### EATTOMNEYGENERAL Q,P TEXAS

PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY GB.VER.u AUSTIN si.TExAe

November 20, 1951

opinion Ro. v-1349 vouncy irrcoruey Bale County Plsfnvier,Texas Re:

Dew sir:.

Your request for an r0110vs

t Authority of the commi8ai.onere~~

aourt to prorate special road tax proceeds among the comeisaioners I precincts. opiaFonreed8 in pert au

"1 have been requested by the CoplpiasionersCourt of Hale Count7 to,request an opiriion of the Attorney General to the folloviagquestion:

ty thbre va8 a levy of $0.15 on eech $100 valuationfor a special road tax under Chepter 4, Title 116 of,Vernon*sAnnotated Civil Statutes. There is no question 88 to the legelityof the special rosd ,tex. The Court 0180 levied,$0.03on each $100 veluotionfor the generel roed odd bridge fund. Under the budget it vos pro- ~videdthet tM texer collectedunder the ~apeclal

rosd tex vould be pafd into the road end bridge fund for each of the four Cowlssionera Prealucte in proportion

### to tha amount of taxes collectedtithio l ech Comiaaiouerb Precinct. “By rehsolution

of tha County Commisaionem Court et t&ir meeting held the 8th .ofOctober, 1951, it VBU provided that the taxer,

collectedunder the $0.15 per $100 velwtioa 

### :Sor the special row3 tu’ehould be divided epusllp among the
tour commissioners PrecinatsVithoutmgamaigtthe amounts collectedin eech

. The budget vae edoptedprovidlm’ dirt&m l

croordfag

to pnoinats.Hon. Joe L. Cox, page 2 (V-13&i) ~

. "QUESTfOBs Should the taxes collected under the 8818 levy~forthe special road tax he expended in each Cow1881onsrs Precinct in propbrtionto the amount or taxer collectedin 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., ao4lfledin Chspter 4, Td;;; 116 of the Revised Civil Ststutes oi 1925, pro- y : : *
"The coami~~l.one~ court shall 

### order so elect.$on

upon preaentatloato it at ngulw session of s petition signedw ray
two hundredqualttledvoters snd property tax payers 0r ths county, or a petition of Slftg persons so qusllflsd in a 10s~ aubdlvlsionor defined dlstrlc of T polltthe couky, requesting Bald court to order an electionto determinevhethsr said court shall levy upon the propertyvlthin arid territorya road tax not to exceed fifteen cents on the one hundreddollars vorth of propetiy,under the provlsiona of 

### the amendmentof 1889 to the Constitution of the State of Texas, adopted tn’ 1890. Said cowt msy act on auah petition ' without notlee, sod may mske ati order for such election,fixl~g the amount to be \1 levied,not to exaesd ilf'teen cents 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 "g voters of a portion of saj countf or 0 srg polltlca ,,"3 aubdlvlalonof snf county, to sald'court requestingthat suoh 

### po~lon of said county 

### or polltlosl 8ubdlvl8lOnl hsll be crarted
as a deilosdd%strict, ths said must ahal+ declsrr,

such tsmltory s Qe?l~ae# district and spmsd the order for 8sn upomths mlautes OS ssid courtp provided 

### tb petltloa aiorosaid shall deflns w met08 snd bounds tho terrltom desimd to k so incorporstod in rwh def%lpbd

district.”I

.

~on.~ Joe L. Cox, Page 3 (V-1349)

In construingthis provlslon it was held in Attorney Cenerel Opinion O-2091) (1940): '%le are of the opinion **that** the tax money levied and collectedfor the geaeral purpose of buildingend 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 County. Whether 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 discretionhed~:determlned that ths conditionof the rOBd8 juBti?ledsuch a dlvlBion.

In 3tOVBll V. Shivers, 129 28X. 256, iO3 S.W. 28 363 (1937), the court said that the. provisionsof Articie‘2351,

V.C.S., giving the comm~abionera4 court the povsr, among other things, to exercisegeMrB1 COUtrol over all roBd8, highva~s,Serrie ',end bridge8 in ths county contsmplated that all rOBd

2 end bridges of the county shouldbe q #intBlUed,repai$ed, sad Improved vhea necsaaary,as the aonditlonamight reQulre,regardleas of the Precinct in vhlch the road vere located. Ttle Court further SBld that 8lhgBtiO 4 BBttin& Out that the coamlBaionarat couti'hsdestsbllsh 8 a fixed policy of rohanically dlvid1ngthe road and sridge fund into four eQU#l part8 end allottl~ it to the iOUr pW2iUOt8 OS 

### the countf vithout ragard to ths conditionand Mods O? th8 ro#dB excluded the ideB OS the BXerCiBe Of SW, di#Cmtlon baaed upon a consideretion of nBceBBity sad, oond1tionsof the roads and bridges. However, under tl$e later 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 VBrlOUBplWCinCtS.' ,~, ~. ..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 discretiondetermines that the conditiono? the roads of the county ae e vhole juetiiha 8 divieion 8moag the vsriousprecinct8ia squel amounta,the division Is a proper one. The aecessitie8 of the road system of the county involve fact qq@stionsto be determinedby the commieeionere~ court, et&#; of courm, thlr oiiicb vould hrve no power to determluewhetherthe court had abuwd Its discretion la any particulrrc~eue.Since you heve not indiceted vhethe~,the

Comiea~onere~ Court of lisle County baeed ita order on e coneldentlon of theee coaditlone, w ara burrblr

to exprera en opinionaa to the propriety of the 

### prder.

Taxes collectedunder a levy of e epeetrlmed tex pursuetat to Alrtiele



### 6790, V.C.SL. 8r7 be expended for the tmetiruot160 sad msintenenceof roads in the county a8 the commlsaionera I court may deterI&WI In the exercise of Its aounildlecretton, breed ou a consideration of the oondttioa iad necessityof the roede oi the eaunty. Att'7 Gen. Op. O-2094 (1940). APPlmtD t

J. C. Davir, Jr. countyArreiraDivistoa
tverett Hutohlaeon Executive AIlsSstant ” Yours very truly, PiICB DANIEL Attorney Qenerel

Cha.rles

D. Methews Fiiyt Asslstent JR:wh John Reeves Assistant