. . . . . 

* . . . . :...- 

OFFICE OF THE A’@ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
I$onorable Jo. Releon, me #%! 

& on soptsrber 22, 1952 "&a deo&nation waa canoellad and 

&anged to the road iram Llbe to lbix~ston. According 

%a a hateuent by Juae;s W. R. ?I y and D. K. Hartin, who aompriwd a tajoriQ of the HIghmay Caemholon in 1332, the Com- 

~imlan did not have ~ficlont funds to builU both the roads 

*it was proposed &8t the draignrtion fk'0.m Dayton to Cleveland 

bu oencallod and Ch%t the county oonsbuot this road with bond 

ommy, rdth fhs undW&anding th%t the road roUta be redeaignated a.tter cronatruotion was ocnnplekd. Aaoordlngly, in Rovumber 19S2, tha doolgmtlon f'rcm Darton to Clevel8?~~ros oancelled and changed to the mad from Liberty to UvirGaton. At 

the tLne of this o%noeI.tition, it was We expresmd intention 

of the m8Jorlty of tha IfS.@msy Cbaml~~olon to radeslgmbe the 

road aa a State hi-7 after e& Oountg complete4 oonatructlon 

thsreon. * 

During the years 19S6 thw@h 3.999 Liberty Cauat ioauad 

lta benda and spent tha n@ney on the oonstruat&on of an I S-SooC 

ooncmt0 ld.ghw%y betmdn the terms of Dayton and Cleveland. Aster 

completion of tha road, the Highmay OaurLseion oondltiowlly des&ncde4l thlo roads4 HQhnyHo. 891, but the aomdltiono Imposed 

in the dealgn%tlon wtwo not met uatU Ootober, lfW and ct that 

tlw the State aoswcd mintenanm of the road. The Btmrd oi 

County CinB DiotMat Raad fndebtedns8a th.nSmntud Liber 

z,the 

ColmtJ 

partiolpedon on the bonds that were oubetamlixqg at the t 

road rau tpken over by &a Eigzlsrry CaPsaiaaion for aobtimanos 

purposba, in aocordence with our Opinion Nob O-1942. 

The uounty nor requeots that it be rsirpburood fork ~11 

prinaip8l snd lnter6at paid bg the eouxaby fmm 1935 to the date 

%ha road na teken OVOP for maintenanoe, and baae$ this contant&on on the fs& t&t the road use a deoignated h.Qhwa~ on Septmiber 17, lOPar and the furth%r foot that the x%md was a deaignated aighwar when our Opinion No, 04854 use approved in COW 

mictee. We do not agree with there contention& 

Opinion oIlS84 oontain8 the following ~ar~raphs: 
320 

"The h&a uhioh 

e: 

lvs riss to our first question 

are, briefly, as lo1 ovo8 In 1898 the Dayton-Cleveland Road in Liberty County was a part of tha Mate 

Highray Systa and M dms@ated as Hate Highway 

#l&i, ax@ later this desQn8tlon was lifted or abandoned and said designation appUsd to ano%her road. 

.subnquen~, that 1lB bdrooa soptimber 87, 1988 aud 

~ortoJ~%,i~,~b~~Ooontyao~tnzo~ 

theDayton-OleveladRoadulthbondfWads. Tao 

msrlso, ltraastbs noted thmt suahd.sfparrt$onns 

abandsnsd and tb State R&#isay -so ub%sh bad bs@n 

rpprled to ths Dsyton-Olsvalud Road was appklad t0 

another road, nsmly, the LAbwhy-livingstan Road. 

p uxth w, it is l dm%ttad tbettben as rm bbt, oxistiag~t~at~~drord~abuzdoLud~sr~ 

of Urr,8tatoEl&huq6ystam,~sh, iaaa~op2nlol2, 

ox8lude* from pwtioipetlsn in the on@?wnfJ gao tax 

Um obUgatbn8 8ub88quez1bly ereatub for tha ean- 

*mar 00n*txwtlan of J3ar8@@ 3, Seation 8, is 

Wt cmly such xo8d1~88 had fomnerly oonstituted & 

wt0r tb0 sw0Hiehry8~8knmati~08kt~~ 

hd bssn &+st f;hrough &U&s, X'dOO8t&0S 02 8bfUAdon-. 

msnt, that hsd bsan aenstrus%ad with bond funds and 

the obllgstlons lssusd to ssowe such funds we~m outsknafnpS at the tLne.tlm read was a part of the Systoa, and *hioh bonds or obwtiona bad not been 

disohax+ged or retired %t the time such mad lost its 

de&nation either %hmmgh ahsnga, relaoatlon or 

sbandorsss~~, aan par8iolpats 80 LIL rellgibla issum~ 

undex the *wow and provlslons of Rouse Bill #686. 

