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. 

opiaFon reed8 in pert au 

"1 have been requested by the Coplpiasioners 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*s Annotated Civil Statutes. There is no question 

88 to the legelity of the special rosd 

,tex. The Court 0180 levied,$0.03 on each 

$100 veluotion for the generel roed odd 

bridge fund. Under the budget it vos pro- 

~vided thet tM texer collected under 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 collected tithio l ech 

Comiaaiouerb Precinct. 

“By rehsolution of tha County Commisaionem 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 :Sor the special row3 

tu’ehould be divided epusllp among the 

tour commissioners Precinats Vithout mgamaigtthe amounts collected in eech 

. The budget vae edopted providlm’ dirt&m l croordfag to pnoinats. 
Hon. Joe L. Cox, page 2 (V-13&i) ~ 

. 

"QUESTfOBs Should the taxes collected under the 8818 levy ~for the 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.$on upon preaentatloa to it at 

ngulw session of s petition signed w 

ray 

two hundred qualttled voters snd property 

tax payers 0r ths county, or a petition 

of Slftg persons so qusllflsd in a 

10s~ aubdlvlsion or defined dlstrlc T of 

polltthe couky, requesting Bald court to order 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 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- 

. Upon 8 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 

aubdlvlalon of snf county, to sald'court 

requesting that suoh po~lon of said county 

or polltlosl 8ubdlvl8lOn l hsll 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 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 construing this provlslon it was held in 

Attorney Cenerel Opinion O-2091) (1940): 

'%le are of the opinion that the tax 

money levied and collected for the geaeral 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 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 

srbltrsrilp vithout 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~abionera4 court 

the povsr, among other things, to exercise geMrB1 COUtrol over all roBd8, highva~s, Serrie ', end bridge8 in 

ths county contsmplated that all rOBd 2 end bridges of 

the county should be q #intBlUed, repai$ed, sad Improved 

vhea necsaaary, as the aonditlona might reQulre, regardleas of the Precinct in vhlch the road vere located. 

Ttle Court further SBld that 8lhgBtiO 4 BBttin& Out that 

the coamlBaionarat couti'hsd estsbllsh 8 a fixed policy 

of rohanically dlvid1ng the road and s ridge 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 consideretion of nBceBBity sad, 

oond1tions of 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 

VBrlOUB plWCinCtS.' ,~, ~. ..I.,. .~ ..~ ,.‘., 

:.. 

‘ 
xon. Joe L. cox, pege 4 W-1349) 

We think the conclusion to 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 juetiiha 8 divieion 8moag the vsrious precinct8 ia squel 

amounta, the division Is a proper one. The aecessitie8 of the road system of the county involve fact 

qq@stions to be determined by the commieeionere~ court, 

et&#; of courm, thlr oiiicb vould hrve no power to 

determlue whether the court had abuwd Its discretion 

la any particulrr c~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 opinion aa to the propriety 

of the prder. 

Taxes collected under a levy of e 

epeetrl med tex pursuetat to Alrtiele 6790, 

V.C.SL. 8r7 be expended for the tmetiruot160 sad msintenence of roads in the county a8 the commlsaionera I court may deterI&WI In the exercise of Its aounil dlecretton, breed ou a consideration of the oondttioa iad necessity of the roede oi the 

eaunty. Att'7 Gen. Op. O-2094 (1940). 

APPlmtD t 

J. C. Davir, Jr. 

county Arreira Divistoa 

tverett Hutohlaeon 

Executive AIlsSstant ” 

Yours very truly, 

PiICB DANIEL 

Attorney Qenerel 

Cha.rles D. Methews 

Fiiyt Asslstent 

JR:wh 

John Reeves 

Assistant