Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1975 )


Menu:
  • : TRE A~O~EY GENERAL OF TEXAS April 24, 1975 The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall Opinion No. H- 592 Hale’ Co\ulty Attorney Hale County Courthoure Re: Whether upon presenta- Plainview, Texas 79072 tion of a petition a county is required to call an election to invalidate bonds already authorized. Dear Mr. Marshall: You have requested our opinion regarding whether upon presenta- tion of a petition the Commissioners Court of a 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 to determine whether or not $l,OOO,OOO in bonds should be issued for the purpose of right-of-way improvements of the existing High- way No. 70 West from Plainview, Texas. The election resulted in defeat of the bonds by 70 votes. On July 1, 1974, the Commissioners Court ordered a second election to be held on August 6, 1974. That election carried by 166 votes. In an open meeting of the Commissioners Court on September 9, 1974, a petition was presented to the Commissioners Court containing approximately 500 signatures. That petition seeks a third election pre- sumably under Article 742b [sic], Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutee, to determine again the issue of $l,OOO,OOO in bonds. No bonds have been issued pur- want to the August 6. 1974 election. p. 2639 The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall, page 2 (H-592) Under the provisions of article 752b, V. T. C. S., the commissioners court of a county is required to order an election: [u]pon the petition of the resident property taxpaying voters of any county equivalent in number to one percent or more of the total votes cast in said county in the last preceding general election for Governor . . . to determine whether or not the bonds of such county shall be issued for the purpose of the construc- tion, maintenance and operation of macadamized, graveled, or paved roads and turnpikes, or in aid thereof, and whether or not taxes shall be levied on all taxable property of said county, subject to taxation, for the purpose aE.paying the interest on said 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 of a county may, by majority vote, order the election. Since article 752b is applicable to all elections “to determine whether or not the 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 not to include revocation elections within the scope of article 752b may be’inferred from the existence of article 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 of any 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 there- tofore voted but which have not at the time of ordering such election been sold and delivered ehall be revoked or canceled. The authority granted by this Act shall apply to unsold and undelivered bonds whether the same constitute all or only a portion of an issue. Such election shall be ordered, held, and conducted in the same form and manner and under the same procedure as that at which such bonds were originally authorized. . . . p. 2640 ; . - The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall, page 3 (H- 592) Article 717g clearly 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 of bond revocation elections, it is our opinion that article 717g provides the exclusive means by which previously authorized bonds may be revoked. Accordingly, a commissioners court is not required, upon presentation of a petition pursuant to article 752b, to call an election to invalidate previously authorized road bonds. SUMMARY A commissioners court is not required, upon presentation of a petition, to call an election for the purpose of invalidating previously authorized road bonds. Very truly yours. A?&& JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas APPROVED: k hcILLJ@ DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee p. 2641

Document Info

Docket Number: H-592

Judges: John Hill

Filed Date: 7/2/1975

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017