Did St. Landry's Road District No. 5 boundaries move automatically when Police Jury District No. 5 was reapportioned?

Plain-English summary

St. Landry Parish's Road District No. 5 had a voter-approved tax with two years left. Its director asked whether a new election was needed after population changes required reapportionment of Police Jury District No. 5, whose original boundaries the road district's enabling law had used. In the official opinion, the AG said the road district's boundary did not move automatically with the police jury district's later boundary change.

The opinion relied on decisions treating a statutory reference to another jurisdiction's boundary as fixing a line at the time of enactment, absent a change to the district itself. Because the road district's territory had not changed, the AG called the question about imposing the tax within new boundaries moot. It pointed to R.S. 48:577 as a procedure if the road district later wished to change its own boundaries.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the 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

Did reapportioning the police jury district also redraw Road District No. 5?
The AG said no. The statutory road district boundary remained fixed despite the police jury district's later reapportionment.

Did the AG call for a new tax election because of that reapportionment?
No. It called the proposed election question moot because the road district's boundaries had not changed.

How did the opinion say the road district could change its boundaries?
It referred to the procedures in R.S. 48:577 for road districts generally.

Background and statutory framework

R.S. 48:600.1 created Road District No. 5 with boundaries coterminous with Police Jury District No. 5. The AG read that language with the boundary principle discussed in Capital City Oil Co. v. Day and other Louisiana decisions. The opinion addressed the effect of reapportionment on this district, not the validity of a future tax election after a formal district boundary change.

Citations and references

• R.S. 48:600.1 (Road District No. 5)
• R.S. 48:577 (boundary change procedure)
• Capital City Oil Co. v. Day, 147 La. 734, 85 So. 888 (1920)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/02-0028

Original opinion text

~ft~te o[ ~ouisi~u~
One American Place
~DEPARTMENT OF ]USTICE
301 Ma~n Street, Suite 600
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 94005
BATON ROUGE
TEL.: (225/ 342-7013
FAX: (225) 342-2090
RICHARD P, IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

SEP 2 0 200Z
OPINION NUMBER 02-0028

107 - A SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Mr. Ronald E. Buschel
R. S. 48:600,1
Executive Director
District Five Road and Public Works
A road district’s boundaries which are statutority
Commission of St. Landry Parish
identical to a police jury district do not change if
the police jury district’s boundaries change due P. O. Box 86 to reapportionment.
Lebeau, LA 71345

Dear Mr. Buschel:

On behalf of the District Five Road and Public Works Commission of St. Landry Parish (the "Road District No. 5"), you requested the opinion of this office concerning changes in Road District No. 5’s boundaries and the effect thereof on the tax currently levied by Road District No. 5. You advised that Road District No. 5 gained approval from the voters to levy a tax for a period of ten years, of which two years remain. You further advised that the 2001 census shows a shortage of population such that the boundaries of Road District No.
5 must be changed. Your question is: since the current tax may only be levied within Road District No. 5’s boundaries, can there be an election to impose the tax within the new boundaries?

As you advised, Act No. 785 of 1989 enacted R.S. 48:600.1 creating Road District No. 5 and providing in pertinent part as follows:

A .... District Five Road Commission of St. Landry Parish, hereinafter referred to as the "commission", is hereby created. The boundaries of the commission shall be coterminous with the boundaries of Police Jury District Number Five of St. Landry Parish...

D. (1) The commission shall be considered a political subdivision of the state of Louisiana, and is granted and shall have all the powers necessary to construct, acquire, operate, and maintain roads, bridges, and road drainage facilities in the parish, and without limitation, shall have all the rights, powers, and authority enumerated for road districts in Part II of Chapter 2 of Title 48... (Emphasis added)

Page 2

Mr. Ronald E. Buschel
OPINION NUMBER 02-0028
Page -2-

Before discussing your specific question, we must first determine whether the boundaries of Road District No. 5 have even changed. As you noted, there was a change in population in the police jury districts, requiring the reapportionment of Police Jury District Number 5. While Road District No. 5’s enabling legislation sets its boundaries the same as the boundaries of Police Jury District Number 5, we find that Road District No. 5’s boundaries do not automatically change with those of Police Jury District Number 5. In this regard, we refer you to Capital City Oil Co. v. Day, 147 La. 734, 85 So. 888 (1920) wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that where a levee districts boundaries were statutorily declared to be south of the city of Baton Rouge, and the City’s boundary was moved further south, the levee district boundary did not change. The court stating in part:

"... for, manifestly, the intention of said levee district act was that the limit of the district as thus fixed by it should be permanent. Its reference to the city of Baton Rouge was to the city as then existing, not as it should, or might be, in the future. The lower line of the city was adopted for the upper line of the district as being a legally established, well-known, and supposedly permanent line. An essential feature in the creation of a taxing district is the fixing of its limits. That these limits, a matter so vital, should be left to shift with the expansion or shrinkage of a city, or with the changes in the limits of some adjoining political subdivision of the state, is not to be thought of." (Emphasis added)

In Bradley v. McKnight, 392 So.2d 1081 (La.App.3rd Cir.1980), as quoted by Thompson v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 94-651 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/18/94), 637 So.2d 680, the court stated:

"Once a boundary line of a political entity is fixed along a pre-existing natural or artificial boundary, and that pre-existing boundary subsequently changes, it is presumed that the boundary of the political entity runs as it did at the time the boundary was fixed. See Parish of Caddo v. Parish of Bossier, 164 La. 378, 113 So. 882 (1927). " (Emphasis added)

Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that the boundaries of Road District No. 5 have not changed in light of the changes in population in St. Landry Parish; therefore, your question is moot. Should Road District No. 5 desire to change its boundaries, it could follow the procedures set forth in R.S. 48:577 pertaining to road districts generally.

Page 3

Mr. Ronald E. Buschel
OPINION NUMBER 02-0028
Page -3-

Trusting this adequately responds to your request, we remain

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:

General

RPI:MSH:jv