Texas Attorney General Opinion: LO95-010 Page: 3 of 3
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Jos6 R. Rodriguez - Page 3 (L95-0 10)
competitive bidding procedures on a "contract ... that requires an expenditure... from
one or more municipal funds" in excess of a stated amount. Local Gov't Code 252.021.
It follows, in response to your question, that a "contract" not in compliance with
chapter 212, subchapter C, and involving an expenditure of municipal funds in excess of
the amount set out in section 252.021 must be let in compliance with the notice, bidding,
and other requirements of chapter 252 unless it falls within an exception set out in the
chapter. See id. 252.041 (notice), 252.043 (award of contract in response to bids),
252.044 (contractor's bond required for expenditure of $100,000 or more), 252.022
(various kinds of expenditures excepted from chapter 252 requirements).2
SU MMARY
A developer must execute a performance bond for the total cost
of improvements to be constructed pursuant to a developer
participation contract under chapter 212, subchapter C, Local
Government Code. The provisions of former V.T.C.S. article 5160,
now chapter 2253 of the Government Code which require a
performance bond on public works contracts only where the latter
are in excess of stated amounts, are inapplicable to the bond
requirement under chapter 212, subchapter C. If a developer
participation contract does not comply with the requirements of
chapter 212, subchapter C, but calls for expenditures of municipal
funds in excess of the amount stated in chapter 252, Local
Government Code, and is not within any of the listed exceptions to
the chapters requirements, the contract must be let in compliance
with the notice, bidding, and other requirements of chapter 252.
Yours very truly,
William Walker
Assistant Attorney General
Opinion Committee
2While we reach our conclusion here based on what we believe to be the clear language of the
relevant provisions, we note that the imposition of the requirements of chapter 252 on a developer
participation contract which fails to comply with the chapter 212 performance bond requirements may
have little practical effect Even if the amount of the expenditure from municipal funds called for in such
a contract exceds the statutory threshold amount and no exceptions are found to apply so as to trigger the
applicability of the chapter 252 notice and bidding requirements, it seems unlikely that anyone other than
the developer would bid on such a contract under which the municipal payment will be only a portion of
the total cost of the project
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: LO95-010, text, March 17, 1995; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth276496/m1/3/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.