Loading...
ST9904-CS 991122Nov-Z2-99 O1 :O4P ~ "' / .... ' .......~T)..~ .... ) . "'i / INNOVATIV~ TRANSPORTATION ~OLU'rlONS, 2309 S[xinS[ake * Suite 6~0 ' Dallas, TX q5234 · (.gq2)~4-2J2J * Fax (972)4~4-~45 FAX DELIVER TO: FAX NUMBER Ken Griffin (972) 304-3673 FROM: John Polster November 22, 1999 TOTAL N UMBER OF PAGES (including this cover sheet): 11 MESSAGE: Per our conversation, this is the update regarding the SIt 121 SIB Loan. If you have any questions, please contact me at (972) 484- 2525. Cordially, John Polster Original WIII WILL NOT ~/tc~llow 'fhe inful nlaln~n cnntamcd m this fax n, pl lvilegcd and confidential information intended for the use of the individual or endly identified above a~ I CCll~mCnl If you are not th~ rotended ~cipjcn~, nr the cmployce or agent responsible to deliver such IllC&~gC$ t0 {he intended I~cipicmll. y~l al~ hc~hy ,nlnicd that any ~zssennrmadOn. distributinn or ~duction uf thib communication i& strictly Drohibitcd- H'you have r~civcd thi~ Fax m c~(~r. please minitory the ~cnd mm~dm~lely al (g72) 48,1-2525. ~nd please mlum the origina[ message by LI-S. Mail to the addrc~ mnd~catcd ahovc. Thank you fi~r Nov-22-g9 Ol:04P ~ * Po02 ITS INNOVATIVE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, INC. MEMORANDUM TO: The llonorable Milburn Gravley, Mayor of Carrollton Mr. Gary. Jackson, Carrollton City Manager The Honorable Bill Manning, Mayor of The Colony Mr. Lanny Lambert, The Colony City Manager The Honorablc Bobble Mitchell, Mayor of Lewisville Mr. Claude King, Lewisville City Manager The Honorable Candy Sheehan, Mayor of Coppell Mr. Ken Griffin, Coppell City Engineer Mr. Jerry Hodge, G.r vine Director of Public Works FROM: John Polster, ITS DATE: November 22, 1999 RE: Update on SH 121 State Infraslructure Bank (SIB) Loan Per our conversation, ITS is providing the following update regarding the SH 121 SIB Lo,-m: In mid-October, TxDOT had requested tlmt Denton County make a presentation to the Commission on November 18,1999 regarding the p,'Lrtnership and structure of our SIB loan request. On November 3, 1999 the Texas Attorney General issued Opinion No. JC-O139 regarding the ability of counties to borrow from tile SIB. This ruling caused TxDOT's general counsel to question the viability of all county SIB requests, inclttding Denton County's. Mr. }'lob Dransficld with Fulbright & Jaworski reviewed the Atton~ey General's opinion and was confident that Denton County's request tit within the statutes established by the Legislature. Subsequently, the SIB team traveled to Austin to meet with TxDOI' officials. ljpon review o1' the lhcts material to Denton County's request, it was determined that the county's application should proceed forward for consideration by the Commission. Since the Commission limits its December ageado due to the holidays, Denton County will submit its application and make a presentation to Ihe Commission on January 20, 2000. Additionally, the SIlt teain discussed prograinming issues with A1 Luedecke, Director of Transportation Planning and Programming. As a part of the January presentation, the Dallas District wi !1 be requesting Priority Two status for the entire length of the projecl, excluding the section in Dallas County which will not be environmentally cleared until September, 2000. Once Nov-22-99 01:04P ~ ~ P,03 SH 121 SIB Update November 22, 1999 Page Two the Dallas County section is environmentally cleared, the Dallas District will seek Priority Two status for it as well. Priority Two status will allow the District to begin the design phase ofthe projects. The request ibr Prit~rity Two status in January, 2000 is an eflbrt to have as many of the sections of the project as possible ready fbr letting in FY 2004, which begins October, 2003. As January 20. 