Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
GA-0968
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2012Background
- Texas Attorney General analyzes whether preelection representations by VIA, the City, and VIA’s Board bound voters to restrict ATD funds from funding light rail or streetcars.
- An ATD is created by a local election and, if approved, governed by a Board with broad discretion over expenditures for advanced transportation and mobility improvements.
- Section 451.702(e) requires ATD tax proceeds to be used for advanced transportation/mobility purposes; the ballot also described local uses for grants and mobility improvements.
- Historical representations include an election brochure stating funds would not fund light rail and that only 25% or 50% of tax revenue would support certain projects, raising questions about contract formation with voters.
- The Attorney General discusses whether such representations or a Board resolution preelection could become part of the contract with voters and preclude certain uses of funds.
- The analysis concludes that contract-form questions depend on disputed facts and cannot be resolved in an attorney general opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did preelection representations form part of the contract with voters? | Brochure/representations may bind under contract-with-voters doctrine. | Whether those representations bind depends on facts; uncertain without the actual text and context. | Cannot determine; factual questions prevent this opinion from deciding. |
| Did a preelection Board resolution bind the voters’ contract regarding light-rail restrictions? | Resolution could be binding as preelection official action limiting uses. | Resolution text not provided; context and facts crucial to binding. | Cannot determine; factual questions prevent this opinion from deciding. |
| May 25 percent of ATD proceeds be used as the local share for grants for a streetcar project? | Streetcar funding may be inconsistent with statutory/local-share requirements. | Statutory 25% must be used for local share of grants for advanced transportation; factual analysis needed for streetcar fit. | Cannot determine; fact questions required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fletcher v. Ely, 53 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1932) (pre-election contracts based on collateral orders)
- Barrington v. Cokinos, 338 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. 1960) (bond election contract limits on funds)
- San Saba Cnty. v. McCraw, 108 S.W.2d 200 (Tex. 1937) (constitutional contract-with-voters framework)
- Black v. Strength, 246 S.W. 79 (Tex. 1922) (text of election order vs. collateral contract terms)
- Inverness Forest Improvement Dist. v. Hardy St. Investors, 541 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1976) (board letter/binding representations may be binding in some contexts)
- Taxpayers for Sensible Priorities v. City of Dallas, 79 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002) (pamphlets vs. bond proposition as contract terms; fact-dependent)
- City of Laredo v. Villarreal, 81 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2002) (courts construe ordinances in context)
- Salvatierra v. VIA Metro. Transit Auth., 974 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998) (VIA creation/history and authority under chapter 451)