Case Information
*1 SOEN L EILL
A--
July 11, 1974 Opinion No. H- The Honorable Ned Granger c~~nt.y Attorney, Travir County Re: Whether a county may
County Courthouse maintain street0 within an Aurtin, Texar
incorporated city which are in or rtate road eyetern and receive payment from the city for ouch rervicer purruant contract. Dear Mri &anger:
You have requested opinion ae to whether a county and an incorporated city yithin county may enter into an agreement under the terms of which the county agreea to aaeume the rerponaibility repairing and maintaining city street0 which are an integral part of the county or state road system and in return the city agreea to reimburse the county for a portion of the corte inCurred.
You advice that reveral amall incorporated citier in Travi6 County have asked the County to aeeume the reeponeibility thoee atreetr within their city limitr which are integral part of the county state road eyetem. Travis County ir willing to aaeume ruch a reapon- ribility but feels that each city rhould to rome degree rhare in the colt6 that will be incurred.
In the leading caoe of City of Breckenridge v. Stephen8 County, 40 S. W. 2d 42 (Tex. 1931). a question very rimilar to the one you ark was before the Texan Supreme Court. The Court recognized and affirmed the general proposition that a municipality haa exclusive controi and jurisdiction over the rtreetr within it6 bordera. However, relying upon *2 Grmger (H-345) Article 3, S 52 of the .Texar Conatitutlon, the Court held tht b county had the right to expend fund6 for the improvement or maintenance of city street6 which form an integral part of the county or state road rystem so long ar the county acts with the consent or approval of the city in quertion. In it6 opinion the Court expressly approved a contract of a city street ,whlch between a city and county for the improvement formed an integral part of the caunty road ryrtem in which both parties had agreed to pay a portion of the coats incurred. Citv of Brackenridge, . 40 S. W. 2d at 45.
Thus City of Breckenrldge ertabllrher the principle that a county may agree to aarume the responribillty cltyitmetr which form rbte road ryrtem and that both the county and city may agree to pay representative dare of the costs that will be incurred. This principle ha6 been followed by the court6 and by this office on numerous occarlon6. Cltv of Plney Point Village v, Harrlr Countv, 479 S. W. 2d 358, 367 [Tex. Clv. App., Houston (lrt Dlst.), 1972, writ ref. n. r. e. 1; Hugher v. Countv Comml66loners’ Court of Harrlr County, 35 S. W. 2d 818 (Tsx. Civ. ‘App., Galverton, 1931, no writ); and Attorney General Oplnlonr M-561 (1970); WW-1481 (19621, V-971 (I949), V-484 (1948) and V-261 (1947).
In Attorney General Opinion No. WW-1401 (1962) thir Office stated: “We know of no reason why the municipality cannot contract to pay the jurt aa may the county contract to pay the municipality, county, for all. or part of the coat of paving or maintaining a rtreet within the class of to maintain. ” In our opinion the Inter- streets that a county is authorized local Cooperation Act, Art. 4413 (32c), V. T. C. S., which in pertinent part authorizes local governments contract among themselves for the per- formance of servicer in the general area of streets, roads, and drainage, doer nothing more than codify the principles we have dircurred. Therefore anrwer to you quertion lo in the affirmative.
SUMMARY A county may agree to assume the’rerponslbillty p. *3 Granger (~-345)
of maintaining city etneeta which form an integral part of the county or etate road ryotem and in return a city may agree to pay reprerentative portion the cortr ldcurred.
Very truly yours, Attorney General of Texar DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee