EATTOMNEYGENERAL
Q,P TEXAS
AUSTIN si.TExAe
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEY GB.VER.u
November 20, 1951
opinion Ro. v-1349
vouncy irrcoruey
Bale County Re: Authority of the com-
Plsfnvier,Texas mi8ai.onere~~ aourt to
prorate special road
tax proceeds among the
Dew sir:. comeisaioners I precincts.
Your request for an opiaFon reed8 in pert au
r0110vst
"1 have been requested by the Coplpia-
sioners Court of Hale Count7 to,request
an opiriion of the Attorney General to the
folloviag question:
ty thbre va8 a levy of $0.15 on eech $100
valuation for a special road tax under
Chepter 4, Title 116 of,Vernon*sAnnotat-
ed Civil Statutes. There is no question
88 to the legelity of the special rosd
,tex. The Court 0180 levied,$0.03on each
$100 veluotion for the generel roed odd
bridge fund. Under the budget it vos pro-
~videdthet tM texer collected under the
~apeclalrosd tex vould be pafd into the
road end bridge fund for each of the four
Cowlssionera Prealucte in proportionto
tha amount of taxes collected tithio lech
Comiaaiouerb Precinct.
“By rehsolution of tha County Commis-
aionem Court et t&ir meeting held the
8th .of October, 1951, it VBU provided
that the taxer,collected under the $0.15
per $100 velwtioa :Sorthe special row3
tu’ehould be divided epusllp among the
tour commissioners Precinats Vithout m-
gamaigtthe amounts collected in eech
. The budget vae edopted provid-
lm’ dirt&m lcroordfagto pnoinats.
Hon. Joe L. Cox, page 2 (V-13&i) ~
.
"QUESTfOBs Should the taxes collect-
ed under the 8818 levy ~forthe special
road tax he expended in each Cow1881onsrs
Precinct in propbrtion to the amount or
taxer collected in each precinct, or may
the same be divided into four equsl parts
vlthout regard to the amounts collected
in each preainct?n
Article 6790, V.C.S., ao4lfled in Chspter 4,
Td;;; 116 of the Revised Civil Ststutes oi 1925, pro- y
: : *
"The coami~~l.one~ court shall order
so elect.$onupon preaentatloato it at ray
ngulw session of s petition signed w
two hundred qualttled voters snd property
tax payers 0r ths county, or a petition
of Slftg persons so qusllflsd in a pollt-
10s~ aubdlvlsionor defined dlstrlc T of
the couky, requesting Bald court to or-
der an election to determine vhethsr said
court shall levy upon the property vlthin
arid territory a road tax not to exceed
fifteen cents on the one hundred dollars
vorth of propetiy, under the provlsiona
of the amendment of 1889 to the Constitu-
tion of the State of Texas, adopted tn’
1890. Said cowt msy act on auah petition '
without notlee, sod may mske atiorder for
such election, fixl~g the amount to be \1
levied, not to exaesd ilf'teencents on
the arm hun4Ad dollsam, ths election to
teks lace St sly tin theresftsr,not
leas ?hsn twenty nor mom thsn niuty days
;rc$ the dot. o? uklty ths otie~there-
. Upon8 petition 89.8-a w 8 trjoritr
0r ti+ ~~iifi88 tax p8ri voters of a
portion of saj countf or "g 0 srg polltlca,,"3
aubdlvlalonof snf county, to sald'court
requestingthat suoh po~lon of said county
or polltlosl 8ubdlvl8lOnlhsll be crarted
as a deilosd d%strict, ths said must ahal+
declsrr,such tsmltory s Qe?l~ae#district
and spmsd the order for 8sn upomths mla-
utes OS ssid courtp provided tb petltloa
aiorosaid shall deflns w met08 snd bounds
tho terrltom desimd to k so incorporstod
in rwh def%lpbddistrict.”
I .
~on.~Joe L. Cox, Page 3 (V-1349)
In construingthis provlslon it was held in
Attorney Cenerel Opinion O-2091)(1940):
'%leare of the opinion that the tax
money levied and collected for the geaer-
al purpose of building end maintaining
the public roads in #Bid county under the
DrOViBiOnB Of $BCtiOn 9. Article 8 Of the
You have BtBted that the mQBt recent Order o?
the CorPllliBBiOZlel’B’ court Of Hale COW&Jr BppOrtiODlr th0
funds from the BpeCiBl road tBX eqU#lly BmOll@ thB iOUr
COmmiBBiOMrB’ pmCinCt8 Of the Whether
County. this
order is a proper one turns upon the questlon OS vhe-
. ther the division of the funds in this manner vaa made
srbltrsrilpvithout ragard to the condition of the roads
of the county or whether, on the othe$ hand, the court
la the exercise of its discretion hed~:determlned that
ths condition of the rOBd8 juBti?led such a dlvlBion.
In 3tOVBll V. Shivers, 129 28X. 256, iO3 S.W.
28 363 (1937), the court said that the.provisions of
Articie‘2351,V.C.S., giving the comm~abionera4court
the povsr, among other things, to exercise geMrB1 COU-
trol over all roBd8, highva~s, Serrie ',end bridge8 in
ths county contsmplatedthat all rOBd2 end bridges of
the county should be q #intBlUed,repai$ed, sad Improved
vhea necsaaary, as the aonditlona might reQulre, regard-
leas of the Precinct in vhlch the road vere located.
TtleCourt further SBld that 8lhgBtiO 4 BBttin& Out that
the coamlBaionarat couti'hsd estsbllsh 8 a fixed policy
of rohanically dlvid1ng the road and sridge fund into
four eQU#l part8 end allottl~ it to the iOUr pW2iUOt8
OS the countf vithout ragard to ths condition and Mods
O? th8 ro#dB excluded the ideB OS the BXerCiBe Of SW,
di#Cmtlon baaed upon a consideretionof nBceBBity sad,
oond1tions of the roads and bridges. However, under
tl$elater case of Gerland v. Sanders, 114 3.W.28 302
(Pox. Civ. App.:.&gjS; error dram.), it is clear than an
y; ~~lsion at@n&...Lhe precincts is not an arbitrary
taioQ.iB in fBCt bBBed
on 8 con bt$&tha roBd8 10 the
VBrlOUB plWCinCtS.' ,~,
~.
..I.,.
.~
..~
,.‘.,
:..
‘
xon. Joe L. cox, pege 4 W-1349)
We think the conclusionto be dram from
these caeee Is that ii the conmte~loners~court in
the exerclee of its discretion determines that the
condition o? the roads of the county ae e vhole jueti-
iha 8 divieion 8moag the vsrious precinct8 ia squel
amounta, the division Is a proper one. The aecessi-
tie8 of the road system of the county involve fact
qq@stions to be determinedby the commieeionere~court,
et&#;of courm, thlr oiiicb vould hrve no power to
determlue whetherthe court had abuwd Its discretion
la any particulrr c~eue. Since you heve not indiceted
vhethe~,theComiea~onere~ Court of lisleCounty baeed
ita order on e coneldentlon of theee coaditlone,w
ara burrblrto exprera en opinion aa to the propriety
of the prder.
Taxes collected under a levy of e
epeetrl med tex pursuetatto Alrtiele6790,
V.C.SL. 8r7 be expended for the tmetiruo-
t160 sad msintenence of roads in the coun-
ty a8 the commlsaioneraI court may deter-
I&WI In the exercise of Its aounildlecre-
tton, breed ou a considerationof the oon-
dttioa iad necessity of the roede oi the
eaunty. Att'7 Gen. Op. O-2094 (1940).
APPlmtD t Yours very truly,
J. C. Davir, Jr. PiICB DANIEL
county Arreira Divistoa Attorney Qenerel
tverett Hutohlaeon
Executive AIlsSstant ”
Cha.rlesD. Methews John Reeves
Fiiyt Asslstent Assistant
JR:wh