.~ 

19dvember 29, 1951 

Hon. A. K. Stewa& Opinion rn? ~v-1359 

County .AttornegMont;gomery County Re: LegalPty,of using counConroe, Texas ty ijermge lTt fWOWln9nt 

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 'and 1943, 

Montgomery-County-ironstructed~~an~ airport 

w~.cfi~~~was later taki3ti over ,%y:3he Fed-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*ontgtmtery Cotity.‘.~Durin& these years, 

trees'&8 underbrush were 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 .payment for the removal~ of the trees and'underbrbrnsh from 

th aiFpopt may be inade frti 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 ~CondeUming or 

purchasing, elther.:or both, lands to be 

used and-maintained as ~provided in Sectim 

1 hereof;'and improving and equipping the 

same for such use, the governing body of 

my city o~~*e~~&mm&sslOtiers Court of 

.any-comty, falling wlthfn~ the terma of 

such Section, may-issue,negutiable bonde 

of the'city or of the county, as the cass 

may be, and levy taxes to provide for thp 
Hon. 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 ~for the 

interest ,and ~slnklng fuud of anybonds lssued under the authorityof this Act, the 

gwernhg body of any city or the Comvlssioners-' Court of any county, falling 

within the terms hereof, 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 conducting any Air Port uhich'such 

city or county may.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~ts of iudebtedneas placed upon It under the Constltution.' 

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

"The State tax eon property, 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 one hundred. 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) ,cents to 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 ado 

8 

tfun 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, 138 Tex. 99, 

~aAll~county expenditures lawfull~-aut~ize~to~~e.made, by a county 

must be-pa5d out of tfre county'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'county airport,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 ,for general purposes;,and-tn nu-event .afrould.such'allocatbms-~have-W& effect ,of in-creasing the " 

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-should notezxceed for any 

oneyearthe~~~-limit~ of' five (-5) cents on 

th9~--one+undred dollars~ valuation, even 

thmgb a~~ party of 8ueh~~- amount. may be allecated.as-a.,part. of, thelevg~ for general 

purposes and a as the levy 

for permanent 
Hon. 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 operating and 

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~ Seth out.inyour request 

we see that then opwration 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-improvement asp c-ontemplated 

by Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution of 

the State of- Texas. 

The lax Is ~aell settled 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 

spscffic purpose 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'circumstances Mayo there 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 ati CoMmaplated 

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