Eon. Bill S. Watkins

County Gtorney Llano County Llano, Texas

Dear Sir: OpinionWo. O-962 Re: Could “acquisitionof right-ofway” be construedto include the fee chargedby an engineer for making a survey of a road that is included in the call for the bond election?

We have your letter of recent date requestingan oi>inion

on the above stated question.

We quote from your letter as fOllOidS:

“I am exlosing herewith a copy of a resolution passed :-‘y

the CommissionersI Court of Llano County, Texas, prior to the passa;e of the bond issue mentionedin said resolution.

“Some time before said election a group of private citizensof this county hired~ a civil engineer to make a survey of the proposed Brady road mentioned in subdivision (a) of said resolution. These citizensasreed to pay said engineerw:hen aad if silic!

surve:; s!lould be approvedby the Highway Department.
“The -&;ineersof the I;i,?;hway Departmentap- ;xoved said survey;and said bond issue having been voted by the :>eo-,le in the meantime, these citizens requestedthe county to pay the fee chargedb:r said Engineer~for said. survey out of the bond money voted.
“The ;,uestion

ar?.sing

in .the mind of th< ><:riter
was w:-iether

‘acquisition

of right-of-way’could be construedto include fee charged by an engineer for making a survey of a road that is included in the call for the box? election. The Commissioners’ Court is willing:

to ~>,a;? thi s fee if tiley can legally pay saxe out of this bond money. I shall thereforea,Jpreciate very much :;our givin;; ile,-our

o:>inion

on the legality of su.c;i

1 ~~ayment.”
11; is elexn’tarytiltit the funds derived from the sale of bonds ma:;::ot

be diverted from the i_$ur.noses specifiedin t?le

li .,Hon. Bill S. Watkins, page #2.



# E roposition submittedto the electors. AransasCounty v. oleman-Fulton

Pasture Company, 191 S.W. 553, Heathmanv. Singletary,12 S.W. (2d) 150, Huggins v. Baden, 259 S.W. 204.

It follows that where a departurefrom the proposition appearing on the ballot paper is alleged, the only question is whether the expenditurecontemplated is within or without the proposition upon.its true construction. Adamsv. Mullen, 244 S. W. 1083.

Construingpropositionsto this end, it has been held by the courts that "road" includes a bridge constituting
a necessary length in the road, and that l%urnpikes" means hard-surfaced

roads. Aransas County v. Coleman-fulton Pasture Company and Adams v. Mullen, supra.

The Attorney General'sofficehas held in an opinion written by the HonorableScott Gaines, former AssistantAttorney General, that road bond money may be used in construction of the proper drains and ditcheswhen such are appropriately and incidentallyconnected with the construction of the road proper. And by an analogy of reasoningwe see no reason why it would not be held that a survey is necessary in the "acquisition of the right-of-way."

Therefore, it is the opinion of this departmentthat if the Commissioners' Court desires to pay the fee charged by the engineer for making a survey of the road, it may enter.an order finding that the surveywas necessary to the acquisition of the right-of-way,and may legally pay for same out of the bond money.

However,we want it clearlyunderstoodthat we are not holding that the Commissioners' Court must assume the debt set out in your letter, but the fact that a survey is necessary to the "acquisitionof a right-of-way", they may assume the debt if they so desire.

Trusting that this answersyour question, we remain,

APPROVEDJTJL

14, 1939 s/ W. F. Moore Very truly yours ATTORNEY cz3~mfi.L

OF 

### mxAs FIRST ASSISTANT By /s/ Claud 0. Boothman ATTORNEYGENERAL Claud 0. Boothman,Assistant APPROVED:,OPINION

COMMITTEE BY: WRK. CHAIRMAN COB-s:wb '