Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Auguet 20, 1951 ffon. Robert bl. Allen Opinion No, V-1245 Oount Attorney Rusk i ounty Be; DoUS 8 preolnot b Henderson, Texas tit from taxes 00 ~leoted rop farm-t mexket roads in p gortfon to the TQ of the county in prixinct; is b t6i payer whoee anly able property is from, the tax qua1 to vote at the ta Dear Sir: election? Your requeert for an opinion,relates to 6 poa~ pored eleotion in Rusk OoWty to le+y, (assess, and.e& lest ad vslorem taxes not to exceed thirty cents 02) each One ffunilrsd Dollars valuation for farm-to-market and lateral roads pursuant to Article 7048a of Vernenls Givll Statutes end prerents ‘for determination two qum- &ions rvhloh may be paraphrased as follows: I. Under Seation 6, of Artiole 7046a would, Ooftuniasionsral Pfecinot No. 1 ox? Rusk C.ounty; ,wh,ioh has approximately 80 per cent of the county valuation, get the benefit of 80 plr sent of the taxes collected if this *Laetion carries? 21 Under Seotioa 7 ot Artic3.e 704ga, would a property owner whose only taxable property is a residential homestead valued lt less than $3,000 be qualified to vote in suoh election eince his property would be exem#t from th tax levied under Article 7QIk? iirticle 704&t, V. 0. S., provides la part: “SW. 2. From an4 after i?8nuary 1, 1951, the soreral uountieb et Wa Strtc be and they am here8g m0mMnad to lay ~rf~ne and aol- le0t d valorsin tax*8 upon 8 f proparty with- .,’ Ron. Robert M, Allen, pa&e 2 (V-la0) . in their respsative bowldariss r0r oouaty except the firat Three Thoummd S~“~.$~ 000) velue of rerib0ntlal holae- staads, not ‘to exceed thirty cent8 (3Og 1 on oooh One Hun&red Dollars ($100) valuation, in addition to all other ad valorem taxer auttlorizrd by the Constitution of the $t&o provided the revenue therefrom ah&U b% use 6, as provided in this bet for the conetrutltio8 and malntenrnce of Farm-to-Karl:et ucd Latanil, lwldr .or for Flood Control and for theaI Wo (2) purposes only. *Sea. 6, Both the ?srmto-&rket aab. Lateal Road Fund Find the Flood Owtrol FurQ ah&l1 be exrmnded so as to equitably PintaiSr ute a% nearly as possible th% benefits do- rived from such expenditurss to the varloua Commissionsre~ precinots in accrordance ulth the taxable values therein. n “Sec. 7. Before any county sh%ll levy, atas and oolleo t the tax provided for h%r%ia the quo&ion shall by t&r Comiesionere Court oi the oountp be submitted to a Vote of the qualified property tupaying voters of suoh oounty at an election called for that purpors,~ either on said Commissioners Courts’ owh mo- tion, or upon p’stition of ten per oent (logl} of the qualified property taxpaying voters of IBWI oounty BI ehovm by the returns of th% laet g%n= era1 elvmtion .' . . . .n Article 6740, V. 0. 8., la a8 folLow%r wTh%aommiesiansre oourt #h*ll %e% that the road, and bridge fund of ttdP oounty is ju&loiously and equitably expelNed on the roads and bridges of their oounty, and, aa nearly as ths condition and neoesrity or the roads will per&t, it shall, be ergend Zn %%oh county commissioner% pracin%t in pro- port&a to the amount colleoted in suoh pro- rino t . Money uasd in building permanent ma68 shall first 8 used only oa t%rra! ef 880086-alaw roads, %nd on thoscs, Wh$o& rha%x h8vs the right or : ay tumirhed ,i?@e ot 00i3t. to make ae,atraight a road aa is prsatioable ,%md having ths greatert bonue off%?& by the ‘oitizem% or wmoy, labor or otkw propwty.~ t29 3’6%i56, 103 ‘8. I. held ,that then ir r&h*’ 8 the oommtrrio,aw8 oourt 80, divide thq lload and, bridge ryul ao,o,ord$ngcta my fixed mtheemtioal’ itinntlla, .&?I& .yippdi%Wi i&k@ in r(raaoe tor thopurposo at: being rkpdsd ‘In, ax& &tan gruoinot.