plan. i3em Do11mh1t. O~ia~ioaNo, V-230
County Attorney
FaUs County Re 8 Under ooaletltut Ional
Warllrz, Texas ataendment of Article
IS, ,Sec. 9, knowa as
4i eal.Xooation of Cowty
Fun&~ Aaandmitnt," may
t&me warraants be lamed
to matwe mm thaa six
years from the date of
realLocation election,
and related quest loan.
rum sir:
Your reqmet for en opialoa from thlh Department on
th6 above eubjrct matter is 618 follous:
‘At ‘the reqtiet of the Commissloners~
Court of B&I.&.*County, I reslpwtfully re-
qwst your‘bfPiela1 ,opinion on the quef5tiona
~#5ieh are hersWafter stated.
‘Actin
pursuetat to the 1944 epvlmlment
to g of Artlck
*aticm Vlfk of the Coastitu-
tics) of Te2a.s, an eLeot%on uas held la Falls
County aa ths 5th day of November, 1946 to
ree15acete county taxes autborieed bg thet
section. 11~this re-allocation, the first
15p road anhi Brl&ge tax was lacreased to 354.
“Durihg tbe u&r years, the county wee
unable prciporly to taaintmin ‘the county roads
and.+0 make lmprooemente which are badly
need&d., The aoqt ,ot laeklitg necsssmy rd-
pairs aad impr&*eaeots to the 6ouaty roNa
la substantially more thaan the antlclpated
iaoome of the county for foad ead bridge PW-
poses duritkj~ the wmmt year. The Oomits-
Hon. Sem Dollahlte - p8ge 2
sloaera’ Court, therefore, desires to Isrue
time warrants for the purohase of necessary
road machinery and materials and to pay
labor bilLa for coastruotU&g a@ making
capital repairs to various soUty reads 8nd
bridges.
“The former 154 ZImItatlon on road and
bridge taxes has beea removed by the real-
location election a,nd the county has the
right to levy a 354 tax for thle purpose for
8 period of six p&rs from the date of the
election,
“The f Irst quest ion upam.Which Ve vauld
llke to hare your valued opiaioa Is: My
the Cotmisslomers‘ Court of Palls County
Issue road end bridge tQne warrants under
the terms of the Bond and arrant Law of
1931 aad levy e tax of not to exceed 35# on
the $100 valwtlos for a period of six years
from the date of said revallocation ehctioa,
provided that the remaining Income to the
county for road Pnd bridge purposes Vi11 be
sufficient to pay other reasonably entlcl-
peted nornvll e%petwes of maintaining the
oounty roads?
“The second question iaa My such Var-
rants be issued to mture beyond mid sir
year period provided the total debt service
requiresmnts for said Varrantr, together
with debt aerVic6 requIr6matd cm 411 other
road and bridge Indebtedness, ~I.11 no6 be
more than can ‘be wrviced Oroar a 3% tax on
&rid after the end of ruoh al% ywr perlaffl?
“If your AnsVer to the fI&st pusstion
is In the negstioe, then: #iat rate of tax
mey be levied Wring such six year period
for the purpose of ,poyIng prinolpel end la-
terest on road and bridge time Verrants?”
Article VIII, Section 9, of the Constitution of
the State of Texas, es emended Blovember, 1944, provides as
f ollowa r
“The State tax on property, exclualve
,f the tax necessary to pay the public debt,
. .
Hon. 3am Dollahite - Page 3
and of the taxes provided fqr ,the. benefit of
the public free schools,~ a,hall never exceed
thirty-Siva (351, ce’nts,, ‘on the, one ‘hundred
dollars valuation; and no ‘oeunty, city or
town sha,ll levy more than twenty-five (25)
cents for city or county purposes, and not
exceeding fifteen (15) cents for roads and
bridges, and not exceeding fifteen (15) cents
to pay jurora, on the one hundred dollars
valuation, except for the payment of debts
incurred prior to the adoption of the Amend-
ment September 25, 1883; and far the erection
of public buildings, streets, sewers, water-
works and other permanent improvements, not
to exceed twent,y-fire (25) cents on the one
hundred dollars valuation, la any one year,
and except as la In this Constitution other-
wise provided; provided, however, that the
Commissioners Court in any county meg re-
allocate the foregoing county taxes, by chang-
ing the rates provided for any of the fore-
going purposes by either increasing or de-
creasing the same, but in no event shall the
total of said foregoing county taxes exceed
eighty (80) cents on the one hundred dollars
valuation, In any one year; provided further,
that before the said Commissioners Court nag
make such re-allocations and changes in said
county taxes that the same shall be submitted
to the qualified property tax paying voters
of such county at a general or -special elec-
tion, and shall be approved by a majority of
the qualified property tax paying voters,
votln$ in such election; and, provided fur-,
ther, that if ,and when such re-allocations **
and changea in the aforesaid county taxes
have been approved by the qualified property
tax paging voters of any county, as herein
pr6vided, such re-allocat ions and changes
shall r main in force and effect for a period
of six ‘i 6) years frora the date of the election
at which the same shall be approved, unless
af
em
Hon. Sam Dollshite - Page 4
tax to be levied and collected for the fur-
ther mslntenance of the pqbllo roads; provided,
that a ‘kmjorltJr oe the ~quelified property tax-
peying wtera of fiie obuhty toting at an elec-
tion to be held for that pIlrpose shall vote
such tax, not to exoeed fU’teen (15) cents on
the one hundred dollars valuation of the pro-
perty subject to taxation in such oounty, And
the Legislature naay pass local laws for the
malntensnoe of the public roads and highways,
without the local notice required for special
or local lava 0 This section shall not be con-
strued as a limits..tion of powers delegated to
counties, clties,~ or tovns bJr any other section
or sections of this Constitution.” (Estphasis
onrs )
In construing the aboye constitutional amendment
in connection with a similar question to the one now before
us, It was held in our Opinion Ho. O-6863, a copy of which
Is enclosed, that the county could issue bonds to mature
more than six years from the date of reallocation election
provided that the bond5 could be serviced with its increase
in tax assessment for such six-year period and the old con-
stitutional limit of 15q! thereafter. Opinion NO. 6863
based Its conclusions on the fact that”gf the people of the
county voted the bond Issue, the Increased tax assessment
would beoome obllgated for a six-year period from the date
of the reallocation election and the county would not be
authorized to decrease the levy sinoe such an act would be
an infringement of the contract.
The question now ,.bePore us is whether or not the
holding in Opinion lo. O-6863 IS sppliosble to the Issuance
of time warmnts. Time warrents are issued by the Commis-
sioners 1 Court, whenss bonds are only issued upon a vote of
the property tax paying toters of the oounty. In other words,
when bonds are issued, the increased tax assessment becomes
obligated by the property tax. paying voters of the county, but
when time warrants are issued, the inoreased tax assessment
becomes obligated by the Commissioners I Court.
We are therefore oonfrontkd with the case of San
Seba v. MoCraw, 108 3.W. (2d) 200, wherein the Supreme Court
held 3.B. 303, Acts of the 45th Legislature (an Act author-
izing the Commissioners I Court on its own motion and wFthout
a vote of the property tax paying voters to issue fur&ding
bonds) unconstitutional. We quote the following from the
Hon. Sam bollahlto - Page 5
above mentioned case:
“In the 'cass at, baa? ths’~u&fi6d~ tax-
paying voters"of Saii Saba Counfy'voted under
a law't&,t sec,ured to theaIthe right~to vote
off'snch~.,tax,'in .two: ears, iqd, .furtheri, such
: voters v*$$~,,titider. a, la'w that guaranteed to
them ~that~the,,proa,~eds'of such tax could never
be charged %Gth.a'bond issue. This law was
psssed for:the purpose M'putting Into effect
th3.oonstlfutSonal provision authorizing such
tax* Acw, after such tax 13 votsd,,the Legis-
lature, without the oonluat~ of the voters, has
attempted to impair and destroy their rights
existing at ths ,tbsu of the vote, To our nluds
sush~a lsgisl4thve ,act .not ,oaly violates the
wry omstltt~tlonal prorisioa euthorlalng the
tax to bs voted, but violatee., sdction 16 .of
artic3m 1 of mzr ',Stats Conatl~t~utZon~‘a~w,elY..
