Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1948 )

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~