Attorney General Opinion JM-0184

JIM MATTOX Attorney General Supreme Court Building P. 0. BOX 12546 Aus!in, TX. 76711. 2546 5121475.2501 Telex 9101674-1367 Telecopier 5121475-0266 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dallas, TX. 75202.4506 2141742-6944 4624 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 El Paso. TX. 799052793 9151533.34a4 ,‘.lM)l Texas, Suite 700 Houston, TX. 77002-3111 7131223.5666 606 Broadway. Suite 312 Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 6061747.5236 4309 N. Tenth, Suite S McAllen, TX. 76501-1665 5121662.4547 *Oil Main Plaza, Suite 400 San Antonio, TX. 76205-2797 512,225.4191 An Equal OPpOrtUnityl Affirmative Action Employer The Attormy General of Texas hly 26, 1984 Honorable Gary Thorlpson Chairman county Affairs Cora1ittee Texas House of Representatives P. 0. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 70; 69 Dear Representati\!e: Thompson: Opinion No. .JM-184 Re: Whether revenues received from s hotel occupancy tax may be used to make improvements to a county golf course You have asku whether article 1269j-4.1, V.T.C.S., authorizes El Paso County to UX: revenues from a hotel occupancy tax to purchase golf carts or to :iinance general Improvements for a county-operated golf course. We first conclude that, because it is a city tax, the hotel occupancy tic: authorized by article 12693-4.1 does not apply to El Paso County; mc’reover, we conclude that, although there is a county hotel occupancy tBK that does apply to El Paso County. it does not authorize the county to use revenues from the tax to purchase golf carts or to finanu general improvements for its golf course. The legislatcre has enacted several hotel occupancy taxes. Section 156.051 of the Tax Code was enacted in 1959; it provides for a state hotel occupsrcy tax. See Acts 1959, 56th Leg., 3rd C.S., ch. 1. at 187. All reunues frozhis tax are deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the general revenue fund. Tax Code 1156.251. The remaining hotel occupancy taxes are levied by local government 6 : soma by counties and some by cities. Each of these local tax laws authorizes the local government to use the revenues from the tax to finance certain specified county or city projects. The county hcstel occupancy tax is authorized by artf,cle 2372d-8, V.T.C.S. Section : of article 2372d-8 defines the counties to which the article applies: Section 1. This article applies only to counties with a population of more than 2.000.000, according to the most recent federal census and to counties that border the Republic of Mexico with a population of more than 90,000, according to the most re:,:nt federal census, excluding counties which : ,ntain three or lllOlX cities with populations of more than 17,500, according to the most recent federal census. p. 806 . Honorable Gary Thompson - :?.age 2 (~~-184) ‘I El Paso is such a county and it is, therefore, authorized to levy a hotel occupancy tax. This office has prevL)usly discussed the proper disposition of revenues from a city's tctel occupancy tax. In Attorney General Opinion H-209 (1974)) the :ity of Temple asked whether it could use revenues collected under a:ri:icle 1269j-4.1 to contract with the Temple Cultural Activities Center for the provision of cultural services to the community. The opinion deemed the use to be outside of those specifically permitted by the statute: However, we da) not believe the permissible uses of occupancy tax revenues include general efforts to support the acts. It may be that the programs you describe, in certain situations, could have the ancillary uffect of contributing to a "solicitation ar.i operating program to attract conventions and "isitors," but as you state in YOU? inquiry, their main purpose is the development of programs in the arts for the general public of central Texas. Before Hotel Occupancy Tax funds could be used to purchase services, activ:.ties or programs for the development of l:he arts, we believe they would need to be directly related to the attraction of conventions or to~lrists. Attorney General Opinion l&Z:09 (1974). The county hotel occupancy tax was intended to raise re'r,!nues to support projects that encourage conventions and tourism. !ection 2 of article 2372d-8 is. in fact, titled "Improvements to Attract Visitors and Tourists." Section 6 of article 2372d-8 specifies hc~w revenues from the county hotel occupancy tax may be used. The specj.f'ication in section 6(a) of article 2372d-8 is exclusive: Sec. 6. (a) The revenue derived from any occupancy tax authorized or validated by this article may only le used for: (1) the acqllisition of sites for and the construction, improvement, enlarging, equipping, repairing, operation, and maintenance of public improvements such as civic centers, civic center buildings, aui.i toriums, exhibition halls, coliseums, and c tadiums, including sports and other facilities (either or all) that serve the purpose of attrac,ting visitors and tourists to the county . . . . (Emphasis added). -_ p. 807 Honorable Gary Thompson - ?,ige 3 (~~-184) According to section 6(a), the county's disposition of hotel occupancy tax revenues will be authorized by the statute only if both of the following are true! (1) the revenues will be spent for a "public improvement" such as those listed in section 6(a)(l); and (2) this improvement will serve the purpose of attracting conventions and tourists to the county. I.1 deciding whether general improvements to a county golf course may be :lassified as "public improvements," we must invoke standard rules of Etatutory construction. The rule of ejusdem generis applies to enumer;.tions -- lists of specific terms which are preceded or followed by a Inore general term associated with the list of specifics. The scope o:: the general term, "public improvements," is therefore defined by 1:lle non-exhaustive though limiting list of terms which follow i~t. Sot! Amplifone Corporation v. Cameron County, --_ 577 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. Civ. .Y)p. - Corpus Christi 1979, no writ). We note that each of the public improvements listed in section 6(a)(l) is a building. lhe only phrase in the list which could conceivably embrace a county golf course is "stadiums, including sports and other facilities." However, "the cardinal rule of statutory construction ie to ascertain the legislative intent in enacting the statute." FsJlk v. State, 608 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. Grim. APP. 1980). The clear G?ent of article 2372d-8 is to raise local revenues for projects whic:li will attract visitors and tourists. The list of suggested projec,:;; in section 6(a)(l) of article 2372d-8 contemplates "sports and other facilitj~es" which will draw large numbers of ticket- buying spectators to the county, a arenas or pavilions where spectator pzvents such as races or other competitive games could be held. A colurty golf course is not such a place. We conclude, therefore, that .I county could not use revenues from a hotel occupancy tax to build a ccunty golf course; accordingly, we conclude that the county may not use these revenues to finance general improvements to an existin:: county golf course. SUMMARY The county of 'cl Paso may not use revenues from a county hotel o':b:upancy tax collected pursuant to article 2372-8, L.T.C.S., to purchase golf carts or finance genel,al improvements for a county- operated golf course. Very truly yours J A A JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN First Assistant Attorney G,nleral p. 808 Honorable Gary Thompson - I?;ige 4 (JM-184) DAVID R. RICBARDS Executive Assistant Attornq General Prepared by Rick Gilpin Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Rick Gllpin, Chairman David Brooks Colin Carl Susan Garrison Jim noellinger Nancy Sutton p. 809