Could a Louisiana parish abandon a public gravel road so residents could pave it and then return it to the parish road system?

Plain-English summary

Franklin Parish considered abandoning public gravel roads, letting private individuals pave them to parish specifications, and then accepting them back into the parish road system. In the official opinion, the AG said that plan did not satisfy the road-abandonment rule: the parish's intent to reclaim the roads showed continuing public use rather than true abandonment.

The AG identified a different route. The police jury could accept a restricted donation to offset paving costs for a road already in the parish system, while complying with the Parish Transportation Fund Act. The opinion emphasized the Act's substantive administration requirements regardless of the money's source. The AG cautioned the parish to amend its capital improvement plan. The Legislative Auditor suggested checking whether donations would cover the project and whether the parish could maintain the paved roads, and offered information on avoiding commingling.

Currency note

Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed this opinion's analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could Franklin Parish abandon a road it planned to accept back after residents paved it?
The AG said no. The plan showed the road was still needed for a public purpose and was not truly being abandoned.

Could residents donate money restricted to paving a particular parish road?
The opinion said the police jury could accept such a donation to offset paving costs for a road in the parish system, subject to the Act's requirements.

Did private funding remove the parish road administration requirements?
No. The AG said the Act's substantive requirements still governed the roadwork regardless of the source of funding.

What financial concerns did the opinion identify?
The AG cautioned the parish to amend its capital improvement plan. The Legislative Auditor suggested checking whether donations would cover the project and whether the parish could maintain the paved roads, and offered information on avoiding commingling.

Background and statutory framework

R.S. 48:701 allowed revoking a road dedication when the road was abandoned and no longer needed for public purposes. The AG contrasted that condition with the proposed return of the roads to the parish system. It then applied the Parish Transportation Fund Act's administration provisions, including R.S. 48:754, to the proposed donation-funded roadwork.

Citations and references

• R.S. 48:701 (road dedication and abandonment)
• R.S. 48:751 and R.S. 48:754 (Parish Transportation Fund Act and administration)
• R.S. 48:758 (compliance provision quoted from an earlier opinion)
• Earlier Louisiana AG opinions on parish road donations and fund administration, quoted in the original text

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/02-0021

Original opinion text

~tat~ of ~olii~t~na
One Arner~can Place
301 Mare Street, Suite 600
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O Box 94005
CIVIL DIVISION
TI~L. (225/ ~42-70~ ~,
FAX" (225) 342-2090
BATON ROUGE
RICHARD P IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

OP~N~ON NUBBER O~-O0~i
90-POLICE JURIES-Powers & Functions
50-HIGHWAYS- Roads
David P. Doughty
R S. 48’751 et seq
R.S. 48:701
Assistant District Attorney
Civil Division
Police Jury may not abandon a public gravel road that has a continuing nee
for public purpose Police Jury may accept restricted private donation
5th Judicial District
relating to the blacktopping of a gravel road within the Parish Road System
P. O. Box 857
assuming the Police Jury follows the provisions of the Parish Transportatlo
Fund Act
Rayville, LA 71269

Dear Mr. Doughty:

You have requested an opinion of the Attorney General’s Office regarding the legality of the Police Jury abandoning certain public gravel roads, allowing individuals to blacktop the roads according to parish specifications, and later accepting the blacktopped roads back into the parish system.

To abandon certain public gravel roads and later to accept the same roads, blacktopped by individuals, back into the parish system appears to be a circumvention of the law regarding abandonment and the explicit requirements of R.S. 48:754 of the Parish Transportation Fund Act. First, R.S. 48:701 states that the parish governing authorities "may revoke and set aside the dedication of all roads, streets, and alleyways laid out and dedicated to public use within the respective limits, when the roads, streets, and alleyways have been abandoned and are no longer needed for public purposes." Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines "abandon" as "to cease to assert or exercise an interest, right, or title to especially with the intent of never again resuming or reasserting it."

The suggested abandonment, improvements then reclamation of the blacktopped roads back into the system contradicts logic and the law. Clearly, if the Franklin Parish Police Jury has the present intent to accept the blacktopped roads back into the parish system, there is no true intent to abandon the roads. Further, underlying the scenario which the Franklin Parish Police Jury suggests is a tacit assumption that the roads in question have a continuing public use. Ergo, the road in question does not meet the legal test for abandonment.

