Case Information
*1 .l .~. * .* ., ;, OFFICX OF GENE-
~?EE &!TQlRX3X AUSTIN. %‘RXAS
paICE DANIEL f#wmmY Oe.mxuL June 23, 1947
Ron. Roy C. 3noQrase, Jr.
County Attorney
Potter County
Attention: Eon. John PMmaon,
Asalatant Oounty Attorney 1 Opinion No. V-261.
‘.. .RO: Authority of the OOlPr . IlllesloJmre’ oourt of Potter aouJlty to eIpend oounty funds in the im- hvement of oity etr0etB
Dear Mr. anoagrarrsi P n Amarillo.
Your request for an opinion of this Demrt- ment la eubetantlallp aa $011~8:
9he Oomml~eionere~ Court of Potter County.ie dsalroue or epetnding approxlmate- lp $25,000.00 out of the county road and bridge ftind for the laprovement of BtrOeta : It la their plan In the Olty of Amarillo. to work with the oitJi offioials on thlrr program and on eaoh part of the oity street0 . whloh are improved a peroent ‘of oounty run&r - will be used, and an equal perosnt of oity funds will be used and a psroent will be / paid by saoh Lndddual land owner adjoinin
the street. The queetloo ha8 ariaen as to whether or not the Oommlesionere~ Oourt oan legally expend oounty road and, bridge iundr \.. for a and all of the etredr in Amarillo . that t ey dealre to lmprwa, or stated an- 7
other way the quecrtion 18 ame all oi tti atreota ln Anmrlllo a part of the ~oounty ’ road ryrtam’? a . .
‘3 *2 .
.a. s-~.-w., Ll - Page 2 Bon. Roy CL Snodgrass,‘Jr.
“In Potter County the majority of the population is located wIthIn the oity ll,mIt,s and the majority of the roads are In the city limits and ‘it Is my opinion that the Supreme Court did nOti mean limit a oounty auoh as ours by allowing the Commissioners’ Court to Only improve a road In the city limits when it Only oonneote a oounty road coming Into the city on one side and going out on the other. Another feature or Potter County is that the oity, although situated most- 1y In Potter County, goes into .Randal,l County on the South side and a strict eon- struotion of the Stephens County case would mean that the Comissionere~ Court cannot spend any funds on roads ooming into the oity from the ‘North side a8 It would be impossible to conneot with the oounty road I on the South side of Amarillo.w
Generally speaking, It Is a well settled proposition ot law thlit the.oontrol and juriediotion
over streets of a mnIoIpa1 oorporation Is 6xolueIve
in said oorporation and oountiea have the right to 8x1 pend $unde In the Improvement of streets wltbin the
..oorporate limit8 of a city when. said streets are e
part .of the oounty road system and, when done with !he oonmnt of. the oity; In the ease of Bughe8.v:. County Comdaaion-
era* Court of Harrla County, 95 9. W. 2d 81.8, she Court . : etated .a8 hollows:
Vhe oOunty haa,.. by virtue of the ‘,’ provisions of the general laws of this state,. as well ‘as by the firrls County looal road’law, the right to emend ita. funds in the improvement of~a street within the’ oorporate.’ lImIta of a ,oIty whloh Is also a pub110 road or the ooun- ty, espeoially so when such improvement ia done with thb oonsent and Invitatloh ‘., of the city authorities.
,
uln~obedIeiioe to I& mandate of artiole, & ’ seotion 9, of the Constftu- .’ tion, whlioh we tbInk self-enaotlng, the,
‘.
Eon. Roy 9. Snodgrass, Jr. - Page 3
IagIslature In 1911 and 1899 passed
&at Is now artloles 2351 and 2352 of
our Civil Statutes. By article 2351,
the oomaissIoners* oourts were .auth-
orlzed among other things, to lay out
and establish public roads and to ex-
erolse general oontrol over all pub-
lIo roads In their respeotlve ooun-
ties, and by ,artIole 2352 suoh ,oourt
Is authorized to levy and,oolleot
taxes for road purposes and for the
erection of publio buildings, streets,
Bewers, asto. The right to levy and
oolleot taxes for oertaln purposes
oarries with it the right to expend
the funds when so oolleoted to oarry
out the purposes for whIoh it was ool-
leoted. It Is ImaterIal to inquire
whether the dominion and oontrol over
roads’ie given by statutes other than
the artlolea mmd. Artlole 2352
olearly oarrles with It the Inplled
power of the oomaIssIoners~ oourts to.
expend the road funds of their respeo-
tlve oountlee In the Improvement of
streets., espeoially mob streets as
oonstltute a pavt of a pub110 road of
the=county, .beoause by the provisions *
of the Uonstltutlon oountlee are glv-
en the right to levy and oolleot taxer
for the Smprovemnt of both road6 and
otreeta.
“The weight of authority seems to lndloate that under the general law
the. oountlea have the oonetltutional
and statutory power to expend their road funde in the Improvement of their
road8 whloh pass through a muniolpal- they have the right
ltg, and that
lawwe ‘euoh roads though they be
street8 of mob munlol alltles with
the oontient of th8.m ni olpalltlee.
Stat& 0. Jones 18 Tex. 874; Smith v. Oathey (Ter. Oiv. App.) 225 8. W. 168;
Renat v* Dallarr Oounty her. Olr. 4p.j
266 8. W. 540.”
Hon. Roy C. Snodgrass, Jr. - Page 4
The same rule was announced In the ease of .the City of Breoksnrldge v. Stephene County, 40 8. W.
