.~ 19dvember29, 1951

Hon. A. K. Stewa& Opinion rn?~v-1359 County .AttornegMont;gomery

County Re: LegalPty,of using counConroe, Texas ty ijermge lTtfWOWln9nt funds to-

remove &ah &nd trees from the c,,,n.,- Dear Kr. Stewart: tg~airprti~

Your request for an 0plnLon is as follows: umrhgth8-yhim of 1942 'and1943, Montgomery-County-ironstructed~~an~ airport w~.cfi~~~was

later taki3ti

over ,%y:3heFed-al

G~~~~f~-th~‘~tiOn .Of the war. W&n World War.11~ wader ovBr;the Federal GoveFnment.'turm~-,said.afrport-back Over i tm*ontgtmteryCotity.‘.~Durin& these years, trees'&8 underbrushwere allowed to grow on-.the'

airport and nvw'have groWn to such
an extent that it becomes necessary that they'be removet.
"Tfie' Connnfssi~oners'

Court of this Coun%g.has requested an-,-op'lMon as to wh&fier.or not the .paymentfor the removal~of the trees and'underbrbrnsh from th aiFpopt may be inadefrti the county permanent improvem?nt fund."

sectioi 2a of Article 1269h,V.C.S.,a*l~.~- izing the &stablishment~ of a county airport,prw:~+~: *&p the-

purpose of~CondeUmingor purchasing, elther.:or both, lands to be used and-maintained as ~providedin Sectim 1 hereof;'and improving and equippingthe
same for such use, the governing body of my city o~~*e~~&mm&sslOtiersCourt of .any-comty, falling wlthfn~the terma of such Section,may-issue,negutiablebonde of the'city or of the county, as the cass may be, and levy taxes to provide for thpHon. A. K. Stewart,page 2 (V-1359)

lnterest~.and

sinking funds of any such bonds's0 issued, the authority hereby given for the Issuance of such bonds and levy and collection of such taxes to be -exercised in accordance vith~theprotisions of Chapter 1 of Title 22 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925.'

Section 4 of Article 1269h,V.C.S., provides: (' "That in addition-to and exclusive

of:'any taxes which may be levied ~forthe interest ,and~slnklngfuud of anybonds lssued under the authorityof this Act, the gwernhg body of any city or the Comvlssioners-'

Court of any county, falling within the termshereof, may and is hereby empowered to levy and collect a special tax not to exceed for any one year five cents on-

each One Hundred Dollnrs for the purposeof improving, operating,maintalning aud conductingany Air Port uhich'such city or countymay.acqui.re under the provision of this A&,-and to provide all suitable structures,and facilities thereIn; Provided that nothing In this Act shall be construed asp authorizing any city OF county to exaeed the llmi~tsof iudebtedneas placed upon It under the Constltution.'

Section 9, Article VIII ofthe Constltutlon of the State. of Texas protides in part:

"The State tax eonproperty, excluslve of thata.necessary to-pay the public debt,aud of thee-taxes-provided for the ~benefit

of-thepubl~cfree scfiools, shall never exceed thirty-~five(35) cents ou-theme

onehundred.

dollars valuation; and no.couuty~,~city

or town shall levy more than twenty&five (25) cents for city or couutypurposes, -..aud not exceeding fifteen -(lfj..uents forroads aud~bridges, and-not

. e&eediug*Pifteen.(15) ,centsto pay-Jurors,
on the one huudred dollars valuation, except for the payment of debts incurred-’

Hon. A. IS.Stewart,page 

### ,3 

### (V-1359) 

# ( prbrt~ the ado8tfun of the Amendment September~2!5,

18 

### 3; and~for the erectitm of--puhlid

buildings. streets. sewera. waterworks and other permanent lmnot to exceed ,twenty-five
on the.one hundred dollars va%uatlon;in anyone year, and except
as is ln'thls Constitution otherwise "provtded;

. . .* obphasls added.,)



### 157 S.W.2d 

### 13b (1 411, the Court said:

In Bexa; County v. Mann, 

### 138Tex. 99,

~aAll~countyexpenditures lawfull~-aut~ize~to~~e.made, by a county must be-pa5d out of tfrecounty's general fur&unless there is some law which makes them a charge against a special fund.".

