Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
KP-0065
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2016Background
- Request from Wharton County Attorney about meaning of "site improvements" in Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 501.103(1); El Campo EDC uses § 501.103(1) to fund a "Revitalization and Site Improvement Campaign."
- The campaign provides matching grants to local retail and industrial businesses for exterior painting, glass replacement, cleanup, lighting, landscaping, and signage.
- Chapter 501 lists specific infrastructure items that qualify as "projects," and § 501.103(1) includes a limited list (streets, rail spurs, utilities, drainage, site improvements, etc.).
- "Site improvements" is undefined in chapters 501/504 and has no judicial definition; the opinion therefore applies ordinary meaning and rules of statutory construction.
- The Attorney General advises that whether a particular expenditure actually qualifies as a project involves fact questions and is initially for the corporation’s board of directors; the opinion provides only a legal definition, not a conclusive eligibility ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning and scope of "site improvements" in § 501.103(1) | El Campo EDC contends campaign expenditures (painting, signage, landscaping, lighting, cleanup, glass replacement) are "site improvements" so may be funded under § 501.103(1) | The statute contains a limited, exclusive list; "site improvements" should be read in context with other listed items that prepare land for development, so not all aesthetic/retail-facing work necessarily qualifies | "Site improvements" construed to mean an improvement or permanent enhancement that relates to development of an area of ground on which a town, building, or monument is constructed; whether a specific expenditure qualifies is for the corporation’s board (subject to judicial review) |
Key Cases Cited
- William Marsh Rice Univ. v. Refaey, 459 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. 2015) (undefined statutory words receive ordinary meaning)
- Karisch v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 837 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, no writ) ("improvement" can mean a permanent enhancement that increases value)
- Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. 2015) (noscitur a sociis and statutory construction principles)
- TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (use of surrounding words to construe meaning in a list)
- Pearce v. City of Round Rock, 78 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied) (board decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)