Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. - THE ATTOWNEY GENERAL EXAS Honorable James E. Jeffrey Opinion No. C-302 County Attorney Taylor County I Rer Whether a county is Abilene, Texas authorized to expend county funds in coop- eration with the federal, state and city govein- ments to carry on a continuing comprehensive trsnsportation plan or survey to acquire approv- al for federal funds for the construction of highways in urban areas under the Federal Aid to Hi hways Act of .1962, ‘if (17 the survey Is made completely within ; the county, and (2’) the survey is carried on to some extent in an ad- Dear Mr. Jeffrey: joining county. You have requested the opinion of this off ice in regard to the above subject. Article 6663, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, vests control of the State Highway Department in the State Highway Commission and the State Highway Engineer. Article 6673, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, provides that the Commission Is responsible for the highways in Texas and that the counties are free from any cost, expense or supervision of .P’ such highways. Article 667h, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, defines’ certain terms that are used throughout Articles 6674a-6674n, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, by reciting: “The term ‘highway’ as used in this Act shall include any public road or thoroughfare or section thereof and any bridge, culvert or other necessary stru$ture appertaining thereto. The term I Improvement t Hon. James E. Jeffrey, page 2 (C-302) shall include construction, reconstruction or malnte- nance, or partial construction, reconstruction or maintenance and the term ‘Department’ refers to the State Highway Department. ” (Emphasis ours). You will note that the term “improvement” not only includes “construction, reconstruction or maintenance, or partial construction, reconstruction or maintenance,” but It also,includes “the making of all necessary plans and surveys preliminary thereto.” (&nphasls ours 17 Article 66746, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, governs improve- ment of the state’s highways with Federal aid. The aforesaid article states : commissioners’ court of any county unless and until the plans and specifications for said Improvement have been approved by the State Highway Engineer. n . . . It (Emphasis ours). The statute is divided into two categories of highway iSprovement, to-wit: improvement with Federal Aid and improve- ment without Federal Aid. In the instance of Federal Aid, the statute clearlv snecifles that such lmnrovement “shall be made under the exclusive and direct control of the State ssma~ly th; Leogi:‘$%“““u; ofe statute further states r that “surveys, plans, specifications and estimates for all furt ;her improvement” shall b “made and prepared by the State Highway Departmeniu. O%lD hasis o&s). In the i nstance of improvement “without Federal ---.~I Aid;” the statute’states that they may be made with or withou It county aid. The statute also states . ,.I Hon. James E. Jeffrey, page 3 (C-302) that when a county does participate, which would be in the case of improvement without Federal Aid, it must be with the approval of the State Highway Engineer. The role of a county, :in highway Improvement, is further limited by Article 6674q-4, Vernon's Civii Statutes, which recites: "All further improvement of said State Highway System shall be made under the exclusive and direct control of the State Highway Department and with appropriations made by the Legislature out of the State Highway Fund. Surveys, plans and specifica- tions and estimates for all further construction and improvement of said system shall be made, prepared and paid for by the State High y Depart- ment. No further improvement cf said stttem shall be made with the aid of or with any moneys furnished by the counties except the acquisition of right-of- ways which may be furnished by the counties, their subdivisions or defined road districts. But this shall in nowlse affect the carrying out of any binding contracts now existingbetween the State Highway Department and the Commissioners Court of any county, for such county, or for any defined road district. . . . "(a) e . . "(b) 0 e . "(c) . * -8' (Emphasis ours). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Bardin County, Texas v. Trunkline Gas Company, 311 F.2d 882 1963) 64 S DC0 49 cert. granted, 330 F.2d 789 (5th original judgment re-entered and reaffirmed, stated role of the commissioners court relative to highway improvement and contracts pertaining thereto, saying: "Basic Texas law dictates that in the absence of a statute authorizing some other agency to contract, the authority to contract on behalf of a county is vested in the Commissioners' Court. Anderson v. Wood, 137 Tex. 201, 152 S.W,2d 1084. The contractual authority of a Commissioners' Court is very limited and its limited nature is well stated in Canales v. Laughlin, 147 Tex, 169, 214 S.W.2d 451, as follows: 'The Constitution does not confer on the Commis- -Y44D- - ,, _. Hon. James E. Jeffrey, page 4 (C-302) .sioners Courts "general authority over the county business" and such courts can exercise only such powers as the Constitution Itself or the statutes have "specifically conferred upon them." See ,Mills County v. Lampasas County, 90 Tex. 603, 40 S.W. 403, 404; Anderson v. Wood, 137 Tex. 201, 203, 152 S.W.2d 1084, 1085. While the commis- sioners courtshave a broad discretion In exer- cising powers expressly conferred on them, nevertheless the legal basis for any action by any such court must be ultimately found in the . :. Constitution or the statutes.' "Thus, if neither the Constitution nor statutes emPower a Commissioners Court to make a particular contract, the contract is null and void.~ Nunn-Warren Pub11 hi C H t hi Ety, Tex.Clv.App., 45sS.?2d0&'j:; A:d:ic?? Dallas County, Tex.civ.ADD.. 167 S.W.2d 560; Baldwin v. Travis County-,-46 Tex.Civ.App; 149, 88 S.W. 480; and Dodson v. City of Del Rio, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 125. "Review of the Texas statutes relating to State highways manifests that a Texas county not only is not authorized to contract to expending count . The statutes and authorities the authority of a county is limited to acquiring right-of- way for a State highway." (Emphasis ours). The authority of a'county in re ard to the acqulsltion of rights-of-way is governed by Article 6873e-1, Vernon's Civil Statutes, which states: II . . . "The'various counties and cities aa hereby,authorized and directed to acauire sucn rlgnt of wa for such highways as are requested and au horized by the Texas Highway_ Department, as provided by existing laws, and In the event condemnation is necessary, the procedure shall be the same as that set out in Title 52,~ Articles 3264 to 3271, inclusive, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and amendments thereto. -144X- . Hon. James E. Jeffrey, page 5 (C-302) II . * * ' (Emphasis ours). An examination of the statutes and court decisions regarding highways reveals that the authority of a county is limited solely to acquiring right of way, pursuant to the request and authorization of the State Highway Department. The statutes clearly recite t hat "allUfurther improvement" with "Federal aid" shall be made "under the exclusive and direct That pertain to highway improvement and planning specifically exclude the counties, save-for their lim3ted roie in acquiring right of ways. Therefore, a county is not authorized to expend county funds to carry on a continuing comprehensive transportation plan or survey to acquire approval for federal funds for the construction of hi hways in urban areas under the Federal Aid to Highways Act of.19 8 2, either within or without the county. SUMMARY A county is not authorized to expend county funds in cooperation with the federal, state and city governments to carry on a continuing compre- ,hensive transportation plan or survey in order to acquire approval for federal funds for the construc- tion of highways in urban areas under the Federal Aid to Highways Act of 1962, either within or without the county. Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General Assistant RBJ:sj -144&- Hon. James E. Jeffrey, page 6 (C-302) APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Pat Bailey Gordon Cass Roger Tyler Sam Lane APPROVEDFOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Stanton ,Stone -1443- .