OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 1 

GROVER SELLERS 

Xonorable H. L. Robarson 

County Attorney, Minkler County 

Kermit, Texas 

.t’\ 

\ i 

Dear Sir: Attention: W. T. Ralr 

n-J\ \ 

Opinion No. 04175 \ i. 

Re: In a -bond eleotion in ‘a~oUnty 

voting lacilidB..,wheraby a li*n f9 

created 09 thu. real dstate”@erein 

situdted, are bhe voters in such 

county,,quali.fleb to vote under 

Hrticlei2855a, Revised Civil 

Statutes fhaprender any kind oi 

/ 

,,..e.lgroperag fy taxation? 

, ‘\ i ‘-. 

We are, 1;’ r&ipt 

‘r, ‘x. 

Ot an o$inl.m~ request signed by 

Honorable if. T. H&iri~: imsisbant County’httorney of Winkler County, 

reading as ~10wa{~,‘,, ) js 

, “In .a bond’sle&foa J!l a county voting bonds 

whamby-a lien is OTeatsWon the real estate therein 

. eltuated;‘are.~the votwr21 in suah oounty qualified to 

vote under rrt’hcls 2955a, R. S. that render any kind 

of property r~or ‘taxtition, or does Article 2955b oontrol a&d’ in ordei to be qualified to vote such voters 

znusb, OWP, and.* render real estate tor taxation before 

they aan .vbte tn such election? 

‘i 

%bdII ( 2) page 1186, Border et al. Y. Abel1 

County Attorney. 

nSee;ns to lean to Article 2955a, R. 9. and 

disregard the validity of Artiole 2955b, R.S. However, since the validity of said ,rti’cle is not 

there definitely passed on and I cannot find any mse 

where the supreme Court h;ls ruled on sdd ‘zticle, and 

it appearing that there is some confllct between .\rticle 2955b, and section 3a, of isticle 6 of the oonstltutional provision adopted November 0th 1932, such 

section Ja, of .zticle 6, not specifying real estate, 

I am seeking an opinion from your ofrice. 
Honorsble H. L. iloberson, puge 2 

,779 

“Can Winkler County, Texas, vote bonds in 

the sum of Fifty thousand dollars, and with the 

proceeds derived from the sale of said bonds 

chase the surfaos right only to one hundred s Pxty ”’ 

aores of land and thereon establish a oounty park; 

the mineral riRhts o? said on8 hundred sixty aorss 

of laid being oested in an oil oompany who has the 

right of ingress, egress and regress to the surface 

of said one hundred sixty aores of land and who ha8 

the right to thereupon drill as many 011 wells as 

the epaoing rules will permit and by so doing destroy 

the oounty park Wlnkler County her established? Or 

is It not a hot that Winkler County must purohase 

the mineral rights as well as the surfaoe right berore Winkler County through its Commlsslonera Court 

can legally expend any tax or bond monlee oollected 

for the purpose of establishing or maintaining suoh 

county park? In other words will Winkler County have 

to own the one hundred sixty aores of land in fee 

simple from surfaoe to oenter of the earth in order 

to spend the tax money of Wlnkler County legally on 

suoh a pub110 venture? 

“This request Is very hurriedly made up as 

Hon. J. B. Salmon, County Judge of Winkler County, 

18 now in Austin and hss requested that we get an 

opinion from your office as soon as possible and 

he in te$szz will call at your oftiae for suoh opinion. 

Replying to your first question, you are advised that 

* this departzuant has ruled several tlaes thet HTticle 2955b is unconstitutional, for the reason that it limits qualified vot~era Zn 

%?m -wn7~ hrioa bu’ry renberea 

to the express language in $0 

roperty for taxation, contrary 

3e, of srtlcle 6 of the Constitution. In the case of Texas Publia Utilities Corporation v. Zolland, 

the Fort Worth Count of civil Appeals held that all persons who had 

paid their poll tax and who owned taxable property, either real or 

personal, were qualified to vote if their property was rendered by 

them personally or throuRh an agent or VISS assessed by the Tax Assessor if the property owner h:ad railed to render the property. 

;:e have been unable to find any case wherein the courte 

have passed upon your second question, but it is our opinion that 
;Ionor;rbre ii. L. noburson, page 3 

the County should have a fee simple title to the land. Qticle 

6078, as a .?ended by the 47th Legislature, Chapter 270, page 437, 

conta ins the t ollowlng language : 

“Said oourt shall have full power and control 

over any and all such parks and may levy an annual tsx 

eufrloient in their judgment to properly maintain euoh 

parks and build and oonstruot pavilions and suoh other 

buildings as they may deem neoessary, lay out and open 

driveways and walks, pave the same or any part thereof, 

set out trees and shrubbery, oonstruot ditohen or lakes, 

and make such other improvements as they may deem proper. 

Suoh parks shall remain open for the free use of the pub110 under suoh reascnable rules and regulations as said 

court nay presoribe.W 

The foregoing ie inconsistent with the right of an oil 

company to enter the park and OOnStrUOt suoh roads as it may find 

oonvenient and to drill 88 many 011 wells as the spacing rules will 

permit. The County should own all the rights pertaining to the 

land before It expends any tax money in providing a oounty park 

otherwise it could not exeroise Vu11 power and oontrol” over it. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

. 

C. F. Gibson 

ASSi St&ant