JIM MAlTOX 

, :torney General 

~24 Alberta Ave.. Suita 160 

El Paso. 7X. 7S9052793 

“‘Y53534S4 

1001 TmlU, suite 700 

‘D”.lO”. TX. 77002.3111 

lY2255SS6 

WI Broadway. St&lie 312 

,,bbOCk. TX. 7940lL3479 

Q&%-747-S238 

309 N. Tenth. Suite S 

dcAtlan. 7x. 76m.te6s 

512mS2-4Y7 

dl0 Main Plaza. SuIIe UT3 

sari Anlonlo. 7X. 7112052797 

lt1225-llSl 

An Equal Opportunltyl 

.Ifirmrtiva Action Employs 

The Attorney General of Texas 

December 31. 1984 

Honorable Margaret Moore 

Travis County Attorney 

P. 0. Box 1748 

Au6tin. ‘Iexae 707t 7 

Opinion No. J&295 

Rc: Whether a commissioners 

court may create a road district 

which has two or more noncontinuous segments 

Dear Ms. Moore: 

You have asked c:he following questions concerning road districts: 

1. Carl the commissioners court, pursuant to 

the diecletion granted by section 4.413 of the 

County RowI and Bridge Act, create a road district 

which ha,s two or more noncontiguous segments 

providing the interests and purposes of the 

noncontigmus segments are the S-F; and 

2.’ If It is clearly stated in the bond 

election proposition submitted to the voters and 

Is c1earl.y for legitimate needs and purposes of 

the road district. may bond fund6 be spent on 

road6 neciled for ingress and egress to the area 

encomp66eed by the ro6d district? 

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 

egress 6nd lngreas road improvement6 outeide the boundaries of the 

dletrlct if the commissioners court ha6 determined that such 

improvements will kneflt all taxable property of the district and the 

bood election proposition submitted to the voter6 clearly specifies 

that the bond proweds will be used for such ro6d improvements. 

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 subdivlrion 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 corporations. 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 provisions 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 operation 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 petftlon 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 

l nter6d 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 precincts, 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 terrltorially 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 !ZJlt y 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 noncontiguous 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