2000 approaches, Commissioner Jacobs and the SIB team will provide additional intbrmation regarding the presentation and the timing. Should you have any additional questions. please do not hesitate to contact me at 972/484-2525. Attachment Cc: Commissioner Sandy Jacobs \',IT,%_S F R 'v'F R\ilShom{\l l'SDutuXJohn\M y F i lcs%DENEN I I'~ 121%SH 121 SI B\updat= tu citi¢s rc s i h loan, doc Nov-22-g9 01:04P __ * P.04 Post-it* Fax NOte 7671 ~at, /O- ~._..~mI~ ~ JOHN C(:3RNYN Phone# 'Phone#- November 3, 1999 The Honorable James W. Carr Opinion No. IC-01 Lavaca County Attom,:3t P~O. Box 576 Re: Whether a county may borrow money from Hallettsville, Texas 77964-0576 ~e State [nfraslruc~m.R'c Bank for road and bridge construction and re-pay the loan with the proceeds of ad valetern property taxes levied for that purpose over a tr~u, of yeaxa witixout issuing bonds or other obligations evideacin£ the loan CRQ-O057-IC) Dear Nil. Carl You ask wh~thcr Lavaca County may borrow money from the State Infrastructure Bank ("the Bank' ') for road and bridge construction and repay the 10an with the proceeds ofad valor~m property taxes levied for that purpose over a term of years without issuing bonds or othear obligations evidencing th~ loan. County authority to cnt¢~ into debt mu~t be express or necessarily implied by statute- liecause no statute expressly or implicdly authorizes a couilty to borrow money from the State Infrastlxlctxlxe Batik in the manner proposed here, the county may not borrow funds from the Bank and repay the loan with the proceeds of ad valetern property taxes levied for that pttrpose over a t~i-~ of years without issuing boneis or other obligations evidencing the loan. l'he State Infrastructure Bank is governed by chapter 222, subchapterD of the Tr-n-cportation Code, which the legislatuze enacted in 1997) The legislature rxeated the Bank within the Depardncnt of Transportation to take advantage of a new federal program to fund highway construction,: and subchapter D mirrors the federal law providing for state infrastructure banks. see National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, Pub. L. No- 104-39, § 350, 109 Star. 568, 618; see also Transportation I. nf~astructmc Finance and Innovation Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-178, § 1511, 112 Stat. 251. Pursuant to subchapter D, the purpose of the Flank is to "encourage public and private investment in transportation facilities" and to "develop financing tcchlmique~ designed to [] expand the availability nffianding for transportation projects and to reduce direct state costs; 'Act Of June i, 1997, 75th Le$., P,.S-, oh. 17 t 1, § 1.21, s~cs. 222.071-.078, 1997 Tex. Gn. Laws 4a2~, 44 ~3- 36 z~e¢ S~. ~MM- ON I~ATION~ ~TIONS, ~DE AND ~OL~Y, BIL~ AN~VSIS, T~ ~ B 370, 75~ ~g., ~S. (1997); 3~- ~MM. ON ~T~ATI~AL ~TION$, T~Og AND ~OL~Y, BILL ~ALYSIS, Tex ~ SubsUm~e S_B. 370, 75~ ~g-, ~S. (1997). Nov-22-g9 O1 :O,SP ~ P.O5 The Honorable James W. Carr ~ Page 2 (Jc-013q) [] maximizc private and local participalion in financing projects; and [] imlxeve the efficiency of the state transportation system." TEX. TY, ANSP. CODE ANN. § 222,073 (Vemon 1999). To further thes~ purposes, the Transportation Commission may use money in lhe Bank "to provide financial assistance to a public or private entity for a quali~[ project." Id. § 222.074(a). It may do so by extending credit by direct loan, providing credit enhancements, serving as a capital reserve for bond or debt instntrncnt ~naz~cing, subsidizing interest rates, insuring the issuance era loiter of credit or credit ins~romcnL financing a purchase or lease agreemenl in connection with a transit project, providing security for bonds or other debt instruments, or providing methods of leveraging money that have been approved by the United Stales Secretary of Transportation and relate to the project for which the assistance is provided. See td. § 222.07~$(a)(1)~(8) The