Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1952 )

AUclTrN 11. -rEXAU
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
August 28, 1952
Hon. Les Procter Opinion No, V-1514
County Attorney
Travis County Ret LagaMy of txptndlng funds
Austin, Texas of Travis County for the pur-
pose of widening and improv-
ing the Cn~gress Avenue Bridge
Deat Mr. Procter: in Austin.
On behalf ‘of the County Commissioners of Travis County
yawhave requested our opinion on the following question:
“Is there any way in which Travis County may
leg&y txptnd funds far the purpose of widening and
improving the Congress Avenue Bridge ?*
Your able brief and your requesting letter reveal, the fol-
lowing facts. The Congress Avenue Bridge, spanning the Colorado
River in Austin, was conetructed by Travis County in 1908 and I909
with the proceeds of a county bond issue authorized in 1908. Under
the Bond Assumption Act of 1932 (Acts 42nd Leg., 3rd C.S. 1932.
ch. 13, pi 15), the State assumed and retired $81,200.00 of the out-
standing county bonds the proceeds of which had been used to build
the bridge.
You report that representatives of the State Highway Com-
mission, of Travis County, and of the City of Austin have conferred
on the subject of widening and improving the bridge and that these
three agensics agre,e that if such a project is to be undertaken, it
will have to be on’the basis of their equal participation in the cost
of the undertaking. You also report that Travis County does not
propose to undertake any improvement of the bridge without the
formal consent of the governing body of the City of Austin.
In connection with our study of your request, attention has
been directed to Atiney General’s Opin%on V-1115 (1950) in which
we held that the Gemmissioners’ Court of Travis County was not
authorized to issue bonds for the purpose of widening and improv-
ing the Congress Avenue Bridge in Austin, That holding was based
on the conclusions (1) that the Congress Avenue Bridge in Austin
was a part of the designated State Wighw8y System and (2) that Ar-
tdcle 66?4q,r4 poaPtively prohibits any further improvement of ‘any
Hon. Les Procter. page 2 (V-)514)
part of the designated State Highway,System with the aid of or with
any funds furnished by a county, except in the acquisition of rights-
of-way. We believe those conclusions were correct, and the hold-
ing of V-1115 (1950) is hereby reaffirmed, However, in that opinion
.we were dealing with a definite proposal on the part of the county
to widen Congress Avenue Bridge while in your present question
you have asked “if there is any way in which Travis County may
legally expend funds* to widen the bridge.
It appears that the Gongress Avenue Bridge is still a
*part of the designated State Hi.ghway System. As noted in V-1115
(1950). the bridge must have been a.part of that designated system
when the county bonds were assumed by the State. Otherwise, un-
der Section 7(c) of the Bond Assumption Act, supra, the State was
not authorized to assume those obligations. mer,,we have dis-
covered no change. in the classification of the bridge by order of
the State I$ighway’Commissionat any time since the bonds wereas-
sumed. Cf. $?igh&ay, Ccmmisbion’ M&XI&S No. i67,Ol (September 26,
1939); R&ord of’Highv@y Commission Minutes, Book-18, page 251.
In reply to your specific question, it is ths opinion of this
office that’Travis County may legally expend funds for the purpose
of widening and improving the Congress Avenue Bridge if the State
Highway Commission changes the classification of the bridge so
that it ho longer constitutes a part of the designated State Highway
System. If such a change in classification should take place, the
Congress Avenue Bridge would..necessarily become part of the
p&&a. roads of Tdavis Coudty(of the “County System of pllblic
F&ads”). Articles 6674q-2, 6:6740. .As~such, it would be subject
to the provision of Article 6674c-1 which states:
“Any county or political subdivision of any county
in this state, acting through its governing agency, may
,make, and the State Highway Commission, in its discre-
tion, may accept, voluntary contributions of available
funds from such county or polfti.cal subdivision, for ex-
penditure by the State Highway Commission in the de-
velopment of the public roads of such county, or polit-
ical subdivision.”
If;such a change in the classification of the Congress Avenue
Bridge should be made by the Texas Highway Commission, and if
the County Commissioners of Travis County should offer, and the
State Highway Commission should accept, a voluntary contribution
of available funds from the Road and Bridge Fund of Travis County,
the State Highway Commission may spend the funds contributed by
HQXL Les Procter, page 3 (V-1514)
the County. together with State and City funds, for the purpose of
widening tb~ebridge. This assumes that the bridge forms a part
of a connecting link between duly established county roads pass-
ing through the city, and that the improvements will be undertaken
with the consent of the city, City of Breckenridge v. Stephens
Coutrtv, l20 Tex. 318, 40 S.W. 43 (1931). Hughes v. County Commis-
sioners of Harris County, 35 S.W.2d 8i8 (Tex. Civ. App. 19.31); Att’y
Gen.Op, V-261 1947 .
SUMMARY
Under Article 6674c-1, V.C.S., Travis County
may contribute funds to the Texas Highway Commis-
sion to be used by the Commission along with State
and City funds for the purpose of widening Congress
Avenue Bridge if the Highway Commission reclassi-
fies and removes the bridge from the designated State
Highway System.
Very truly yours,
PRICE DANIEL
APPROVED: Attorney General
E. Jacobson
Reviewing Assistant
By ff&&+?z.P&W
Charles D. Mathews PhiUp Robinson
First Assistant Assistant
PR:b