Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1973 )

, : -*
THRC A’ITORNEY GENICWAL
OF TF.SAU
AIfmnN. TIIXAH 7H711
hpptember 20, 1973
The Honorable David W8da, hi. D. Opinion No. H- 108
Commirrioner
Tens Department of Mental Herltb Re: Authority of the City of
8ad Mental Retardation Be8umont to convey re8l
Box 12668 C8pitol Strtion property to the deprrtment
Aumtia. Texar 78711 of Mental He8lth 8nd
Ret8rd8tion
De8r Dr. W8de:
Your letter of July 31, 1973, retr forth the following f8cts:
“Thir Deprrtment h8r been 8ppropri8ted monies
to conrtroct one rrrd building 8t itr Be8umont St8te
Cenhr for Human Development. . . . No money =I
rpecific8Uy 8ppropri8ted 8nd fundr 8re not 8nikble
from other sources ~forthe purch8re of 8 riti for such
building.
‘The City of Be8umont derirer to make 8 gift to
thie Depirtmeat of 8pproxhutely ten (10) acrea of knd
in fee simple 80 8 rite for ruch w8rd building. Thir
cite is 8ccept8ble to tbir Depmtment. The propored
ten 8cre tr8ct in put of e city of &8umont munidp81
park. The City of Beumont ia a homk:rule +y 8nd
Article XV& Sec;tiod 4&f the city chart& provider in
,psrt ‘No-public utility or park . . . owned by the City
o fBe8u h o l hll .ever be rold or Ie8red f9k 8 period
nt
longer th8n five (5) ye8ra u&&l much;r8le or ie8ae ir
8uthorired by 8 m8jority vote of the q\ulified voterr of
theCity.. . .“k
You requert 8a opinion of thir office 8i followr:
I
p. 517
Tbo Xoqorablo Dwla W8do, pgo 2 (X-108)
“I. &by ho City of Buumont witbout comperu8tlon
convoy fee limplo title to the 8forer8id ten 00)
uro tr8ct of kad to the St&o of Tuor for the .
um rad benefit of the Ba8umont St4te Cater for
xum8n De*olopment?
“2. If your aaawer to Quertion No. Li.irin the affirm-
8tive; what proceduror murt be followed hy &o
City of Be8umont 8nd thir Departmentin ardor to
effect luch transfer? ”
In 8ddition to the eh8rter provirion quoted 8bove. the Civ of Be8amont
ie subject to @LOrimikr proviriona of Article 1019, V. T. C. S., 8a fdlwr:
“No public rquke or grk rlmll be #old, 8nd no
rtreet or 8lley, nor p8rt or prta of 8ny rtreet or 8lley
clored, until the question of such r8h or tloring h8r
- been submitted to 8 vote of the qualified voterr of the.
’&y or town, 8nd 8pprotid ‘by 8 m8jOriv of th8 -8
art 8t ruch election. Id. ”
.
Such rertrictionr are vigorously enforced by our cwrte under dorm81
drcumrbncer. 2achr.y v. Citv of San Antonio, 305 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.
1957); Look v. El Pare Union Parsenner Dew Co., 228 S.W. 917 (Tex.
Comk ; 1921).
hwever, much restri+ione 8re not 8pplk8blO when the propored
grantee4r another jovemmenbl agency having powerr at eminent dom8in
over the property involved. In Kin~dlh Indewndent &boo1 Matrict va
Cranebar, 164 S. W. td 49 (Tex. Civ.App. 1942, writ rd., w. m. ,I the
rchool dietjct proposed to 8cquire for rchool perpoees. aad the city ef
Kingeviik propored to convey 8 tr8ct of city park land which wao 8 1O@C81
8nd propar are8 for nece;r8ry exp8nrion of rchool f8dfiti.e. The two
bodike had 8greed upon the termr of the tr8nrfer. The court refured to
enjoin building the rchool on the property. It recognirrd th8t "8u h8d been
8ccompliahed by agreement tb8t could hve been 8ccompli8hed by 8 con-
demndion proceeding, ‘
I (164 S.W. 2d 8t p. go), 8nd further obrerved:
.
c
.
The Honor8ble Lkid W8de, p8ge 3 (H-108)
“The School Board, vested by law with the pwer
to act for the public school interest, he determined
tit the Ch8mberhin Park property ~88 necesm8ry 8Qd
that it ~8s not pr8ctiul or porrible (within the meming
of such terms by the courts), to use 8ny oher property.
The city, 8Cthg through its bbyor 8nd Commiuioners,
hs decided th8t the P8rk would be rervlng 8 better public
use if 8bmdoned 8s 8 park 8nd converted to school pur-
poses. Under such circumstances there is no ocasion
to litigrte the question 8s to the p8r8mount public use of
the property. ”
The Kingsville ;8se ~8s described by the Supreme Court of Texas
in Citv of Tyler vi Smith County, 246 S. W. td 601 (Tex, 1952), 88 8a
. effective method of 8ccomplishing 8 tr8nsfer of property from one public
use tom another “without resort to condemnation proceedings. ” 246 S. W.
.fd 8t 607.
