Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN iionorable ffellellcaraoron County Auditor iiopkim iiouuty iiulphur ;iyticja, Tarn8 i;rar sir: turar or th Your latter or reoent~ tnls Qapartcaent o n th a lbo ta rr05 the i.ka ror you to of thi8 lleotlon on (I 42r the cod8alon~re* :~ ports An the other tar.0 levy bo nrade on ell proparty ty lr it bo made at 012~ r4f0rma to In your rspueat wea a oounty- rlzlnc tke Commlrrloourr* Court to levy, annually a lpoolal road tax of en6 at the mn oat8 on the ~.lOO.OO val.wtlon or talablr property in the oounty. “:lO COblit)‘, city or tow0 shell lsvy nor4 than twenty-five oarrtm for city or county jmrpoeea, and not oxoe~dlng firtam oats for roads a~6 brl&e,s, . and the Lojielature mey aleo authorize en ed- ii~ionel enuuel ea v~Jor6m tax to 06 1avIod end oolleoted for the further ndutenanos of pub110 roaC6: movldoa, that a akejorlty or tha quelif14d propdrty tax pay* vot4ra or tn6 oouuty votinc; et en olootioll to bo hrrld for thet yuQO66 shell vote 6UOh teX, LLOt t0 6XOO6d fiftO6n 06LIt6 Ou t&6 On4 hwidred dolhrr Valw,tiOn Or the .propurty +bJeot to taxetlon in suoh OOunty. And th6 L6&61atq'e'mey pee6 looel law6 for th4 melntonenoa or thu:gub&lo rceda end highways, without ths 10061 kotloe r+ ~ulrrd ror nyvolul ok 10061 leaa.* titIol6 6750, Vurnon’6 .AUnotatcrd Civil Lit6tUt66, Is in prt a6 rOihY6: I "Th6 QOGLIi66iOIMIr6' court ahell ardor an 614atIon upon jzaaentatlor! to It at azy mylar waaion or 6 petition al&k66 by two hunar66 GU6iiriaa votsra ana prop6rty tix payura 0r+th6 oounty, or a-petltlon of rifty parson6 60 ~uSiifi6d in any pOlIt:oal lubdlvlaion or ddin6d dlatirlot of‘the oouuty, requ6atin& aaid oourt to Ol'd6r 6~ 616OtiOfi t0 d6t6X'J&l6 Whethal' 66id OOlLrt ahell l6Vy upor th6 prOp4rty within 66id t6rritOry a,.rOQd teX not to 6xoeea fift66u oonta on the Oil6 huudrctd_.~ dollar8 worth of property, under the provfaIona of the emmd- tami of 1889 to the Omatitutlon or tka sate or Tuxaa, edoptsd in 1890... . .* Iu th6 oe66 of ComiIaaIon6r6g COurt of mivarro County at 61 v. Ylnkaton at al, 295 ii. E. 271 (writ rsluead), the court es COn6trUing th6 above QUOt46 OCmSt~tUt~On6l ant st6tUtCq provlalono atetea tho followingr ' "3y ttm abovurithe LeCislrturo is only 6z``ewd to authorize en additional ed ValOr6n: tex to bb lOVia for tha purpose or mintalntng yublio roads by e majority vote or the Curried pxoporty tax peyI4j vot4r6 0r the oounty for the purpose 0r aalntelnlne . cublic roads of the oouoty. acd mt of 6np subdlvleion vi6ea ior by any oth6r vista-tiin that or the ontin county end not for local but for county-wl6c puqonea, and protrlbite ouoh tax 60 6UthOriE6d rron 6XO66ding 15 oonta on the +lOO valuation of thr ;rop$ty subjcot to taxation In the oounty. . . ,Y.~ ._ * .*I& art1019 only a6el6 with and oonr4ra authorit; under aortein DrOe66akmS racuired to ba tensnor tax . . .* (&xphaaIi ours] 'i'h6refor6, It la our ,op&nlon that the C~aeIonerat court I not authorizvd to a#cS e 14V3’ UAd4r th6 t6lW6 Of th6 616CtiOXl :Z:tr aonalUaretlonon proparty aItuat4d wlthln one prroInct end It on property altuat66 within th4 other preolnota, but on the Jntrery the levy Nat b6 Md4 on 4u prOpOrt Within the 4Atir6 unty If it 54 3ecla at all. Yours v4r$ -truly, (p. CGh&,p , J. C. i)61rie0 Jr. ra~latant .:bw1ia (Y J&to r(aovo6