Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN GROVER SELLERS ATTORNL~ GLNERAL I&O Donald E* treey i county blctirtor rlq or corm ty Kermit, rexar Dear Hr. Traoyt Oplnlon lo. O-7428 Aer tmder Artlole 66 TlnlclerCoun tT for snwve~ing notes for a p nay, where the to your letter, which reads as fol10W of the oanstruotlm &ray Department . know whether the above Is e 6674q-4 of 1943 supple- xas Statutes. oslng copies of letters between ray Department and the County Judge which may olarlfy the point nf the Rlgh- way Department taking over the road.' Prom the copies of the letters attached to the opla- Ion request, and f'roma copy oi'the oontraot which has heen fur- nished US made by the engineer with Tinkler County, it appears that Tlnkler County has been endeavoring for serernl years to construct a road from Kermit to the line or Andrewa County, and Mr. Donald E. Traoy - page 2 ban been endeavoring to aat the Mate Ele;hwajDepartment to oo- oper)ts with aald venture. It appears that on April 24, 1946, the County made a oontraot 81th the engineer to draw plans and speoliloations and supenlse the building of oertaln roads In Winkler County. The oontraot states that the englneer is to reoeive oertaln sums for the oempleted right-of-way surveys, lo~atlon, platting and legal desorlption for the Andrews road , and a different amount tor the pipe-line road from Wink- From Information furnished to us by the State Blghwaj Departmeat, the read from Kermit to the Andrews County line on May 89, 1940, was designated as a portion of the State Highway s7stem. On August 24, 1946, the State Highway Department oan- oeled this desl@atlon. We hare also been Informed by the State SJlghsaJCom- mission, as well as the County Judge of 'llnklerCountr, that there Is a plan on foot whereby It 15 hoped an agreement oaa be inadewith the State Highway Coa?mlsalon and Wlnkler County to hare the~road in question designated as a farm-to-market road, and thee hare same oompl ettd by the County snd the State Si@wa;l Connnlssionjoint17 as such road. We are not Informed how much of the work was done, ii any, by the engineer between Hay 29th and Aagttst 24, 1046, while this road was a part of the state Rigbray system* IleltberIs there any way for u5 to tell from the lnformatlon furnished the amount the engineer desire5 the County to pay him at this time. Under Artiole 0814q-4, Gited by you, the County Is not authorlaed to expend any of the County s funds on roads that hare been designated as a part of the State Highway systemj nejther Is there any provision In said Artiale eor the State Alghway Department to aooperate with the County In building any portion of a road that has been Beslgnated as a part or the State Highway system. Under Article 6673-o. the State HlKhway Commission Is luthorlaed to deslgnate any oountj road as a farm-to-market road *for purposes of COnsttWOtim , re-construction and malnte- nones only * + *e and provided furthor that the state Highway Commission and the Comissinners Court of the oounty in whloh any such road is looated may enter into a contraot that shall set forth the duties of'the State In the onnstrtlctlon, reaon- struction and maintenance of the county road, In consideration &!r. Donald B. Tracy - Cnae 3 of the oounty and/or road districts relinqutshtng nny and all olaims for State part3aipatfoa in any county, rend distriot or defined road dlstrlot bonds, warrants, or other evidences of indehtodness outstanding;against such road.' ?rom the ‘infarmafioa Purnlshed we cannot ansver ca'te- gorloally the questions you hare propounded. At the ti.@etho County entered into tha contraat with the engineer in April, 1948, the County was authorized to make a contraot to hate the roads surveyed, plattorland aonstruoted, beoause It had not heen desigrtatedas a State hlghway. For the work done by the en@.neer while tho road was or is a county road, he can he paid out of Ownty Punds. xe the road skauld be designated by the Stato Elghwn~ CornmiarinnRO a Pan?-te-Tar- ket road, then the work thereafter done muet be rflth the ap- proval aP the State FigMay Conmisoion. The contruct which tke county ~nde rith the cnclnecr is extremely arrW.guous In rdbrcnce to the yrjce t.keCounty is to ;ay US the work progressed. AS above dated, Article db74q-4 cf the Ravised St.at- utes r\rohibltsthe Colmty from spending any oP Its fund?ion rcrads that hare hoen dosigated an a part OP the State Higkway system. ‘The statute authorizing the dt?BtpYatim br tk% State IJlghway Co``~lssionaP Parm-to-?narketroads sutkcrizes the county and t.be State JiiFhwsy Comls~ion td entor into n joint arseoment Par the bulldinE oP a lamto-market road. There is, hr)wever, no law which autknrlaes the aountf And the St.ateitixxhtray SOIS- mission to jointly construot a road which kAn hecn dos~.gnAtcd a~ Fart aP the State IfiFhwnysystem. Your question yeAente R situation t.katin not autkor- lzed by tho statute, in that you state the roar? in qusstion is being cantdrueted or built.partly by the Stabe fllghvay depert- mcnt and partlr by the CeuntY, while the erldenoe shows that 1 t ha* not been aenipmatcd ~5 a fern-to-nark3t rma. Sinae the Cnunty trndtl>%ri@'t.to ~alrc the contract fn question on April 29, 39415,ft in our eyjnion, under the anthnrlty of le3t Audit co. v. Ynakum Colmt?, 35 S. v. (2) 404, the Condssianers Court md f,??e en(Tjno.“r O:XY`` Ad just their ojfrt-+?ncoa,nn,!the Cnuntr aoald ?a~ the onrineer nn a qnuntum meritItbasjs for tkc war?: he t-senerenmod. UnquC!ntil?nahlp, 110 think-;, tbjc na``lcl he true If the Ftctu !‘l,rhaof Ccnmjsnjrr nnd 3fr.Donald I?.Traay - page 4 the County flnrlly reroh 8n agreement under which the road in question is to be designated as a farm-to-market road. We are sending copies of this opinion to the State ni@IaJ Commission, the engineer emploJed by the County and the County Judge ot;Winkler County. : Very truly yourn ATTORNEY Cf%ERAL OF TEXAS By A3.- itear1. Barous ASSISTAXT