Hon. Ray Lackey Opinion No. o-7214 

county hiitor Re: Authority of Commissioners’ Court to 

Yoakum County expend Permanent Improvement Funds for ComPlains, Texas nunity Buildings in county parks when said 

funds were derived from taxes levied for 

permanent improvement purposes prior to the 

election authorizing the establishment of 

Dear Sir: county parks o 

We are in reoeipt of your letter requesting the opinion 

of this department on the above stated matter. We greatly appreciate the supplemental information which you have furnished us 

with reference to the subject of your inquiry. 

It is our understanding that Yoakum County has recently 

held an election whereby the Commissioners’ Court has been authorized to levy a tax not to exceed Five Cents (5Q) on the One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) valuation for county park purposes. We 

assume that said election was held pursuant to the provisions of 

Article 6078, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes. Prior to the 

holding of said election, you requested our opinion as to whether 

the Commissioners’ Court is authorized to expend from $14,000.00 

to q/20,000.00 out of the Permanent Improvement Fund for the purpose of building Community Buildings in two towns in Yoakum County. 

You have recently advised us that it is now contemplated that the 

above mentioned Community Buildings will be built as improvements 

in the county parks. 

In view of the above circumstances, the following proposition is raised3 After an election has been held in accordance 

with the provisions of Article 6078 and the Commissioners’ Court 

has been authorized to establish county parks, is the Commissioners’ Court, authorized to expend funds from the Permanent Improvement Fund (which were on hand prior to the holding of said election) for the purpose of constructing Community Buildings in 

county parks to be established pursuant to the above mentioned 

elect ion? 

Article 6078, V.A.C.S., in part providesr 

“Each Commissioners Court is authorized to levy 

and collect a tax not to exceed five (5’) cents on each 

one hundred dollars assessed valuation of the county 

for the purchase and improvement of lands for use as 
Hon. Hay Lackey, page 2 (O-7214) 

county parks * No such tax shall be levied and collected until the proposition is submitted to and ratlfled by the property taxpaying voters of the county at 

a general or special election called for that purpose, 

provided, a two-thirds majority of the property taxpaying voters of such county, at an election held for 

such purpose shall determine in favor of said tax. If 

said court desires to establish two or more of such 

county parks, they shall locate them in widely separated portions of the county. Said court shall have full 

power and control over any and all such parks and may 

levy and collect an annual tax sufficient in their judgment to properly maintain such parks and build and construct pavilions and such other buildings as they may 

deem necessary, lay out and open driveways and walks, 

pave the same or any part thereof, set out trees and 

shrubbery, construct dit ehes or lakes, and make such 

other improvements as they may deem proper. Such parks 

shall remain open for the free use of the public under 

such reasonable rules and regulations as said court may 

prescribe.” 

Under the above quoted provisions, the method of establishing a county park system is specifically set forth, end, pursuant to said provisions, thecommissioners’ Court is authorized to 

levy a tax not to exceed Five Cents (5$) on the One Hundred Dollars 

($100.00) valuation for the purpose of purchasing and imarovinn 

lands for use as county parks. It is a well recognized principle 

of law that when the Legislature prescribes a definite, certain 

and fixed method of procedure for a county to follow in the execution of its governmental functions, other methods are by im lication of law excluded. Foster v. City of Waco, 

Ct.). 

255 S.W. llor: (Sup. 

We point out further that it has been held generally that 

money raised by taxation for any particular purpose shall be applied to that particular purpose and to y (Carroll v. 

Williams, 202 S.W. 504; 11 TexOJurulro p0 

It is apparen,t that the $14,000.00 to $20,000.00 in the 

Permanent Improvement Fund to which you refer was derived from & 

levy or levies of taxes for permanent imorcvemer&aurooses otha 

fo cow oarks~ fOP as stated by you the above mentioned 

balance: were on hand uri& to the recent election which authorized the Commissioners i Court to levy a specific tax fox county 

park purposes e 

In view of the above and foregoing, it is our opinion 

that the Commissioners I Court is not authorized to expend the above 

mentioned balances in the Permanent Improvement Fund (derived from 

taxes levied prior .to the time the Commissioners0 Court was authorized to levy a specific tax and expend county funds for park purposes) for the purpose of constructing Commuuity Buildings in county 
L 

. . 

Hon. Ray Lackey, page 3 (O-7214) 

parks in Yoakum County. You are further advised that the funds 

for any improvements in the county parks must be derived from 

a specific tax levied for park purposes in accordance with the 

provisions of Article 6078, supraQ We polnt out further that although the tax levied in accordance with Article 6078 is a specific tax, this department has held that a tax levied under said 

Article for the purpose of making permanent improveuents in county 

parks must be construed as a specific levy or allocation within 

the constitutional limitation for nermanent improvements, and such 

levy for improvements in county parks eannot operate to increase 

the total amount levied by the county for permanent improvement 

purposes beyond the constitutional limitation for permanent improvements. Likewise, such amount of annual tax that may be levhd for the operating expenses of said parks must be dealt with 

as a specific levy or allocation within the levy for general purposes and cannot operate to increase the total general fund levy 

beyond the constitutional limitation for general purposes, For 

a further discussion of this matter we refer you to our Opinion 

No. o-1082, a copy of which is encl,osed for your convenience. 

When a tax not exceeding Five Cents (5#) on the One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) valuation has been levied in accordance with 

the provisions of Article 6078, the Commissioners9 Court may expend 

the funds derived from such levy for “the purchase and m 

of lands for use as county parks.” With reference to the c,“e of 

improvements which may be made in county parks, we call your attention to Our Opinion No. 0-6700 wherein it was pointed out that it 

was contemplated by the Legislature that funds raised by taxation 

under a specific levy for county park purposes should be used prfin&ly for the purpose of providing facilities for the wsement. 

recreation and e of the people of the county. We are e:- 

closing herewith a copy of the above mentioned opinion wherein this 

matter is fully discussed. In view of the foregoing, you are advised that if the Commissioners s Court, within its sound discretion, has determined that the contemplated use or uses of the Community Buildings to be constructed as improvements in the county 

park system are primarily for the amusement, recreation and enjoyment of the people of the county, the Commissioners p Cour,t would 

be authorized to expend funds derived from the special tax levied 

for park purposes for the construction of such buildings0 

We trust that the above and foregoing will satfsfactorily answer your inquiry. 

APPROVED MAY 319 1946 

/s/ Carlos C, Ashley 

FIRST ASSIST ANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

APPROVED: OPINION COMMI!CTES 

BY: BWB, CHAIRMAN 

Yours very truly 

ATTOFNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By /s,’ J. A. Ellis 

J+ h. Ellis, Assistant 

JAE: d jm:wb