Secondly, you referenced prior Opinion No. 01-21 which was provided to the Franklin Parish Police Jury on a related topic. At that time the police jury was concerned about accepting from individual constituents private funds to be used to blacktop a public gravel road. Opinion No. 01-21 states that our office could find "no prohibition preventing the Police Jury from accepting a donation from constituents for the purpose

Page 2

Opinion Number 02-0021
David P. Doughty
Assistant District Attorney
Civil Division
5th Judicial District
Page -2-

of offsetting the costs incidental to blacktopping a road which is within the Parish Road System." Opinion No. 81-765 states that a police jury may legally accept donations from a private individual or business in order to defray the expenses of the Police Jury. We opined in Opinion No. 01-21 that the substantive provisions of the Parish Transportation Fund Act (R.S. 48:751, et seq.) must be adhered to, regardless of the source of funding for use on road maintenance and/or construction. Opinion No. 89- 229A states that the "System of administration" (R.S. 48:754) has full legal effect regardless of the source of the funding for the Police Jury roadwork or of the purpose ("use") for which the money is spent. In Opinion No. 01-21, your attention was directed to R.S. 48:754 which contains mandatory requirements comprising the system of administration of the parish road system. The statutory requirements include "the development of a capital improvement program on a selective basis, centralized purchasing of equipment and supplies, centralized accounting, and selective maintenance and construction" (Opinion 89-229A). We advised that you follow the requirements of the Act in the expenditure of funds. In accord are Attorney General Opinion Numbers 89-229 and 229A.

Finally, you request advice regarding the best way to proceed in dealing with "situations where individuals want to have their road blacktopped, the road is not one of the priorities on the capital improvement plan, but the individuals want to pay for the blacktopping of their particular road themselves." Again, we reiterate that the substantive provisions of the Public Transportation Fund Act (R.S. 48:751, et seq.) must be adhered to, regardless of the source of funding for use on road maintenance and/or construction (Opinion No. 01-21). If individuals wish to pay for the blacktopping of their particular road themselves, there is, as we stated in Opinion No. 01-21, no prohibition preventing the Police Jury from accepting a donation from constituents for the purpose of offsetting the costs incidental to blacktopping a road which is within the Parish Road System. Thus, one method by which the Franklin Parish Police Jury could legally blacktop the road in question would be to accept a restricted donation and then follow the guidelines established in the Parish Transportation Fund Act.

Opinion No. 96-189 states:

Since the penalty provisions for misuse of funds in R.S. 48:759,761 and 762 are directed only to the misuse of Parish Transportation Act funds, they would not apply to the use of local tax dedicated funds. If, however, the local funds are commingled with state appropriated Parish Transportation Act monies, the former would lose their parochial identity and, by operation of law, be considered Parish Transportation Act funds.
As a result, all funds, including the commingled local tax monies, become subject to the misuse of funds provisions in the Parish Transportation Fund statutes. In accordance are Attorney General Opinion Nos. 96-30, 89-494, 89-229, 229A and 92-328.

Page 3

Opinion Number 02-0021
David P. Doughty
Assistant District Attorney
Civil Division
5t" Judicial District
Page -3-

Care should be taken regarding Act requirements such as amending the parish capital improvement plan to provide for blacktopping the gravel roads in question. The Office of the Legislative Auditor suggests that the Police Jury should consider all ramifications of proceeding with the project, such as determining if the donated funds are adequate to complete the project and if the Police Jury has adequate funds for future and continued maintenance of the blacktopped roads. The Office of the Legislative Auditor can provide information regarding avoidance of commingling funds.

Attorney General Opinion No. 89-229 states that the:

The sanctions of the Act are invoked either by improper expenditure o~ by "non-compliance with the statutory requirements" (LSA-R.S. 48:758).
Even if the parish governing authority is receiving no money from the Fund, failure to conform with the substantive duties of the Act may result in referral by the Legislative Audit Advisory Council to the local District Attorney, for his consideration of a malfeasance prosecution (LSA-R.S.
48:759,760).

In conclusion, while the Franklin Parish Police Jury cannot legally abandon the roads in question, our legal opinion is that the Police Jury may accept a restricted donation to offset the costs incidental to blacktopping a road which is within the parish road system, assuming the Police Jury follows the aforementioned guidelines and restrictions. For issues concerning audit ramifications, please contact the Office of the Legislative Auditor.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:
SUE MCNAI~ - -
Assistant Attorney General
RPI:SM