Transportation Corztmission has adopted rules specifying the proc4~!ures and conditions for applying for and obtaining assistance from the Bank. See 43 TF.X. ADMiN. CODE ch. 6 (1999). Lavaca County would like to borrow money fxom the St~te Infra,stru~ture Bank and forego the expense of issuing bonds or ~erti~cates of obligation under chapter 271 of the Local Government Code or amicipation notes under chaptgr 1431 of the Government Code, formerly article 717w of {he Revised Civil Statues,s to ~-vid~ncc its a~x ec, rneni to zepay the money it has borrowed, See Lenor from Honorable James W_ Can, Lavaca County AReracy, to Elizabeth P-,obinson, Office of the Texas ArWm6y General (Apt. ~. 1999) (on file wi th Opinion Committee). Ka~er, the county would merely contrait future tax revenue to repay the loan. See id Presumably, the county would evidence the borrowing by e~nt~Ting into an agreement with the Bank. The ~ounty would levy a sufficient tax so pay the principal and interest on the debt as requixccl by ~ctio~ 7 of article XI, which mandates cities and counties, at the tixne a debt is created., "to !evy[] and colicell] a tax sufficient to pay the interest thereon and [tel provide. * - a sinkin~ fund," TEX. CONST. art. XI, § 7. See Brief from Honorable James W. Car, Lavaca County Attorney, to Elizabeth Robinson, Office of the Texas A,omey General (Apt. 14, 1999) (on file with Opinion Committee). The total tax levy would not exceed the constitutional limitation on the county tax rate :s~t fu~th in :~ct;tiou 9 of a,ticlc VIII. See ld. Commissioners courts ao not have a general power to incur debt. which, in this contexl, is generally d~ned as "any pecth-nary obligation imposed by contract, exc~-pt such as wilL, at the date. of the contract, within the lawful and ~r, asonable contemplation of the parties, bc sattaft;el out of current revenues; for the year, or out of some fund then within the iramedia{e control of the city county}." C~ty of 8onham v. Southwest Sanitation, Inc., 871 S .W.2d 76~, 768 (Tex. App.-Tcxarkana 199,i, writ denied) (defining "debt" for purposes of article XI, section 7 of the Texas Constitution. which provides that a city or county is prohibited fxom creating a debt unless at the same time it 'The 7~ Tc~xas Lrgaslsturc gepcslc4 fo~.~f atticks 701-705, 717q, 717w, sad 726 of the Roy"ned Civil Sutruxes and codi~ed them wnhom subsraniivc change in Title 9 ~fthe Oovcgugncut Cod=, ~ Public Securities Title. See Ac{ of May 10, 1999, 761b Leg., R-S_, ch. 227, § 1, sees. ! 251.00 ! --005, 137 I. 001 -. 106, 143 1,00 1 -.013, 147 | .00 ! - .087, 199'9 Tcx. Seas. Law 5crv. 721,77:~, 786, ~ 17, 1~34; id. § 28, 1999 Tcx. Seas. Law $erv. at ! 0~6 (r~pealin$ az~¢[cs ?01 -?0~, 717q, 717w, and 726)_ Po~ casc of citation, this upimiaa win t-tin ~o the provisions of Title 9 as thcy will be codificd i/1 the Goveri/znent Code. Nov-22-99 01 :(35P .--- __ The Honorable James W, Carr - Page 3 Uc-0139) providcs for paynzent of the debt). As one commentator has stated, "Counties have no statutory authority to merely borrow money from a bank." 35 DAteD B. BaooLs, T£XAs PR_~,CTICF-: CotrN't'Y AND SPECIAL DISTRICt LAw § 17,27 (1959); see al~p TeL Art'y Gen. Op. No. 1M-274 (1984) at l ("Counties lack authority to bonow money except through the issuance of bonds, certificates of obligation, or other forms of indebtedness which are specifically authorized by law."). Courts have long held Lhal lhe authority of a commissioners cottrt to make con~xacts on behalf of the county is limited to that conferre4 either expr~sly or by necessary implication by the constitution and laws of the state. See, e.g., Childtess County v. State, 92 S.W. 2d 1011, 1016 (TeL 1936); Jack v. State, 694 S_W.2d 391,397 (Tex. App.