The opinion
The Attorney General of Texas
December 31. 1984
JIM MAlTOX
, :torney General
Honorable Margaret Moore Opinion No. J&295
Travis County Attorney
P. 0. Box 1748 Rc: Whether a commissioners
Au6tin. ‘Iexae 707t 7 court may create a road district
which has two or more noncon-
tinuous segments
Dear Ms. Moore:
You have asked c:he following questions concerning road districts:
~24 Alberta Ave.. Suita 160 1. Carl the commissioners court, pursuant to
El Paso. 7X. 7S9052793 the diecletion granted by section 4.413 of the
“‘Y53534S4 County RowI and Bridge Act, create a road district
which ha,s two or more noncontiguous segments
1001 TmlU, suite 700 providing the interests and purposes of the
‘D”.lO”. TX. 77002.3111 noncontigmus segments are the S-F; and
lY2255SS6
2.’ If It is clearly stated in the bond
election proposition submitted to the voters and
WI Broadway. St&lie 312
,,bbOCk. TX. 7940lL3479
Is c1earl.y for legitimate needs and purposes of
Q&%-747-S238 the road district. may bond fund6 be spent on
road6 neciled for ingress and egress to the area
encomp66eed by the ro6d district?
309 N. Tenth. Suite S
dcAtlan. 7x. 76m.te6s
512mS2-4Y7 We conclude tha.t the law doe6 not authorize the creation of road
di6trlcts composed of noncontiguous tracts of land. It Is our opinion
that proceed6 of Imad lasued by a road dl6trict may be used for
dl0 Main Plaza. SuIIe UT3 egress 6nd lngreas road improvement6 outeide the boundaries of the
sari Anlonlo. 7X. 7112052797
dletrlct if the commissioners court ha6 determined that such
lt1225-llSl
improvements will kneflt all taxable property of the district and the
bood election proposition submitted to the voter6 clearly specifies
An Equal Opportunltyl that the bond proweds will be used for such ro6d improvements.
.Ifirmrtiva Action Employs
Article III. section 52(b) of the Texas Constitution authorizeF
the establishment of road districts. It provides, in pertinent part:
(b) !blder Legislative provision. any county,
and poli::Lcal subdivision of a county, any number
of adjo:Lning countlea, or any political sub-
divlrion of the State, or any defined district now
or hereafter. to be described and defined within
the State of Texas, and which may or may not
Honorable Margaret Moore - Page 2 (Jfi295)
include, town6, vil:lages or municipal corpora-
tions. upon a vote of two-third6 majority of the
resident property taxpayer6 voting thereon who are
qualified elector6 of such dicltrict or territory
to be affected thereby, in addition to all other
debts, may issue bvnds or otherwise lend Its
credit in any amount not to exceed one-fourth of
the assessed valuat:lon of the real property of
such district or territory, except that the total
bonded indebtedness of any city or town shall
never exceed the 1:lnit.s imposed by oth6r pro-
visions of this Consl:?.tutlon. and levy and collect
t6xes to pay the Interest thereon and provide a
rinklng fund for the redemption thereof, as the
Legislature may autt,crize, and In such manner as
It may authorize I:he same, for the following
purposes to wit:
. . . .
(3) The construction. maintenance and opera-
tion of macadamlted, graveled or paved road6 and
turnpikes. or In aid thereof. (gmpha616 added).
Th6 County Road and Brldite Act, ss recently re-enacted by Senate
Bill Ro. 24, Sixty-eighth Le:g:Lslature, 2nd Called Session, contains
the provisions enacted by the legislature for the establishment of
road dietriCe and the issuance of road district bonds. Th6t act,
codified a6 article 6702-l. V.T.C.S.. provides the following, in
pertinent part:
Section 4.413. ElXABLISHMENT OF ROAD DISTRICTS.
(a) The county comclssioners court6 may establish
one or more road &strlcts in their respective
counties and may c; may not include within the
boundarlee and limits of the dl6triCt6, villagee,
tOM6. pnd munlcipc~3. corporations or any portion
of a village, town, and municipal corporation and
may or may not include previously CrePted road
district6 and poIll:icaI subdivisions or precincts
that have voted anti issued road bonds pursuant to
Article III. S~!ctlon 52. of the. Texas
Constitution, -bye:leering an -order declaring the
road district eri.ablished and defining the
boundaries of it.
