Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )


Menu:
  •                    ATXWRNEYGENERAL
    OF ?llYExAs
    AUSTIN il.
    'I%ELIS
    Honorable Bill S. Watkins
    County Attorney
    Llano county
    Llano, Texas
    Dear Sir:                   Opinion No. O-4548
    Re: Construction, of Article 6675a-10,
    Revised Civil Statutes.
    We acknowledgereceipt of your request for an opinion of
    this department on the above captioned subject. .Yoy request is
    as follows:
    "The Commission of Appeals In Stovall vs. Shivers,
    103 S.W; ,(2d)363, very clearly covered the method of
    distributionof-general road and bridge money of a
    county In ~construlngArticle 6740; but In its last
    paragraph It stated (Aa to that portion'of automobile
    reglstratlonfees retained by Van Zandt County, Article
    6675a-10 expressly provides how same shall.be expended,
    and for that reason it Is obvious that.Atitlcle 6740
    has .noappllcatlon'tosame.'
    "Article 6675a-10 provides that automobile regls-
    tratlon fees r&ained by a county shall be placed In
    the Road and Bridge Fuxidof the county and shall be
    used 'for the constructionand maintenance of lateral
    roads in such county under the superv$.slonof the County
    Engineer, If there be done,an@ If there Is no such
    Engineer, then the County CommIssIoneratCourt shall-
    have authority to command the services of the Division
    Englnee~rof the estateHighway Department'forthe purpose
    'ofsupervising the constructionand surveying of lateral
    roads in the~'r6spectlvecounties.'
    "The Commissioners'Court has requested of me an
    opinion as to how this automobile registrationmoriey
    should be divided among the four precincts.
    "I have advlse,dthe Court that In my opinion Article
    6675a-10 does not provide for the expenditure of this
    money In Lland County In view of the fact that we have
    no countyen&neer and do not desire to command the
    services of the District Engineer of the State Highway
    Honorable Bill S. Watkins, Page 2                 o-4548
    Department. That being the case Jt seems to me'that
    the law Is silent,as to how this money should be
    divided among the four precincts.
    "PrecinctNo. 1 of Llano County pays approximately
    55% of the county taxes, has probably more lateral
    roads than any other precinct snd is claiming the same
    portion of automobile registrationfees as its per cent
    of taxes it pays. .Thethree other smaller preclnc,tsare
    claiming this money should be divided equally among the
    four precincts.
    "In view of the Importanceof this question to all
    the countles'ofTexas, I shall appreciatevery much      .
    .youroplnlon as to what method of dlvlslon of this auto-
    ,moblle registrationmoney among the four precincts should
    .bemade."
    It Is noted that you have advised your commlssloners8court
    that Llano County,doesnot have authority:to.exp.e.ndthe motor
    vehicle registrationfunds retained by such county for the reason
    that Llano'Countyhas no County Engineerand It .doesnot desire,to
    command the services of the Division Engineer of the State Highway
    Department. It is apparent that youhave arrived ,atthis conclu-
    slon because of the portion of Article 6675::10,supra, which reads
    as follows:
    '* * * alI.'saldmonies shall be used forthe
    constructionand maintenance of lateral ro,ads.ln
    such county under the supervlslonof the county
    engineer, lf~there be one,,and.lf,,thereIs no such
    engineer, the'county commissioners'.court shall
    have authority to.command the services'ofthe dlvl-
    slon engineer of the State Highway Department for
    the purpdse~of"supervlsing,theconstruction.and.
    surveying of Iateral,roadsln the,lrrespective
    counties:"
    We believe that.ln horderto fully answer your request, it
    is necessary,thatwe dIscussArticle ~6675g-10  wasIt relates to the
    advice you have given your commlssloners'~court.
    We do not donstrue the hereinabovequoted.portlonof Article
    6675a-IC,~supra,as authorizing the expenditureof such funds onlY~
    under the supervisionof the county engineer ora'divlslon engineer
    of the State Highway Department. We are of the opinion that the
    Legislaturerecognized the fact that as a general rule members of
    commlsslonersl'courts are not qualified to act as engineersfor
    road constructionwork; that Is, they'are not trained to survey
    roads, laYout grades, ascertaindrainage areas, establish adequate
    drainage structures and 'performthe many,other technical duties
    necessary for the~'proper'
    constructionof roads. Sev.eralcounties
    of the state halvebeen authorized by\special laws to employ county
    ,.;.,;     .~                      \
    Honorable Bill S..Watklns, Page 3                 o-4548
    engineers aai ,thevarious acts authorizingsuch officers require
    that they be qu&lified.t'bact as such. However, the uiaji+ty~of
    the counties ln this state.do not have authority to employ a
    county engineer and.the Legislature,realizing the need for highly
    trained t+An+cal~exper~s for proper road .constructQn,merely
    'autjhorlzed
    the,+mnlsslon6rs1 'courtsto call upon,the division
    engineer of the State Highway Department to supervise the con-
    '&ruction and surveying of lateral roads.
    You are, therefore,~advisedthat in our opinion the
    commlsslonerstcourt Is not prohlblted from expending the motor
    vehlcle:reglsQ?ati~nfunds retalned.by lt.becausethe couritydoes
    not have 'acoun$y~eriglneer nor,does the commissioners8cotit de--
    sire the assistapcii;ofthe cjlvlsloneng.lneerof the State Highway
    Departmen$:.Ifithe commIssioneratcourt feels that It does not
    rieed',thlsassistance, then there la nothing In Article 6675a-10,
    aupr&to prevent the expenddture of,such funds 'asthe needs of
    .the county for lateral roads may require.
    We have re-framed your question as follows:
    ~"Whatdivision of the automobileregistration
    funds r&abed by the county should be made to the,
    four commisslone~s``
    precincts?"
    Article 6675a-10, supra, provides that the reglstratidn
    funds retained by the county should be used to construct and maln-
    taln the lateral roads of such county. In the cade of Stovall vs~.
    Shivers, 103 S.W.:(2d) 366, the CommPselon of Appeals said:
    "By Article 2342 of the Revised Statutes It is
    provided that,the several commissioners,together
    with the county judge, shall compose the ``commlsslon-
    ers a court.' Such court de manifestly a unit, and is
    the agency of the whole county. The respective mem-
    bers of the commissioners'court are therefore prl-
    marlly representativesof the whole county, and not
    merely representativesof their respectiveprecSnct8.
    The duty of the commissioners1court Is to transact
    the buSinSS8, protect the Interest and promote the
    welfare of the county as a whole. ~Among the.powers
    conferred upon such county bp Article 23514re the
    following: the power to lay out and establish, change
    and discontinue roads and highways, the power to build
    bridges and keep them In repair, and the pbner to exer-
    cise general control over all roads, highways, ferries
    and bridges In their county.'
    It .lsclearly apparent that the commissioners'courts ye
    empowered and the duty rests upon them to.constrUct and-maintain
    the roa~dsof the county,ae a whole wkthout regard to precinct lines.
    In view of the fact tiiat'io
    .1&~4&ty      iePritOria1 limi-
    tatlon Is pIac&d upon the expenditure of the motor vehicle regls-
    .
    Honorable Bill S. Watkins, Pa& 4                    o-4548
    66i’5a-lo,
    tration funds retained by the ,county,by.Artlcle~         supra,
    you are advised that the.aoan&slonersl court tiayuse those funds
    as the need of the county requires.
    Trusting that the ,foregoingfully answers your Inquiry,
    we are
    Yours very truly
    AT!l'ORNEY
    GENERAL OF TEXAS
    By s/ Richard H. Cocke
    Richard Ii.Cocke
    Assistant
    RHC:ej:wc
    APPROVED MAY 12, 1942
    s/ Grover Sellers
    ;FogS;STANT
    ENERAL      "
    Approved Opinion,Committeev   s,fRWF Chairman
    

Document Info

Docket Number: O-4548

Judges: Gerald Mann

Filed Date: 7/2/1942

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017