TH=A~ORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

AUSTXNII.TEXA~ 

October 16, 1959 

Honorable Jules Damiani, Jr. 

Criminal District Attorney 

Courthouse 

Galveston, Texas 

Opinion No. W-718 

Re: After a county budget is 

established under Section 

9 of Article VIII of the 

Texas Constitution, can 

funds be taken out of a 

General Fund and put into 

a Permanent Improvement 

Fund for the purpose of 

enlarging and equipping 

an existing County HospitDear Mr. Damianl: al and related questions. 

You have requested the opinion of this office on the 

following questions: 

"Once the /Four&d Bud 

established, under Article % 

et for the year is 

Section 9 of the 

Texas Constitution, can fund; be taken out of 

a General Fund and put into a Permanent Improvement Fund with the idea of using these funds to 

enlarge and equip an existing County Hospital, 

the Commissioners Court having taken this into 

consideration at the time the General Fund was 

set in the Budget, theirhaving appropriated an 

excessive amount of money for this purpose?" 

"Can funds to enlarge and quip an existing 

County Hospital come out of the general fund, it 

being provided for by the Commissloners Court at 

the time of fixing the budget, or must these funds 

come out of the Permanent Improvement Fund?" 

Section 9 of Article VIII of the Constitution of Texas 

provides in part: 

!I provided further that at the time 

the Commissioners Court meets to levy the annual 
Honorable Jules Eamiani Jr., page 2 (w-w-718) 

tax rate for each county it shall levy whatever 

tax rate may be needed for the four (4) constitutional purposes; namely, general fund, permanent 

improvement fund, road and bridge fund and jury 

fund. . . ." 

Thus, the Constitution makes specific provisions for 

raising monies for the General Fund and the Permanent Improvement Fund. It sets out the duty of the Commissioners Court to 

levy taxes as needed and the monies arising from these taxes 

levied and collected for each of these enumerated purposes are 

constitutional funds. 

The authority of the Commissioners Court to transfer 

funds from one designated fund to another is limited by the 

constitutional restriction. The Constitution contemplates 

that tax money collected from the people ostensibly for one 

purpose shall be expended for that purpose alone. The provisions of Section 9, Article VIII were designed not merely to 

limit the tax rate for certain purposes, but to require any and 

all money raised by taxation for any purpose to be applied, 

faithfully, to that purposr as need therefor and not to any 

other purpose or use whatsoever. 

The Commissioners Court cannot levy a tax for one purpose and use the money for another, and it has no power to 

transfer this money from one constitutional fund to another. 

Ault v. Hill County 102 Tex. 335, 116 S.W. 359 (1909); Commissioners Court of Henderson County v. Burke, 262 S.W.y 

lCiv.App. 1924); Carroll v. Williams, 109 Tex. 155, 202 S.W. 

504 (1918); FirstState Bank & Trust Co. of Rio Grande City 

v. Starr County, 306 S.W.2d 24o (Civ.App. 1957). This rule 

prevails eventhough the commissioners, in levying a tax to 

establish a General Fund, took into consideration the fact 

that they we':: acquiring more money than would be actually 

needed with the intent to transfer the additional money to 

another fund. 

You second question again states: 

"Can fundsto enlarge and equip an existing 

County Hospital come out of the general fund, it 

being provided for by the Commisssioners Court 

at the time of fixing the budget, or must these 

funds come out of the Permanent Improvement Fund?" 
Honorable Jules Damiani, Jr., Page 3 (m-718) 

It was held in Attorney General's Opinion V-518 (1948), 

that where' the establishment of a county hospital was from current funds,the cost of the purchase would come from the Permanent Impi,ovement Fund and the costs of the operation and maintenance from the General Fund. 

Attorney General's Opinion V-701 (1948) held that the 

construction of sidewalks, necessary entrances and exits, driveways and landscaping of a county hospital may be paid for out 

of the Permanent Improvement Fund of the county. Likewise, it 

was held in Attorney General's Opinion O-6441 (1945) that the 

cost of painting an office in the courthouse, where there is no 

new construction, is chargeable against the Permanent Improvement 

Fund. 

In view of the foregoing, it is our opinion that the enlargement of a county hospital should be paid for out of the 

Permanent Improvement Fund of the county. However, the equipping 

of a hospital is different from enlar ing 

& 

same. It was held in 

Attorney General's Opinion o-6531 (19 5) that the permanent records for the county clerk, district clerk and tax assessorcollector cannot be paid for out of the Permanent Improvement 

Fund. The meafing of "equip" has been held to be synonymous 

with "furnish . See Words and Phrases, Vol. 14A, p. 359. 

Therefore, the equipping of an enlarged portion of a county hospital should be paid for out of the General Fund of the County. 

SUMMARY 

Funds may not be transferred from the 

General Fund to the Permanent Improvement Fund (Carroll v. Williams, 109 

Tex. 155, 202 S.W. 504, 1918); the enlarging of a county hospital should be 

paid for out of the Permanent Improvement Fund while the equipping of same 

should be paid out of the General Fund 

of the County. 

Yours very truly, 

JMF:mfh 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 
Honorable Jules Camiani, Jr., Page 4 (w-718) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Ralph R. Rash 

Paul R. Floyd, Jr. 

Robert T. Lewis 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert 

‘.