EBEATTQEWEY GENERAL
w TEXAS
AUHTIN ~s.TBxAs
PRICE DANIEL
ATT’ORNEY
GENERAL
May 11, 1948
.-
Bon. Olendon RobeHa Opinionno, V-566
County Attorney
Bendma County Rez The authority of the
BandePa9 Texa9 Commiasloners 1 Court
to apportion the auto-
Sob118 registration
reoeipts equally
the four co*-
ale “CIoners’ precinote
of the oounty.
Your requert for aa opinion from this ofiice
on the above eubjeot matter Is, in part, as follows:
“By order of the Commissloaeps~ Court of
Bandepa Couaty, mode oa July 14, 1947,
the automobile reglatpatioa feee retaia-
ed by the County as part of its county
f~dva~Tbf;fdge fuac,uader Artlole 66755-
wepe dfvided equallj between
th; fi& &&.cl of this oountf. The
CoPissioneP of Preclnot No, 1 o? this
county, bti well aa a great number of the
Pesldents of this ppeafact, object to
this manner of apportfoment of these
funds among the ppeclnts on the grounds
that Pmtafact No, 1 has the gpeatrst Reed
of the funds; having mope mad mileage,
mope tPatPic, Pequiplng more maintenaace,
than the other precinot@,and further that
most of such fees ape collected from au-
tomobiles belonging to residenta of tie-
aiaat Ho, 1 e e o
“In Banders County, the needs of the aotm-
ty with respect to maintenance of mads
greatly rrceed the amount available in the
county road and bridge fund, and there is
ao way fn whiah the needs of aa7 af the
precinct can be met, regardless of how
the funds ape divfded. HoweveP, It is
Hon. Olendoa Roberts, page 2 (V-566)
generally agreed that there is a much
greater need snd nfy2esaitg for these
funds in Precinct No. 1 than In any of
the other precincts in this county,
“Under the above clrcumstance8, can the
Comi.ssioners Court divide the automobile
registration Sees equally betweea the
SOUPprecincts in this 00unty, regard-
less of the fact that there is a grftat-
OP need for same In Precinct No, l?
It was held In the 08-e OS Nova11 v. Shiterr
(Cam, of App,), 103 S.u.(2d) 363, that am to that por-
tion of fees provided SOP in Article 6675a-10, V. C, 5..
it le expressly rovided how same shall be expended, and
SOP that peasoa xr tlcle 6740 has no application to same.
Article 6675a-10, V, C. %,, provider, in part:
n
None of the monles ~10plaoed
to the%eilt of the Road and Brl@e Fund
OS a county shall be uaed to pay the sal-
ary or oTxgatioa of any County Juee
ok County omimioners but all said nea-
ies shall be used SOP the construction and
Palntenance of latepal Poads in such coun-
ty u&or the supervision of the County En-
glnee~s if these be one, and if there is
no such englneep, then the County Comie-
sloae~s~ CouPt shall have authority to
ooarsnd the services of the Dlvlsloa Sk-
inee~ OS‘the btate Highway Department SOP
! he purpore of supervising the.camtruotion
and s\ur*eyLngof latepal roada in their re-
speotive countleso All funds allocated to.
the counties by the provisions of this Act
(Arts. 6675a-1 to 6675a-14; P. 0, Art, 807a)
my be used by the counties la the payment
of obligations, IS any, ieaued and incurred
in the construction or the improvement of
ali roads, Including State Highway8 of
euch counties and districts therein; or the
improvement of the goad8 coaprLslry the
County Road Byetom.
The purpose as stated In btiole 6675r-10 Is
the conetruct.ton and maintenance of lateral made or
payment of obllgations~incumed in the construction or
Eon. fflendoa Roberts, page 3 ,(*-566)
improvement of all roads in the county. we quote the
following Sror Stovall V. Qhlvers, suprar
It
. By article 2342 of the Re-
vised &itutes, it is provided that the
several comalsaioriera9 together with the
county juae, shall coxpoae the *oopris-
sloaers court. I Suah court is manifest-
ly a unit, and is the agency of the whole
county. The respective members of the
commiaslonera co\urt ape therefore prlmr-
lly representatives of the whole county,
and notmerely represeatatlvea of their
~espeatlve precinats. The duty of the
comlsslone~s court Is to transact the
busineaa, protect the lateremta, and pro-
rote the welfare of the oounty aa a whole.
Among the powers conferred upon such court
by article 2351 are the Sollowlngt The
power to lay out sad establish, chapge and
dlecoatlnue roads and highwaya, the power
to build bridges aad keep ther in repair,
and the power to exercise general control
over all mada, hfghwaya, Serplea, and
bridges in their countlea. They hare the
power to levy a tax not to exceed 15 cents
on the $100 valuation SOP roads and brMges.
This Sund is, of course, SOP the Benefit
of all roads sad bridges of the county.
Thea* provisions of the law, as well as
others which might be mentloaed, clearly
contemplate that the contsslone~s oourt
of each county shall regard the roads arid
bighwaysof the county aa a system; to be
laid out, changed, repaired, lmp~oved, and
m~lntalxmd. afi far as practical, as a whole
to the best Interests and welfare of all
the people ot the oounty. It 1s clearly
contemplatedthat all roads and bridges
of the aounty shall be 8alatairud,PepalP-
ed, and improved when neaessary, as the
conditions may reqtire, regardless oS.the
poolnet In which same may be located, so
far aa the funds will equitably justiij.
Eon. Qleadon Roberta, page 4 (V-566)
We quote the following fr,om Attorney Qaaeralle
Opinion Ro. 0-1091:
“Aa for that portion OS the county
road and bridge fund oonsisting of auto-
moblle vegistlaatlan Sees paid into the
fund of article 6675a, section 10, Is
contPolli It is our oplnlon that in
expending Y his portion of the fund for
the purposes expressly set out in sec-
tion 10 of article 6675a, the COIPILIEI~RF
em1 court of the county ahall regard the
roada and highwaya of the county as a E~PJ-
ten to be built, improved and maintained
aa a whole to the best interests and we&-
rare of all the people of the aouuiy and
of all the ppeclnoim ,of the county*
It was he&d In Attorney Qeneralts opinion lo.
O-3378 that the Comiulealouerav Couvt 1,s not authorized
to allocate the automblle regletration Sees to the var-
ious ~precJ.nota In an apportionment which would result
in one proectiat being able to maintain a better alsea
oS roads and highways than other precinats.
you stated in your letter that “it is gener-
ally agreed that there la a much greater need and aec-
esalty SOP these funds In Precinct flo, 1 than in any of
the other precincts in this countyr We, of coumte, can-
not pa38 on tbat fact imue. But’atmunlng that to be
oorreat, It Is ,our opinfon in.-view of the foregoing, that
the ComnlssioneVs~ Court of Baudepa County should not di-
vide the automobile PegiatPation fees equally between
the Souv ppecinots of’ the county, On the fmatrary, these
Sees should be expended in such a manner as to give to
the county as a whole a uniform system of roads agd high-
ways without reference to ppeolnct lines. This reaponsi-
blllty mats with the Commissioners* Court and must be
determined by It in accordance with all the faata and olr-
cumtanoea involved. !Chia opfnion fe not to be construed
aa paaaing on the fact questions relative to the needs of
the county as a unit.
. -
am. ~l.taon mmts; paga 5 (v-566)
That poPeionof the CotmJ Roadand
Bi'lw, kd consisting of automobilese-
glstlratlon fees paid into the iund should
be,eXpeAded iA such a &SAAeP88 to give
the aountj aa rwhole a uniform system of
roads and hl@?ayr wlthout.relePence to
pPeCiACt line80 Such leer should not be
divided arbitrarily in equal parts between
the four pPeCiACt8 of the c0uAt.y.~
Yours very tPuly,
ATTORRRYQl%RRALd~