Opinion

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Court
Texas Attorney General Reports
Filed
Jul 2, 1942
Status
Published
On the bench
Gerald Mann
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

ATXWRNEYGENERAL

OF ?llYExAs

AUSTIN il.

'I%ELIS

Honorable Bill S. Watkins

County Attorney

Llano county

Llano, Texas

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-4548

Re: Construction, of Article 6675a-10,

Revised Civil Statutes.

We acknowledgereceipt of your request for an opinion of

this department on the above captioned subject. .Yoy request is

as follows:

"The Commission of Appeals In Stovall vs. Shivers,

103 S.W; ,(2d)363, very clearly covered the method of

distributionof-general road and bridge money of a

county In ~construlngArticle 6740; but In its last

paragraph It stated (Aa to that portion'of automobile

reglstratlonfees retained by Van Zandt County, Article

6675a-10 expressly provides how same shall.be expended,

and for that reason it Is obvious that.Atitlcle 6740

has .noappllcatlon'tosame.'

"Article 6675a-10 provides that automobile regls-

tratlon fees r&ained by a county shall be placed In

the Road and Bridge Fuxidof the county and shall be

used 'for the constructionand maintenance of lateral

roads in such county under the superv$.slonof the County

Engineer, If there be done,an@ If there Is no such

Engineer, then the County CommIssIoneratCourt shall-

have authority to command the services of the Division

Englnee~rof the estateHighway Department'forthe purpose

'ofsupervising the constructionand surveying of lateral

roads in the~'r6spectlvecounties.'

"The Commissioners'Court has requested of me an

opinion as to how this automobile registrationmoriey

should be divided among the four precincts.

"I have advlse,dthe Court that In my opinion Article

6675a-10 does not provide for the expenditure of this

money In Lland County In view of the fact that we have

no countyen&neer and do not desire to command the

services of the District Engineer of the State Highway

Honorable Bill S. Watkins, Page 2 o-4548

Department. That being the case Jt seems to me'that

the law Is silent,as to how this money should be

divided among the four precincts.

"PrecinctNo. 1 of Llano County pays approximately

55% of the county taxes, has probably more lateral

roads than any other precinct snd is claiming the same

portion of automobile registrationfees as its per cent

of taxes it pays. .Thethree other smaller preclnc,tsare

claiming this money should be divided equally among the

four precincts.

"In view of the Importanceof this question to all

the countles'ofTexas, I shall appreciatevery much .

.youroplnlon as to what method of dlvlslon of this auto-

,moblle registrationmoney among the four precincts should

.bemade."

It Is noted that you have advised your commlssloners8court

that Llano County,doesnot have authority:to.exp.e.ndthe motor

vehicle registrationfunds retained by such county for the reason

that Llano'Countyhas no County Engineerand It .doesnot desire,to

command the services of the Division Engineer of the State Highway

Department. It is apparent that youhave arrived ,atthis conclu-

slon because of the portion of Article 6675::10,supra, which reads

as follows:

'* * * alI.'saldmonies shall be used forthe

constructionand maintenance of lateral ro,ads.ln

such county under the supervlslonof the county

engineer, lf~there be one,,and.lf,,thereIs no such

engineer, the'county commissioners'.court shall

have authority to.command the services'ofthe dlvl-

slon engineer of the State Highway Department for

the purpdse~of"supervlsing,theconstruction.and.

surveying of Iateral,roadsln the,lrrespective

counties:"

We believe that.ln horderto fully answer your request, it

is necessary,thatwe dIscussArticle ~6675g-10 wasIt relates to the

advice you have given your commlssloners'~court.

We do not donstrue the hereinabovequoted.portlonof Article

6675a-IC,~supra,as authorizing the expenditureof such funds onlY~

under the supervisionof the county engineer ora'divlslon engineer

of the State Highway Department. We are of the opinion that the

Legislaturerecognized the fact that as a general rule members of

commlsslonersl'courts are not qualified to act as engineersfor

road constructionwork; that Is, they'are not trained to survey

roads, laYout grades, ascertaindrainage areas, establish adequate

drainage structures and 'performthe many,other technical duties

necessary for the~'proper'

constructionof roads. Sev.eralcounties

of the state halvebeen authorized by\special laws to employ county

,.;.,; .~ \

Honorable Bill S..Watklns, Page 3 o-4548

engineers aai ,thevarious acts authorizingsuch officers require

that they be qu&lified.t'bact as such. However, the uiaji+ty~of

the counties ln this state.do not have authority to employ a

county engineer and.the Legislature,realizing the need for highly

trained t+An+cal~exper~s for proper road .constructQn,merely

'autjhorlzed

the,+mnlsslon6rs1 'courtsto call upon,the division

engineer of the State Highway Department to supervise the con-

'&ruction and surveying of lateral roads.

You are, therefore,~advisedthat in our opinion the

commlsslonerstcourt Is not prohlblted from expending the motor

vehlcle:reglsQ?ati~nfunds retalned.by lt.becausethe couritydoes

not have 'acoun$y~eriglneer nor,does the commissioners8cotit de--

sire the assistapcii;ofthe cjlvlsloneng.lneerof the State Highway

Departmen$:.Ifithe commIssioneratcourt feels that It does not

rieed',thlsassistance, then there la nothing In Article 6675a-10,

aupr&to prevent the expenddture of,such funds 'asthe needs of

.the county for lateral roads may require.

We have re-framed your question as follows:

~"Whatdivision of the automobileregistration

funds r&abed by the county should be made to the,

four commisslone~s~~

precincts?"

Article 6675a-10, supra, provides that the reglstratidn

funds retained by the county should be used to construct and maln-

taln the lateral roads of such county. In the cade of Stovall vs~.

Shivers, 103 S.W.:(2d) 366, the CommPselon of Appeals said:

"By Article 2342 of the Revised Statutes It is

provided that,the several commissioners,together

with the county judge, shall compose the ~~commlsslon-

ers a court.' Such court de manifestly a unit, and is

the agency of the whole county. The respective mem-

bers of the commissioners'court are therefore prl-

marlly representativesof the whole county, and not

merely representativesof their respectiveprecSnct8.

The duty of the commissioners1court Is to transact

the buSinSS8, protect the Interest and promote the

welfare of the county as a whole. ~Among the.powers

conferred upon such county bp Article 23514re the

following: the power to lay out and establish, change

and discontinue roads and highways, the power to build

bridges and keep them In repair, and the pbner to exer-

cise general control over all roads, highways, ferries

and bridges In their county.'

It .lsclearly apparent that the commissioners'courts ye

empowered and the duty rests upon them to.constrUct and-maintain

the roa~dsof the county,ae a whole wkthout regard to precinct lines.

In view of the fact tiiat'io

.1&~4&ty iePritOria1 limi-

tatlon Is pIac&d upon the expenditure of the motor vehicle regls-

.

Honorable Bill S. Watkins, Pa& 4 o-4548

66i’5a-lo,

tration funds retained by the ,county,by.Artlcle~ supra,

you are advised that the.aoan&slonersl court tiayuse those funds

as the need of the county requires.

Trusting that the ,foregoingfully answers your Inquiry,

we are

Yours very truly

AT!l'ORNEY

GENERAL OF TEXAS

By s/ Richard H. Cocke

Richard Ii.Cocke

Assistant

RHC:ej:wc

APPROVED MAY 12, 1942

s/ Grover Sellers

;FogS;STANT

ENERAL "

Approved Opinion,Committeev s,fRWF Chairman

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.