-S an Antonio 1985, writ ref'd rkr.e.). Irt tb.e area of public finance, cottrts have been particularly reluctant to imply the authority of a local government, such as a county, to enter into debt. See, e.g., S~n Antomo UnWn Junior College Dial. v. Daniel, 206 S,W.2d 995, 999 (Tex, 1947) (and cases cited thereto) (l~ower to issue negotiable paper for improvements beyond powers of city or county unless specially granted; when granted, may only be exewised i.n mode and fox purposes specified); Lopez v. Ramfrez, 558 S_W.2d 954, 957 (TeL Civ. App.-Sart Antomo 1977, no wnt) (statutes regarding authority to create debt mug be strictly and narrowly construed) (citing Robertson v. Breedlove, 61 Tex- 316 (1884), and Daniel, 206 S .W.2d 995); .~ee also TeL AIry_ Gen. Op. No. JC-0036 (1999) at 10 ("Provisions authorizing a local government to create debt must be stnctly and narrowly construed.") (citations omittexl). A number of provisions expreasly authorize counti~ to levy taxes to pay for road and bridg~ tToxtstruction, see TEX. CONST. art. I'TI, § 52Co), (c) (authorizing unlimited taxes to secure road bonds); td. art VIII, § 9 (authorizing county to levy taxes incIuding taxes for road and bridge construction and maintenance); see also T~X- TL~SP. COPS k'~. §§ 256.001 (Vernon 1999) (author~.~ng ofcotmry mad and bridge fired); 256.051 (authorizing levy of bond taxe~), and to finance road and bridge conslruction by tsstung bonds and other &bt instruments secured by a pledge of those Laxes, see, e.g-, T~x. GOv'T CODI~ AIm. §§ 1251,001-,005, 1431.001-.013, 1a71.001-.087;~ TEL LoC. Gov'T CoD~ ANN- ch. 271 Weanon 1999). No provision authorizes a county to simply borrow money from a bank to pay for road and bridge construction and to pledge furlare ad valorera property taxe,~ to repay the loan. Generally, statutes that authorize a county to borrow funds for road and bridg, consunction reqmre the issuance and sale of bonds or other obligations in compliance with startxtory procedures, including approval by the Attorney General. ,See, e.g., TEx. GOv 'T CODE AN~. § 1431.004(a)( 1 )(A) (authorizing anticipation notc~ to pay for a conlxactual obligation incurred or to be incun~d for the condition of a public work); id. ch. 1471 (providing for county and road district mad bonds);s TEX, Loc. GOv'T CODI~ Ah'l~. ch- 271 (Vernon 1999) (authorizing ceai~ates of obligation to pay for con~xactual obligation to be incurred br the construction of any public work). These obligations axe sold ~o purchasers in exchange for money, which is used for counW pxojec~s, The obligations evidence a loan made by ~he puxchasex to the county and the county' s agreement to repay the money sSee lrupra note 3- Nov-22-99 O] :05P The Flonorablc James W. Carr - Page 4 (JC-O13g) it has bonDwed. See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 178 (6th ed. 1990) (a "bond" is "evidence ofa dobt on which the issuing... governmental body promises to pay the bondholders a specified mount of roterest foz a specified lerlgth of time, and to repay the loan on th~ expiration date"); 22 Is&~c SINGing, TEX~S PRACrlCli: MUNICIi~A,L LAW AND PRACHCB § 301J (1976) (a "bond is evidence of creation of a debt"). In addition, in lasater v, Lope~, 217 S .W. 373 (Tex. 1919), the Texas Supreme Court recognized the authority ofcotmties to pay mad construction contractors fore' work performed with mterest-beanng warrant-q payable in future years as a necessary authority that preexisted counties' power to issue bonds for road and bridge construction. The county' s query suggests that the county is authorized to borrow the funds and to pledge laxes to repay the debt without issuing bonds or other obligations provided litat the county complies with the strictures of section 7 of article XI. However, this provision imposes conditions on the creation of debt; it does not authorize creationof debt. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op- No. DM~t67 (1998) at 7 a. 18 ("Article XI, section 7 lofthe Texas Constitution] lkmts the authority of a county to incuz debt; it does not affirmatively authorize counties tU levy tlXeS for any purpose .... Therefore, bclbre pwvidmg fur a levy and slaking fund in order to comply with article XI, section 7, a county should first veaify that it is authorized to levy the tax.") (citing Mitchell County v. City Nat 'l Bank, 43 S.W. 880, 883 Cl'ex- 1898) (Texas Constitution article XI, section 7 "contains no grant of authority 1o levy a tax")) Compliance with section 7 of article XI by providing lo repay borrowed funds is not a sufficient b~sis for a county to borrow the funds. If that w~-e the c~e, thcr~ would be no neat for the many statutes authori~ng the issuance of bonds and other obligations. For th0 same reason, lhe mere fact that the loan may be repaid without executing the article VIII, section 9 ceiling for the county tax rate is not a stt~cie, nt basis for a coullty to borrow the funds, A b~ef submir~cd by thc Deparmaent of Transportation sug$csts that the authority of a county to borrow money froin the State Infirastruclure Bank and pledge tax revenues to repay the loan without issuing bonds or other obligations may bc ixfferrcd from the provisions m the Tran,sportation Code creating the Bank, particularly section 222.07~ ofsubchaptcr D, which authorizes th© Bank to "exlend credit by dixect Ioarl," TEX. TI~NS1L CODE ANN § 222.074 (Vernon 1999). ~ Letter Brief from Richard D. Monroe, General Counsel Dopaztmcnt of Transportation, to F-iizabeth Robinson, Office of the Texas Attorney General, at 2 {luly 29, 1999) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafiet "Z)OT Brief']. For th; x~asons explained below, we disagree, No provision in subchaplet D expressly authorizes a county to borrow funds from the State Infrastructure Bank. Nor do wc believe that counW aulhority to borrow funds from the Bank mus~ bc necessarily impliod by subchapter D. The Bank is authonze, d to assist both public and private entities in a variety of ways: It may assist directly by making a loan or, more indirectly, by generally crdumcinS, Lnsuring, or subsidizing payments securing debt issued by these entities to finance a project. See TEx. T~,ANSP. CODE ANN. § 222.074 (a)(1)-(8) (Vernon 1999)', .fee also N~tional Highway Systenn Designation Act of I995, Pub. L. No. 104-59, § BS0(c), (/X~), 109 Slat. 568, 618; Tral3spoltation lnfrastructuxe Finance and innovation Act of 1998, Pub. L, No. 105-178, § 1511(a)(1), (d), l l2 Slat. 251 (clefrainS "other assistance" to include providing credit cnhanccments, serving as capital reserve for bonds or debt insWamcnts, subsidizing interest rates, Nov-22-99 01: O6P "" P , 08 'l'he Honorable James W. Carr - Page 5 (JC-0139) ens urine issuance of letter of credit and credit instam'tents, financing purchase and lease agreements, providing debt security, arid providing other debt finalicing and leveraging approved by the United States Secretary of Transportation; and providing that a stat~ infrastructure bank "may make loans or provide othe~ assistance to a public or private entity in an amount equal to all or part of the cost of carrying out a project eligible for assistance"). Coxrelies need not bonow ftmds from the State Infrastructure gartk in the manner proposed by the county in order to participate m the Bank 's assistance programs. Counties may be able to participate in the types of assistance the Bank is authorized to provide, within the statutory framework for county financing, in several ways. With respect to the direct loan assistance, for example, a cotmty may issue bonds or other obligations that it is expressly authorized to issue for road and bridge construction and sell thcxn to the BaxLk in exchange for the "loan" of the funds or purchase price. Neither subchapter D nor the Transportation Cormllission rul¢~ limit how a "direct loan" is to be evidenced or made and, in fact, subchapter D appeaxs to contemplate that the Bartk will acquire "obligattons" that evidence loans it has made. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE Alqt'/. § 222.075(d) (Vernon 1999) (revenue bonds issued to obtain funds for Bank payable in part from principal and interest payments paid on "acquiled obligations"), (f) (Transportation Commission may require paxtW~pants to make charges, levy taxes, or othm'wise provide for sufficient money to pay "acqutred obligations"). In addition, countie~ may be able to participate in the more indirect assistance the Bank is authorized to provide. leer e, xaut~plc, the Bank may provide credit enhancement to a county authorized to execute credit agreements for obligations issued to finance tramit projects. See § 222-074(a)(2); Ti~×. Gov'T COvE AN~. § 1371.001(1), (4), .056 (authorizing ~;mtam issuets, iBcluding home-rule cities and cotmiles with certain pop~ation, to enter into credat agreements in connection with issuance of bonds or other obligations).* Fttrthctmore, subchapter D appears to authorize the Bank to "subsidize" interest payments on county obhgations or to serve as a r~scrve fund on such obligations, presumably enhancing the obligations' scounty and marketability. Neither the county nor the D eparlmL-nt of Transportation asserts that the county cannot obtain a loan flora the Bank using traditional statutory financing methods. Rather, the cotrely indicates that it would like to obtmn a loan .~'om the Bank without following stat~xtorily required procedures. But these procedures are not optional; issuing bonds or other ¢~bligations is the exexci~e of the issuer's borrowing authority in accordance with legisla~vgly mandated proced~rgs. Given that the Bank may assist a variety of entities in a variety of ways, that it is not limited to loaning funds only in the manner pwposed by the county (~.e.. without the county issuing bonds and or other obligations), and that counties are authorized to pazticipate in some forms of assistance that the Bank has been established to provide, the authority era county to borrow bank funds is not essential to the Bank achieving it~ statutory purpose. Therefore, the authority era county to borrow money from the Bank may not be necessarily implied by subchaplet D. *See $upra ticRe 3, Nov-22-99 O1 =06P ~ ~-,.. , , The Honorabl~ James W. Carr - Da~c 6 (JC-0139) The brief from the Department of Transponatmn also observes that state law authorizes counties to construct and maintain macis and bridges and to levy taxes fo~ those purposes. See DOT Brief at 2 (citing TEX. T1La, NSp. CODE ANN. §§ 251.081 (Vernon 1999) (au~orizing commissioners court to erect and maintain any necessary bridge in the county); 256.001 (county road and bridge fund)); see also TEX. TRAIqSP. CODE ANN, § 251,003 (Vernon 1999) (authorizing commissioners court to construct and maintain public roads). The brief states that the "power to create debt [to build and improve county roads and bndgcsJ is implicit in the grant or authority to levy taxes to build and improve county roads and bridges," citing La, sat~r v. r-opez and Attorney General Opinion JM-642. DOT Brief at 2. But nci~h=r opinion stands for the proposition that county authority to borrow money must bc implied by these ~tatut~s. In Lasater v. Lopez, the cour[ did nor conclude that the authority t~ borrow money may b~ implied- Rather the court held thu the county could pay for road construction by issuing interest- bearing county warrants. As subsequent courts have noted, there is a difference between obtairling property or labo~ on credit, which L~Lrater sanclioncd, and borrowing money, which I,~sater did not address. "Borrowed money can be diverted from its legitimate purpose and the voters deprived of any benefit thereDora, but there is nc such danger whcn authorized services or improvements are obtained by ~he pubhc on credit." ,~a, ,4nw~io River/lud~. ~. $~e2vperd, 299 S.W.2d 920, 925 [rex. 19y/) (ciringl~ndger~ v. CilyofLnm.wzsas, 249 S.W. 1083, 1085 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1923, writ refd)); ~ee ul~o ~d/2raJ V, A4rc(3:i[l, 146 S.W.2d ~32, 335 (Tcx. C~v. App.