Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

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