Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1940 )


Menu:
  • -   -
    Honorable S. L. West
    County Auditor
    Van Zandt County
    Canton, Texas
    Dear Sir:              Opinion Number Q-2860
    Re: Can the Commissioners' Court do
    the proposed work without the
    aid of WPA?
    Your request for an opinion on the following question
    has been received by thi8 office and we quote from your letter
    as follows:
    "I am enclosing transcript of bond Issue for
    Road Dlstrlct #7, Van Zandt County, Texas. The
    State Permanent School Fund now holds these bonds,
    and no amount of the proceed,8ha8 been spent ex-
    cept $1,000 for cost of proceedings.
    "It was origlnallg planned to do this work with
    the aid of the Work Projects Administration. The
    Commissioners' Court having 8tUdled the situation
    believes that under present regulations it would
    be to the best Interest of the taxpayers of Road
    District #7, to do the proposed work without the
    aid of the Work Projects Administration.
    "Can the Commissioners' Court do the proposed
    work lawfully without the aid of WPA? We would
    Era;;;eaTpreciate your opinion at the very earll-
    .
    We note from the bond transcript 8Ubmitted with this
    request that the proposition voted on by the qualified voters
    of said Road Dq.strtct#7, and contained in the order of eleC-
    tion and the notice of election, reads as follows:
    "Whether or not the bonds of said road district
    shall be issued in the amount of One Hundred Thou-
    sand ($100,000) Dollars, bearing interest at the
    rate of not to exceed four (4s) per cent per annum,
    payable semi-annually, and meturing at such-times
    as may be flxed by the Commissioners' Court, serial-
    Honorable S. L. West, page #2         O-2860
    ly or otherwise in not to-',
    exceed twenty-five (25)
    years from the date thereof, for the purpose-'ofthe
    cbnstrmction, maintenance and operation of macadam-
    ized, graveled or paved roads and turnpikes; or In
    a'idthereof;throughout~ Road District Ro. 7, of Van
    Zandt'County, Texas,.'andwhether or 'not taxes shall
    ‘be’levied on all taxable property Fn Road District
    No. 7 sufficient to pay the interest on said bonds
    and to provide a sinking fund sufficient to redeem
    said bond8 at their maturity."
    We do not find anything ln the electlon order and
    notice of election in the transcript submittedto this depart-
    ment that Would prevent the Commissioners' Court from Bpend-
    tng the proceeds of said Fssue of bonds for the purpose of
    the construction, maintenance and operation of macademlzed,
    graveled or paved roads and turnpikes, or in aid thereof, In
    Rbad District 87 of Van Zandt County, Texas, without the aid
    of the WPA.
    However, we,call your attention to the fact that lf
    the Commissioners' Court passed any official order prior to
    the electionstating that said bonds would not be issued or-~
    that the proceeds thereof would not be used unless a PWA grant
    was secured, then said money cannot be used without said grant.
    The authorities seem to hold that the approval by the electors
    of the proposed bond issue wFth whatever terms and conditions
    thatthe governing body imposes thereon previous to the elec-
    tion, creates a status analogous to a contractual relation.
    In construing an order passed by the Commissioners' Court
    prior to a county-wide bondelection the Supreme Court of
    Texas, in the case of Black, et al., v. Strength, et al., 
    246 S.W. 79
    , said:
    "The order would not have been made save
    with a view to its being relied on by the voters.
    With the bond issue authorized by votes cast In
    reliance on the order, as mUBt be assumed, It
    could not be arbitrarily ignored or repudiated
    without involving the perpetration of fraud or
    Its equivalent on the voters.
    "Under these circumstances, the order was,
    In effect, a contract with the people, ant good
    faith required that the contract be kept.
    Any rule would tend to undermine publtc confidence in the acts
    of public offlcers.~ See also Golden Gate Bridge and Hlghway~
    DistrXct vs. Fllmer, 21 Pac. (2d) 112; Perry vs. Los Angeles,
    
    203 P. 992
    Honorable S. L. West, page #3          O-2860
    It is our opinion that the bond money may be lawfully
    used without the aid of WPA, unless the commissioners' Court
    passed an order prior to the election stating that 8aid money
    Would not be UBed unless a FWA grant was secured.
    Very truly yours
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    By s/Claud 0. Boothman
    Claud 0. Boothinan
    Assistant
    COB-S-WC
    APPROm   NOV '4, 1940
    s/Gerald C. Maiin
    Attorney General of Texas
    Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman
    

Document Info

Docket Number: O-2860

Judges: Gerald Mann

Filed Date: 7/2/1940

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017