Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

November 5, 1956 Hon. Hubert W. Green, Jr. Opinion No. S-219 Criminal District Attorney Bexar County Re: Transfer 'of Road District San Antonio, Texas bond proceeds from a farm- to-market allocation to a state and federal right-of- Dear Sir: way allocation. your request for an opinion eonthe following question has been received by this office. We quote from your letter of October 12, 1956, at3follows:. "Our County Road Engineer has requested that we obtain from you an opinion as to whether or not the sum of $40,000.00, the proceeds of a bond issue, can be transferred from the bal- ance of a $203,000.00allocation for farm-to- market roads and ,highuaysto a depleted fund allocated for the:purpose of acquiring rights- of-way for new ,and,existing state and federal highways within Road District No. 1 of Bexar County, Texaa."~:, The order entered by the Commissioners Court of Bexar County on August 28, 1953, the same:day on which the road bond elec- tion; under~Section 52 of Article 3, of the Constitution, for Road District No. 1, was ordered, 'and uhich set out certain particulars in connection with the expenditure of the bond funds in the event they were approved, controls the use of the proceeds of the bond issue.~~Black v. Strennth, 112 Tex. 188, 246 SLW. 79; Mosel v. R.eal,4qS.W.2d 475 (Tex.Civ.App., 1932), writ refused; Sterrett v,,. Bell, 240 S.W. 2d 516 (Tex.CLv.App., 1951), no writ history. Sections (2) (a), (2) (b), and, (2) (c) designate the pur oses for which the bond,proceeds are to'be used.' Sections (3P (a), !z;Lb) 9 and (3)(c) allocate $1,6GG,OOO.O0 of such funds as fol- : Approximately $1,107,GOO.O0 for the acquiring of rights- of-way for new or existing,.stateand federal highways; approxi- mately $2O3,OOO.OO for the acquiring of rights-of-nay for new or existing farm-to-market roads or highways; and approxi- mately $2gO,OOO.O0 to be contributed to the State Highway Hon. Hubert W. Green, Jr., page 2 (S-219) Commission to assist in the construction or reconstruction of new farm-to-market highways or roads. Sections (3)(a), (3)(b), and (3)(c) are followed imme~dlatelyby two paragraphs which fur- ther define the duties of the commissionerst court in connection with these expenditures, The ,first of these-two paragraphs pro- vides that none of the purposes above set out shall have priority over the others, and ,thenext paragraph reads as follows: "If this Courtfinds that It is not neces- sary or desir,ableto use any of the funds above allocated for the purposes for which such funds are.allocated, such funds may be used for any of the other purposes herein- above set forth; but none of such funds shall ever be used for any project which is not,con- sistent with the overall long term planning of the,State Highway Department for state and federal highways and farm-to-market highways or roads." ~, It is the opinion of thi,soffice that the paragraph last quoted above reeerves limited discretion in the Commissioners' Court of Bexar County in the expenditure,of the funds allocated,under Section (3) of said order. If the commissioners1 court finds that it is no longer necessary or desirable to use any of the funds allocated for any one of the purposes set out, it may use such funds for one or both of the other purposes as long as, such use is "consistent with the overall long term planning of the State Highway Department for state 8nd federal highways and farm-to-market highways or roads." Murray v. Wilkinson,'32 S.W. 2d 863 (Tex.Civ.App., 1930),no writ hlstory; v. Mitchell, et al.,~116 Tex. 378, 292 S.W. 1 1927),adopted. It is further significant that this reservation of authority ,in the Commissioners' Court was'not provided in connection with the expenditure of the remaining $350,,000,00of such funds. This opinion has no application to farm-to market highway moneys derived from the taxes levied and colle~ctedpursuant to Section la of Article VIII of the Constitution of Texasand Artlole 704&a of Vernon's Civil Statutes, because such moneys can not be used for the acquisition of rights-of-way for State designated hlgh- ways, but can only be used for the construction of a public road Hon. Hubert W. Green, Jr., page 3(S-219) of the county leading either directly or indirectly from a farm to market. Attorney General's .Opinlonv-1169 (1951). SUMMARY The commissioners~ court may transfer Road District bond proceeds voted under Section 52, of Article 3, of the Constitution of Texas, from a farm-to-market allocation to an alloca- tion for acquiring rights-of-way for state and federal highways as provided by the wording of the order of allocation passed on the same day as, and supplementing, the order of election. Yours very truly, APPROVED: JOHN BEN SHEPPERD Attorney General Elbert M. Morrow Bond Divi,sion~ John Reeves Reviewer Assistant W. V. Geppert Reviewer L. W. Gray Special Reviewer Davis -Grant First Assistant John Ben Shepperd Attorney General