Thls~off3~~~neld in Attorney'General's Opinion 

### 0-6762~

(1945)that structural Improvement done onthe rnnxays of'a'countyairport,would be In the'natureof ~a~~peratanent .improvement

and could be paid for from'the,-permanent Improvement fund. This opinion-

furtherstates:

'It Is aur-~@nbm-that the-expenditures for~salarles~ should~

beallocated 'as- apart .of

thelevy ,forgeneral purposes;,and-tn nu-event .afrould.such'allocatbms-~have-W& effect ,ofin-creasingthe " total levy for general purposes beyond the constitutional limita for such purposes.
"Alsb,we point-.outtbat the total amuqt-of~theeallocation or levyfor the purposes of.-ImproMng, operating,maintalnf~,and,.c~~tlng~~the.'ai-rport,and to,.provi~de-,suita~le..struct~es, and facilltiestkrereln-shouldnotezxceed for any oneyearthe~~~-limit~ of'five (-5)cents on th9~--one+undred

dollars~

valuation, even thmgb a~~

partyof 8ueh~~-

amount. may be allecated.as-a.,part. of, thelevg~ for general purposes and a as the levy for permanentHon. A, H. Stewart,page 4 (V-1359)

In a similar situation, this office held that the purchase and improvement of a oounty park should be paid from the county permanent improvement fund, but the day-by-day operatingand malntenantie

expense should be char ed to the general.fiind. 

### ( 19391. Att'y Gen. 0ps. 

### v-284 71947)and 0+1082

In Attorney General's Oplnlon

### V-744 (1948) it is stated:

'Tax-levied~forpark improvements is a ~+argeagainstthe~ county permanent improvemmt fund,and that levied for malntenance Is a~charge against the county general.

fund?

Prom then

facts~Sethout.inyour request
we see that thenopwration of clearing the brush Is not forthe~,purpose of, establishing the airport or lmprovingthepro~in- connection tith establlshlng theairport. It is an operation of maintenance, and is note

a~permanent-improvementaspc-ontemplated by Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of-

Texas.

The lax Is~aellsettled that-ths~~.crnmnlsr sioners,'~

court-tianuot

levy a tax-forone purpose and
use the--m-y-for .another; It has no power to transfer moneys raised under.constitutional levies from one-fund'to-another..Ault v. Hill COun 102 Tex. 

### 335, 116 S.W.'359 (IgOg);~Sanders'v.Lo%, 225 S.W. 280 ~-(Tex-.

Civ.' ApP. 1920)';

'Att' 

### Y Gem. 

### op. O-5595 arroll v. Hilliams;~'lO9 Tex. 

### 155, 202 (1918), the Court stated:

"Taxes levigg os~tenslbly for any spscfficpurpose nor. class of purposes designatedin section 9 of article aXI, supra;must be applied thereunto, in good fa$th; an&ln.no event and under no'circumstancesMayothere be expended, legally, for one such purpose or class of purposes, taxnraney In excess of the amount raised by taxation declaredly for that particular purpose or class of purposes."

It is therefore our opinion that moneys in the county permanent6nprovement fund must be ii..--

-- .

Hon. A. K. Stewart, page 5 (v-1359) 

# i-- ‘- expend%~.sale-~~~,pe~~nt. improvemnt% atid may not be sp%nVto clear brash and trees from the county ~azkrpm+‘vh%iqthi-s, clearance is,not of the nature.oi-e-p%rmaneat~WpruWmnt atiCoMmaplated by Section~g, Artikle VIII of the Constitution of the State of Texas.

APPROVED5

J; Ci l&tvii$..Jr County AffWm~~;Ktisioxr

~,.. Bvbrett Hutchinsbn Rxecuti-ve



### Assistant Yours verg~~truly,

~PRICE'DARIELCharles--D.

IWthews Pest Assfstant ~, RRFkmh