~%~ATTOMNEY GENE-I. 

ov TEXAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

ATTORNEY GENERA,. 

AunTrN 11. TExas 

December 19, 1951 

Hon. Jim W. Weatherby Opinion No. v-1381 

District Attorney 

Kerrville, Texas Re: Le,gality of using the 

proceeds of a county 

tax levied for airport 

maintenance when the 

county has relinquished 

to a municipality its 

interest in the airport 

Dear Sir: in question. 

Your request for an opinion of this office 

reads in part as follows: 

"In 1941 the City of Kerrville and 

Kerr County, Texas acquired land and constructed an airport; thereafter, the operation of the airport was under the City 

of Kerrville. 

"In 1943 Kerr County paid one-half 

of the expense of additional hangars on 

such airport. 

"In September of1945, Kerr County 

relinquished to the City of Kerrville all 

right to participate in the upkeep, operation and control, with the understanding 

that the City of Kerrville would be responsible thereafter for all expenses lncurred in the operation, upkeep, management and control thereof, without any demand against Kerr County. 

"In 1950 the tax was levied For alrport maintenance. 

"All taxes were paid without protest 

and no claim, demand or protest was made 

as to the payment of such five cent levy 

for airport maintenance. 

"The City of Kerrvllle requested 

the County to contribute money for upkeep expenses. The tax collected is 1x2 
Han. Jim W. Weatherbg, page 2 (v-1.381) 

a spealal fun4 set aside for al??port 

uaintenance . 

% view of &e rellnquismnt by 

Kerr County of its Fights, and l acept; 

anee by the City of Kerrville, it 1s 

requested that you advise: 

l l. Whether br not this money 

could be used by Smr County as a eontrrtbmtlon tovard the upkeep maintenance 

el rath airport, 

w2, If the above question Is 

answered in the negative, then whether 

OF net such money could be rxpendsd by 

SeFr county, 

*3* If srteh money can be orpended 

grEe” County, what may it be expended 

. 

“4. It such money can be eXpended 

by Sum WWg, may it be used In fts 

(iawml Fund. 

3% pel?tUunt part of Seetie 9, Article 

VT11 of the Texar Constltutisn la a8 followsr 

a and no c@untT, city or town 

shall &~*EOCO than twenty-five (25) 

cente itw city ‘or -county 

not exceeding fiSteon (15 p” 

po808, and 

oentr ir 

roads and bridges, and not exceeding 

fifteen (15) cents to par urora, On 

the one hxmdrad dollars ra i! uation, Oxcept fop the payment of debts 1nerzrreQ 

prior tb the ad tlon of the Amendment 

September 25, 1%; and for the erection 

of publio bu%ldiage, streets, sewers, 

waterworks and other permanent 1 rovements, not to exceed twenty-five “p 25) 

cents on the one hundred dollars valuation, in any one year, and except as 

1s in t&&s Conetitatl.on otherwise provided 0 D *’ 

Sectien 4 of Article 1269h, V,C.S,, proViU88: 
Hon. Jim W. Weatherby, page 3 (V-1.381) 

"That in addition to and exclusive 

Of any taxes which may be levied for the 

interest and sinking fund of any bonds 

issued under the authority of this Act, 

the governing body of any city or the 

Commissioners' Court of any,county, falling within the terms hereof, may and 16 

hereby empowered to levy and collect a 

special tax not to exceed for any one 

year five Cents on each One Hundred DOllars for the purpose of improving, operating, maintaining and conducting any 

Air Port which such city or county may 

acquire under the provision of this Act, 

and to provide all suitable structures, 

and facilities therein. Providsd that 

nothing in this Act shall be construed as 

authorizing any city or county to exceed 

the limita of indebtedness placed upon it 

under the Constitution." 

The order of th,e Commfesionersf Court of 

Kerr County reflects that the tax was levied for *airport maintenzincen, which is ordinarily an expense payable out of the county general fund. IiOWever, the 

County Judge has advised that it was levied for the 

specific purpose of improving the runways of the airport. ,In this event, the tax becomes a part of the 

permanent improvement fund. In Attorney General's 

Opinion O-6762 (1945) it is stated: 

"From the information given in your 

letter, we understand that a part of the 

contemplated expenses in connection with 

the airport is for the improvement of the 

runways. It Is apparent that the runways 

and the improvements thereto are in the 

nature of permanent improvements. v8 think, 

therefore, that the expenses for the improvement of the runways should be allocated 

as a part of the total levy authorized by 

the Constitution for permanent improvements, 

but in no event should such allocation have 

the effect of increasing the total county 

levy for permanent Improvements beyond the 

conatitutlonal limit for such purposes." 

In view of the foregoing, and assuming the 
Hon. Jim W. Weatherby, page 4 (v-1381) 

tax Vas, in fact, levied for rUnVay iq3rOvetZMJntS, 

it la our opinion that the money in question is a 

part of the permanent improvement f~&l of the county. 

S.W. 504, 506, 50 (lqltr), it is stateds 

In Capr,;ll v, Williama, 109 Tex. 155, 202 

'Going to the real gist of the nin 

Issue bePore us, Section 9 of ArtMle 8 of 

OCR state Constitution, Bupra, inhibits any 

and all transfers of tax money from one to 

another of the several classes of funds 

therein authorized, and, aa a wqwnce, the 

expen<Ure, Sor one purpose therein dsilned, 

of tax money raised ostensibly for another 

BUCh pIlrpose. The Immediate purpose in so 

prescribing a separate maximum tax rate for 

each of the classes of purposes there enulssrated is, no boubt, to limit, accordingly, 

the anount of taxes which may be raised from 

the people, by taxation, declaredly for thOB8 

several purposes or classes of puTposes, respectively. But that Is not all. The ultimate and practical and obvious derign and 

purpose and legal effect is to Inhibit excessive expenditures for any such purpose 

or clars of purposea. By necessary implication said provisione of section 9 of article 8 WUP~ eerigwe, not merely to limit 

the tax rate fa certain therein 4esignated 

purposes, but to require that any and all 

u8kej raised by taxatien for any such purpeso shall be applied, faithfully, to that 

part&alar purpose, as needed therefor, and 

not to any other purpose or Us0 vfhatroever. 

Those constitutional provisions central, not 

C&J the raising, but also the applioatlon, 

& a21 such funds; and such is the legal 

effect of articles 2242 and 7357, supra, 

vhe~ p~operlj 00nam6a and applied. 

l 'frue, ths Constitution does not say, 

la so any VOP~B, that mtme~ raised bj a 

oemt~, city, w tom, kq taxatioa fa ow 

BUCh purpose ahsll never be expended for any 

other purpoeo-not even for Ulether of the 

five general classes of purposes defined 

and approved in said section 9--but that, 've 
Hon. Jim W. Weatherby,' page 5 (v-1381) 

think, Is ita plain and certain meaning and legal effect. The very deflnitlona of those several classes of purposes, and the declaration of authority 

to tax the people therefor, respectively, 

coupled, as they are, in each instance, 

with a limitation of the tax rate for 

that class, must have been predicated 

upon the expectation and intent that, a8 

a matter of common honesty and fair dealing, tax money taken from the people osteneibly for one such specified purpose 

shall be expended, as needed, for that 

purpose alone, as well as that the tax 

rate for that particular claw, in any 

one year& shall not exceed the preaaribed 

maximum. 

Baaed upon the assumption that the tax 

wa6 levied Sor runway improvements, it la our opinion that the only purpose for which this money may 

be expended is for repairing and improving the airport. 

The decisions of the Texas courts have repeatedly held that the commissioners' court la a 

court of limited jurisdiction and has only such powers 

aa are conferred upon It, either by express terme or 

by necessary implication, by the Constitution and 

statutes of thi8 State, Childress County v. State, 

92 Z.W,2d ltm (1936) V on Rosenberg 

.W. 508 (Tex. Civ. Appi 1915 

v. 

, error ref.); 

D Rail; 280 s,W..289 (Tex. Clv. App. 1925); Art. 

11 Tex, Jur. 632, Countled, Sec. 95. 

There is no law which authorizes a county 

to relinquia$I the operation of an airport to a city. 

The only reiatsd,proviblan at the time of thili purported'.raZlnqulshmant vaa that which authorized the 

coIIpIas$onere' Court to lease a county-owned airport 

to any city within the cs. Art. 1269h, V.C.S., 

There is no law authorizing a county to ContribUt8 

money to a city for the operation of an airport. However, Article 46d-l&,.V.C.S,, authorizes the joint 

operation of an airport by a county and city. This 

act provides that a joint board shall be created and 

prescribes the method of operatlon by such board. 

There ie nothing in your request indicating that the 
- . 

Hon. Jim W. weatherby, page 6 (V-191) 

PrOCOdure outlined in Article 464-14, V.C;.S., hae 

been f olloved D 

In view of the ioregolng, It is our opinion 

that Article 46d-14 must be complied vlth before county money may be expenrled in the operation OS a joint 

airport. 

SUMMARY 

Money collectc)(l by a county for airmrt maintenance cannot be contributed to 

the mafxitenance of an 

Ueno~ rollected by a county through 

the levy a? tax08 for the purpom of iaprotins th* ruawa7r of tba couat7 @irport 

is a put of t&a permanent llprorrunt 

fUnd ati OIll b. r)eRt On1 fOP 6Uah 

Att'f @on. Opq O-6762 (I&); Carrel ! 

WpeS.. 

v. 

lrslliar, log tot. 155, 292 23. 504 /A~~). 

Yours very tmalp, 

YEroE a!iAnEL 

Attsraw Oweal 

Arslstart