The King;sviUe C8aC(~88 follwed by the court in El P8BO County
v. Citv of El Aso, 357 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. Civ.App. 1962,m. w.h.). El Peso
Couaty donated 1.6737 mxes of park lrnd to the city of El Pea0 for the pur-
poses Of erecting 8 tr8iXIing tower for firem8IL titer, the COUnty rttempted
to rescind the tr8ns8ction rlleging th8t the county judge di$lnot comply with
Article 1577, V. T. C. S., which provides for the s8le of county l8nd 8t public
auction. The court held the county w8s bound by the trmsaction bec8ure of
the ru&e 8nnounced in the Kingsville Independint School District c8se.
Your dep8rtment h8s pwera of eminent domrin “for the purpose of
securing land 8nd property necess8ry to the Oper8tiOn of 8ny 8XId811 . . .
st8te hospit 8nd other institutions . . . . ” under yonr control 8nd jurim-
diction. Article 6938, V. T. C. S. This pwer w8s origilully grrnted to the
Strte Bo8rd of Control, w8m tr8nrferred to the Board for Texas St8te Hospi-
tals 8nd Sped81 Schools by Article 3174b(2), V. T. C. S., 8nd w8s thereafter
trmsferred to your department by s 2.16 of Article 5547-202, V. T. C. S.
Accordingly, w@efeel th8t your inquiry is contraed by the principles
th8t were controlling ,in the Kinnsville Indeoendant School District c8se 8nd
in the El P8so c8se. 8nd th8t, 8ccordingly, no election is required to effect
The f3onor8ble Dwld W8dr, page 4 (H-100)
8 conveymco of the property from the City of b8WIIOnt to your dep8rt-
ment. And so8 Attorney Geneal Opinion H-93 (l973).
The fact tb8t the tr8n88cMon is denominated “8 gift’* does not
invalid8te it aaless the Be8umont City charter contains rwtrictiw pro-
vi8i0M unkwwll to ue. The proposrd use is ck8rly for 8 public purpose
8nd thus does not violate Article 3 8 ! 50, et. seq., of the TOXW Consti-
tution. Similar donations were involved 8ad 8pprovod by the courts in
El P8so Countv 1. City of El P880, sum8, ad s* of San Antonio v. Con-
gregation bf Sisters of Ch8riQ, 360 S.W.2d 580 (Tex.Civ.App., 1962).
Actually, the tnisfer is not 8 gift.
The improvement of ths proprty
8nd the consequent benefit to the city of Be8umont supply consider8tlon for
the tr8ns8ctloa Xn the El P880 C888, 8uPr8, ths county order 8pproving the
tr8ns8ction recited 88 coasider8tion for its tr8nsfer that “it will reduce the
fire insur8nce r8b in El P880. ”
tye therefore aruwer your IX+ question tht, 1stour opinion, the City
af Be8umont m8y convey the fee simple in the property to the St8te for the
use 8nd benefit of the Texas Deportment of Mantel %8lth 8nd Ment81 Retard-
8tiOlL
Y-r second inquiry concerns procedures io effect the transaction.
Article 542lq. V. T. C. S., p8s~ed in 1969 8fter tk~ decisions dkd 8bOVq ,
. provides in p8rt 88 follws:
“No departmeat,, 8geney. .pOliticd ~ubd@6sion,
cOUII~, Or tIMNdCi~~~ Of tbir St8b Sbd 8pprOVO 8lIy
proglrm or project tbt requires the use or taking of
8lIy public &nd desigrmtuJ8nd utibed prior to the
8rr8agement of such prognm or project 88 8 p8rk,
’ recre8tion lea ,scientific lea, wildlife refuge, or
historic sib, aniess such deprtnmat, 8gency, politic81
subdivision, county, or municip8lity. 8ctin~ through its
duly 8uthorirod governing body or officer, abei\ dctcr-
mints, 8f(or notice 8nd II pllbb hvarh)l WI rc*prirvd
horuin, lhtrt (I) Lhatrv ia nu fvnsll~lr JIIWIprutlrnl rllvr-
(~tivu to thtr umo or Irking of rwh la114 awl (4 OIWII
-p. 520
The Honor8ble David w8de, p8ge 5 (H-108) ,
program or project includes 8ll re8son8bb pknning
to minimire bum to such knd, 8s 8 park, recre8tion
area. sdentlfic uea, wildlife refuge, or Mstoric site,
resulting from such use or taking; clearly enuciated
104 preferences sb8U be. considered, 8nd the provisions
of the A& do not constitute 8 mand8tory prohibition
8g8inst the use of such 8re8 if thq findings 8re made
that jumtify the 8pprovil of 8 progr8m or project. ”
Compliance witb these st8tutory provisions is required, See Attoraey
Garter81 Opinion No. M-788 (1971). Thus both your dep8rtment 8nd the city
will need to hold pubk he8rings on the subject matters covered by the shtute
8nd make the raquisib findings.
SUMMARY
The City of Be8umont h8s the 8UthOrity to donate
: 8nd convey park land te the Dep8rtment of Mental He8lth
8nd Mentd Retardrtion for use in building 8 hospit81,
without the necessity of holding 8n election, but public
herrings 8re required of both governmental 8UthOritieS
as indicated by Article 542Lq, V. T. C.S.
Attorney Genenl of Tex8s
DAVID M. KENDALL, Ch8irm8n
opinion Committee
c-.
p. 521