2d 43, wherein Judge Crltz, speaking for the Supremb Court; stated as f6llcws:
“After a careful InvestIgatIon of ‘the authorities, Including the Con- stitution and laws of this State, we have reached the oonoluslon that the oommIssIoners~ court does have lawful authority to expend county road bond funds for the Improvement of city streets where suoh streets form Inte- gral parts of oounty roads or state hIghways, whe,n such Improvements are made tithout conflicting wIth.the jur- Isalotlon of the munIoIpalIty, or with Its oonsent or approval. Se&Ion 52, art. 3, Texas Constitution; State v. Jones, lb Tex. 874; Smith v. Cathey’ (Tex. Clv. App;) 226 S. W. 158, lb0; Cannon v. Realty Construction 00.. (Tax. &lnA~:) e42 S. W. 526, 529 (wrl~
Weotlon 52 of artlole 3 ‘of our State Constitution authorizes dounties and *polItIoal subdivisions and defined dietriots thereof to issue bond6 for the purpose of: ’ (0) The oonstruo- tlon malntenanoe and operation of mao- adamized, .graveled or paved poads and turnpikes, or In aid thereof.’ “The oonstItutIonal provl &on, a- boys referred to expressly~ provides that road dietriots ‘may or may not in- oLude towns, villages or munlolpal oor- poratlons. f Thus by the express terms of the Constitution a munIolpal oorpor atlon may be an Integral part of a road distrlot. As a part of the road dIa- trlot, is subjeot to road dlstrlot the property of the olty or town taxes just the same as roperty of the dlstrlot looated out4 de 8uoh munIoIpalIty. P If a olty or towq 1s a part of a road ala- trlot, th? oommIesloners* oourt has the *5 - Ron. Roy C. Snodgrass, Jr. - Page 5
right by the very express prcvisiohs ! ,’
OS the Conetltution’to expend road al*;“,’ :
trlot bond funds on such town or city
streets where suoh streets are parts of
and form connecting links in county Of
state highways.*
It will be observed from the foregoing that if a lmprwememt 18 made, the Same must be oonfimd~ to
the streets forming a part of the county road system,
and must be done with the consent of the municipal cor- poration within which said streets are located. 5reckenrIdge case above cited, a dIstInotIOn was drawn
In the between streets forming a part of a county road system It was held that the CommIssIon-
ana streets generally.
ers’ Court could blna Itself to spend county road bond
?uads to ala the oltv In Improving streets forming a
part of the county roaas but oould not bind Itself
aid the city in IiuDrovInu other streets. It Is obvloue It aat dl tI tion between streets,
h t th d
sp~ahI~yg6~e%.y oi t~~wa%er~esn~f traff Ic wlthln a _ nunioIpalIty;and suoh streets as form a continuation of a county road, but In any event a street whloh has been .! designated by a oounty’ as a part of It8 system. (Attor- ney~General*s Opinion Ro. o-1190) Inasmoh as h ~county
my, with the oonsqnt of the city, improve the streets
of such olty forming a part of the “oounty road Sy~te@,
it neoessarily follows that a determination must be
made as to what Oonstitutes a county road system. The
Constitution oonuuands that the laying out, constructing
and repairing of county roads shall be provided for by
general laws. Aocordlngly general laws have been en-
aoted setting up a State Highway Commlsslon to adminIs-
ter State highways and delegating the oontro&go;e;ty
roads to the County Commissioners’ Courts. ’
if a public ‘road has been established and used ae a ’ county road, the oounty would be authorized to expend
money on such oounty road If the same traversed a olty,
and any money expended would be authorized on the I,&
prcveImnt of 8treet.s if the same have been established and used and are an integral part of a oounty road.
(Art. 87*0716, V. C. S.)- By virtue of the Rreohen-
ridge ease, If the street desired to be Improved is a
OonneotIng link in a duly establiehea oounty road the same rule would be applloable, the “oonneotlng A oonneSt*
111W moaning to.unite or link
link by it6 very name mUSt .be Something that holds two
different Slements toget&?/ (38 Pao:‘(3) 103).
\ . j r$a Hon. Roy 0. Snodgrass, Jr. - Page 6
(J 7. , i
In view or the foregoing It .I8 belle&d t E
that the streets of Amarillo oonneotlng’oounty road8
would be “oonneotlng lInlce* despite the faot that a
portion of Amsrlllo Is In Randall County. The only
1ImItatIon Imposed by the physical faots would be ,j VR All jurIsdIotIona1; that ls~, the Iaprwement would go only to the oounty line. Therefore, It Is the opln-
Ion of this Department that those roads established
as oounty roads and those olty streets of Amarl
formIng an Integral part OS the oounty road system
may be improved by the oounty with the consent of
the olty of Amarillo. Further, those streets form-
ing a oonneotlng link for oounty roads traversing the olty of Amarillo may be Improved, but only to
the oounty 11~ of Potter and Randall oountles.
‘Your brief SurnIbhed this office has ma- terIal)y aided In the dlsoueslon of the eubjeot under
’ oonsld~ratlon and 16 appreciated.
t3lmARY‘ County Road and Bridge Funds my be expended In the improvement of oounty
roads pdsslng through a. olty, though they
be streets of such olty, provided oonsent
la obtained from the olty and.suoh streets
are integral parts of’ the oounty roads;
streets forming a “oonneotlng 1IW on au-
ly eetablIshed county roads may be Improved by the oounty with the oonsent of the olty.
‘. City of Breokenrldge v. Stephens County, 40
8. V. (2) 43; ,Eughes v. Oounty Comlsslonera*
Court of Harris Oounty, 35 8. W. (2) 8l.8.
Very truly yours,
Bwiajm:libjbrwR By ey3
This OHdon nae oonsldered and approved in Confermoe.