E £ a H W a U FC o [fj Q (+1 2 2 .. rC W ~D fx U E FC I ~n F a a w 5 m F O m a U Ol O ~ a a ~ ~ W N F z a o a a H W W U ~/1 ~ ~ H W in v~ ~l H H N H O W ~n U U Ul • a H O H a~ o 2 MADE BY: William H. Williams I J~ % OFFICE MEETING DATE: September 27, 1999 SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) Commissioners' Court TIME PREFERRED: Consider and discuss Shadow Ridge Subdivision residents petition to conduct an election for the purpose of forming a Special Road District. EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON) NAME OF PERSON ADDRE55ING THE COURT: ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE: Commissioner Pct. #2 Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows: Meeting scheduled for Mondays: THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY: THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday. All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has been prepazed for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towazds you request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners' Court. MEMORANDUM TO: Judge Fred Henneke FROM: David Motley SUBJECT: County Attorney Opinion J199-08; Funding improvement of county road to current standards. DATE: September 21, 1999 In response to your request of September 14, 1999, the Texas Constitution mandates that no county expenditures may be made for other than a proper public purpose. Article VIII, § 3 of the Tcxas constitution says that "Taxes shall be levied and collected by general laws and for public purposes only." Article III, § 51, Texas Constitution states: "The Legislature shall have no power to make any grant or authorize the making of any grant of public moneys to any individual, association of individuals, municipal or other corporations whatsoever..." Article III, §52 (a) of the Texas Constitution says: "(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, the Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county, city, town or other political corporation or subdivision of the State to lend its credit or to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, association or corporation whatsoever, or to become a stockholder in such corporation, association or company." The county may not donate its money fora rivxte purpose, through its bonding capacity, a direct grant or girt of public funds or by levying or collecting taxes. That a private entity may incidentally benefit from what would otherwise be a proper public expenditure (which serves a legitimate governmental function) will not, in itself, invalidate the expenditure. There is no absolute bright line which divides public and private expenditures and the delineation has changed over time, with the trend being to broaden what is properly considered a public purpose. It is clear that county monies may not be spentin a fashion which unreasonably and in the main, benefits private concerns or individuals. Generally, a use of county funds which generally benefits the local populace and which performs a function which is typically or historically performed by a local government, will be considered as made for a proper public purpose. The decision of what is a proper public purpose is one of personal opinion and as such, will typically be made on a case-by-case basis. The larger the group of citizens which are benefitted by the expenditure, the more likely it will be upheld as a proper public expenditure. An extensive search of Texas Attorney General's Opinions has tailed to yield a situation syuxrely on point. Such an expenditure by the county may he considered a general tax burden upon all citizens for the greatest, most direct benefit of a subset of county citizens and the benefit (quid pro quo) Co all citizens of the county should be wnsidered in determining whether or not the expenditure meets the test of a proper public purpose. The 1905 Texas Supreme Court ease of Borden v. Trespalacios Rice and Irrigation Compazzy, 86 SW l 1, determined that the expenditure of public funds to create a water district, which provided irrigation water to only 26 landowners was not unconstitutional. DM/s cc: File Judge Henneke for your information and background: County road districts may be created upon the initiative of the commissioners' court and no petition from the residents of the proposed district is required for its creation §257.021, Texas Transportation Code. A majority of registered voters in the proposed district may, however, petition the court to create a road district. A court order creating such a district must clearly (but not precisely) define the boundaries of the proposed district. Such an order must follow a public hearing with proper notice. The cost for the improvement of existing roads in the district to the standard required by the county for the roads to be accepted into the county maintenance system may be paid by a special ad valorem tax, not to exceed 15C per $100.00 in property valuation, § 256.052, Texas Transportation Code. An election to adopt this tax shall be ordered by the commissioners' court if the court receives a petition requesting said election which is signed by at least 50 registered voters of the political subdivision, if an election approving the tax is requested in the petition. The rate shall be set by the commissioners and shall be included in the election order, with the election to be held on the first authorized uniform election date following the 20th day after the date of the court's election order. A majority of the qualified voters is required to authorize this tax. The cost for the improvement of existing roads in the district to the standard required by the county for the roads to be accepted into the county maintenance systcm may also be financed by road district tax bonds. A petition, which must be signed by the lesser of 50 or a majority of the qualified voters in the proposed district is required before the bond finance system may be considered by the commissioners' court. This method of financing the road improvements also requires notice, a public hearing, notice of election and an election which requires a 2/3 affirmative vote to permit the court to issue said bonds. The value of the bonds thus authorized may not exceed one-fourth of the assessed valuation of the real property of the road district by referring to the market value of the property as recorded by the chief appraiser of the central appraisal district. The bonds may not mature later than 30 years from their date, with very limited exceptions. The commissioners' court is expressly authorized to annually asses a tax which is sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the bonds and collect that tax. Art 726, §§ 2.001-2.010, §3.006, Vernon's Revised Civil Statutes. I am providing copies of three cases for your consideration: 1 • Hill v. Sterrett, which is a general discussion about road districts. 2. Meyenberg v. Ehlinger, which discusses the idea of a general burden of all citizens for the benefit of less than all. 3. The aforementioned case of Borden v. Trespalacios Rice and Irrigation Company, which upheld the constitutionality of a water district which benefitted a rather limited group of citizens.