### ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT

February 24,2004

The Honorable Marsha Monroe Terre11County Attorney Terre11County Courthouse 105 East Hackberry Sanderson, Texas 79848 Opinion No. GA-01 56
Re: Whether Terre11County may expend venueproject sales and use taxes collected under chapter 334 of the Local Government Code for certain improvements (RQ-0 103-GA)
Dear Ms. Monroe:
You ask about Terre11 County’s authority to expend venue-project sales and use taxes collected under chapter 334 of the Local Government Code for improvements described in an expenditure plan, which you have included with your request.’ 

### I. Backmound Chapter 334 of the Local Government Code authorizes cities and counties to impose sales and use taxes to finance venue projects,2 which it specifically limits to certain kinds of facilities, improvements, and infrastructure. See TEX.LOC.GOV’T CODEANN. 9 334.001(2)-(5) (Vernon Supp. 2004). A county or municipality may by resolution “provide for the planning, acquisition, establishment, development, construction, orrenovation of avenue project” if, among other things, the resolution is approved “by amajority ofthe qualified voters ofthe municipality orcounty voting at an election called

...forthat purpose.” Id. 8334.021(a)(3) (Vernon 1999); see also id. 8334.024 (Vernon Supp. 2004) (election requirements). “The resolution must designate each venue project,” id. 8334.02 1(b) (Vemon 1999), asmust the order calling the election, see id. 8334.024(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004). The proposition on the ballot at the election must describe the venue project and specify the type oftax and maximum tax rate. See id. $334.024(c). Proceeds of any tax approved by the voters and imposed by amunicipality or county under chapter 334 must be deposited in a venue-project tind and may be used for reimbursing or paying “the costs of planning, acquiring,

‘Letter from Honorable Marsha Monroe, Terre11County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General (Aug. 25, 2003) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter]; id. (Exhibit C, Expenditure Plan).
2Amunicipality with apopulation of more than 1.9 million and a county with apopulation of more than 3.3 million may proceed under chapter 334 only ifthey create asports and community venue district under chapter 335. See TEX.Lot. GOV’TCODEAN-N.$334.002 (Vernon Supp. 2004).The Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 2 (GA-0156)

establishing, developing, constructing, or renovating” an approved venue project or operating or maintaining an approved venue project. See id. 8334.042(b), (d) (Vernon 1999).
You inform usthat on September 11,2000, the Terre11County Commissioners Court adopted a resolution “calling for a county election for the purpose of imposing a sales and use tax in the amount of one-half of one cent for the purpose of financing venue projects and related infrastructure.” Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. In November 2000, the Terre11County voters approved aproposition authorizing the county to impose a sales and use tax to fund a specifically described venue project. See id. at 2. Since the tax’s effective date, the county has collected approximately $284,000, which ithas deposited in avenue-project fund. See id. The commissioners court resolution calling forthe election on the tax describes a“parks and recreation system venue project” that would provide for improvements atexisting parks and would also include acquisition of land and improvements at the three specific “public-use” sites. See id. (Exhibit A, Resolution). The proposition approved by the voters authorized the county to “provide for improvements to all existing parks and for acquisition and development of land and improvements for additional public use” atthe three specific sites. See id. (Exhibit B,Proposition). With your request, you attach as an exhibit a document entitled “Terre11 County Venue Funds Expenditure Plan” and a map of aproposed project. See id. (Exhibits C-D, Expenditure Plan & Map). The county now proposes to expend the chapter 334 tax proceeds on a venue project that consists of a convention and visitors center, two annexes to the center, and related infrastructure. See id. II. Analysis
You ask about Terre11 County’s authority to expend chapter 334 tax proceeds on the improvements outlined in the Expenditure Plan. In particular, you ask:
1. Isthe expenditure of funds on the venue project described in Exhibit C authorized by the proposition approved by the voters of Terre11County on November 7,2000?
2. Isthe expenditure offunds on the venue project described in Exhibit C authorized by the applicable provisions of Chapter 334 of the Texas Local Government Code? Request Letter, supra note 1,at2-3. Because chapter 334 ofthe Local Government Code isintegral to answering your question about the ballot proposition, we address your second question first.The Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 3 (GA-01 56)

