconstruedthe Be c&ses as upholding this prlnoiple.--s 8 own in this n we disagreewith such a construotlon, and Opinion8 NOB, O-4475 and O-7054are hereby overruled. It Is interest- to note that llrtlcle 23516-4 was et+so%ed,a?ter 4& rendition of those opinions. The languagequoted above shows clearly that the Legislaturedid not so lnterpre* the statutes,and did not agree with those opltions.

bhere is 1 lc In the holding that,without Iemlatlvedireotfon, t not be encumberedfor ye-'. &rrent expmwes must be paid from %W general ipLd,.,

# .arldfaitst

I(he genera 

# !I? o?ëexpenm ubeuU$

be paidl,8

l,t ioorues. fund in a fq~tt.zpa,

year e&o&i be wailr?~~?.~. to gay the current expeiases al such future year, RIU: ehoul# not be eaddledrith the payment. of the current ex$hnaes of a year ten, twenty, or thirty fears in the pst.

Without exgPess authtitg from the Leglelatwe, a county has no power to iseue time warrantspayable from its general fund. !$harePore, a cmty 28 without authority to lseue ~tirse wezmtnte undeb &tlole 23ga-1 In ljayment **foe** rire **fighting** eqtipeent.

APBRorn~ Yewe very truly,

Jesse ?,~Luton,Jr. PRICE DANIEL ReviewingAssistant AttorneyGeneral
CharlesD. Mathews First Aesistent

w-s BP Assistant,