QMfice of tty Plttornrp Qkncral
&ate of tkias
DAN MORALES
-\TTORSLI
CESERAL February 25.1993
Honorable Allen Ross Hi&tower OpinionNo. DM-204
Chainnan
Committee on Corrections Re: Authority of a county to
Texas House of Representatives improve certain subdivision roads and
P.O. Box 2910 assess the cost of repairs against
Au* Texas 78768-2910 subdivisions (RQ-457)
Dear RepresentativeHi&tower:
You have requested our opinion regmiing the proper construction of article
6702-3, V.T.C.S., in fhrther clarification of Attorney General Opiion DM-126 (1992).
Article 6702-3, V.T.C.S., which authorizes a wmmissioners court to improve a road in a
subdivisionand assess the wsts a&nst the owners of real property within the subdivision,
provides:
(a) This article applies only to a subdivision or a part of a
subdivision in an uninwrporated area of the county. To the extent
that this article authorizes the improvement of an access road to a
ddivisio~ this article applies only to an access road in an
unincorporated area of the county.
(b) In this article, “improvement” means the wnstruction,
reconstmctio~ or repair of a road.
(c)ThewmmissionerscoWofawuntymayorderthatthe
county improve a road in a subdivision or an access road to a
subdivisiontowmplywithanycountysta&rdsforroadsandassess
aUorpartofthewstsoftheim~prorataa@stthe
owners of real property in the subdivisionif:
(I) the wmmissioners court determines that the improvement is
rmxssq for the public health, safety, or welfare of the residents of
thecwnty.and
(2) a majority of those record owners of real property in the
~b&i.&n who are voting vote by mailed ballot in fivor of the
wuaty improvement and assessment.
(a) Before ordering an improvement and assessment under this
article, the wmmissioners wurt must @ve notice Of the proposed
p. 1076
Honorable Allen Ross Hightower - Page 2 (DM-204)
improvement and assessment and must hold a public hearing on the
question.
(e) Within 10 days a&r the date of the public hearing, the
wmmissioners court shall send by certified mail to each owner of
real property in the subdivision a ballot on the question and a return
addressed, stamped envelope for the return of the completed ballot to
t.hCWUmyCkk....
In Attorney General Opinion DM-126, we concluded that a wmmissioners court
which orders improvementsto a road in an uninwrporated area of the county as the result
of an election held under article 6702-3, V.T.C.S.. may delegate the details of the process
of wllecting the essessmentagainsttheafkctedpropertyownas.andthatitmayako
determine the precise formula for calculating the assessm~withspecialregardforthe
partiwlar benefits which will accrue to each property owner. We also concluded that the.
wstsofboldingtheelection~dw~~themaatesmaynotbeaJsarsadagainstthe
Propaty-.
In clarification ofAttorney General Opinion DM-126, you ikst ask whether “each
recorded. plat[t]ed, subdivision [is] to be treated as an autonomous entity as to the
[a]mount of awsment and wunting wtes.” Wederstmdyoutoaskwhetherthe
statute permits the wmmissioners court to hold an election on an impmvement and
assessment among real property owners in two or more subdivisions. We wnclude that it
doea not. The statute repeatedly refkrs to *a subdivision”and “the subdivision.” Clearly,
the. wmmksioners court must propose separate assessments and hold sepamte elections in
each subdivision.
You also ask at what point after a &division wtes to participate in an
improvementalienagainsttherealpropertytosecurcan assessment may be recorded.
Sections (s) and (h) of article 6702-3 provide as follows:
(P)h m an assessmalt lmder this alticl~ tbe
wmmissionerswurtmayprovidethetinqternqandwnditionsof
payment and de&k of the F ncepwtJ=
wmmissioners court may not require the payment of any interest on
all-.
09 All -tshaUbesecuredbyalienagainstthereal
propertyoftheapsessedpropextyowner. ThelienshaubeefFective
6om the date that written notice of the assessment is 6led for record
and recorded in the office of the county clerk of the wunty in which
the tuwssed property is located. Such written notice shall be in
~~lefonnaadwntainthedolloramountofthe~tbe
legaldescriptionofthepropertyasses&andthenameandaddms
p. 1077
Honorable Allen Ross Hightower - Page 3 (DM-204)
of each property owner. The lien securing the assessment &nil be
infbior only to tax liens and to bona fide mortgage liens recorded
prior to the efktive date of the assessment lien. Each property
owner shall be personally liable for the amoml of the m.
