THEA ORNEY GENERAL. 

0F TEXAS 

Honorable E. G, Garvey 

County Auditor 

Bexar County 

San Antonio, Texas 

Dear Sir: opinion NO. 0-6446 

Re: Is the cost of painting an office 

in the Court House where there is 

ho'new construction chargeable 

against the General Fund Tax or 

the-Permanent Improvement Fund 

Tax, under Article 8, Sectlon 9, 

of the Constitution of Texas? 

We have YOUP request for an opinion on the above matter, 

said request being as follows: 

"Pleases furnish me with an opinlon on the 

following matter. 

"Is the cost for paintfng an office in the 

Court House where there is no new construction 

chargeable against the Genegal Fund Tax OP then 

Permanent Improvement Fund ax under,Artlcle 8, 

Sectfon 9 of the Constitution of Texas? 

"This County has always charged the cost of 

painting various offices In the 'Court House to 

General Fund, classifying it as a maintenance cost, 

unless there was a new offfce constructed and in 

this case the cost of construction and painting 

was charged to Permanent Improvement Fund. However, the County Judge contends that the straight 

painting of an office Is not a maintenance cost 

chargeable to the General Fund but is a charge 

against the Perma,nent Improvement Fund, so I will 

ask you please to furnish me wfth an opinion on 

the above question." 

Article 8, Section 9 of the Constitution of Texas, Is as 

follows: 

"The State tax'on property, exclusive of the 

tax necessary to pay the public debt, and of the 
Hon. E. G. Garvey, page 2 o-6446 

taxes provlaed for the benefit of the public free 

schools, shall neveFexcei3d thirtg-five cents on 

the one hundred."'dollars valuatidn; and no county, 

city or t6wn shall levy more than twenty-five cents 

for city or county piirpbses, and not"exceedlng 

fifteen cents for road-'and bridges, and not exceeding fifteen cents-to pay jurors, on"the one hundred 

dollars valuation, exci?pt for the paym&nt 'of debts 

incurred prior to the adoption of the amendment 

September 25th, 1883; ,and for the erection bf publib buildings, streets; sewers, water works and other 

vtimen~nf, lrn~Qvaman_ts, note td exceed~~twentg-five 

cents bn the one hundred do$lars valuation, In any 

on& year, and'except as 1s Wthis CdnstitutXon otherWis6 providhd;" and"th6 Legislatur‘e may also authorize 

8n additional annual ad.vaIWem t&x to be levied atid 

cbllected for the flirther~ maintenance of the public 

roads; proiridea, that a majority of the qualifies 

property tax-paging voters of-'the county vtiting at 

iW~'elebtion to be held for that purpose shall vote 

such tax, not to i3xceed fifteen cents on the one 

hundred dollars valuation of the property stibject 

t-6 tajiation in stich county. And thii Legislature 

may pass local 1aws"'for the maintenance~"of the'publit roads and highways, wfthout the local notice required for special or local 'laws." 

Article 2352 of Vernon's AnnotatM Civil St&ttites;"giving 

the Commissioners' Court power to levy taxes, is as follows: 

%ai.d c'6urt shall have the power to levy and 

collect a tax for county purposes, not to"exce&d " 

twenty:fi+ cents on the on6 hundred dollars valuation, and a tax hot to exceed fifteen cents on the 

one hundred dollars valuation to supplement th6 jury 

fund bf thi+ ccunty, and not to exceed fifteen"cents 

for roada~and bridges on the one hundred dollars 

valuation, exdept for the paginent of debts incurred 

prior to the adoptton of the amendment of the Constitution, September 25, A.D; 1883, and for'the -' 

&r&ctFbn of public buildings, streets;sewers, water 

works and other permanent improvements, not to.ex6eed"~twenty-five cents bn-the one hunW6d dollars' 

valuation In ang one year, and e'xcept-"as in the Constltution"'otherwibe provided. 'They may levy an additional tax for road purpoaes not"'to exceed fifteen 

cents on the one'huiidred,dollar valuatibn.'of the"property sub~ject~ to taxation, under the limitations.and 

in the manner provided for in-.Ai%lcle 8, Sec. 9, df 

the Constitution and in pursuance of the laws relating thereto." 
. 

Hon. E. G, Garvey, page 3 o-6446 

Article 2351 of such statute, which sets~forth 

power and dutfes of the Commissioners' Court, reads in 

follows: 

t, 

. o . 0 . 0 

'7'; Provided and keep In repair court housestl 

jails and all necessary public buildings. . . 0 . 

the .' 

part as 

Your attention Is dlrected~to the fact that the above,, 

Quoted section of the Constitutfon, as well as said Article 2352;. 

provides for~~a fund-for county purposes, which 1s generally'called the General Fund, and's fund for the erection of public 'buildinm, .streets, sewers, water works and other permanent improvements, which fs generally called the Permanent Improvement Funded 

Subdivision7 of Article 2351 authorizes the Commissioners' Ccurt 

to provide and keep fn repair COUP% houses, jails and all necessary public buildings. 

, 

In the case of Sanders v', Looneg etal"225 S.W. 280, 

the,cour%'was passing upon the validity of a tax of 234 on the 

$100 valuation of all %axable property In Bowie County for court 

house and jail repafr purposes* The con%ention was made that '-~ 

the levy of said tax was void, because there was no constitutional 

OP statutory authority to levy a special'tax for the repairsof 

the cburt Rouse and ;jafl. In holding that said tax’was not void 

for lack of authorftg to make %be levy, the court said: 

"The second ground of oomplaint we conclude should 

also be overruled. of the Constltuion 

provides: 

Artfele 8, fj 9, 

"'And no county, city or town shall levy 

more than twenty'-five cents for city or county 

purposes, * + * and EOP the erection of'publlc 

buildings, streets, sewers, waterworks and other 

permanent improvements, not tb exceed twenty-five 

cents on the one hundred dollars valuation, In 

any one gear. * * * +' 

"And,ar%icle 2242, Vernon's Sayles' Civil 

Statutes , provides: 

"'Said court (commissioners') shall have the 

power to levy and collect a tax for county purposes, not to exceed twenty-five cents on the one 

hundred dollar valuation + Q * and for the erection of public buildings, streets, sewers, waterworks and other permanent improvements, not to-.exceed"twenty-five cents on the one hundred dollars 

valuatfon in any one year. * * + *' 
Hon. E. G. Garvey, page 4 o -6446 

"The wording of the Constitution and statute 

are, as seen, the same. It enjoins upon the commissioners' court the duty to provide by 'special 

tax for the erection of public buildings and other 

permanent improvements. A courthouse and jail are 

Tn the'lr nature public buildings, and the spirit 

at least of the law is both to require the conrmis- 

'aionersto erect in the first instance a""courthouse 

and a jail and then to keep them fn suitable condition for the purpbses of public buildings. In construing the very article of-~the Constitution above 

the Supreme Court said, in a case Involving the 

levy of a special tax for repairs and additions to 

a courthouse: 

"'The word "erect," contained in all'the foregoing provisions, was the mostcomprehensive term 

that could-'be.used to embrace all such-improvements. 

to tiold thata countjrwhose courthouse, with proper 

repairs and additions, could be rendered commod'i'ous 

and useful in every respect, must pull it down and 

build an entirely new one, would be td.charge.our 

lawgivers with an intent to encourage an untiecessary expenditure of the public 'money. Such a consideration would not, In itself, authorize us to Infer 

a power when not expressly given or necestiarily 

Implied. Yet when the language used is capable of 

including authority to do an act not mentioned in 

terms, such construction of it is greatly aided by 

considerations of public advanta&'whi,ch it would 

certainly produce.' Brown v, Graham, 58 Tex. 254. 

"As the Commissioners' Court had the power to 

levy the special tax, the levy would not be void for 

lack of authority to make the levy." 

Accordingly, It Is our opinion that the cost of painting 

an office in the~courthouse where there is no new construction 

is chargeable against the Permanent Improvement Fund. _' 

Trusting that this satisfactory answers your InquWy, we 

remain 
Hon. E. G. Garvey, page 5 o-6446 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Jas. W. Bassett 

Assistant 

JWB:fb:wc 

APPROVED MAR 20, 1945 

s/Carlo8 C, Ashley 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Approved Opinion Committee by s/BWB Chairman