-E1 Paso 1940, writ r~fd); 'fox. Att'y 6eu. Op. No. IM-697 (1987) at 5-6 (z~oting that ,~hepJ~erd relied on the distinction between obtaininS authorized services or improvements on credit and borrowing money; equatin~ purchase nfjai| by lease-purchase contrac~ with lhe former rather lhan the latter). Thus. l~asc~ler implies ~rom sta~tes authorizing counties to expend money to make improvements the authority to obtain property and laboE on credit; it does not imply authority to borrow money. Nor does Attorney General Opinion/1VL642 provide support for the proposition that a county h.~ implied authority to borrow money for bridlge and roaxt construction. That opinion concluded that aioint city-county hobVital board is authorized to borrow funds to purchase equipment and make renovations based on the entiry's express authority to establish and equip a hospital, Its conclusion is expressly limited to a joint city-county hospital created under former article 4494i of the Revised Civil Statutes_ ~ee Tex. Att'y Gcn. Op. No./IVI-642 (1 98~) at 8-9- And, in art opinion on acounty's implied authority to use its credit to purchas~ or construct a jail issurd just a few months drier Atlomey C_renc'~ Opinion JM-642, this office concluded that the prior opinion was inapplicable because it 'arelied on the power of the home rule city in quition to borrow funds." Tex, Att 'y Gcn- op. No..TM-697 (1 98~) a! 2- Yhus, ~o the extent Atlomey Genenl Opinion IM-642 suggests that a county may have implied authority to borrow money, it has not been followed. We arc not aware of any other auorney general opinion concluding that a county has implied authority to borrow funds. In sum, county authoriW to enter into debt must be exprc~ or necessarily implied by statute. Subchapter D of chapter 222 of the Transportation Code neither expressly nor by implication authorizes a county to borrow funds for wad and bridge consh~tction from the State In/rastructure Nov-22-gg O1 :O7P .... P.IO . The Honorable James W, Carr - Page 8 (Jc-o139) _SUMM.ARY A county may not borrow money from the State lnfrastructurc Banlc for road and bridge construction and repay lhc loan witt~ the procccds of ad valorera property taxes levied for that purpose ever a term of y~ars without issuing bonds or 6thor obligations evidencing the loan. JOHN CORNYN Attorney General of Texss ANDY TAYLOR First Assistant Attorney General CLARK KENT ERVIN Deputy Attorney General - Genera[ Counsel ELIZABETH ROBIBSON Chair, Opinion Commitxee Mary R- Crouter Assistant Attorney C~eneral - Opinion Committee Bank and to repay *,tic Bank with the proceeds of ad valorera properly taxes levied for that purpose over a term ofye~s wia'~out issuing bonds or other obligations evidencing the loan. NeitherLasater v. Lope'z nut Attorney General Opinion JM-6~2 supports the conclusion thst a county has implied authority to borrow funds for roa~ and bridge construction, Because no statute expressly or impliedly authorizes a county to borrow money f~om the State Infrastructure Bank in the manner proposed here, wc conclud~ that Lavaca County may lxot borrr~w funds from the Bank and. repay the loan with the proceeds of ad valorera pr~pe, rt'y taxes levied for that purpose over a telm of'years wilho121 i~suing bonds or other obligations evidencing the loan. Of course, counties may borrow money from the B auk using tt aditional statutory financing metl'~ds for road and bridge constt~ction.