on the. one hundred dollars va%uatlon;in anyone year, and except as is ln'thls Constitution otherwise "provtded; . . .* obphasls added.,) In Bexa; County v. Mann, 138 Tex. 99, 157 S.W.2d 13b (1 411, the Court said: ~aAll~countyexpenditures lawful- l~-aut~ize~to~~e.made, by a county must be-pa5d out of tfrecounty's gen- eral 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 .improvementand could be paid for from'the,-permanentImprovement fund. This opinion-furtherstates: 'It Is aur-~@nbm-that the-expendi- tures for~salarles~should~beallocated 'as-apart .ofthelevy ,for general pur- poses;,and-tn nu-event .afrould.such'allo- catbms-~have-W& effect ,ofin-creasingthe " total levy for general purposes beyond the constitutional limita for such pur- poses. "Alsb, we point-.outtbat the total amuqt-of~theeallocation or levyfor the purposes of.-ImproMng, operating, main- talnf~,and,.c~~tlng~~the.'ai-rport, and to,.provi~de-,suita~le..struct~es, and facil- ltiestkrereln-should notezxceed for any oneyearthe~~~-limit~of'five (-5)cents on th9~--one+undreddollars~valuation, even thmgb a~~ amount.may be al- party of 8ueh~~- lecated.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 im- provement fund, but the day-by-day operating and malntenantieexpense should be char ed to the gen- eral.fiind. Att'y Gen. 0ps. v-284 71947) and 0+1082 (19391. 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 maln- tenance Is a~charge against the county general.fund? Prom thenfacts~Sethout.inyour request we see that then opwration of clearing the brush Is not forthe~,purpose of,establishing the airport or lmprovingthepro~in- connection tith establlsh- lng theairport. It is an operation of maintenance, and is notea~permanent-improvement aspc-ontemplated by Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of-Texas. The lax Is ~aell settled that-ths~~.crnmnlsr sioners,'~ court-tianuotlevy a tax-forone purpose and use the--m-y-for .another; It has no power to trans- fer 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;~'lO9Tex. 155, 202 (1918), the Court stated: "Taxes levigg os~tenslblyfor any spscffic purpose nor.class of purposes designatedin section 9 of article aXI, supra; must be applied thereunto, in good fa$th; an&ln.no event and under no'circumstances Mayo there be expended, legally, for one such purpose or class of purposes, taxnraney In excess of the amount raised by taxation declaredly for that particular purpose or class of purposes." It is therefore our opinion that moneys in the county permanent6nprovement fund must be ii..--
- - .
Hon. A. K. Stewart, page 5 (v-1359)
i--expend%~.sale-~~~,pe~~nt. '- improvemnt% atidmay not be sp%nVto clear brash and trees from the county ~azkrpm+'vh%iqthi-s, clearance is,not of the nature.oi-e-p%rmaneat~WpruWmnt atiCoMmaplated by Section~g, Artikle VIII of the Constitution of the State of Texas.
APPROVED5 Yours verg~~truly, J; Ci l&tvii$..Jr ~PRICE'DARIEL- County AffWm~~;Ktisioxr ~,.. Bvbrett Hutchinsbn Rxecuti-veAssistant Charles--D.IWthews Pest ~, Assfstant RRFkmh