Although section (h) requires that a lien secure an assessment, it does not specify when
such a lien shall be rewrded. Section (g) gives the wmmissioners court broad discretion
to “provide the time, terms, and wnditions of payment and dcfblt of [an] assessment.’
We believethat section (B)gives the wmmissioners court the authority to dctamine when
the.lienwillberewrdedatteran assessmenthasbeenapprovedbyasubdivision. See&o
Attorney General Opiion DM-126 at 3 (“the wmmissioners wurt, in the absence of
statutory guidelines,must determinethe details of the wllcction process”).
Nact,you~howthewwnissionaswurtrhouldproceedintheevanM
rpprwed assessmentis not suaiciellt to wmplete the improvement. In partiadar, you ask
whether the work on the improvement should be stopped, and how wmpletion of the
project should be fimded. The statute daes not dimctly address this particular scenario.
Section (c) author&s the wmmisioners court to “assess ull ur pmt of the wsts of [an]
improvement”againstthe real property owners in a subdivision. (Bmphasisadded.) Thus,
the statute appears to contemplate that the wmmissioners court has the option of iimding
pt of an improvementfrom other sources. Therefore, we believe that the wmmissioners
court may opt to wntinue work on the improvement and to pay for such work with non-
.asmment iimds. Tha statute would also appear to authorize the wmmissioners court to
proposea- assessmclltto wmplete the project and to hold a new election according to
the StatuMy requiranaas clearly, howevcr~the real propaty owners calmot be charged
foradditiond wstsaboveihe maximumrssessmengwitbwttheirapproval.’
Finalh/.youasLwhatwstsmaykMsessedrgaiasttherealpropertyownasrside
fhnn costs for actual wnstmction of w. You * for aample, whether
-OlllOlUlilltaestarpaws,WStSformgineaing sewiceusedtodeterminethe
required impro~ or charges for bid publicationsmay be included in the asmsmaa
Article 6702-3(c) authohxes the wmmissioners court to assess only “all or part of tbc
costs of the impmvcment.” ”hlpl-OVUIlUlt”iSdC6llCdhthCSt8tUte~’thCWMlUCti~
rewnstruction, or repair of a road.” V.T.C.S. rrt. 6702-3(b). In Attorney General
Opinion DM-126, we wncluded that this statutov language does oot pennit tbe
wmmissioners court to include in the llssessmcntthewstsofholdingthc&ctionand
wllecting the assessmmt. We did so because the statute clearly does not authoke the
wmmissioners court to assess red property owners for administrative wsts assoc&d
with~~~whichwwldnotbtinarmdifmimprovcmmtwaefuadcdby
p. 1078
Honorable Allen Ross Hightower - Page 4 W-204)
other means. The detemrination whether the particular costs raised in your query are
asscsable improvement wsts or nonasesable administrative costs involves questions of
fact which are not amenable to the opinion process and should be resolved by the
wmmissionas wurt in the iirst instance.
SUMMARY
Article 6702-3. V.T.C.S.. mquims the wmmissioners wurt to
propose sepmte assessments and hold scpamtc dectiom in each
subdivision. Section (8) of article 6702-3 gives the wmmissioners
wurttheauthoritytodetaminewhenthelienwillberewrdedafter
8nassessmenthasbeenapprovedbyasubdivision. Ifthewstsofan
itnprovement exceed the maximum assessmen& the wlmnissioners
court may complete the improvement with n-t ftmda or
proposeh new assessment to wmplete the project and hold a new
dection according to the statutory m The dckmhtion
whe&erparticularwstsamassesmbleimprovnmntwstsor
nomuss&le admhhnk wsta involves questions of fact which
arenotamenabletotheophionpmcusandshouldberuolvedby
thCWlIllIliSSiOUGfSWUltiUthCfUStinstcma.
DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas
WILL PRYOR
FiiAMistrntAttO~Genart
MARYKELLER
DeputyAsdatmtAttomeyoeneral
RENEAHKxs
Special Assistant Attorney Gcnual
MADELEINE B. JOHNSON
Chair, Opinion Committee
p. 1079
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion