August 4, 1975 

The Honorable Ronald L. Wilson 

Criminal District Attorney 

405 County Courthouse 

Galveston, Texas 77550 

Opinion No. H-658 

Re: Whether Galveston County may 

use the proceeds from certain previously authorized bonds for other 

road projects within the county. 

Dear Mr. Wilson: 

You have requested our opinion regarding whether Galveston County 

may use the proceeds from certain previously authorized bonds for other road 

projects within the County. You state that on October 20, 1969, the Commissioners Court of Galveston County adopted an order committing the Court to allocate 

$5 million from a proposed bond election to partial construction of the Bolivar 

Crossing on State Highway 87. Thereafter, on October 27, 1969, the Court called 

the bond election, setting it for December 9, 1969. The bonds were approved by 

the voters by the requisite margin but have not been sold. Since present costs of 

construction of the Bolivar Crossing greatly exceed previous estimates, the 

Commissioners Court now wishes to divert the $5 million committed to that project to other road projects within the County. 

It is well established that a commissioners court may, by pre-election 

orders, fix the exact purpose for which bond proceeds are to be used. Fletcher 

v. Ely, 53 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Tex.Civ.App. -- Amarillo 1932-writ ref’QmG< 

a pre-election order so states a specific purpose, the courts will enjoin diversion 

of the bond proceeds to any other purpose. Id. at 818. Since the order is made : 

with a view to its being relied on by the voters 

. . . it [may] not be arbitrarily ignored or repudiated without involving the perpetration of 

fraud or its equivalent on the voters . . . 

[T] he will of those having to bear the bond 

burden should not be defeated by a mere 

change of mind on the part of the members of 

the commissioners court with respect to the 

particular roads needing improvement, [ since] 

any other rule would tend to undermine public 

confidence in the acts of public officers. Black 

v. Strenght, 246 S. W. 79, 80 (Tex. Sup. 1922). 

p. 2887 
The Honorable Ronald L. Wilson - Page 2 (H-658) 

See also Wright v. Allen, 257 S. W. 980 (Tex. Civ. App. --Dallas, 1923, writ 

‘i77q-F 

The only recognized exception to the general rule that commissioners 

court must not divert bond proceeds from the purposes stated in its pre-election 

orders occurs where evidence indicates that conditions have so materially changed 

since the bonds were voted that use of the bond proceeds for the particular named 

purpose would be “an unwise and unnecessary expenditure” of public funds. 

Hudson v. San Antonio Independent School District, 95 S. W. 2d 673, 674-75 (Tex. 

Sup. 1936). In our view, however, the Hudson rationale is limited to the situation 

in which the project is determined to be unwise and unnecessary subsequent to the 

sale of the bonds. 

Since the bonds approved for the Bolivar Crossing project have not been 

sold, we do not believe the Hudson principle to be applicable. Accordingly, it is 

our opinion that the Commissioners Court of Galveston County may not divert to 

other road projects within the County $5 million in bond proceeds committed to the 

Bolivar Crossing project in a pre-election order. We do not mean to imply, however, that the bond proceeds must necessarily be expended upon the Bolivar Crossing project. Article 717g, V. T. C. S., confers discretion upon the commissioners 

court as to whether to order a revocation election. See Attorney General Opinion 

H-592 (1975). 

- 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioners Court of Galveston County 

may not divert to other road projects within the 

county $5 million in bond proceeds committed 

to the Bol.ivar Crossing project in a pre-election 

order. 

Very truly yours, 

Opinion Committee 

jad: 

p. 2888