### -' Y ,,Pi

.. Tnm: _'l*.lYIu>

1:;Y:Ifi: Y 1:I~::~il?::l:,\!l

I 43:r2.'

11.: .\;.\sd
',z,t:w 13.\sIB:L .\C.wrIS. Td.XAY .rr‘.".VEI I.:sRY..*. December 16, 1949

Bon. Waggoner Cam opinion Ro. vcounty Attorney Lubbock County Re: Authority o? the-Cou Lubbock, Terea ty to use road bond proceeds to buy rlghtsorwaywithin acity andto pay condemn&Ion avnrds against the city for rights-o? -way on streets formIng oonnecting links on State hlghDear Mr. cnrr: rsys
.

Your request for an opinion Is substentielly 88 ?0110vs:Onthe 5th dey of November 1945, the Lubbock County Commissioners I Court entered ita order agreeing with the Texas Highway Department to furnish rights-of-veg for certeIn highways. During 1945 the city of Lubbook voted a city-wide bond eleotioa which Included money to be used 

### forscouring the city’s pert of the right-of-way vlthln the corporate limits. The city has oontlnuously secured Its right-of-way within the corporate lImIta to the limit of Its ownfunds on head. In 

### 1946Lubbock County voted a countpride bond issue 

### for highway purposes end thereafter scoured a large ptirtlon of the right-of-way requfred for highways deslgnated by the Highway.De artment. The County .~ haa approximately $1B1,465.18 remaining on hand in this bond fund. The City o? Lubbock has madeand Is about to makeadditional extenaiona In Its corporate llmita BOaa to lnolude the lands from vhIoh rights-o?+ey are to be secured by the County and suoh needed lmnds will be shortly vlthln the oorporote llmlts. OnJune 13, 1949, the Commissioners’mu. Waggoner Cnrr, pegs 2 (Q-971)

Conrt passed Its reaolutlon authorizing the obtaining of the neoerssry rights-of-way, 8 part of vhIoh vi11 be In the City of Lubbook after the annexation beoaaes effective. Question 1. Maythe road 

### baudfund8or Lubbock county be used for the purchase 

### or rlgm-or-w3y of that pert 0s the hi way 1 andtreffla dispersal system Include Pwithin .,: :.the.,oorporate limits of the 

### City o? Lubbook?
.- .,.,,.I i... ( .‘.i.: Question 2. In the event the City of 

### .-,,:.:&ubbook,

18requl+ed to file oondemnatlon

.,.:.:iA~,,~~~dlngs on land irlthin the 

### aorporate ‘, ‘*..limltr, my the oounty by re.aaon of Its oon-
, t?aot vlth the State Hlghvsy Department in a’oopexwtion with the City of Lubbock use suoh funds to pay for the land eotuallg taken end demeges worded by the speolel oommissioners or awarded by judgment on eppesl to the county court?
As 6generel proposltion of low It Is settled that the control endjurisdiction ovep streets of 8

### muulcIpellty nrs exclusive In thet city or town. However, the courts hove held that the oountg hes the right to expend funds 

### inthe Improvement of streets within the oorporete limits of a olty whensold streets forks 8pert of the county road system, or 8oonnectlng link In Stete

In Attorney Geae~el Opinion Bo.O-7465, doted Hovember 8, 1946, it van raid:

0 Aaounty any not purohsse loud in an 

### &o&orated olty for highrep purposes if such purohese ooufllots vlth the jurisdlotion’oi the aunlolprllty; however, It is our opinion Lt the oity approves, consents to, acquiesces 

### or oooperates in the purchase, then the oounty maypmhsse the lend for suoh purpose. This vlev is not inaonslstent vlth the ;i;Ing thet the county megnot oondemnsuch

. The pover of condemnetlon, 

### If present.
Hon. Yaggoner Csrr, page 3 (V-971)

4n the ooullty, TOUld be them reg~rbless o? oouaeut o~..,sp~rovsl of the olty. Swh power would oooillot with the-jurlrdlotion 

### of the 

### o%ty‘over itr,stmets~ theroiore, nnder .eple authority there Is no such l uth-

, ority. in the oounty. But thera IS 

### powerto parahrae with the approval or oonsent or the.. 

### 01ty.m :.?

.’ The above opinioa psrt:oularly emphsslsea 

### the irat thSt the oounty has the Dower to Durahsse such loud only ?oi, oounty or &t&e hi ky purpoies. Also see: smith V. cath~t 226 3.u.15 P (TCU.C~V.A~P.W?O); State

x.874 (18 7)r Benet v. Dallas Counm26 ~~~~~~v,A~~;l~~,~~~~~~~~iA~~*on v. lieelx

-9
. . -TS!X!, error . . . re.. :
.

. ‘~ It Ia therefore our opinion that your first question should be answered in the sffl~etlve.

zo.,the ease or Adams v. Roulnrall county, 280 B.W.759 (!Tex.Collpn.App.l%?b) It wss held that the County of Roakwall did not have thi power 

### toooudemnlaud 

### tar rood purposes within the 

### corporatelimits of the town of Royce. The Court mid:

“There does not nppesr to be an crmblgulty in the language employed by the Legislsture to expmss its intent as to vhrt agencies should exeroise~ conttiox’ ovev the highksjs withln’inoorporsted cities and towns, OFas to the ext elusive nature o? that oontrol.” , fin the Beast v. Dal188 Co&r Case’, supra, the cola& steted:

%xcept la cases ooming within the scow-’ of some general 

### or speolal statute In vhich authority Is expressly ooniemwd, oountles are without authority to lease out or oontrol streets andhlghvays o? the incorporated cltLea end tome, or to have property condemned for such purposes.” While It has been the long estebllshed opinion OSthis deportment that a oounty maypurohnse, with the oousent or a olty, the right-of-wsy for 8hlghvey through an Inoorporated cItyI nevertheless the olty snd countyC

c

c

c I Boa. Waggoner Cnrr, page 4 

### (V-971)

lFOreparste

rod distinot jurIsdIotions InSorOr es they relrte to hlghvry 

### n 8tters, having reporate anddlstluot powers and prItllmges; aad the lwlebtedness or one IS not the indebtednear of the other. Title to property ooodemned by 8olty or anersement ts In the nsmeOSthe oity, whereor aQhts-of+rsy purohssed by 6oounty for hlghwey prrrposes sze vested in the State o?~Texss.

Artiole III, Section 

### 51o? the Constitution 0s TOXOS IS in pert 88 r0ii0w8: .*

“TheLeglsl8tw ah811 hove no paver to arks any grant ox@ ruthorlse the meking of 

### my grant o? pub110 monies to any IndIvidu8l, OSaooistlon oS~indIvIdu818, munIoIPe1 or other corporations rhetsoever.

. . .n’ Artlole III, Section 52 of the Constitution OS Texes provides In pa&:

“The L.egIslatum shall have no 

### powerto euthorlse any county, olty, town, 

### orother political oorporatlon or subdIvIsIon of the St&e to lend its credit 

### orto grent public money 

### orthing of ,valw In aid of, or to any IudIvIdual essoaIatlon or oorporstlon whstsoever, ., . .” This oousiItutIon%l prohIbItIon. YOUnpplied la the oesea of San Antonlo Inde ent School DIstrIot v. Boerd of Trwtees, 2m 2d ref. n.r.e.), ad City oi il 0 I 1947 

### 251 (Tex.CIv.A~.l~ 

### ~:~&,",,~::'108 6%%

,error 

### ref.). In’the ease of Galveston H.B.S.A.RY.CO. v. E;td; ~~?J;~~;~~~I~~U.~~ (Tex.CZv.App.1942, error

"The CommissIonen~ Court o? a oounty has only swh pavers as 8re sxpressly or by neoessrry implloetlon given it by the Constltutloa and statutes of this State.” Also see: Avt.V, 

### ~0.18, Tex.Const.; Hills county v. ~am~ssas county, 

### 90,Tex.603, 40s.w.~EIT~~?); ti.A

### .Nor&annnd Bros. v. Ecissouri K.& T.R.Co., 50Tex.420,

. . tr(l-

. Pnsslng to the qwstfon presented, It will beHon. 

### WaggonerCam, pegs 5 (v-971) 

# wa

.

. noted thet e oounty may

### notoondemnproperty lying vlthin the jurlsdlotion of the City of Lubbock, end being without authority to condemn, It neoesserily follows thet a county meynot peg the oondemnatlon srerds for the City of Lubbock. The title to swh property or the easement obtained vould be 

### In the nameof the Clty of Lubbock; end our State Constitution, es set out ebove end es interpzwted by the oases olted, prohibits the of

### ficers of the oounty from peylag over proceeds of 

### abond Issue to e munIoIpel 

### corporation. In the ebsenoe of euthority pe$mIttIng the semeto be 

### done, we are of the oplnIon that the County of Lubbook would not be authorized to pay the oondemnetlon sv8rds egalnst the City of Lubbock.

ACommIssIonersl Court 0s s oounty may expend oounty road bond funds Lathe Improvement of city streets 

### forming 8pert 0s the county 

### rood system or (Iaonnectlng link In a stete highvey with the consent of the city end mop purchese lends for rights-of-vey for St&e highways within the city If the oity couaents~end~ epproves. Bwhes v. County CommIssioners~ Court of Harris County, 35 3 W

. . d 618 (Tex.CIv.App.1931)’ City of BreokenCounty ‘120 T 318 40 s. G.Opinfon O-7%6, d&ed
Inasmuch as e county maynot condemn lend vlthtn en Lucorporeted city, a oounty meynot pay 

### the oondemnatlou award for 8city on property obtained by the olty by oondemnetlon for rights-of -way purposes. Such payment would be In violetion of the Constitution. Tex.Const., Art.111, Secs.51 end 52; Benet v. Dellaa Coun- ~~~~.sl;~~~~l~T~~~~:;l~~~l~~:~~~~e~cfo~~. APP -1926) - Yours very truly,