Case Information
*1 TEHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 78711 AURTIN. Tmxae October 21, 1974 The Honorable James H. Whitcomb Opinion No. H- 428 County Attorney
P. 0. Box 867 Re: Whether residents of a Columbus, Texas 78934 precinct
have a vested interest funds assigned to that Dear Mr. Whitcomb: precinct.
You have informed us that commissioners lines in Colorado County have been redrawn to equalize the population in each precinct. One result of this redistricting was the transfer of a substantial number of resi- dents from Precinct One to Precinct Three. You ask if these persons “have any vested rights in the balances of the various funds of Precinct No. One, including its Road and Bridge Fund?”
The fund in which you are primarily interested, the Road and Bridge Fund, has been the su,bject of litigation in relation to its distribution among precincts. That fund consists of ad valorem tax revenues (TEX. CONST. art. 8, seco 9) and motor vehicle registration fees (V. T. C. S. art. 6675a-10) D
V. T. C. S. article 6740, which relates to the distribution of the Road and Bridge Fund, provides, in part:
The commissi,oners court shall see that the road and bridge Sund of their county is judiciously a,nd equi~tabl,y expended on, the roads and bridges
of ihei:r county, ard, as nearrly as t.he condition
and necessity of the roads wi,hl. permit, i,t shall
be e>:pended Ian each county commissioners pre-
cinct in proportion in such precinct. D . .
pm 1981 *2 .
The Honorable James H. Whitcomb. page 2
However, there is no vested right to have any certain distribution of the funds among precincts. This issue was decided by the Texas Supreme Court in Stovall v. Shivers, 103 S. W. 2d 363 (Tex. 1937), where it was said:
It will be observed that the article in question provides that the road and bridge fund shall be
judiciously and equitably expended on the roads
and bridges of the county, and, as nearly as the
condition and necessity of the roads will permit,
shall be expended in each county commissioners in proportion
such precinct. In our opinion, there is obvi-
ously nothing in this article which compels the court to divide the road and
bridge fund according to any fixed mathematical
formula, and apportion same in advance for
the purpose of being expended in any given pre-
cinct. The use of the word ‘expended’ to our
minds clearly suggests that said funds shall be
apportioned and paid out from time to time as
the necessity for their use arises in the ordinary
administration of the county affairs.: By article
2342 of the Revised Statutes, it is provided that
the several commissioners, together with the
county judge, shall compose the ‘commissioners
court. ’ Such court is manifestly a unit, and is
the agency of the whole county. The respective
members of the commissioners court are there-
fore primarily representatives of the whole
county, and not merely representatives of their
respective precincts. The duty of the commis-
sioners court is to transact the business, pro-
tect the i,nterests, and promote the welfare of
the coun~lty as a who1.e. . a . This fund is, of
course, for the benefit of all, roads and bridges
of the county. These provisions of the law, as
well as others which might be mentioned,
clearly contemplate that the commissioners
court of each county shall regard the roads and
p* 1982 *3 highways of the county as a system, to be laid
out, changed, repaired, improved, and main-
tained, as far as practical, as a whole to the
best interests and welfare of all the people of
the county. It is clearly contemplated that all
roads and bridges of the county shall be main-
tained, repaired, and improved when neces-
sary, as the conditions may require, regardless
of the precinct in which same may be located,
so far as the funds will equitably justify. This
being true, we think that a commissioners
court cannot voluntarily disable itself from
performance of this general obligation by arbi-
trarily dividing the road and bridge fund accor-
ding to some fixed standard, and apportioning
same to be expended in a particular precinct,
to the detriment of roads and bridges in other
precincts. 103 S. W. 2d at 366-67.
, ‘385 S. W. 2d 702 (Tex. Civ. App. --Amarillo 1964, writ ref’d. n. r. e. ); Alley v. Jones, 311 S. W. 2d 717 (Tex. Civ.App. --Beaumont 1958, writ ref’d. n. r. e. ); Garland v. Sanders, 114 S. W. 2d 302 (Tex. Civ. App. --Dallas 1938, writ dism’d); Attorney General Opinion O-1091 (1939).
Those road and bridge funds consisting of automobile registration fees are not subject to the requirements of article 6740. They are governed by article 6675a-10 and are to, be expended in a manner which will give the county a uniform system of roads without reference to precinct lines. Stovall V. Shivers, supra; Attorney General Opinion V-566 (1948); Attorney General Opinion O-4548 (1942); Attorney General Opinion O-3358 (1941).
Furthermore, there .is no longer a constitutional prohibition against transferrirxg surpl,us road and bridge funds to the general fund. TEX. CONST. art. 8, sec. 9: At,forney Genera,1 Opini,on H-194 (1.974).
Some road and bridge funds are not required to be apportioned among precincts; the remaining funds are not required to be apportioned by a static In addition, road and bridge funds may be transferred to the general formula. fund. It is therefore our opinion that residents of a particular precinct have no
p0 1983 *4 (H-4281 vested right in funds collected from or apportioned to that precinct. We believe that the language in Stovall describing the county-wide responsibility of the commissioners court would also preclude a conclusion that residents of a precinct had vested interest in any other fund.
SUMMARY Residents of a commissioners precinct who, through redistricti.ng, are shifted to another pre-
cinct have no vested interest in the funds assigned to their former precinct.
Very truly yours, J HN L. H L Aa Attorney General of Texas P Lu
DAVID M. KENDALL, Cha,irman
Opinion Committee
pe 1984