. . . .
Section 4.416. I’E:TITLON FOR ELECTIONS. (a) If
any political subdlvlsion or any road district
desire6 to issue tmsnds, there shell be presented
p. 1322
Honorabl6 M6rgaret Moor6 - Pqe 3 (al-295)
to the co~ls6looers court of the county In which
th6 6Ubdivl6lon or district ia 6itUatCd, a petf-
tlon rlgned by 50 or 6 majority of the qualified
voter6 of the 6ubdbrirlon or ro6d di6trict praying
the court to order an election to determine
whether or not the, bond6 of the 6ubdivislon or
di6trlCt 6haII be l66ued t0 an JIIOOUnt 6t6ted for
the purpoee of rho constructIon, meintcnance, and
operation of mac(ldunlzed, graveled, or p6ved road6
and turnpike6 or Ln aid of the6e pUrpO666 and
whethsr taxes 6hrt:lI be levied on alI tar6bIe
property within 1,k.e subdivision or district In
pqment of th6 boodr.
(b) On presentation of the petition, the court
to which it is preeented 6haII fix a time and
place at which the petition shall be heard . . . .
Section 4.417. HEARING AND DETRRMINATION. At
the time and pla:e 6et for the hearing of the
petition or 6 6Ub6eqU6nt date as may then be
f lxed , the court ehall proceed to hear the
petition and 611. matter6 in reepect of the
proposed bond election . . . . If on the hearing
of the petltlon the court finds that the petition.
16 signed by 50 or a majority of the qualified
voter6 of the subdivl6ion or road di6trict. that
due notice ha6 been Riven, and that the proposed
lmprovement6 would be for the benefit of 611
taxable property iituated in the 6ubdlvl6ion or
road dletrlct. the-court may 166ue and c6u6e to be
lnter6d of 'recorri in it6 minute6 an order
directing that an election be held within and for
the 6ubdivi6io6 oc road district 6t 6 d6te to be
fixed In the orde:: for the purpose of d6termining
the pue6tlone mentionad In the petitions . . . .
The propo6ltlon to be submitted-at the election
shall specify the+pocre for which the bond6 are
to be 16sued, the amount of the bonde. the rate of
intereet. and the f6ct that ad valorem taxes are
to be Ievled annually on all taxable property
vithln the dirtrlct or subdivi6ion 6ufficlent to
pay the annual InWrest and provide a sinking fund
to pay the bond6 111:maturity. (Emphasis added).
The creation of a rorltl district and the determination of its
boundarie6 are matter6 wil:hin the discretion of the commissioners
court.
1g31, nSe;rri::ng.v. Falls County, 42 S.W.Zd 481 (Tex. CIV.W;~~;~;,W;;~
; Attorney Gcueral Opinion V-440 (1947).
con6titution and the statute6 do not expressly specify whether the
p. 1323
Honorable Margaret Moore - Page 4 (JM-295)
defined boundaries of a road d.istrlct may encompass an area that is
territorially noncontiguous.
We believe that the usual concept of a district contemplates an
area with a single set of boundaries rather than a collection of
geographically isolated tracts. See Jones V. Palcq, 222 A.2d 101.
106 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1966). The: Wis~sin Supreme Court held that
[ tlhere is much force -in the general and almost
Invariable usage. 1x1 this country at least, In the
organization of towns and counties, as in pre-
cincts, districts, cities. and villages, in
forming them of adjilcent and contiguous territory.
C. h N.W. Railway Co. V. Town of Oconto. 6 N.W. 607, 609 (Wia. 1880).
Black’s Law Dictionary definerra district as
one of the territorial areas Into which an entire
state or country, county, municipality. or other
political subdivis:.on is divided for judicial,
political, elcctora,l, or administrative purposes.
Black’s Law Dictionary 427 (5th cd. 1979).
“Defined districts.” as that term is used in article III. section
52(b) of the constitution,. “means a defined area in a county, less
than the county, other than a political aubdivisfon of such county.”
(Emphasis added). Bell Councp v. Binea. 219 S.W. 556 (Tex. Civ. App.