* The oourt rurther stated: ._ ” the aommiarioners oourt murk. glum erteot ’t; &id artiols 6740 exoept when the necessities of.the roads and bridger require a departure from it., That article requires that the road and bridge runds or all oountis6 &al& be, judi,oiossly and equitably e~xp,ended, ft f&thar requires that ,suirh funds shall, as nearly as the condition and necessity of the roads will permit be expended in each oommla- sionsrs preoinot in proportion to the amount eolleoted in auoh preoinot. The dominant pum pose oi this statute seema to be to require that the road cuad bridge fund shall be expended in oaoh aommlrrfoners preoinat in proportion to the amount oolleotsd therein. In this regard the statute means that eaoh precinct shell r&m facie be entitle to its own funds, and f n the absenoe of any reasons to the contrary they, should be so divided and expended. the duty to expend the funds inthe ~~~~$~on above meatj.oned is not an absolutely inflexible one. Thle is evident from the fact that th8 dominant purpose or the statute is qualified to the extent that the court by olear implication is ivrn the right to expend the road and bridge Sun8 in a proportion other than in the propor- tlon in which they are collected when the ooadl* tion8 of the roads in the ,respeotive preoinotn oreatee a ne6aclrity 50 to do. Ne think, however, c that t&e requirement to expand the fund in the proportion mentioned oannot be avoided exoept in oaaea’.or oanaitions of neoessity. Of course, tl)b 08tUai68IOnOr8 sourt ha8 tb*.right to axor- oi88 Ztti sound jaA&ment In dstsrmlning the ne- srrrsity; b,ut it banhot act arbitrarily in raw gard to such m&Lt%~.~ ALSO see Garland , 114 S, W. 28 302 d AtW’ Gen. 0~. ,,’ ” . Hon. Robert M. Allen, page 4 (V-1245) Seotion 6 of Article 7048a directs that tlu taxes collected for farmto-market and lateral road purposes ahall be expended so a6 to equitably aietrl- but6 benefits as nearly as possible to.the vararious preolncts in accordance with the taxable values there- Therefore in anawer to your first question ??our opinion’that Preoinot No. 3, would be entillLtto the amount of taxes collected therein for rarm-to- market, and lateral road purposes fP the comissionersf oourt in the exeroise of its discretion determinea that the need in Precinct No. 1 rquire? that taxes so ool- leoted be expended in the precinct, Passing to your aeoond question, Section ? of ‘&+ticle 70486 .provides for a $3,000.00 exemption ‘&m rsaidsntlal homaataade. In Attorney General’s Oplniwr V-1144 (19511, it,waa stated that *the $3,000 residence homestead exemption provided in Seotion l-a, Article VIII, Constitution of Texas, applies to such county taxes ss may be levied for farm-toGmarket roads or for rlood oontrol under eaid ,oonstitutional,proviaion, but not to other county taxes.*1 In other words, the exemption in Seotlcm l-a of Article VIII applies only to a valuation of $3,900 whioh is ,oonfined to oounty taxes levied for farm&o- market and lateral roads all other taxes for oounty purposes not being affeotea by the exemption. The M- uiwmont oontalned in Seotion 7 of Artiole 70466 18 8:he& ” all voters be qualitled property taxpaying voters of such county* You ask whether a voter whose only taxable proparty is a,homestead valued at less than $3,000,00 is a property taxpaying voter within the meaning’ of tha law. 1, Artiole 7046a V. 0. 15. (IL B, 107, Acts 51at Leg., R, $. X949, oh, 4&, p. 8491, is the enabling legiela- t&on vrhloh oarrisd into effect the provisions of the eosirtitutional amandlzient proposed by House Joint Rsao- lutlon 24, adopted id the 194g General Election, the name being Sention l-a of Article VIII of the Constitu- tiOA Or %3X68. Both provide a .$3,000.00 exemption. Eoa. EIobert M. Allen, page 5 (V-1245) There is no requlreumt that the taxen mWt be no tually ' paid, but 14 is onlf required that suah aw3 .itied electors cwn taxabl;erc erty whioh has beon ,,, ,o; taxation. e amt. Art. VT. Sea, xi&,&&, 95 S. W. ‘26 149 (Tex., Civ. Appgc *The point before us turna upon the quee- tion of’ whether or not property ha8 been ren- d8red for taxation, when it haa been placed u II the roll8 by the a8seosor under the pro- ‘cp”riooe ~ of law named, when the owner has ror any,onuse failei to make the list, swear to it and furnish it to the assessor. This is true because Art. 2955a above quoted, provides a8 a ‘requisite to toting in such eleotiona as the one before us thrlt only q,ualified voters who own property in the described distriot, who have~duiy rendered the same for taxation,shall participate. “If the assessnznt made by the assessor is a legal rendition in point of law, then , the s$rit of the statute hns been :;let and he should be allowed to vote, otherwise he should not . He believe t.!lut since either t?eeno of forming a basis for the enforcer,ient of the collection of the tax a,:air.rt the oT::ner ani his property ccoonpl~shed the ~-I,).