.l .~. OFFICX OF *.* .,;, 

### ~?EE &!TQlRX3X 

# GENEAUSTIN.%‘RXAS paICEDANIEL f#wmmY Oe.mxuL June 23, 1947

Ron. Roy C. 3noQrase, Jr. CountyAttorney Potter County
Attention: Eon. John PMmaon,

Asalatant Oounty

### Attorney 1

‘

.. Opinion No. V-261. .RO: Authority of the OOlPr

. IlllesloJmre’ oourt of

Potter aouJlty to eIpend oounty funds in the imDearMr. anoagrarrsi P hvement of oity etr0etB nAmarillo. Your request 

### foran opinion of this Demrtmentla eubetantlallp aa $011~8:

9he Oomml~eionere~ Court of Potter County.ie dsalroue or epetndingapproxlmatelp $25,000.00 out of the county road and bridge ftind for the laprovement of BtrOeta : In the Olty of Amarillo. It la their 

### plan I to work with the oitJi offioials on thlrr program and 

### oneaoh part of the oity street0

. whloh are improved a peroent ‘of oounty run&r will be used, and an equal perosnt of oity - / funds will be used and a psroent will be paid by saoh Lndddual land 

### owner adjoinin the street. The queetloo ha8 ariaen as to 

### whether

or not the Oommlesionere~ Oourt oan \.. legally expend oounty road and,bridge iundr

for a

. that t ey dealre to lmprwa, or stated an7 and all of the etredr in Amarillo 

### otherwaythe quecrtion 18 ameall oi tti atreota 

### lnAnmrlllo a part of the ~oounty ’ 

### roadryrtam’?

a

.. . .
‘3. .

I

I

, **.a.**

**s-~.-w., Ll** Bon. Roy CLSnodgrass,‘Jr. - Page 2

.

“In Potter County the majority of the population is located wIthIn the oity ll,mIt,s and the majority of the roads are In the city limits and‘it Is myopinion that the SupremeCourt did nOtimeanto limit a oounty auohas ours by allowing the Commissioners’ Court to Only improve a road In the city limits whenit Only oonneote a oounty road coming Into the city on one side and going out on the other. Another feature or Potter County is that the oity, although situated most1y In Potter County, goes into .Randal,l County on the South side and a strict eonstruotion of the Stephens County case would meanthat the Comissionere~ Court cannot spend any funds on roads ooming into the oity from the‘North side a8 It would be impossible to conneot with the oounty road on the South side of Amarillo.w Generally speaking, It Is a well settled proposition ot law thlit the.oontrol andjuriediotion

over streets of a mnIoIpa1 oorporation Is 6xolueIve in said oorporation and oountiea have the right to 8x1 pend $unde In the Improvement of streets wltbin the ..oorporate limit8 of a city when.said streets are e part .of the oounty road system and,whendone with !he oonmnt of. the oity;

In the ease of Bughe8.v:. County Comdaaionera* Court of Harrla County, 95 9. W. 2d 81.8, 

## she Court etated .a8 hollows:

.:

Vhe oOuntyhaa,..byvirtue of the ‘,’ provisions of the general laws of this state,. as well ‘as by the firrls County looal road’law, the right to emend ita. funds in the improvement of~a street within the’ oorporate.’ lImIta of a ,oIty whloh Is also a pub110road or the oounty, espeoially so whensuch improvement ia donewith thb oonsent and Invitatloh of the city authorities.

. . ‘., uln~obedIeiioe to I& mandateof artiole, & ’seotion 9, of the Constftu-

.’ tion, whliohwetbInk self-enaotlng, the,

‘

.Eon. Roy 9. Snodgrass, Jr. - Page 3

IagIslature In 1911 and 1899passed &at Is nowartloles 2351 and 2352 of our Civil Statutes. Byarticle 2351, the oomaissIoners* oourts were.authorlzed amongother things, to lay out andestablish public roads and to exerolse general oontrol over all publIo roads In their respeotlve oounties, and

### by,artIole 2352 suoh ,oourt Is authorized to levy and,oolleot taxes for road purposes and for the erection of publio buildings, streets, Bewers,asto. The right to levy and oolleot taxes for oertaln purposes oarries with it the right to expend the funds whenso oolleoted to oarry out the purposes for whIoh it was oolleoted. It Is ImaterIal to inquire whether the dominion and oontrol over roads’ie given by statutes other than the artlolea mmd. Artlole 2352 olearly oarrles with It the Inplled power of the oomaIssIoners~ oourts to. expend the road funds of their respeotlve oountlee In the Improvement of streets., espeoially mob streets as oonstltute a pavt of a pub110 road of the=county, .beoause by the provisions * of the Uonstltutlon oountlee are glven the right to levy and oolleot taxer for the Smprovemnt of both road6 and otreeta.

. .

“The

## weight

of authority seems to lndloate that under the general law the. oountlea have the oonetltutional I and statutory power to expend their road funde 

## inthe Improvement of their road8 whloh pass through a muniolpalltg, and that they have the right 

### to lawwe ‘euoh roads though they be street8 of mob munlol alltles with the oontient of th8.m niolpalltlee. Stat& 0. Jones 18Tex. 874; Smith v. Oathey (Ter. Oiv. App.) 225 8. W. 168; Renat v* Dallarr Oounty her. Olr. 

### 4p.j 266 8. W. 540.”

.Hon. Roy C. Snodgrass, Jr. - Page 4

The samerule was announced In the ease of .the City of Breoksnrldge v. Stephene County, 40 8. W. 2d 43, wherein Judge Crltz, speaking for the Supremb Court; stated as f6llcws:
of ‘the“After a careful InvestIgatIon authorities, Including the Constitution and laws of this State, we have reached the oonoluslon that the oommIssIoners~ court does have lawful authority to expend county road bond funds for the Improvementof city streets where suoh streets form Integral parts of oounty roads or state hIghways, whe,nsuch Improvements are madetithout conflicting wIth.the jurIsalotlon of the munIoIpalIty, or with Its oonsent or approval. Se&Ion 52, art. 3, Texas Constitution; State v. Jones, lb Tex. 874; Smith v. Cathey’ (Tex. Clv. App;) 226 S. W. 158, lb0; Cannonv. Realty Construction 00.. (Tax. &lnA~:) e42 S. W. 526, 529 (wrl~
Weotlon 52 of artlole 3‘of our State Constitution authorizes dounties and *polItIoal subdivisions and defined dietriots thereof to issue bond6 for the purpose of: ’ (0) The oonstruotlon malntenanoe and operation of maoadamized, .graveled or paved poads and turnpikes, or In aid thereof.’

“The oonstItutIonal provl &on, aboys referred to expressly~ provides that road dietriots ‘may or maynot inoLudetowns, villages or munlolpal oorporatlons. f Thus by the express terms of the Constitution a munIolpal oorpor atlon maybe an Integral part 

### of a road distrlot. As a part of the road dIatrlot, the property of the olty or town is subjeot to road dlstrlot taxes just the sameas roperty of the dlstrlot looated out4 de 8uohmunIoIpalIty. If

P a olty or towq 1s a part of a road alatrlot, th? oommIesloners* oourt has the .

.Ron. Roy C. Snodgrass, Jr. - Page 5 -

right by the very express prcvisiohs ! ,’ OSthe Conetltution’to expend road al*;“,’ : trlot bond funds on such town or city streets where suoh streets are parts of and form connecting links in county Of state highways.* It will be observed from the foregoing that 

### if a lmprwememt

18 made, the Samemust be oonfimd~ to the streets forming a part of the county road system, andmust be donewith the consent of the municipal corporation within which said streets are located. In the 5reckenrIdge case above cited, a dIstInotIOn was drawn between streets forming a part of a county road system ana streets generally. It was held that the CommIssIoners’ Court could blna Itself to spend county road bond ?uads to ala the oltv In Improving streets forming a part of the county roaas but oould not bind Itself to aid the city in IiuDrovInuother streets. It Is obvloue h t th It aat d dl tI tion between streets, sp~ahI~yg6~e%.y oi t~~wa%er~esn~f traff Ic wlthln a nunioIpalIty;and suoh streets as form a continuation of a county road, but In any event a street whloh has been _ designated by a oounty’as a part of It8 system. (Attor- .! ney~General*s Opinion Ro. o-1190) Inasmoh as h~county my, with the oonsqnt of the city, improve the streets of such olty forming a part of the “oounty road Sy~te@, it neoessarily follows that a determination must be madeas to what Oonstitutes a county road system. The Constitution oonuuands that the laying out, constructing andrepairing of county roads shall be provided for by general laws. Aocordlngly general laws have been enaoted setting up a State HighwayCommlsslon to adminIster State highways and delegating the oontro&go;e;ty roads to the County Commissioners’ Courts. if a public ‘road has been established andused ae a ’ ’ county road, the oounty would be authorized to expend moneyon such oounty road If the sametraversed a olty, andanymoneyexpended would be authorized on the I,& prcveImnt of 8treet.s if the samehave been established andused and are an integral part of a oounty road. (Art. 87*0716, V. C. S.)- Byvirtue of the Rreohenridge ease, If the street desired to be Improved is a OonneotIng link in a duly establiehea oounty road the samerule would be applloable, the 111Wmoaningto.unite or link “oonneotlng A oonneSt* link by it6 very namemUSt.be Something that holds two different Slements toget&?/ (38 Pao: ‘(3) 103).\ r$a Hon. Roy 0. Snodgrass, Jr. - Page 6

, In view or the foregoing It .I8 belle&d that the streets of Amarillo oonneotlng’oounty road8 would be “oonneotlng lInlce* despite the faot that a portion of Amsrlllo Is In Randall County. The only 1ImItatIon Imposedby the physical faots would be jurIsdIotIona1; that ls~, the Iaprwement would go only to the oounty line. Therefore, It Is the oplnIon of this Department that those roads established as oounty roads and those olty streets of Amarl formIng an Integral part OSthe oounty road system maybe improved by the oounty with the consent of the olty of Amarillo. Further, those streets forming a oonneotlng link for oounty roads traversing the olty of Amarillo maybe Improved, but only to the oounty 11~ of Potter andRandall oountles.

‘Your brief SurnIbhed this office has materIal)y aided In the dlsoueslon of the eubjeot under ’ oonsld~ratlon and 16 appreciated. t3lmARY‘ 

# . j (J t E 7. i

,j VR All

CountyRoadandBridge Fundsmy be expended In the improvement of oounty roads pdsslng through a.olty, though they be streets of such olty, provided oonsent la obtained from the olty and.suoh streets are integral parts of ’ the oounty roads; streets forming a “oonneotlng 1IW on auly eetablIshed county roads maybe Improved

‘

. by the oounty with the oonsent of the olty.

City of Breokenrldge v. Stephens County, 40 8. V. (2) 43; ,Eughesv. OountyComlsslonera* Court of Harris Oounty, 35 8. W. (2) 8l.8. Very truly yours,



### Bwiajm:libjbrwR

. Byey3
This 

## OHdonnae oonsldered andapproved in Confermoe.

. .