A. Whether the Expenditure Plan is Authorized by Chapter 334 1. Statutory Definitions of “Venue Project, ” “Venue, ” and ‘Related Infrastructure ” Sales and use taxes deposited in avenue-project fund may be expended only on voter-approved venue projects. See TEX.LOC.GOV’T CODEANN. 9 334.042 (Vernon 1999). Under chapter 334, the term “venue project” means a “venue and related infrastructure that is planned, acquired, established, developed, constructed, or renovated under this chapter.” Id. 9 334.001(5) (Vemon Supp. 2004). Section 334.001(4) specifically defines the term “venue” tomean (A) an arena, coliseum, stadium, or other type of area or facility: (i) that isused or isplanned for use for one or more professional or amateur sports events, community events, or other sports events, including rodeos, livestock shows, agricultural expositions, promotional events, and other civic or charitable events; and (ii) forwhich afee for admission tothe events is charged or isplanned to be charged; (B) aconvention centerfacility or related improvement such asaconvention ten ter, civic ten ter, civic ten terbuilding, civic ten ter hotel, auditorium, theater, opera house, inusic hall, exhibition hall, rehearsal hall,park, zoological park, museum, aquarium, orplaza located in the vicinity ofa convention center orfacility owned by a municipality or a county; (C) atourist development area along an inland waterway; 

### (D) a municipal parks and recreation system, or improvements or additions to aparks and recreation system, or an area orfacility that ispart of a municipal parks and recreation system; (E) aproject authorized by Section 4A or 4B, Development Corporation Act of 1979 (Article 5190.6, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes), asthat Act existed on September 1, 1997; and (F) a watershed protection and preservation project; a recharge, recharge area, or recharge feature protection project; aThe Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 4 (GA-0156)

conservation easement; or an open-space preservation program intended to protect water. Id. 8334.001(4) (emphasis added). Given the nature of the projects Terre11County has proposed, subsections (4)(B) and (4)(D) are most relevant to your query. See id. Clearly, subsections (4)(A), W(C)9 and (4)(F) cl

onot apply. Section 334.001(4)(E), amended in 2001 after the adoption of the sales and use tax in your county, does not apply to projects approved before its effective date.3 However, as we will discuss at greater length below, in 2000 when the voters approved the Terre11 County proposition, section 334.001(4)(E) included within the definition of “venue” “any other economic development project authorized by other law.” Act ofMay 22,1997,75th Leg., R.S., ch. 55 1, 8 1, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 1929, 1930 (enacting section 334.001(4)(D)), amended by Act of May 19,1999,76th Leg., R.S., ch. 784,s 1,1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 3408,3409 (renumbering section 334.001(4)(D) as 334,001(4)(E)).
In addition to avenue, avenue project may include related infrastructure. See TEX.LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. 9 334.001(5) (Vernon Supp. 2004). Section 334.001(3) defines “related infiastmcture” to include

any store, restaurant, on-site hotel, concession, automobile parking facility, area transportation facility, road, street, water or sewer facility, park, or other on-site or off-site improvement that relates to and enhances the use, value, or appeal ofa venue, including areas adjacent tothe venue, and any other expenditure reasonably necessary to construct, improve, renovate, or expand a venue, including an expenditure for environmental remediation. Id. 8 334.001(3) (emphasis added). Related infrastructure must relate to and enhance avenue or areas adjacent to the venue. See id.

2. Venue Project Based on a ‘Park Venue” Taken together, these definitions provide that a “venue project” consists of a venue under section 334.001(4) and any related infrastructure, as defined above. See id. 0 334.001(3)-(5). From the resolution and the proposition you have provided, it appears that Terre11 County originally proposed to undertake a venue project that would include improving existing county parks and adding new park-like “public-use” areas. See Request Letter, supra note 1 (Exhibits A-B, Resolution & Proposition). However, section 334.001(4)(D) includes within the definition of “venue” amunicipal park system as opposed to acounty park system. See TEX.LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. 0 334.001(4)(D) (Vemon Supp. 2004). Thus, the ballot proposition does not propose a “venue” under section 334.001(4)(D).

3SeeAct of May 24,2001,77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1044, $0 1, 10(b), 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 2310,2311,2313.The Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 5 (GA-0156)

3. Venue Project Based on a Tonvention-Center Venue” Given the difficulty in construing chapter 334 to authorize avenue project centered on acounty-park venue, it appears that the county has drafted the Expenditure Plan tobring the proposed improvements under section 334.001(4)(B), which provides for convention-center venues. See Request Letter, supra note 1 (Exhibit C, Expenditure Plan). Section 334.001(4)(B) provides that the term “venue” includes “a convention center facility or related improvement

. . . located in the vicinity of a convention center or facility.” TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. 8 334.001(4)(B) (Vemon Supp. 2004). According to its plain language, a section 334.001(4)(B) “improvement” must be related to aconvention center facility and must be located near aconvention center orfacility. Thus, animprovement must be developed and constructed either (i)inconjunction with anew convention center, or (ii) for an existing convention center. Chapter 334 does not define the term “convention center facility,” but the term is defined in two provisions authorizing cities and counties to collect and expend hotel occupancy taxes. See TEX. GOV’T CODEANN. 5311.Oll(b) (Vernon 1998) (words and phrases that have acquired atechnical orparticular meaning, whether bylegislative definition orotherwise, must be construed accordingly). In chapter 351 of the Tax Code, the terms “convention center facilities” and “convention center complex” are defined in pertinent part as “facilities that are primarily used to host conventions and meetings. The term means civic centers, civic center buildings, auditoriums, exhibition halls, and coliseums that are owned by the municipality or other governmental entity or that are managed in whole orpart by the municipality.” TEX.TAXCODEANN. 8351.001(l) (Vernon 2002). Similarly, in chapter 352 of the Tax Code, those terms are defined to mean “civic centers, civic center buildings, auditoriums, exhibition halls, and coliseums that are owned by the county or that are managed in whole or part by the county.” Id. 8352.001(2). The Expenditure Plan proposes anew convention and visitors center, two annexes to the center, and related infrastructure. See Request Letter, supra note 1(Exhibit C, Expenditure Plan). These improvements constitute a“venue project” as defined by section 334.001(3), (4)(B), and (5) if(i) the county intends to develop and construct a convention center facility and to undertake the other improvements and infrastructure described in the Plan in conjunction with the development and construction of the convention center facility, and (ii) the other improvements are related improvements located inthe convention center facility’s vicinity orinfrastructure that relates to and enhances the convention center facility. See TEX.LOC.GOV’T CODEANN. 8334.001(3), (4)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2004). The Expenditure Plan does not provide sufficient information for this office to determine as a matter of law whether the Plan meets these two requirements. First, it is not clear from the Expenditure Plan that the proposed convention and visitors center would be afacility, such asacivic center, civic center building, auditorium, exhibition hall, or coliseum, primarily used to host conventions and meetings. See id. 9334.001(4)(B); see also TEX.TAXCODEANN. @351.001(2), 352.001(2) (Vernon 2002). In addition, the map attached to the Plan indicates that the specific site for the proposed convention center will depend upon land acquisition costs and other factors. See Request Letter, supra note 1(Exhibit D, Map). Thus, it is not certain that the county actually hasThe Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 6 (GA-01 56)

firm plans to develop and construct a convention center facility in conjunction with the other improvements and infrastructure. Ifthe county does not plan to develop aconvention center facility, the Expenditure Plan improvements do not constitute a“venue project” within section 334.001(3), (4)(B), or (5). Moreover, the county proposes to develop or improve two convention-center

“annexes,” but it is not clear from the Expenditure Plan whether the annexes would relate to the convention center and would be located in its vicinity, see TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. 0 334.001(4)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2004)’ orwould be infrastructure that “relates to and enhances the use, value, or appeal of’ the convention center, id. $334.001(3). This determination will depend inpart upon the convention and visitor center’s ultimate location. This office cannot make the fact findings necessary to determine that the Expenditure Plan complies with the statutory requirements. SeeTex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos GA-0106 (2002) at7,JC-0328 (2000) at4. However, the information you have presented strongly suggests that Terre11 County has not proposed a venue project under section 334.001(4)(B).
4. Venue Project Based on an “Economic Development Project Venue ” Finally, the commissioners court may consider whether the proposed improvements constitute a venue under former section 334.001(4)(E). At the time the voters approved the project, former section 334.001(4)(E) included within the definition of “venue” “any other economic development project authorized by other law.” Act ofMay 22’1997’75th Leg., R.S., ch. 551’8 1, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 1929, 1930 (enacting section 334.001(4)(D)) (emphasis added), amended by Act of May 19,1999,76th Leg., R.S., ch. 784’8 1,1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 3408’3409 (renumbering section 334.001(4)(D) as 334.001 (4)(E)).4
Former section 334.001(4)(E) incorporated into the definition of“venue” statutes specifically authorizing economic development projects, see id.; it did not incorporate statutes authorizing traditional governmental infrastructure. Thus, in order to proceed under forrner section 334.001(4)(E), the Terre11County Commissioners Court would need to (i) identify a law in effect at the time the voters approved the proposition that authorized an economic development project, and (ii) determine that the venue outlined in the ballot proposition constitutes an economic development project under that law. For example, in 2000, section 4B(a)(2)(B), article 5190.6 of the Revised Civil Statutes authorized funding for projects to “promote or develop new or expanded business enterprises.“5 Inorder toproceed under former section 334.001(4)(E) asitincorporated that provision, the cornmissioners court would have to specifically find that the venue will promote or

4The act that amended former section 334.001(4)(E) continued prior law in effect for purposes of projects approved before its effective date. See Act ofMay 24,2001,77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1044, 6 10(b), 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 2310,2311,2313.

‘TEx.REV.Crv. STAT.ANN. art. 5190.6, 04B(a)(2)(B), as enacted by Act of Mar. 21, 1991,72d Leg., R-S., ch. 11,s 2,199l Tex. Gen. Laws 37, amended by Act ofMay 22,1993,73d Leg., R.S., ch. 1022, $j3,1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 4424,4426, amended byAct ofMay 29,1997,75th Leg., R.S., ch. 1237,s 1,1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 47 10,amended by Act of May 25,1999,76th Leg., R.S., ch. 865, $4,1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 3546,3548.The Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 7 (GA-01 56)

develop new or expanded business enterprises! C$ Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0494 (2002) (concluding that sales taxes collected under section 4B ofthe Development Corporation Act of 1979 pursuant to an election proposition that limited tax use to business development purposes could not be used to construct ayouth league football field atthe city park that would not promote business development). We do not further consider whether the proposed project could be avenue project within the meaning of former section 334.001(4)(E), and are not aware of any facts to support such afinding, but we suggest that the commissioners court examine the applicability ofthis provision.
B. Whether the Expenditure Plan is Authorized by the Election Proposition
You also ask whether the venue project described in the Expenditure Plan is authorized by the proposition approved by the voters. See Request Letter, supra note 1,at 2.

1. Legal Standard Chapter 334 expressly requires that aresolution andballot language proposing avenue project describe aspecific venue project and provides that sales and use taxes deposited in a venue-project fund may be expended only for voter-approved venue projects. See TEX.LOC. GOV’T CODEANN. §§ 334.023, .024, .042 (Vernon 1999 & Supp. 2004). Consistently with those requirements, the Terre11 County Commissioners Court proposed and the Terre11 County voters approved ballot language outlining a specific venue project. See Request Letter, supra note 1 (Exhibits A-B, Resolution & Proposition). Texas courts have held that the express terms of resolutions and orders calling atax orbond election, atwhich voters are asked to approve financial undertakings ofagovernmental body relating tothe purposes for which funds shall be used, become acontract with the voters who are entitled to receive substantially all ofthe benefits and security of that contract. See, e.g., San Saba County v. McGraw, 108 S.W.2d 200 (Tex. 1937); Fletcher v. Howard, 39 S.W.2d 32 (Tex. 1931)(bond proceeds may not be diverted from highway described in county order as it existed on date of election); Black v. Strength, 246 S.W. 79 (Tex. 1922) (bond proceeds may not be diverted from improvements designated inorder adopted subsequent to election order but prior to election); Moore v. Coffman, 200 S.W. 374 (Tex. 1918) (bond-financed bridge must be constructed at location designated in election order); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0049 (2003) at 3, JC-0400 (2001) at 4-5.7 When election orders arenot specific astothe projects for which taxes orbond proceeds will be used, the governing body has some discretion to make decisions about how funds will be spent. See Barrington v. Cokinos, 338 S.W.2d 133, 143 (Tex. 1960) (holding that voters’ approval of

%ee id.

‘In addition, representations ofthe governing body outside ofits formal election orders orresolutions r-nayalso give rise to acontract with the voters regarding the use of funds. See Inverness Forest Improvement Dist. v.Hardy St. Investors, 541 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1976, writ ref d n.r.e.) (letter reflecting water district improvements had effect ofpledging to voters that those improvements would be made with bond proceeds). But see Taxpayers for Sensible Priorities v. City ofDallas, 79 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002, pet. denied) (extraneous documents are not part of the contract with voters).The Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 8 (GA-01 56)

generally worded bond proposition to pay costs to eliminate railroad grade crossings gave city governing body discretion to use bond proceeds to acquire aright ofway for the railroad); Fletcher v.Ely, 53 S.W.2d 817,818 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1932, writ ref d) (“in the absence ofadefinite identification ofthe specific road to be paved, adiscretion exists in the commissioners’ court asto which of two or more routes may be followed between control points named in the pre-election orders”). On the other hand, when the voters approve aspecific project, “the proceeds ofthe bond issue are ‘earmarked’ with the character ofatrust fund which may not be diverted to another purpose or project.” Ely, 53 S.W.2d at 818 (citing Black v.Strength, 246 S.W. 79 (Tex. 1922)). Courts construe election propositions like other instruments - “the intent of the parties

. . . is the dominant ruling factor and

. . . they should always be construed in the light of the circumstances surrounding the parties atthe time oftheir making.” Id. at 818. “The law does not require aliteral performance, but there must be left tothe parties substantially the benefits expected. If the changes have not materially detracted from these benefits, there has been a substantial compliance.” Id. at 821; see also TRayer v. Greer, 229 S.W.2d 833,835 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1950, writ ref dn.r.e.) (“the order calling the bond election must be substantially complied with so that those who voted for the bonds would receive the benefits they had the right to expect”).

2. Applying theLegal Standard to the Facts The Terre11County voters approved the following proposition: Authorizing Terre11County, Texas toprovide forimprovements to all existing parks and for acquisition and development of land and improvements for additional public use and other improvements that relate to and enhance the use, value, or appeal ofthe public use sites designated asthe East Gate Entrance Park, located on Highway 90on the east side of Sanderson, adjacent to the Budget Inn, the Old Town Plaza, located near the Union Pacific Depot and Bunkhouse on Downie Street; and the Jav[e]lina Hill Scenic Overlook located atthe northwest comer of the intersection off Wilson Street and U.S. Highway 90; and to impose asales and use tax atthe rate ofone-half (?4) cent for the purpose of financing the venue project described herein. Request Letter, supra note 1 (Exhibit B, Proposition). In addition, the commissioners court resolution ordering the election lists specific improvements at each location. In particular, it lists acovered pavilion and restrooms inconnection with general park improvements; parking and “road, street, water, or sewer facilities” atEast Gate Entrance Park; apublic plaza and visitor center atthe Old Town Plaza; and nature trails atJavelina Hill Scenic Overlook. See id. (Exhibit A,Resolution). Given the election’s specificity, venue-project funds may be expended only for the improvements described in the proposition and resolution; the election’s terms must be construedThe Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 9 (GA-0156)

in light of the voters’ intent. Ely, 53 S.W.2d at 818. Moreover, the voters are entitled to “substantially the benefits expected.” Id. at 820. Reflecting the shift in reliance from section 334.001(4)(D) to section 334.001(4)(B), the Expenditure Plan transforms a project based on a county-park venue into a project based on a convention-center venue. See Request Letter, supra note 1 (Exhibit C, Expenditure Plan). The proposed work, however, appears to include much ofthe work described inthe commissioners court resolution and ballot proposition. The Expenditure Plan provides that the venue project consists of aconvention and visitors center atthe Old Town Plaza site and two “annexes” to the center - “West Convention and Visitors Center Annex” and “East Convention and Visitors Center Annex.” See id. The “West Convention and Visitors Center Annex” would be located at the Javelina Hill site and the “East Convention and Visitors Center Annex” would be located across the street from Bicentennial Park, an existing county park. See id. (Exhibit D, Map). The related infrastructure would include gardens and an outdoor museum adjacent to the convention and visitors center; a nature tourism trail and visitor’s exercise trail and picnic area adjacent to the “West Convention and Visitors Center Annex;” and a pavilion, water playscape, and swimming pool renovations and improvements adjacent to the “East Convention and Visitors Center Annex.” See id. (Exhibit C, Expenditure Plan). Although much of this work appears to be contemplated by the ballot proposition and commissioners court resolution,* several specific projects listed in the Expenditure Plan were not specifically outlined in the election orders,’ and the Expenditure Plan appears to omit certain improvements approved by the voters.” More importantly, whereas the ballot proposition focuses on improvements to existing parks and the development of new public-use sites, the Expenditure Plan centers on a convention and visitors center at the Old Town Plaza site and related

‘Compare Exhibits A-B, with Exhibits C-D, Request Letter, supra note 1.

‘In contrast to the Expenditure Plan, the election orders do not specifically mention awater playscape, gardens and outdoor museum, exercise trail, or picnic area. Compare Exhibits A-B, with Exhibits C-D, Request Letter, supra note 1. It is not clear whether these improvements could be included within more general items in the election orders.

‘Tor example, the proposition provides “for improvements to all existing parks.” Request Letter, supra note 1(Exhibit B, Proposition). We understand that Terre11County has two existing parks, Bicentennial Park and Memorial Park. See Terre11County Parks, avaiZabZeat http://www.sandersontx.org/parks.html. The Expenditure Plan appears to provide for improvements atBicentennial Park but not Memorial Park, which isnot mentioned in the Plan. See Request Letter, supra note 1(Exhibits C-D, Expenditure Plan &Map). Furthermore, the proposition provides forpublic-use sites atthree areas: “the East Gate Entrance Park, located on Highway 90 on the east side of Sanderson, adjacent tothe Budget Inn”; “the Old Town Plaza, located near the Union Pacific Depot and Bunkhouse on Downie Street”; and “the Jav[e]lina Hill Scenic Overlook located at the northwest comer of the intersection off Wilson Street and U.S. Highway 90.” Id. (Exhibit B, Proposition). The Expenditure Plan provides for the development of a convention center at the Old Town Plaza site and for improvements atthe “Javelina Scenic Overlook,” which itcalls “the West Convention Center Annex.” Id. (Exhibits C-D, Expenditure Plan & Map). But the Expenditure Plan does not appear to provide for improvements at the “the East Gate Entrance Park,” which is specifically listed in the proposition and described in the resolution. Compare Exhibits A-B, with Exhibits C-D, Request Letter, supra note 1.The Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 10 (GA-01 56)

improvements.” The election orders do not expressly include a convention and visitors center; rather, the commissioners court resolution describes a“visitor center” atthe Old Town Plaza, which is listed in the ballot proposition as one of three public-use sites to be developed.‘2 Thus, the expenditure plan has adifferent emphasis from the election order. III. Mav Terre11 CounW Spend Taxes Collected under Local Government Code Chapter 334 for Improvements Described in its Expenditure Plan A. Standard of Review Applicable to the Commissioner Court’s Decisions The commissioners court isthe county’s principal governing body. See TEX.CONST. art. V, 8 18; Comm’rs Court ofTitus County v.Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77,80 (Tex. 1997). Pursuant to article V, section 18ofthe Texas Constitution, the “District Court shall have appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over the County Commissioners Court, with such exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law.” TEX.CONST.art. V, 8 18. See TEX.GOV’T CODEANN.824.020 (Vernon 1988) (tracking language ofTexas Constitution, article V, section 18); Agan, 940 S.W.2d at 80. Aparty may invoke the district court’s constitutional supervisory control over a commissioners court judgment only when the court acts beyond itsjurisdiction or clearly abuses its discretion. SeeAgan, 940 S.W.2d at 80 (commissioners court had discretion to allocate among county officers responsibilities not statutorily assigned to a specific officer); Ector County v. Stringer, 843 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex. 1992) (district court lacks jurisdiction to set constable’s salary). Discretionary matters areforthe commissioners court toresolve inthe first instance, subject to judicial review. See Agan, 940 S.W.2d at 80. “If the Commissioners Court acts illegally, unreasonably, or arbitrarily, a district court may so adjudge.” Id.; see also Lewis v. City ofFort Worth, 89 S.W.2d 975,978 (Tex. 1936) (city officers’ discretion to spend bond proceeds is limited by rule that bonds voted by the people must be expended for purposes for which they were voted.) Thus, where a statute vested particular duties in the county treasurer, the Agan court held that the commissioners court could not reassign them to the county auditor. SeeAgan, 940 S.W.2d at 82.
B. Application ofReview Standard to Terre11County
We have addressed the legal questions raised by your request but we cannot resolve the related fact questions in the opinion process. See, e.g., Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0106 (2002) at 7, JC-0328 (2000) at 4. The Terre11 County Commissioners Court must make these determinations in the first instance, subject tojudicial review for abuse ofdiscretion. See generaZZy Agan, 940 S.W.2d at 80. We note, however, that the specific differences between the improvements outlined inthe election orders and the Plan, coupled with the shift infocus from acounty-park venue project to a convention-center venue project, provide evidence that the Expenditure Plan is not consistent with either the voter’s intent orthe description of avenue project as aconvention center facility under section 334.001(4)(B). Although this office cannot assess the ultimate factual

‘ICompare Exhibits A-B, with Exhibits C-D, Request Letter, supra note 1. 12Compare Exhibits A-B, with Exhibits C-D, Request Letter, supra note 1.The Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 11 (GA-01 56)

significance ofthese differences, the information you have presented strongly suggests that Terre11 County’s proposed expenditures will not comply with the applicable legal requirements for the expenditure of venue-project funds. 

## c. How Terre11County May Lawfully Expend the Chapter 334 Tax Proceeds
Inthe event this office “opine[s] that the expenditure ofthe venue funds onthe venue project described in Exhibit C is not authorized by the voters or Texas law,” you also ask us to address “(a) how the venue funds can lawfully be expended, or (b) how [] Terre11 County should otherwise dispose of the venue funds.” Request Letter, supra note 1, at 3 (Question 3). We have suggested that the commissioners court consider whether the proposed project could be a venue project within the meaning offormer section 334.001(4)(E). Because the commissioners court has not addressed the relevance ofthis provision, itisunnecessary to consider the alternative disposition of these tax funds atthis time.The Honorable Marsha Monroe - Page 12 (GA-0156)

SUMMARY The terms ofthe election pursuant towhich the Terre11County voters approved the venue-project tax for park improvements constitute acontract with the voters, and Terre11County is authorized to use venue-project funds for improvements outlined in the current Expenditure Plan only if the improvements are consistent with the election orders. Improvements proposed byTerre11County constitute a“venue project,” as defined by Local Government Code section 334.001(3), (4)(B), and (5), only if Terre11 County intends to develop and construct a convention center facility and to undertake other improvements and infrastructure inconjunction with the development and construction of the convention center facility, and if the other improvements are related improvements located in the convention center facility’s vicinity or infrastructure that relate to and enhance the convention center facility.

eneral ofTexas

BARRY R. MCBEE First Assistant Attorney General
DON R. WILLETT Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
NANCY S. FULLER Chair, Opinion Committee Susan L. Garrison Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee