Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Bonorrbls Oeargr P. Huaron County Attorney Jonea Count7 Anron, Tex~r Dear Sir: a6 follows In thI6 money6 3aId Into 6Sia fund 6hall be expended In eaoh wcclnot aocorllng to the amount collected from epch zreclnct unle66 In the 6OUnd dlecretlon of the oourt 6 neceesIty 6XiEt6 to extend said , fund In another woportI.zn due to oondltlonr of rO&d6 In the VarIoua precinotr. The court Is In queetion a6 to what 16 meant by 'neceeslty' and whet letltude they are allowed In exeroltlng their Judgment.' . *f; Ronorablo Oeorge P. Ituaron, pagr 2 From our underrtrnd~ng of the faotr II rtatba In your letter, the fecr derIVea from automobile reglrtratlonr in Jon86 County are now being alvldea ma dietrlbutrd to thr roveral prooInot6 In thr proportIon mentloned by you. Eaoh oommirrIon6r then ependr the amount allooatrd to his orsolnot -withIn thr bounderlee of 6uoh pr6OinOt. After providing that th6 automobile rrglrtration fee6 whioh the oounty 16 permitted to retsln rhall be plaoed to the ore&It of the Road and BrI4$e tLna of the oounty, Seo- tlon 10 of Art1016 6675a, prerorlber the di8206itiXi of u gortlop cf the Road 6nd Bridge Fund 8.6 follow6 : (I* * l None of th6 monlcs so place3 to the oredlt of the Roe.d and Bridge Fund of I County rhrll be wed to pay the relary or com- pensatlon of any County Judae or County Coami6- slomr, but @ll-sold abnlcs-rhrll be used for the oonstructlon and nalntenanae -?I Latera road6 In 6u.ch oountr under th6 rupervI6:~n of the County Engineer, If there be one and If thers I6 no 6uch engineer, then the Eounty CommI66Ionsr6~ Court rhall have authority to command the aervlces of the Di~??aIon Engineer of the St6te Highway Depertmcnt for the ?urpoee of rupervislng the oonstructlon ana eurvsylng of lateral road6 in their respeotLv6 counties..., : j ou red In the oonstruotlon of the Inorovement 0: sil roe4s. Includln~ State KIuhweYs of 6uoh gountlex and dirtrlct6 tk.ereln: or the im?rove- ment of the rcsds car?rinlni: the County Road BPB- &g. 1 ArtJole 5740, Vernon’6 Annoteted Civil Ste,tutes :ro- Vide6 a6 fO11OW6: “The oommIe6Ioner6 court aktll see th?t the rO8d and bridge fund of tk6Ir county Ic Judlcl@ue- ly end equitably extended on the roads and bridge6 of their oounty, and, 6.6 nearly 6 = the oondltlon and neceesity of the rends will -:>er- mit, it 6hall be txzlsnded In eaoh oounty commis- rlonarr pr6oinct In >ro?ortion to the amount ool- looted In 6uch oreolnot. Money u66d In building permanent road6 6h611 fIr6t be U6ed Only on flr6t Ronorable George P. Hudson, page 3 or eeoond-olaee roade, and on thoeo vhloh lhall have the right of war furnI6hed free of ooet to make 68 etraight 6 road a# Is waotIoablr and hcv- Ing the groateet bonus offered by the oltlrrne of money, labor or othrr property.’ While the fete from automobile regletratlone are plao6a In thr oounty’e Road and Brlagr Fund, the expsndlture of thIe portion of eald fund Is not 6ubJeot to the rrqulrement of Art1016 6740, that *It ehall be, expend& In eaoh oounty oom- mI6eIonere preolnot In proportion to the amount oolleoted In euoh preclnot.’ ThIe provIsIon In Artlole 6740, ha6 rcfercnoe only to that,.portlon of the Road and Bridge Fund derived fro& county taxer. A6 etr.ted In the 0888 of Stovall V. Shlvere (Clv. Apg.), 76 8.Y. (2d) 276, efflrmea (Con. App.) 103 8.w. (26) 363, at page 367 of the letter oplnlon: *As to that portlon of automobllr regletratlon fees retained by Van Zandt oounty, artlole 6676a-10, Vernon’s Ann. Clv. St., sxprees- ly provider how sent shell be expended, and for that rea8on It Is obvloue that artlole 6740 ha6 no applIcatIon to same.' Art1016 66758-10 etatee that such funds shall b6 USCd *for the construction and maIntenrnor of lateral roede in such counti,’ or ‘In the payment of obll~etlone, If any, Ireued ;nd Incurred In the oonetructIon or the Improvement of ~11 roe c # n In the county. c The reeponeIbIlIty for the proper rxp8ndlture of these funds, therefore, neceeearliy re6te upon the ooma16610nere1 court. In thle connection WC ouote further from the oD:nIon of the CommleeIon of h3?eele of Texer, Sectlon A, In the Stovall v. Shivers 08ee, 66 follrnrr: “By article 2342 of the Revlsed Statutee, It I6 provided th6t the several oommIealon~r6, to- gether with the oountp Judge, shall 001c306c the ~commI6eIonere court.’ Suoh court Ie ms~nIftetly 8 unit, and I6 the agency of the whole county, The respective mrmbere of the com~I6eIonere oourt are therefore prIxLarllr repre6ent~tIve6 of the whole oounty, and not merely reprc6entatlve6 of their rerpeotlvo preolnotr. The duty of the oommIeeIonere court Is to transact the buelnees, protect the In- tcrestr, 6nd oromote the uelfere of the ooun- ty 66 a whole. Among the 3owere conferred upon . Honorable George P. Hudron, page 4 ouoh oourt by lrtiale 2351 cre the follow- ing: The portr to lay out and rrtabllrh, change and Ulraontlnuo roads and hlghwayr, the power to build brldgtr and keep them In repair, and the power to lxrroira general oontrol over all roach, hlghwayr ferrIcI, and bridgtr in thelr oountire. #her hate the power to Levi a tax not to rxoeed 16 otntr on the $100 valuation for road8 and bridge a. This fund 18, of oourm, for the benefit of all roads and bridgea of the county. These provlrlonr of the lttw, a8 well a8 other6 whloh might be mentioned, clearly oontem?late thst the copmisricntrr owrt of te.oh county shell regard the ,roadr and highways of the county ac a system, to be laid out, changed, rt~alred, improved, and melntalntd, a6 far ae practlonl, a8 a whole to the btrt lnttreets and wtlfert of all the peoolt of the county. It ir clear- ly conteeolsttd thet all roadr and bridge8 of the county ehcll be telntalned, rsoalrtd, end improved when necessary, 8.1 the aondltlona may require, regardlena of the oreoinct in v5lch oeAe mey be looeted so far a8 ths fund8 vi11 equitably Ju6tify. this being true, ve think that a oommlssloners oourt cannot voluntarily dieable itrelf from perform- ance of thla gencrel obllgatlon by arbi- trarily dividing the roeA end bridge fund sccordlng to soat fixed rtsndard, end ap- Dortlonlng aeue to be ex~endtd in a nar- tlcular preclnot, to the detriment of roadr and bridges In other precincts;” tilnlon !:o. C-1091 of thl6 dewrtaent, holds that Article 6C75a-10 c=ntrcle the ex:.enbiture of that 3ortion of the Ropd enc! FrlCge Fund derived from automobile regietretion fees, end thet in exqendlng the seat, the commlesloners’ court ehall resard the roaCf end hlghxeys of the county ae a cystem to be built, lzzroved enC melntelned as a whole to the beet 1ntertFts cnc? welfare of ell the r;eoTle of the county and of ell t3e precinct8 of the county. Kt are enoloelng htrewlth a copy of said ocinlon for your :nrormc.tion and oonvenlenot. Ronorablr Oeorgr P. Hudron, page b You are rerprotfully ldvl66d thst lt 18 the opinion of thlr department, under thr faotr rteted, that thr aommirrioner oourt of Jon66 County la not luthoriwil to alloaate the automo- bllr rrglrtratlon ire6 to the verlour preolnotr In thr proportion -rtctrd In your letter If ruoh an apportionment would rerult In one prooinot being able to maInt6In a better ola6r of road8 and highway6 than other preolnotr. The60 runa8 6h0ula be ex- p6ndrd In ruoh a manner aa to give to the’ oounty a8 a who16 a unltoro ryrtem of roads and highway6 without rcfrrenoe to preolnot liner. This rerpon6lbIllty rsrtr upon the ooPilnI66lon6r6~ Court and murt be determined by them In looortlanoe with all the raotr and olrCum6tanoe6 involved. Very truly your6 ATTORNEYOENEFULOF TEXAS By ~~~f.11 EP:Jr ( Asrletant ENC: 1 .----..r. A:- E, . ;_ _:__1 i.u.;... . ..--, --& -;...z.- ‘i:,;::.: _....-. .- - . . ..- .-. . . APPRDYED O?iNlOH COMMIRCE c 4%