.l .~. 

OFFICX OF * .* ., ;, 

~?EE &!TQlRX3X GENEAUSTIN. %‘RXAS 

paICE DANIEL f#wmmY Oe.mxuL June 23, 1947 

Ron. Roy C. 3noQrase, Jr. 

County Attorney 

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 imDear Mr. anoagrarrsi P 

hvement of oity etr0etB 

n Amarillo. 

Your request for an opinion of this Demrtment la eubetantlallp aa $011~8: 

9he Oomml~eionere~ Court of Potter 

County.ie dsalroue or epetnding approxlmatelp $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 on eaoh 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 7 t ey dealre to lmprwa, or stated anand all of the etredr in Amarillo 

other way the quecrtion 18 ame all oi tti 

atreota ln Anmrlllo a part of the ~oounty ’ 

road ryrtam’? 

a 

. . . . 

‘3 
. . 

I 

I 

, 

.a. 

s-~.-w., Ll 

Bon. Roy CL Snodgrass,‘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 my opinion 

that the Supreme Court did nOti mean to 

limit a oounty auoh as ours by allowing 

the Commissioners’ Court to Only improve 

a road In the city limits when it 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 

mean that 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 and juriediotion 

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, when done 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 oOunty haa,.. by virtue 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 pub110 road or the oounty, espeoially so when such improvement 

ia done with thb oonsent and Invitatloh 

of the city authorities. . . 

‘., 

uln~obedIeiioe to I& mandate of 

artiole, & ’ seotion 9, of the Constftu- 

.’ tion, whlioh we tbInk self-enaotlng, the, 

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

IagIslature In 1911 and 1899 passed 

&at Is now artloles 2351 and 2352 of 

our Civil Statutes. By article 2351, 

the oomaissIoners* oourts were .authorlzed among other things, to lay out 

and establish 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 when so 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 in the 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 ni olpalltlee. 

Stat& 0. Jones 18 Tex. 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 same rule 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 Improvement of city 

streets where suoh streets form Integral parts of oounty roads or state 

hIghways, whe,n such Improvements are 

made tithout 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; 

Cannon v. 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 may not inoLude towns, villages or munlolpal oorporatlons. f Thus by the express terms 

of the Constitution a munIolpal oorpor 

atlon may be 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 same as roperty of the dlstrlot 

looated out4 P de 8uoh munIoIpalIty. If 

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 ! ,’ 

OS the 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 Same must be oonfimd~ to 

the streets forming a part of the county road system, 

and must be done with 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 IiuDrovInu other 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 

made as to what Oonstitutes a county road system. The 

Constitution oonuuands that the laying out, constructing 

and repairing of county roads shall be provided for by 

general laws. Aocordlngly general laws have been enaoted setting up a State Highway Commlsslon to adminIster State highways and delegating the oontro&go;e;ty 

roads to the County Commissioners’ Courts. 

if a public ‘road has been established and used ae a ’ ’ 

county road, the oounty would be authorized to expend 

money on such oounty road If the same traversed a olty, 

and any money expended would be authorized on the I,& 

prcveImnt of 8treet.s if the same have been established 

and used and are an integral part of a oounty road. 

(Art. 87*0716, V. C. S.)- By virtue of the Rreohenridge ease, If the street desired to be Improved is a 

OonneotIng link in a duly establiehea oounty road the 

same rule would be applloable, the 

111W moaning to.unite or link 

“oonneotlng 

A oonneSt* 

link by it6 very name mUSt .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 Imposed by 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 OS the oounty road system 

may be 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 may be Improved, but only to 

the oounty 11~ of Potter and Randall 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 

County Road and Bridge Funds my 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 may be Improved 

‘. 

by the oounty with the oonsent of the olty. 

City of Breokenrldge v. Stephens County, 40 

8. V. (2) 43; ,Eughes v. Oounty Comlsslonera* 

Court of Harris Oounty, 35 8. W. (2) 8l.8. 

Very truly yours, 

Bwiajm:libjbrwR 

. 

By ey3 

This OHdon nae oonsldered and approved in Confermoe. . .