-RICE DANIEL u7ounsY GENERAL February 20, 1948 . .
Ron,-Jill1R. WSlson opinion NO. v-508 ... District attorney Dallas County Re: The proper fund from which Dallas, Texas \ to pag.the matdhlng con- tributionof the County for;County Rmployee Re- tirementSystem. . Dear Sir: Reference-ismade to your re&nt.reque& for an opinFbn from this Departmentrelative to theabove captionedmatter.~ It reads, in part, as follows: "Dhllas County is-settliigQiLa'.Couhty. Rmployee Retl.rement.System as prescribedin Section 62-b of Article 16'of the-Constitu- tlon of the State of Texas. In view'of the fact that some employees of Dallas~County .' ~ _ are paid out of funds other than the"gener- aI fund, for example, the Road and Bridge Fi+d,.the question is presentedas to vheth- er the five percent to be paitd'bg.theCoun- ty under the provision of the constitutional amendment, to match'the~deduction the employees' salaries,must be paid out t 'of-theGeneral Fund~or may the County pay - such five percent out of the fund from which the employee is paid . . . . "It is, therefore,requestedthat you furnish this offiqe ,withan oplx+on on the question above presented, . . z So far as is pertinent to your-inqudry,Sec- tion 9, Article VIII, of the State Constitutionpro- vides: .. II . . .. and no count7 . Llali.1ei-y more than twenty-five (25 ieAts for . . . county purposes .'. . on the one hundred dollars valuation, . . . provided,however, that the CommissionersCourt in any county
- -
202 Hon. Will R. Wilson, page 2 (V-508)
may re-alldcatethe foregoLugcounty taxes by changing the rates provided for any of the foregoingpurposesby either tincreasingor decreasingthe same, . . .a Subdivision(b) of Section62 of Artii%e XVI, of the State Constitutionis, In part, as follows: "(b) Each county shall have th& right to provlde for and adminlstel' a Retirement, _ Disabilityand Death CompensationFund for the appolntlve officersand employeesof the county; provided same-laauthorizedby a majority vote of the qualifiedvoters of such county and after such electionhas been advertlsed.bybeing publlshed'inat least one newspaper of general circulation In said counti once~eachweek for four con- secutive weeks; provided that the amount contributedby the county to such Fund shall, equal the'amountpaid for the same purpose from the Income of e&&such person, and shall not exceed at any time five per cen- tum (5%) of the compensationpaid to each .suchperson by the county,and shall in iio 6ne gear'exceed the sum'of Cne'&uidHd &id Eighty Dollars ($180) for any such person,' We believe that provldlng fiindsby'the'county for such RetirementDlsabilltyLnd Death CompBnss'tion Fu.ucl~lsa county purpose wit&n $hfimeanTngof'AHi%iile ~II,~S~ctio~'~9,'suplis: -The Supreme~Cotit'ln-tti'case df Be&-County v..Maxi&-157 S:'W. (26) 1;34,"in,deter; mXning?whetheti the CoMtisloners( Cotit was ~authorised to pu5chase'votingmachines and pag .forsame out of the General +nd of t&e county, had this to say: I) .The ptatute does not in express. w&&*provlde that th6 bonds iSsu&d.the&e- vinclbr sEall,be.z~aharge against the gener- al fund; .but,'in-our opinion,.lt;doea so provide by necessary %mpllc&tldni~'this isustbe trriebecause the.Leglsl;&ture by' 6nactlhg the stitute'hereinvolvedhas pro- vided for the expendltme of county funds for a.county purpose. Such expendLiz&e does not oome or ,fallunder any purpose for which