October20, 1987
Honorable Barry L. Macha Opinion No. JH-811
Criminal District Attorney
Wichita County Courthouse Re: Authority of a general
Wichita Falls, Texas 76301 law city to enact ordi-
nances affecting city-
owned property outside the
city's corporate limits
and extraterritorial juris-
diction
Dear Mr. Macha:
You inform us that a general law city located in
Wichita County, Texas, owns certain real property which is
located outside the corporate limits of the municipality.
The property is not adjacent to or contiguous with either
the corporate limits of the city or the area comprising
its extraterritorial jurisdiction. The city wishes to
protect the property by enforcing city ordinances which
prohibit trespassing, littering, vandalism, and dis-
charging weapons. The city wishes to protect itself from
civil liability by enforcing safety ordinances. It also
hopes to bring the property into compliance with regula-
tions of the Texas Department of Health and the Texas
Department of Water Resources.
The situation has prompted the following questions:
1. If a general law city owns real
property which is noncontiguous with and
located outside of the corporate limits and
extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city,
can that city govern such property through
the enforcement of city ordinances?
2. If so, what court has proper juris-
diction over proceedings resulting from the
violation of such ordinances?
3. [I]f the city cannot govern such
property through its ordinance power, can
n. 3841
Honorable Barry L. Macha - Page 2 (m-811)
the city protect its property in a manner
consistent with that of a private landowner?
It is axiomatic that all powers' granted to a city may
be exercised only within the corporate limits of the city
unless expressly extended by statute to apply outside the
corporate limits. Citv of West Lake Hills v. Westwood
Leaal Defense Fund 598 S.W.2d 681, 686 (Tex. Civ. App. -
Waco 1980, no writ); Citv of Sweetwater V. amne , 259
S.W. 191 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1923, writ dism'd).
Thus, municipal ordinances are held to have no extra-
territorial effect unless specifically provided by
statute. u, She V. Citv of D 11 172 S.W. 1137,
1138 (Tex. Civ. Ap;: - Dallas 1915:, t&d 212 S.W. 633
(Tex. Comm'n App. 1919, holding approved).
Sections 51.001, 51~.012, and 51.032 of the recently
enacted Local Government Code (effective September 1,
1987), Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, 51, at 1511-1513,
grant the governing bodies of general law municipalities
authority to enact ordinances, not inconsistent with state
law, that are necessary to carry out powers granted by law
to the municipalities and to properly govern the
municipality. None of these provisions confer extra-
territorial ordinance-making authority on general law
municipalities. Comvare Local Gov't Code 5542.001
(purpose of designating extraterritorial jurisdiction is
to promote and protect general health, safety, and welfare
of persons residing in and adjacent to municipalities):
42.021 (extent of extraterritorial jurisdiction limited).
The statutes from which the enumerated Local Government
Code provisions are derived also did not grant extra-
territorial effect to city ordinances. &S V.T.C.S. arts.
962, 968, 1011, 1145 (repealed by Acts 1987, 70th Leg.,
ch. 149, 549, at 2543-44). Sections 51.015 and 51.018 of
the Local Government Code authorize "Type A" general law
cities1 to hold, purchase, lease, or convey property
located in or outside the city. Section 51.034 authorizes
1. A "Type A" general law municipality is one which
has either (a) incorporated under subchapter A of chapter
6 of the Local Government Code, (b) converted to a "Type
A" general law city under subchapter B of chapter 6, or
(c) operated under chapters l-10 of title 28 of the civil
statutes immediately preceding September 1, 1967, and has
not changed its "Type A" status. Local Gov't Code 35.001.
p. 3842
Honorable Barry L. Macha - Page 3 (m-811)
"Type B" general law cities2 to hold and dispose of real
property located within their municipal boundaries. "Type
C*@ general law municipalities3 may, depending upon
population, possess the same authority to acquire and
convey real property as "Type A" or "Type B" general law
cities. Local Gov't Code 051.051(a), (b). None of these
provisions empowers a general law city to protect property
outside its corporate limits or extraterritorial juris-
diction by the enforcement of its own ordinances. cf.
Local Gov't Code 5543.023(g), 43.024(d), 43.025(c),
43.028(e) (inhabitants of territory annexed by a munici-
pality are bound by ordinances of the municipality).
Accordingly, your first question is answered in the
negative. This answer dispenses with the need to
consider your second question.
Your final question is whether a general law city may
protect its property in a manner consistent with that of
a private landowner. The general rule regarding the
authority of a municipal corporation to protect property
under its control was stated in Adderlev v. Florida, 385
U.S. 39, 47 (1966):
The State, no less than a private owner
of property, has power to preserve the
property under its control for the use to
which it is lawfully dedicated.
s al n 'tv of Athens v. Bromall. 252 N.E.Zd 298 (Oh.
A;;. lE9, ; 10 McQuillin, The Law &f Municival Corvora-
tions 528.23a (3rd ed. 1981). You do not indicate the use
for which the property owned by the city is dedicated. We
2. A "Type B" general law municipality is one which
has not changed its "Type B" status and has either
incorporated under chapter 7 of the Local Government Code
or operated under chapter 11 of title 28 of the civil
statutes immediately preceding September 1, 1987. Local
Gov't Code 55.002.
3. A "Type C" general law municipality is one which
has not changed its "Type C" status and has either (a)
incorporated under subchapter A of chapter 8 of the Local
Government Code, (b) converted to "Type C" status under
subchapter B of chapter 8, or (c) operated under chapter
12 of title 28 of the civil statutes immediately preceding
September 1, 1987. Local Gov't Code 55.003.
p. 3843
Honorable Barry L. Macha - Page 4 (JM-811)
have been informed, however, that the city intends to
develop the property for use as a public park. A munici-
pality may acquire and improve land located outside its
boundaries but within the county in which the city is
situated to be used for public parks. Local Gov't Code
5331.001(a), (b) (11, (Cl- Parks acquired pursuant to
chapter 331 of the Local Government Code are "under the
control and management of the municipality or county
acquiring the park." Id. 5331.005(a). Furthermore, parks
acquired and maintained pursuant to chapter 331 "shall be
open for the use of the public under rules prescribed by
the governing body of the park." Id. 0331.007. Accor-
dingly, although a city may not enforce its ordinances on
the property in question, it may manage and control the
land it intends to develop as a public park and prescribe
rules regulating the use of the park by the public.
SUMMARY
A general law city may not enforce city
ordinances on land it owns outside the
corporate limits or extraterritorial juris-
diction of the city. A municipality, no
less than a private owner of property, may
protect and preserve property under its
control for the use to which it is lawfully
dedicated. A park acquired pursuant to
chapter 331 of the Local Government Code is
under the management and control of the
municipality acquiring the park. Local
Gov't Code 5331.005(a). The sovernino bodv
of the park may prescribe ruies regulating
its use by the public.. Local Gov't Code
5331.007.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General
p. 3ai4