We oannot osnoelve that $2~ &sgislatum.$ntsndad to, 

penrlt bonds, the prooeads of wh2uhara tQ.bs expended on a rord iowerly ooru%ltutlng 8 part; oi the W&e 

HIghway syotea, to partialpots in ths ~LarrJ benaiZts 

of the ens-cent gasoline tss if such b,onds ara lssusd 

subsequent to the abandomkent of su6h mad as a paP* 
323. 

of the State Righmy Sp8tm+ Further, there balng 

no erid*nt inkntion by aa lughway a08ftiwd0a of 

mdedgn6tt3.ng rush mad aa a part of the Righway 

8 *tom, me think the axoeptlon provided ln sub#eetIon (a) al sootion 6, 

to thS.8 LMW of bon&. 

gamgqh 8, inrpplloabfm 

mhon the Baytun4~v~lan1¶ road WM deaigxmted as a Stat. 

Highway in 19a8 them wx'a no ont8tukding obligationr. Bonda 

had been voted in X9%3 but the .sub not boon soXd, hem. did not 

8cln8tituto 'OUb8tanding obllga t ionr.* gubmatlan (a) of Seatiun 6 oi the "Bond Ama@icn AaM* pmW%dbs that ‘t&U bOnd8, 

namanta or other svidanaea of i.ndebtalnaur horotofore f88ued 

by ouUIlti.8 or detIne& foJl diB.rtri0t8 O? this state, Which tituW 

on or artas amaary 1, l@ss, l.nwtu, y OpouDtfJ et &B&were i8- 

r9 n?l iR s OOll8~%5?i 

OO&8.: “'$A& Of the QUt# Of 

doslgnatad atah Ugkmaya on September 17, 1osB 9 u it.*' Ilo bond8 

‘i6P8 Issued md OUt8kpdfpg,WS'hrd the &W%WWd8 Of 81IybOnd8 

been ratUalXy aspendad on thir rQad at the t%m OS ths 1992 deslgRatlon. In oW? o&t&ah *elAgkbZs bonds' U-9 bORd8 whioh were 

out8tandlng l tthetlamtha roadwan apart of the deaignntsd 

state Rlghuay syrtaa. 

%%a aBunt~ eubnZt8 a k.tst of bond8 rhioia 10~0 mode eliable br aertaln num pro tunoR ordorrr end asserts that their 

olaima are not M atron& km t&t of Libm'ty tJounty. It is not 

8hW3 tkt any Of the$e bonds mm nQt OUt8tUIdiq obUgat2cmm 

on the mmpectim date6 of de8ignatl.m a6 a part of the Elghmy 

SY8hU. 

In our Opinion No, O-1943 11) sridt 
“It 8e8IM tit this is the Otiy OOZLI?ItrUOtiOn 

tht OW be shoed UpOil th0 8kbltk68 & W8 UVs 

aooordingly, of the opinion that the publia road 

OS a county does not beocansr ‘ pert of the dbsigneted Stete @,hWRy 6y8tePI Until it h&pB been $&- 

gpi&p!?2*L&~*~ &s!!&~;‘~~~ 

lE&ay Comtnl88lon rev8 oontingsnt # teraporery 

end aonditioaal ded.gnatlon8 but we think it not 

Unreii8oMbls to ooIblude tit SUoh road8 OO=Ot 

beacme a pel't of the %ate Hi&W‘y 838teBl Until 

t;bs tez%uI and OonditiM8 laid do- in 8U&tiutw have beonoaapliedrith and BhPtfollmrfng 

8Uoh time ë8 l OC8l@ ~Oi?J ha8 be6l3 lJrOV@U t0 tHlghTIey IcngMer, and the ul&luay aoBl?aloeion ofiic%eUy de8igaat;es 8uQh rO8d Oa a j%I'rt of the 

state IiQhwaly Sy8t!W, aad bond or other oblij&atton i8aed, the procreOd8 of aoh PBFTB expended 

in ths con8truotion or pwaheee of right-ot-way 

therefcw can partfolpete In tha County and Mstr.iet 

Highway Fund as provided in H. B. 68% Fe thiDL 

tilia 18 true lrrearp8otlve of the opperent crcsption 

WC%Sting in Paragraph 8 of SOOtiOn 80 Of 8Uoh kW, 

Whioh reads a8 follows: 

"'In the event the State Xighnrs Con&eeion haa on a dtatwprlo~~ to Vemery 2, 1839, 

indicated its intention of deemUng ea 

Stats Hfghnry8 the publfo roada Of Wy 

aounty OP qeP;tned road dlatrigat in thI.8 

Stats ad has svidenaed rueh intention in 

it8 @fficid reUords or fib8 then the provision6 of this Aot shall apply as if the 

road had eotually been designeted prior to 

January 2, 1939.'" 

We adhere t0 the CORCluSionS eXpm98Bed in the foI?%er 

opinion8 herslnabove oited - holding thet only a--h bonds a8 

I&+X’6 OUt8tandi~ at the tialw the Fo‘dr beoonm 0 part of the 

Bteite System 6trb sl&ible for pertloipetion in the one-cent 
am4 

geuouilo tax, and that road8 do not oonstltutr a pert or 

the aJ8tW8 Of Std8 ar&arrrsr Until tb Sighway b3plrtXQ8b 

taker tmn over ror malntenapoe. 

You are, therefore, advl.aed Wat In our opinion 

tfberty Oounty la nut entltlad to be refmbmsed lor prinaipal and intsremt pa-t8 Blpdo w the County prior to tb 

data that theroad nataken over f'cr maintenanoa by tie 

St&'8 gi&lWSby CCWSb8bW.k.