November 5, 1956 

Hon. Hubert W. Green, Jr. Opinion No. S-219 

Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County Re: Transfer 'of Road District 

San Antonio, Texas bond proceeds from a farmto-market allocation to a 

state and federal right-ofDear Sir: way allocation. 

your request for an opinion eon the following question has been 

received by this office. We quote from your letter of October 

12, 1956, at3 follows:. 

"Our County Road Engineer has requested that 

we obtain from you an opinion as to whether 

or not the sum of $40,000.00, the proceeds of 

a bond issue, can be transferred from the balance of a $203,000.00 allocation for farm-tomarket roads and ,highuays to a depleted fund 

allocated for the: purpose of acquiring rightsof-way for new ,and, existing state and federal 

highways within Road District No. 1 of Bexar 

County, Texaa."~:, 

The order entered by the Commissioners Court of Bexar County 

on August 28, 1953, the same:day on which the road bond election; under~ Section 52 of Article 3, of the Constitution, for 

Road District No. 1, was ordered, 'and uhich set out certain 

particulars in connection with the expenditure of the bond 

funds in the event they were approved, controls the use of the 

proceeds of the bond issue.~~ Black v. Strennth, 112 Tex. 188, 

246 SLW. 79; Mosel v. R.eal, 4qS.W.2d 4 75 (Tex.Civ.App., 1932), 

writ refused; Sterrett v,,. Bell, 240 S.W. 2d 516 (Tex.CLv.App., 

1951), no writ history. 

Sections (2) (a), (2) (b), and, (2) (c) designate the pur oses 

for which the bond,proceeds are to'be used.' Sections (3 P (a), 

!z;Lb) 9 and (3)(c) allocate $1,6GG,OOO.O0 of such funds as fol- 

: Approximately $1,107,GOO.O0 for the acquiring of rightsof-way for new or existing,.state and federal highways; approximately $2O3,OOO.OO for the acquiring of rights-of-nay for new 

or existing farm-to-market roads or highways; and approximately $2gO,OOO.O0 to be contributed to the State Highway 
Hon. Hubert W. Green, Jr., page 2 (S-219) 

Commission to assist in the construction or reconstruction of 

new farm-to-market highways or roads. Sections (3)(a), (3) (b), 

and (3)(c) are followed imme~dlately by two paragraphs which further define the duties of the commissionerst court in connection 

with these expenditures, The ,first of these-two paragraphs provides that none of the purposes above set out shall have priority 

over the others, and ,the next paragraph reads as follows: 

"If this Courtfinds that It is not necessary or desir,able to use any of the funds 

above allocated for the purposes for which 

such funds are.allocated, such funds may be 

used for any of the other purposes hereinabove set forth; but none of such funds shall 

ever be used for any project which is not, consistent with the overall long term planning 

of the,State Highway Department for state and 

federal highways and farm-to-market highways 

or roads." ~, 

It is the opinion of thi,s office that the paragraph last quoted 

above reeerves limited discretion in the Commissioners' Court of 

Bexar County in the expenditure, of the funds allocated,under 

Section (3) of said order. If the commissioners1 court finds 

that it is no longer necessary or desirable to use any of the 

funds allocated for any one of the purposes set out, it may use 

such funds for one or both of the other purposes as long as, 

such use is "consistent with the overall long term planning of 

the State Highway Department for state 8nd federal highways and 

farm-to-market highways or roads." Murray v. Wilkinson,'32 S.W. 

2d 863 (Tex.Civ.App., 1930), no writ hlstory; 

v. Mitchell, et al.,~ 

1927),adopted. 

116 Tex. 378, 292 S.W. 1 

It is further significant that this reservation of authority ,in 

the Commissioners' Court was' not provided in connection with the 

expenditure of the remaining $350,,000,00 of such funds. 

This opinion has no application to farm-to market highway moneys 

derived from the taxes levied and colle~cted pursuant to Section 

la of Article VIII of the Constitution of Texasand Artlole 704&a 

of Vernon's Civil Statutes, because such moneys can not be used 

for the acquisition of rights-of-way for State designated hlghways, but can only be used for the construction of a public road 
Hon. Hubert W. Green, Jr., page 3(S-219) 

of the county leading either directly or indirectly from a farm 

to market. Attorney General's .Opinlon v-1169 (1951). 

SUMMARY 

The commissioners~ court may transfer Road 

District bond proceeds voted under Section 

52, of Article 3, of the Constitution of Texas, 

from a farm-to-market allocation to an allocation for acquiring rights-of-way for state and 

federal highways as provided by the wording of 

the order of allocation passed on the same day 

as, and supplementing, the order of election. 

APPROVED: 

Elbert M. Morrow 

Bond Divi,sion~ 

John Reeves 

Reviewer 

W. V. Geppert 

Reviewer 

L. W. Gray 

Special Reviewer 

Davis -Grant 

First Assistant 

John Ben Shepperd 

Attorney General 

Yours very truly, 

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 

Attorney General 

Assistant