Mr. James Chastain, President Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District Post Office Box 177 202 Twelfth Street Bandera, Texas 78003
Re: Whether certain Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District directors' interests constitute conflicts of interest under chapter 171 of the Local Government Code or other law (RQ-0307-GA)
Dear Mr. Chastain:
The Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District, which is governed by a nine-member board of directors, has asked whether certain directors' interests constitute conflicts of interest under chapter 171 of the Local Government Code or other law.1
We gather that the combined entity is known as the "Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District" (the "District").6 As a result of the two special laws, the District board of directors exercises authority as both (1) the board of directors of a water control and improvement district governed by chapter 49 of the Water Code, and (2) the board of directors of a groundwater conservation district governed by chapter 36 of the Water Code.7
Background information submitted with the District's request states that three directors "are closely related to individuals engaged in the business of real estate and property development" and that two directors "own well drilling and service businesses."8 There is some concern that these directors would have a conflict of interest in board matters that would regulate or impact such businesses. See Connors Memo, supra note 8. In addition, another director "owns a construction business" specializing "in roads, culverts, driveways and other services" and there is some concern that this director "would have a conflict of interest in matters before the board which would regulate or impact the growth and development upon which his business depends." Id.
The District asks whether the directors "have a conflict of interest under the Local Government Code, Chapter 171, or all other applicable state and federal law." Supplemental Request Letter, supra note 1 (emphasis omitted).
It is undisputed that the District's directors are local public officials subject to chapter 171's requirements. See id. § 171.001 (defining "local public official" to include "a member of the governing body or another officer, whether elected, appointed, paid, or unpaid, of any district (including a school district), county, municipality, precinct, central appraisal district, transit authority or district, or other local governmental entity who exercises responsibilities beyond those that are advisory in nature"); Tex. Water Code Ann. §§
Given the concerns the District raises about directors' interests, we consider (1) when a local public official has a substantial interest in a business entity, including when a local public official has a substantial interest in a relative's business, and (2) when an action in a matter "will have a special economic effect on the business entity that is distinguishable from the effect on the public." See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 171.001(2), .002, .004(a)(1) (Vernon 1999).
(1) the person owns 10 percent or more of the voting stock or shares of the business entity or owns either 10 percent or more or $15,000 or more of the fair market value of the business entity; or
(2) funds received by the person from the business entity exceed 10 percent of the person's gross income for the previous year.
Id. § 171.002(a). A person has a substantial interest in real property if the interest is an equitable or legal ownership with a fair market value of $2,500 or more. See id. § 171.002(b).
A local public official also has a substantial interest in a business entity or real property "if a person related to the official in the first degree by consanguinity or affinity, as determined under Chapter 573, Government Code, has a substantial interest" in the business entity or real property. Id. § 171.002(c). An individual's relatives within the first degree by consanguinity or affinity include the individual's parent, child, parent's or child's spouse, spouse, and spouse's parent or child. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No.
The District has not asked and we do not address whether any particular director has a substantial interest in any particular business entity or real property. Moreover, we note that resolving these issues often involves questions of fact beyond the purview of an attorney general opinion. See, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos.
(a) If a local public official has a substantial interest in a business entity or in real property, the official shall file, before a vote or decision on any matter involving the business entity or the real property, an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the interest and shall abstain from further participation in the matter if:
(1) in the case of a substantial interest in a business entity the action on the matter will have a special economic effect on the business entity that is distinguishable from the effect on the public; or
(2) in the case of a substantial interest in real property, it is reasonably foreseeable that an action on the matter will have a special economic effect on the value of the property, distinguishable from its effect on the public.
Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 171.004(a) (Vernon 1999) (emphasis added).
Ordinarily, the attorney general cannot decide in the opinion process whether a governmental entity's action will have a special economic effect on a business entity or the value of real property distinguishable from its effect on the public, because this decision requires the investigation and resolution of fact questions. See generally Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos.
The District focuses on directors' interests in business entities rather than real property. See Supplemental Request Letter, supra note 1; Connors Memo, supra note 8. In an attachment to your letter, Richard Connors, a District director, asserts that three directors are closely related to individuals engaged in real estate and property development businesses and that two directors own well drilling and service businesses. See Connors Memo, supra note 8. Mr. Connors believes these directors "have a conflict of interest in matters before the Board which would regulate or impact such businesses." Id. Another director owns a construction business, specializing in roads and culverts, and Mr. Connors believes that this director "would have a conflict of interest in matters before the board which would regulate or impact the growth and development upon which this business depends." Id. We assume for purposes of this opinion that the directors have a "substantial interest" in these businesses.
Chapter 171 does not disqualify individuals from serving on the District board because they have a substantial interest in a real estate, property development, or construction business. However, for each vote or decision the District board will make, each director must consider the nature of the specific proposed action and its potential effect on any business entity in which he has a substantial interest. Chapter 171 does not require disclosure and recusal unless the District's action on the matter will have a special economic effect on such a business entity that is distinguishable from the effect on the general public. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 171.004(a)(1) (Vernon 1999).