‘:c. rr:;sult, th.e per- mi~ssion by the owner for tbc :‘:::st:eaor to :,,a!ce the esaeasnent as provided b;: lew, is er;i:i.va- Lent to a rendition by him, by neons of the statutory provisions first ;+ven. ‘#e therefore hold that so much CM the s1,stutnry provisions which prescribe ho.:; iroi,lerty shall. be renr!er%?d ,/- for t.exea~ by the 0’QW, by listin:, , sr!rerjrin,?: to it and furni.shin$:, to tile assessor, l.s i?ircc- tory; ,it; carrier with it no :?enulty for having + faSl& and provides another legal r:leans for % o6116otinp: the tax, %:j.,enhr, does fail. Ir (+.e ..: ere cor&ect in these oonoluslona, the oymer ha8 t,$uly .P&dered 1 his property for taxes when it is .,. .! .’ placed on the rolls by the assessor in a legal amao?, with the implied per!nisr.ion of the owner, t, prcierence to some other means provided.” . s00tt0n 3a or hti0aO VI, atw:twa 0r prorlder ,: when till 6iboti0~ 18 hda bl w aaPntl . . ..for the purporr of isro%ng bond8 or,ottb*c wise lending em&it, or rxpoadin~: money or assuming any debt, only qualfilied sf@Otoru who own taxable property in the . . . aouaQ? wh6re suob election is hald and who iak’duly ~randared the same for tdion, shall be quallfiad to vets . , ra Ths Collstitution Stsslt Wine, the qw*31sio& the Legi?Laturs ir without thaw ~*q&wnenk. (‘Per. C&Y. APP. 1932, , 127 Te+ 159, 299 5. W. 221 .I The question, then is narrowed to a de%or- /” ndnationof whsther SectIon $8 of Art1oY.s VT require@ that the voter own property whioh would bo aubjmb # the~tu irtpomd am a result of a faronbk rote at tg, elootion* ,Seot&on 3~ af Artlole VI preaorlbee geneml qadiflaattonr ror rottw fn kn rlwvtllon for “* Hrn, ma4pr “pao applloability of them ooartitutiona T qu& Wioattona tr not aeprndent upoa a dlroot lirbllitf of From these oases it is seen that the appli- cability of these constitutioml qualifica’tions ir not restricted to elections at which the question voted cm is the levying of a t&x on pro rty. Conversely wx) think the ConetLtutim dode no F rebtF’i6t the quailfled toters in an eleotion at which the qu&etion voted on is th& levying of a tax to those takpayers who would Lnour a llclbility for paymentof the ta+ The owner of a nridential h-stead valued at lass than &,OOO, while uwpteb rrom the paymeht or any tax @WW~ aa a msuZt l. .: . / Hon. Robert Ii. Allen, pegs 7 (V-1245) .,/ of thiselection is liable for other county te~es. #Ye are of the opinion that he “owns taxable property in the cowaty” within the meaning of Seation 3e of Article VI, The Constitution does not reouirs that the tax08 bs actually paid. It rsqalrcs only that the sleator own taxable nroperty which has been duly rsn- dared for taxation. -CamDb6il v. ‘Jr&h Public Utilities Car;,. v. Holland. snp~eendI%% voter owns property vrhich has been duly rcndcred for coUnty taxetian hc t:itititS the constitutional recrulrs- rmnt and is entitled to vote in an election to detcr- mine if a tax for farm-to-market and lateral roads ehould be levied. A county precinct wogl&, be sn- titled to the amount of taxes colleoted therein for farm-to-market and lateral, roads if the ooMmissionersl oourt, in tb,e exerolss of its sound discretion, deter- mines that the need for road improvor,ent in thrit ?er+.iciLLar precinct requires the sxncnditure of tha taxes collected there- A property owner whose only taxable property is a residential home- stead valued at less then $3,000.00 would be qualified to vote in an elec- tron to determine if a tax should be levied en-3 colltc ted i’or l'arm-to-marke t and letcrel ruads, ‘;‘oxas publio Utili- tics C~ry. v. Holland 123 S. ‘!!. 2d 102g vex. Civ. Ap2. error dism. ) ; Oaapbrll v. Wrisht, 95 9. 7!. 2d 149 (‘hx. Clr. App. 5936). i . .’