## TEHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AURTIN. Tmxae 

### 78711

October 21, 1974

The Honorable James H. Whitcomb **County Attorney**  P. 0. Box 867 Columbus, Texas 78934 Opinion No. H- 428
Re: Whether residents ofa commissioners precinct have a vested interest in funds assigned to that Dear Mr. Whitcomb: precinct.
You have informed us that commissioners precinct lines in Colorado County have been redrawn to equalize the population in each precinct. One result of this redistricting was the transfer ofa substantial number of residents from Precinct One to Precinct Three. You ask if these persons “have any vested rights in the balances ofthe various funds ofPrecinct No. One, including its Road and Bridge Fund?”
The fund inwhich you are primarily interested, the Road and Bridge Fund, has been the su,bject oflitigation in relation toits distribution among precincts. That fund consists ofad valorem tax revenues (TEX. CONST. art. 8, seco 9) and motor vehicle registration fees (V. T. C.S. **art. 6675a-10)**  **D**
V. T. C. S. article 6740, which relates to the distribution ofthe Road and Bridge Fund, provides, in part:

The commissi,oners court shall see that the road and bridge Sundoftheir county is judiciously a,ndequi~tabl,yexpended on,the roads **and** bridges ofihei:rcounty, ard, as nearrly as t.hecondition and necessity of the roads **wi,hl.**permit, **i,t**shall be e>:pended Ianeach county commissioners precinct in proportion to the amount collected in such precinct. D

. .

pm1981.

The Honorable James H. Whitcomb. page 2 (H-428)

However, there is no vested right tohave any certain distribution ofthe funds among precincts. This issue was decided by the Texas Supreme Court in Stovall v. Shivers, 103 S.W. 2d 363 (Tex. 1937), where itwas said:

Itwill be observed that the article in question provides that the road and bridge fund shall be judiciously and equitably expended on the roads and bridges ofthe county, and, as nearly as the condition and necessity of the roads will permit, shall be expended in each county commissioners precinct inproportion tothe amount collected in such precinct. Inour opinion, there is obviously nothing in this article which compels the commissioners court to divide the road and bridge fund according to any fixed mathematical formula, and apportion same in advance for the purpose of being expended in any given precinct. The use oftheword ‘expended’ to our minds clearly suggests that said funds shall be apportioned and paid out from time to time as the necessity for their use arises in the ordinary administration ofthe county affairs.: By article 2342 ofthe Revised Statutes, it is provided that the several commissioners, together with the county judge, shall compose the ‘commissioners court. ’ Such court is manifestly aunit, and is the agency of the whole county. The respective members ofthe commissioners court are therefore primarily representatives of thewhole county, and not merely representatives oftheir respective precincts. The duty ofthe commissioners court is to transact the business, protect the i,nterests, and promote the welfare of the coun~ltyas awho1.e.

. a . This fund is, of course, for the benefit ofall, roads and bridges ofthe county. These provisions of the law, as well as others which might be mentioned, clearly contemplate that the commissioners court ofeach county shall regard the roads and

p* 1982The Honorable James H. Whitcomb, page 3 (H-428)

highways of the county as a system, tobe laid out, changed, repaired, improved, and maintained, as far as practical, as awhole to the best interests andwelfare ofall the people of the county. Itis clearly contemplated that all roads and bridges ofthe county shall be maintained, repaired, and improved when necessary, as the conditions may require, regardless ofthe precinct inwhich same may be located, so far as the funds will equitably justify. This being true, we think that a commissioners court cannot voluntarily disable itself from performance ofthis general obligation by arbitrarily dividing the road and bridge fund according to some fixed standard, and apportioning same tobe expended in aparticular precinct, to the detriment of roads and bridges in other precincts. 103 S.W. 2d at 366-67.

, ‘385 S.W. 2d 702 (Tex. Civ. App. --Amarillo 1964, writ ref’d. n.r. e.);Alley v. Jones, 311 S.W. 2d 717 (Tex. Civ.App. --Beaumont 1958, writ ref’d. n.r. e.); Garland v. Sanders, 114 S.W. 2d 302 (Tex. Civ. App. --Dallas 1938, writ dism’d); Attorney General Opinion O-1091 (1939).
Those road and bridge funds consisting ofautomobile registration fees are not subject to the requirements of article 6740. They are governed by article 6675a-10 and are to,be expended in amanner which will give the county auniform system of roads without reference to precinct lines. Stovall V. Shivers, supra; Attorney General Opinion V-566 (1948); Attorney General Opinion O-4548 (1942); Attorney General Opinion O-3358 (1941). Furthermore, there .is nolonger a constitutional prohibition against transferrirxg surpl,us road and bridge funds to the general fund. TEX. CONST. art. 8, sec. 9: At,forney Genera,1 Opini,on H-194 (1.974).
Some road and bridge funds are not required tobe apportioned among precincts; the remaining funds are not required to be apportioned by a static formula. Inaddition, road and bridge funds may be transferred to the general fund. Itis therefore our opinion that residents ofaparticular precinct have no

p0 1983The Honorable James H. Whitcomb, page 4 (H-4281

vested right in funds collected from or apportioned to that precinct. We believe that the language inStovall describing the county-wide responsibility ofthe commissioners court would also preclude a conclusion that residents ofaprecinct had vested interest in any other fund.
SUMMARY
Residents of a commissioners precinct who, through redistricti.ng, are shifted to another precinct have no vested interest in the funds assigned to their former precinct. Very truly yours,

P Aa

J HN L. H L Attorney General of Texas

LuDAVID M. KENDALL, Cha,irman Opinion Committee

pe 1984