Legislative intent.

- General Assembly by this section intended to aid qualifying municipalities to fulfill the municipalities' responsibility to provide a system of roads and streets and to aid the municipalities in providing traffic control. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-40 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Construction of section.

- This section should be strictly construed, but construed in pari materia with prior acts and amendments authorizing grants to municipalities. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-40 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Funds received by municipalities under this section must be used for "devices and equipment" which have as their primary function direct control of traffic or else provide a direct accommodation to the general flow of traffic. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-40 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Municipalities may expend funds granted under this section only for purchase, construction, improvement, maintenance, and repair of capital outlay items. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 70-171 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Determining what are traffic control devices.

- General Assembly by the language of this section intended to confer upon the municipalities qualifying under this section some latitude in determining what are "traffic control devices and equipment to control and accommodate the flow of traffic"; however, such latitude is not completely discretionary without limitations. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-40 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

What are activities incident to providing road system.

- To construct and maintain a system of public roads, streets, sidewalks, bridges and appurtenances, and to provide traffic control devices and equipment to control and accommodate the flow of traffic therein would be "activities incident to providing and maintaining an adequate system of public roads and bridges in this State" under the provisions of Ga. Const. 1976, Art. III, Sec. X, Para. VII(b) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. IX, Para VI(b)). This section declares the same within its latitude. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-40 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Term "capital outlay items," as used in this law, would include any expenditure on behalf of municipalities for long-term additions or betterments properly chargeable to a capital asset account. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 70-171 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Investment not restricted.

- General Assembly intended funds granted to municipalities to be special funds and did not intend to restrict the funds so as to prohibit the funds' temporary investment so long as the investment does not interfere in any way with the expedient use of the funds for the purpose provided in the act, and the maturity date of the government obligations does not extend beyond the date when such funds shall be needed for these purposes. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-35.

Use of word "shall" permissive as to question of temporary investment of funds.

- Limitation imposed by this section authorizing grants was intended by the legislature to be a limitation on the final use of these funds and the word "shall" as used in the section should be interpreted as permissive or directory when the question of temporary investment of these funds is considered. Certainly no right or benefit is lost by taking this interpretation; but to the contrary, the benefit of capital earnings is lost if this interpretation is not taken. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-35 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Legitimacy of expenses for street lights.

- When street lights are installed or rented primarily to directly control or accommodate the general flow of traffic, the expenses for such installation or rental would be legitimate expenses under this section. However, when street lights are installed or rented as a general city improvement or as a measure to control crime, expenses of installation or renting would not be qualified expenditures. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-40 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Street name sign expenses not legitimate.

- As the usual and general purpose for street name signs is to facilitate individuals in gaining directions and is not, strictly speaking, a measure directed at controlling or accommodating the general flow of traffic, street name signs are not a legitimate expenditure under this section. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-40 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Bush hog mower expenses not legitimate.

- Since bush hog mowers for rights of way and litter barrels do not have as a primary function the direct control or accommodation of the flow of traffic, although mowers and barrels may indirectly, or as an auxiliary purpose, facilitate the flow of traffic, the mowers and barrels would not be qualified expenditures within the strict construction of this section. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-40 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-40-41).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, §§ 108, 470 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 81A C.J.S., States, § 390 et seq.