This office cannot determine whether a director with an interest described by the District must file an affidavit and abstain from a particular board decision. As we have noted, this is generally a fact question. Moreover, given the limited and very general information submitted by the District, we have no basis for making any conclusions as a matter of law. A director must make this determination in the first instance, keeping in mind that violating section 171.004 constitutes a class A misdemeanor. See id. § 171.003(a)-(b). However, as a general matter, we observe that it seems unlikely that a broadly applicable District action would have a "special economic effect" on a particular business entity distinguishable from its effect on the general public if its only effect on the business entity is generally to encourage (or to limit) property development within the District's boundaries.
Unlike chapter 171 of the Local Government Code, section 49.052 of the Water Code disqualifies persons with certain interests from serving, providing in pertinent part:
(a) A person is disqualified from serving as a member of a board of a district that includes less than all the territory in at least one county and which, if located within the corporate area of a city or cities, includes within its boundaries less than 75 percent of the incorporated area of the city or cities, if that person:
(1) is related within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity to a developer of property in the district, any other member of the board, or the manager, engineer, attorney, or other person providing professional services to the district;
(2) is an employee of any developer of property in the district or any director, manager, engineer, attorney, or other person providing professional services to the district or a developer of property in the district in connection with the district or property located in the district;
(3) is a developer of property in the district;
(4) is serving as an attorney, consultant, engineer, manager, architect, or in some other professional capacity for the district or a developer of property in the district in connection with the district or property located in the district;
(5)(A) is a party to a contract with or along with the district except for the purchase of public services furnished by the district to the public generally; or
(B) is a party to a contract with or along with a developer of property in the district relating to the district or to property within the district, other than a contract limited solely to the purpose of purchasing or conveying real property in the district for the purpose of either establishing a permanent residence, establishing a commercial business within the district, or qualifying as a director; or
(6) during the term of office, fails to maintain the qualifications required by law to serve as a director.
Tex. Water Code Ann. §
Section 49.052 defines the term "developer of property in the district" to mean
any person who owns land located within a district covered under this section and who has divided or proposes to divide the land into two or more parts for the purpose of laying out any subdivision or any tract of land or any addition to any town or city, or for laying out suburban lots or building lots, or any lots, streets, alleys, or parks or other portions intended for public use, or the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting thereon or adjacent thereto.
Tex. Water Code Ann. §
Section 49.052 vests the water district board with the authority to determine whether a director is disqualified. See Tex. Water Code Ann. §
We lack the requisite facts to determine whether chapter 49 applies to the District board when it acts as the board of directors of the Bandera County River Authority and, moreover, cannot make factual findings in an attorney general opinion.12 Section 49.052 applies only to a district "that includes less than all the territory in at least one county and which, if located within the corporate area of a city or cities, includes within its boundaries less than 75 percent of the incorporated area of the city or cities." Id. § 49.052(a). The 1971 special law establishes that the Bandera County River Authority does not comprise all of Bandera County.13 The 1989 special law creating the Springhills Water Management District and amending the 1971 special law did not change the Bandera County River Authority's boundaries.14 However, we cannot determine whether the Bandera County River Authority is "located within the corporate area of a city or cities" and, if so, "includes within its boundaries less than 75 percent of the incorporated area of the city or cities." Id. See Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. No.
In addition, section 49.052(f) provides that section 49.052 does not apply "to special water authorities, districts described in Section 49.181(h)(4), or a district where the principal function of the district is to provide irrigation water to agricultural lands or to provide nonpotable water for any purpose." Tex. Water Code Ann. §
Finally, we note that the Bandera County River Authority board of directors is "composed of the persons who serve as directors of the Springhills Water Management District."18 The Springhills Water Management District, a countywide underground water conservation district, is not subject to section 49.052. See Tex. Water Code Ann. §
Chapter 171 of the Local Government Code does not disqualify individuals from serving on the Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District board of directors because they have a substantial interest in a real estate, property development, or construction business. Rather, chapter 171 requires a director with a substantial interest in a business entity to file with the District's record keeper "an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the interest" before the governmental entity votes on or decides a matter involving the business entity and to abstain if "the action . . . will have a special economic effect on the business entity that is distinguishable from the effect on the public." Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 171.004(a)(1) (Vernon 1999). Thus, for each vote or decision the District board will make, each director must consider the nature of the specific proposed action and its potential effect on any business entity in which the director has a substantial interest to determine whether he or she must disclose the interest and abstain from participating in the matter. Under chapter 171, a director has a substantial interest in a business entity if the director or his or her close relative has a substantial interest in the business entity.Section
49.052 of the Water Code disqualifies persons with certain interests from serving on certain water district boards. Whether section 49.052 applies to the Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District involves questions of fact that cannot be resolved in an attorney general opinion.
Very truly yours,
GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas
BARRY McBEE First Assistant Attorney General
DON R. WILLETT Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
NANCY S. FULLER Chair, Opinion Committee
Mary R. Crouter Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