- Austin 1920. writ ref’d). ‘tie believe that the court’s definition.
which refers to “a defined area” and not to “defined areas,” does not
include tracts that are not contiguous to each other. Another court
of civil appeals. in Gumfory v. Aaaaford County Commissioners Court,
561 S.W.2d 28. (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1977. vrit ref’d n.r.e.).
held that the phrase “cormn:Laaionera precincts.” as used in the
constitutional provision that a county is to be divided iato four
commissioners precincts, rned1ns that such precincts must be terrl-
torially COntigU0U.S.
The legislature exprc aaly clarified thet certain special
districts created pursuant I:CI article XVI, aectioa 59 of the Texas
Constitution may be composed of noncontiguous tracts. For instance.
section 78.013(a) of the l’exss AgriCUlture Code provides that a
Noxious Weed Control District may include a body of land separated
from the rest of the dist:::ict. Likewise, sections 51.012(b) and
54.013(b) of the Texas Water m:ode specify that land composing a water
control and improvement district created under chapter 51 or a
municipal utility district ‘created under chapter 54 need not be
contiguous, but may consist of separate bodies of land separated by
land vhich is not included III the district. Also. certain special law
districts created pursuant t3 article XVI. section 59 by special acts
of the legislature are composed of noncontiguous tracts. The
p. 1324
Hoaorable Hargaret Noore - Pa.g,e 5 (JM-295)
legislature created Spring HLLl Utility District by chapter 750, acts
of the Sixty-first Legialatu:re. as a district consisting of one large
tract of land and two smallor tracts located approximately six miles
from the main tract. See !ZJlty of Longviev v. Spring RI11 Utility
District, 657 S.W.Zd 43OTer:. 1983).
We conclude that if the legislature had also intended that road
districts may be composed of separate, noncontiguous tracts it would
have expressly so provided 1x1 the County Road and Bridge Act.
In addition to the requirements that the coasnissionera court
conduct a hearing of a petition to order a bond election and make a
finding that the proposed improvements will benefit all taxable
property in the district, the Road and Bridge Act requires that the
proposition to be submitted mt the election shall specify the purpose
for which the bonds will be issued. It is well settled that the
proceeds of a bond issue mar be used only for those roads which the
election proceedings specified would be built. See Fletcher v.
Howard, 39 S.W.2d 32 (Tex. 1931): Aransaa County v.oleman-Pulton
Pasture Co., 191 S.W. 553, 5,54 (Tex. 1917). Use of the proceeds from
the sale of road district bonds for an unapproved purpose would
constitute a frsud on the electorate. See Crowell v. Cammack. 40
S.W.Zd 259 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1931,no writ).
The Road and Bridge Act expressly provider that the proceeds of a
bond issue may be- used only for improvements that vi11 benefit all
taxable property In the dia;:rict. It cootains no express provisions
determining the location of the improvements or whether the areas in
which boad proceeds may be expended shall be vithin or without the
boundaries of the road district. Since the thrust of the statute is
the requirement that the improvements benefit all taxable property in
the district. we believe thal: the statute does not prohibit per se all
expenditures of bond funds for improvements located outside the
district when the improvements are beneficial to all taxable property
in the district. -Cf. Attorncry General Opinion JH-158 (1984).
Attorney General Opinion O-3851 (1941) concluded that where a
road was to be built oa the dividing lfne between two road districts.
the proceeds from road distrzlct bonds of one district could be used to
construct only the part of the road located within that road district.
The opinion appears to baas! its conclusion on the fact that funds
derived from the sale of bonds cannot be diverted from the purpose
stated in the proposition submitted to the voters. We agree vith such
a conclusion. However, sssnning that the bond election proceedings
and proposition submitted to the voters specify that the bond funds
will be used for roads needed for ingress and egress to the area
encompassed by the road district , we conclude that proceeds from the
issuance of bonds may be used for improvements outside the boundaries
of the road district if the commissioners court has found that such
improvements will benefit all .taxable property in the district.
D.. 1325
Honorable Margaret Moore - Pa(;e 6 (JM-295)
;iUMMARY
A commissioners court is not authorized to
establish a road district composed of noncon-
tiguous tracts of land. If the boad election
proposition submittad to the voters clearly
specifies that the bond funds will be used for
roads needed for iqresa and egress to the area
encompassed in the district, bond funds may be
used for improvemerts outside the district which
benefit all taxable property in the district.
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Aaaiatant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Lxecutive Assistant Attorney General
HICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin. Chairman
Tony Guillory
Nancy Sutton
p. 1326