KEN PAXTON 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

The Honorable Jim Keffer 

Chair, Committee on Natural Resources 

Texas House of Representatives 

Post Office Box 2910 

Austin, Texas 78768 

Dear Representative Keffer: 

March 28, 2016 

Opinion No. KP-0075 

Re: Whether a county that has accepted a 

public dedication of a right-of-way is 

obligated to maintain the sidewalks in that 

right-of-way (RQ-0061°-KP) 

On behalf of several municipal utility districts, you ask whether a county that has accepted 

a public dedication of a right-of-way is obligated to maintain the sidewalks in that right-of-way. 1 

A brief submitted with your request provides an illustrative example about a Williamson County 

(the "County") neighborhood in one such municipal utility district and provides the following 

information: The homes in the neighborhood are accessed by several public roads, including Dallas 

Drive, a major thoroughfare with sidewalks located within the right-of-way. See Letter Brief at 1. 

"Following the developer's construction of the rights-of-way and other infrastructure in [the 

neighborhood], the County accepted the dedicated rights-of-way through its maintenance of Dallas 

Drive and other rights-of-way in the subdivision." Id. at 1-2. Recently the County enacted a 

sidewalk maintenance and repair policy "to address its maintenance and repair of sidewalks 

throughout the County" and the policy did not include Dallas Drive. Id. at 2. The County's policy 

provides that sidewalks not included in the policy that are located in unincorporated areas of the 

County are to be maintained by the owner of the adjacent property. See id. The neighborhood has 

no mandatory homeowners association through which to levy funds for sidewalk maintenance. 

See id. And the municipal utility district containing the neighborhood "has never assumed the 

responsibility or obligation for maintaining public rights-of-way, including sidewalks." Id. Thus, 

"the effect of the County's attempt to disclaim maintenance of public sidewalks is to impose that 

burden on each individual who owns property adjacent to a sidewalk." Id. In this context, you 

ask "if a county has accepted the public dedication of a right-of-way that includes the sidewalks 

does the county's maintenance obligations of a subdivision's rights-of-way extend to the adjacent 

sidewalks and if so can the county at a later date divest itself of the obligation to maintain the 

sidewalks?" Request Letter at 1. 

1

See Letter from Honorable Jim Keffer, Chair, House Comm. on Nat. Res., to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. 

Att'y Gen. at 1 (Oct. 21, 2015), and attached Letter Brief from Kevin Flahive, Armbrust & Brown, PLLC, to 

Honorable Jim Keffer (Oct. 15, 2015), https://www.texasattomeygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs 

("Request Letter" and "Letter Brief," respectively). 
The Honorable Jim Keffer - Page 2 (KP-0075) 

A county has only the authority that is expressly granted by the Texas Constitution or 

statutes or that which is necessarily implied therefrom. See City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 

111 S.W.3d 22, 28 (Tex. 2003). And with respect to road maintenance, a county is statutorily 

authorized to maintain only public roads. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE§ 251.003(a)(l). A public road 

is a "public road or highway that has been laid out and established according to law and that has 

not been discontinued." Id § 251.002. But "not all public roads are part of the system of roads 

maintained by the county." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0659 (2008) at 3. "Once a public road 

has been established as a county road, the county has a general duty to maintain it." Id A county 

road is a public road that the commissioners court has accepted into the county's system of roads. 

Id at 2. And this office has recognized that a county road may include sidewalks. See Tex. Att'y 

Gen. Op. No. GA-1013 (2013) at 2 ("In addressing a commissioners court's authority over county 

roads, we also note that a road is not limited to the area traveled, but includes the whole width of 

the public right-of-way."); see generally State v. NICO-WFI, LL.C., 384 S.W.3d 818, 821 (Tex. 

2012) (recognizing, with respect to a state highway, that the right-of-way of a street dedicated to 

the public "includes sidewalks ... , which are a part of the street itself') (quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the brief states that "the County accepted the dedicated rights-of-way through its 

maintenance of Dallas Drive and other rights-of-way in the subdivision." Letter Brief at 2. 

Acceptance may be express pursuant to a vote by a commissioners court or it may be implied such 

as "where a county makes repairs upon the street, or plats it on official maps." Tex. Att'y Gen. 

Op. No. JC-0503 (2002) at 4. And while a county has a ministerial duty to approve a plat and 

authorize its filing under chapter 232 of the Local Government Code, the mere approval of a plat 

is not sufficient to render a dedicated public road into a county road. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 

GA-0594 (2008) at 3 ("A commissioners court's approval of a plat allows it to be filed in the 

county records, but it does not convert private roads represented on the plat into county roads or 

impose on the county a duty to maintain them."); see also TEX. Loe. Gov'T CODE§§ 232.001-

.108 (governing county subdivision regulation). Instead, acceptance of the dedication by a county 

is required. See generally Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0503 (2002) at 4. Though you suggest that 

the County has at least impliedly accepted the dedication of these roads into the county road 

system, the question "whether and to what extent a public right-of-way has been acquired by 

dedication ... on a given road is a fact question that cannot be resolved" in an attorney general 

opinion. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0693 (2009) at 2; see also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM-1241 

(1990) at 1-2. Thus, we cannot opine on what the County's particular maintenance obligations 

are with respect to Dallas Drive. Whether the dedicated right-of-way here was accepted by the 

County and whether that acceptance includes the sidewalks located in the right-of-way are fact 

questions beyond the purview of an attorney general opinion. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA0693 (2009) at 1-2. 

Yet, because we cannot determine the County's maintenance obligations with respect to 

Dallas Drive, we also cannot definitively advise you on how the County might divest itself of any 

maintenance obligations it may have. At most we can point you to Transportation Code section 

251.051, which sets out the methods by which a county may divest itself of its county roads, 

including presumably any maintenance obligations accompanying those county roads. See TEX. 

TRANSP. CODE § 251.051. To the extent any of the actions in section 251.051 may be applicable 

to Dallas Drive, the County may utilize them upon compliance with the requirements of the statute. 
The Honorable Jim Keffer - Page 3 (KP-0075) 

SUMMARY 

A county road may include the sidewalks in the right-of-way. 

Whether a county has accepted a public dedication of a right-of:-way 

such that the sidewalks are within the county's maintenance 

obligations is a question beyond the purview of an attorney general 

opm1on. 

To the extent any of the actions in Transportation Code 

section 251.051 may be applicable to Dallas Drive, Williamson 

County may utilize them upon compliance with the requirements of 

the statute. 

JEFFREY C. MATEER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

BRANTLEY STARR 

Very truly yours, 

~?~ KEN PAXTON 

Attorney General of Texas 

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel 

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

CHARLOTTE M. HARPER 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee