: 

## TRE A~O~EY GENERAL OF TEXAS

April 24, 1975 The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall Hale’ Co\ultyAttorney Hale County Courthoure Plainview, Texas 79072 Opinion No. H- 592 Re: Whether uponpresentation ofa petition a county is required tocall an election to invalidate bonds already authorized. Dear Mr. Marshall:

You have requested our opinion regarding whether uponpresentation ofa petition the Commissioners Court ofa county is required to call an election to invalidate previously authorized road bonds. You describe the situation as follows: On June 15, 1974, the Commissioners Court of Hale, County, Texas requested an election to be held in Hale County todetermine whether or not $l,OOO,OOOin bonds should be issued for the purpose ofright-of-way improvements of the existing Highway No. 70 West from Plainview, Texas. The election resulted in defeat ofthe bonds by 70votes. On July 1, 1974, the Commissioners Court ordered a second election to beheld onAugust 6, 1974. That election carried by 166votes. In an open meeting ofthe Commissioners Court onSeptember 9, 1974, a petition was presented to the Commissioners Court containing approximately 500 signatures. That petition seeks a third election presumably under Article 742b [sic], Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutee, to determine again the issue of $l,OOO,OOOin bonds. No bonds have been issued purwant to the August 6. 1974election.

p. 2639The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall, page 2 (H-592)

Under the provisions ofarticle 752b, V.T. C.S., the commissioners court of a county is required toorder an election:

[u]pon the petition of the resident property taxpaying voters ofany county equivalent in number to one percent or more ofthe total votes cast in said county in the last preceding general election for Governor

. . . to determine whether or notthe bonds of such county shall be issued for the purpose ofthe construction, maintenance and operation ofmacadamized, graveled, or paved roads and turnpikes, or in aid thereof, andwhether or nottaxes shall be levied on all taxable property of said county, subject to taxation, for the purpose aE.payingthe interest onsaid bonds and to provide a sinking fund for the redemption thereof at maturity.
. . . In lieu of the petition process described in this section the commissioners court ofa county may, by majority vote, order the election. Since article 752b is applicable to all elections “to determine whether or notthe bonds of such county shall be issued, ” ‘the statute could arguably be construed to apply to bond revocation elections. We believe, however, that a legislative intent notto include revocation elections within the scope of article 752bmay be’inferred from the existence ofarticle 717g, V. T. C.S., which provides a separate means for revoking previously authorized bonds:

Section 1. The Commissioners Court of any county and the governing body ofany incorporated city or town, including Home Rule Cities, are hereby empowered and authorized to order an election or elections for the purpose of determining whether the authortty to issue bonds theretofore voted butwhich have notat the time of ordering such election been sold and delivered ehall be revoked or canceled. The authority granted bythis Act shall apply tounsold andundelivered bonds whether the same constitute all or only a portion ofanissue. Such election shall be ordered, held, and conducted in the same form and manner andunder the same procedure as thatatwhich such bonds were originally authorized.
. . .

p. 2640; . -

The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall, page 3 (H- 592)

Article 717gclearly confers discretion upon the commissioners court as to whether to order a revocation election. Since article 752b is at best ambiguous regarding the inclusion therein ofbond revocation elections, it is our opinion that article 717gprovides the exclusive means bywhich previously authorized bonds may be revoked. Accordingly, a commissioners court is not required, upon presentation ofapetition pursuant to article 752b, to call an election to invalidate previously authorized road bonds. SUMMARY A commissioners court is not required, upon presentation ofa petition, tocall an election for the purpose ofinvalidating previously authorized road bonds.

APPROVED: Very truly yours.

k A?&&

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas

hcILLJ@ DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 2641