David vr Tinam, aupra.'! (Und&r~scoriag ours)
It will be note,& that the foreping case based its
eotaolasloa ou the faot that t#mprsperty tax paying voters
of &I Saba voted u#er a law' that seamad to them the right
to vbte off sudh tuE in two years a&d, therefore, the Legis-
lsture aould not destroy their rights existing at the tims of
ths vote. !Phsrefore, if Bsct.+ab 9 of Article VIII guaranteeis
to the property tax paylag voters the righk to vote off a tax
%evldQ under the realilocltion elsation within ths sl%-year
period, the Coamibsionars* Court would not be authorized to
fsstn~‘tlme warrant.5 olkae tha realJ,ocatien MS been made under
the amsndnent . It ,Ss our cplnioa, however, tbat voters do not
have the inhsrent right to vote off the reallocation prior to
the end of the s;ua-yemr term becwse only the Cosmlssloners~
Cart “is outt&mita& to call an electlon for the re4llacatlon
of fnnds under .%a$tX amendment. Oaae the ~Gomslssloaers~ Court
has isstid,~.~timf warEants that are to be servloed out of the .
tal a~sses&m?tif lev:i@d ‘under, the re415ooation elsction, the
Oo~iaaimlzcr~s”:~Co~~t~~could not, ca’ll fan election within the
sis-year @eriad~t~o~rlecmase such taxes, for such ae action
wauLd ~itm3tltqte *a’iira~inagsmat of the county's contract. Fur-
thermore, It Qias held’ ‘in the cass of Patton v. Concho Couoty,
196 3.v. 2i¶ 833, the;t the iountr could purchase road machinery
admrt l,a+%g ioP bida, i?%iacs ths above rantioned oaae ./ ”
,~subs#qwnt to the cotmtitutib& am?ndsmt, the
vto rejogaiee that the co*ty has the power to ls-
, rtin t.s’,,y&r said, slacndsmtot.
TherefoBs, it is the opinion of this’ Department that
. _ ....
the Commlssloners~ Coupt of Falls County Is authorized to
issue Road and Bridge tlmt PlaW+Qts to atwe dwing a six-
year period fraa the &at,@ of tha maJ&aatfon uLktioa,
provided the tfae V~rrantsj slkmg with the other iabsbted-
nass, can b4 04rvia4iU nithia Its ‘Sna~rsslsed tait aa)sm#wxmt
far a six-year period fmm ma data as the ru44bocstm
election.
Xn ammr to yattr amand questiod, it ia gur
opiniwa that the Gommis~iowrst’ Court is authmiled to Is-
sue time varrantrr to m&ttee beyosd q&d six-3~s~ period pro-
vide& c#eid tL$r)i wn~ptiPt0 c.8~ be uemlced Y Ithid its itmeased
tax asaessmant far swab six-par mvtab and the old ccmsti-
tut1etmll 3laait af &5# th8Peafter.
UMer the enmQfWnO to Seu. 9 of Prt. VIIX,
IUWD. i%s the “M&location of ~Cousty punas bmad-
afmt , ‘# the Oomraissionsrs~ Goupt, of Fall3 Co~uaty
ia &utbori$ed to ilksm, roaol aad bridge tim U#P*
rants to ~~twira bsyand thr ,sl%-jtm period frOra
tk& &tc of thS reaLb%WiaR e14ctiOI1, provided
the t i43 warrant@, etosg with t&a other itwbted-
ubda, esta be serviced within the increarad tax
assessment for a six-year’ perled from the date of
the reallocation elsetim and WJ old amiatltu-
tiotml limit of 1% the,re*fter n
ATTORIWX~NERtit OF TX&S
dR:&jXl
lpUClO0UFS
APPROVED:
This opi~loa has been
considered and apP%WWU
15 limited asafsreaoe,