Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

                        AUSTXN.TEXAS

                         June 30, 1947

Hon. Vernon‘D. Adcock      Opinion No. V-282
County Attorney
Dawson.County              Re:   Authority of Dawson
Lamesa, Texas                    County to expend money
                                 for the pavement of a-
                                 reas upon the court-
                                 house yard and a relat-
                                 ed matter.
      .   .
D~earMr. Adcock:
          Your request for an opinion    of this   Depart-
ment is substantially as follows:
            *The Court House'in Lamesa is looated
      on a, block of land deeded to the bounty for
      the consideration  of $1.00 about the time
      the Original Town of Lamesa was platted and
      became the County Seat.    This Block of land
     .is.square and haswide streets    running on
      four sides of the Block.    These streets per-
      mit angle parking on both sides of the street.
      During Saturday's ,busy hours, it is difficult
      to find parking space within a block of this
      Court House Block.
           "It has been proposed that the City of
     Lamesa and Dawson County, jointly   finance
     the pavement of areas upon this..Court Yard.
     This area has heretofore   been kept in grass
     and trees and after it is paved, will be open
     to~the public as free parking space for cus-
     tomers of stores around the Court House square
     as well as for those who may have business in
     the Court House...
           "In the preparation of the budget for the
     current year, this was not one ofthe planned.ex-
     penditures.
           Way Dawson County legally  use this ground
     as parking space and expend County funds separ-
     ately, or jointly with the City, in paving the
                                                             :.
                                                             :
..’   ;



          Hon. Vernon D. Adcock,   Page 2    7-282


               same? If 90, what County fund, Court House &
               Jail;  or Road dc Bridge, oould be used for this
               purpose.”
                     Previously,  In conformity with your request by
          telegram, you were sdvlsed that former opinions of this
          Department authorized the County of Dawson to pay its pro-
          portionate  share of the proposed project,  provided it was
          properly budgeted.
                     Generally spesking, a County Commissloners~
           Court may exercise  only such authority as is oonferred
           by the Constitution  and statutes of this State.    (Art.
           V, Sec. 18, Tex. Constitution;   Art. 2351, V.C.S.;  11 Tax. .
           Jur. p. 563; Bland v. Orr, 39 S.W. (2d) 558; Dobaon v.
          ‘Marshall, 118 S.W. (2d) 621; and Howard v. Henderson
           County, 116 S.W. (2d) 479).
                    In an opinion numbered O-6146,     dated November
          13, 1944, this Department stated:
                      “With reference to your ‘quest ion regarding
               the paving of all the streets      around the Court
               House and the payment for such improvement. you
               are advised that it Is our opinion that *by vlr-
               tue of Artiole     1082, the County being the owner
               of the Court House property,     would under this
               Artiole,    have’ authority to defray its proportion-
               ate part of coats of street lmprovementa.~ It is
               our further opinion that the Commissioners* Court
               has the legal authority to pave and pay for any
               portion of the streets around the’court      House
               where such streeta constitute      a part of the Coun-
               ty road system, whether such streets      are a part
               of the Court House property or are owned by others
               than the County.*
                     In Opinion No. 2033, Report of Attorney Gen-
          era1 1918-1920, page 117, the A.ttorney General stated:
                      ” . . . I would therefore   adviae you
                that the County Coimisaioners     may . . .
                pay the entire cost of the pavements of
                such portions of the court     house square
                within an incorporated    town or city as
                are used for highway purposes.      . .*
                      In the case of Dodaon v. Marshall,   118 S.W.
           (2d)621,   Justice
                      - _-    Alexander, speaking for  the  Court,
      .    .




Hon. Vernon D. Adcock,     Page 3       V-282


            "The Constitution,    art. 5, sec. 18,
      Vernon's Ann. St; Const. art. 5 6 18,
      provides:   '* * * The county commission-
      ers so chosen, with the county judge, as
      presiding officer,    shall compose the Coun-
      ty Commissioners Court, which shall exer-
      cise such powers and jurisdiction      over
      all county business,     8s is conferred by
      this Constitution    and the laws of the.
      State, or as may be hereafter     prescribed.'
            n . . . The duty to provide a court-
      house includes the obligation      to furnish
      same with suitable     and necessary equip-
      ment. This is not limited to the bare
      necessities   for carrying on county bus-