Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                            September 1, 1999
    The Honorable David Dewhurst                         Opinion No. JC-0106
    Commissioner
    Texas General Land Office                            Re: Whether the movement of a structure Tom
    1700 North Congress Avenue                           one location to another location on the piece of
    Austin, Texas 78701-1495                             property constitutes a “specific improvement or
    repair” to the property for purposes of a tax
    abatement agreement under the Property
    Redevelopment and Tax Abatement Act, chapter
    312 of the Tax Code (RQ-0038)
    Dear Commissioner Dewhurst:
    The Property Redevelopment and Tax Abatement Act, chapter 312 ofthe Tax Code, allows
    a local taxing unit to enter into a tax abatement agreement with an owner of property located in a
    reinvestment zone on the condition that the property owner “make specific improvements or repairs
    to the property.” TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 5 312.204(a) (Vernon 1992). You ask whether the
    movement of a structure from one location on a piece ofproperty to another location on the property
    constitutes a “specific improvement or repair” to the property for purposes of the Act.
    You tell us that local taxing units wish to offer incentives for property owners to remove
    structures from public beaches. The Open Beaches Act declares it to be the policy of the state that
    the public have “free and unrestricted right of ingress and egress” to and from public beaches. TEX.
    NAT. REs. CODEANN. 5 61.01 l(a) (Vernon Supp. 1999). “It is an offense against the public policy
    of this state for any person to create, erect, or construct any obstruction, barrier, or restraint that will
    interfere with the free and unrestricted right of the public . to enter or to leave any public beach
    or to use any public beach       . .” 
    Id. 5 61.013(a).
    The Attorney General or any county attorney,
    district attorney, or criminal district attorney may tile suit to remove any barrier to the public’s right
    to access and use a public beach. 
    Id. 5 61.018.
    Generally, the area constituting a public beach extends from the line of mean low tide to the
    line of vegetation bordering the Gulf of Mexico. 
    Id. § 61.001(S).
    You explain that some structures
    have come to lie on public beaches because of erosion of the shoreline: “The shoreline of the Gulf
    ofMexico in many coastal communities has been moving landward, and some homes that were once
    landward of the public beach are now on it.” Letter from Honorable David Dewhurst, Land
    Commissioner, to Honorable John Comyn, Attorney General (Mar. 8, 1999) (on file with Opinion
    Committee) [hereinafter “Request Letter”]; see also Feinman v. State, 
    717 S.W.2d 106
    , 111 (Tex.
    The Honorable David Dewhurst - Page 2            (JC-0106)
    App.-Houston [ 1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref d n.r.e.) (holding that Open Beaches Act easement to public
    beach is a rolling easement that moves if the vegetation line moves). These structures, you say,
    interfere with the public’s access to the beaches, You recognize that the property owners may be
    compelled under the Open Beaches Act to remove the structures. But, you tell us, local governments
    would rather offer the property owners a tax incentive to move the structures voluntarily.
    The Property Redevelopment and Tax Abatement Act, chapter 3 12 of the Tax Code, allows
    a local taxing unit to enter into a tax abatement agreement with the owner of taxable real property
    located in areinvestment zone. TEX.TAXCODEANN.$5 3 12.204, ,206, ,402 (Vernon 1992 & Supp.
    1999). The property must be located in a reinvestment zone that has been properly designated as
    such by the local government. See 
    id. $5 3
    12.201 (city designation ofreinvestment zone); 3 12.2011
    (enterprise zone is reinvestment zone); 3 12.202 (criteria for reinvestment zone); 312.401 (county
    designation of reinvestment zone).
    The criteria for designating a county reinvestment zone require a finding that the designation
    would enhance the economic development of the county, and not merely benefit the property owner:
    “The commissioners court may not designate an area as a reinvestment zone until it holds a public
    hearing on the designation and finds that the designation would contribute to the retention or
    expansion of primary employment or would attract major investment in the zone that would be a
    benefit to the property to be included in the zone andwould contribute to the economic development
    of the county.” TEX.TAXCODEANN. 5 312.401(b) (Vernon 1992) (emphasis added).
    The criteria for designating a municipal reinvestment zone similarly encompass the goal of
    economic development and other benefits for the municipality:
    (a) To be designated as a reinvestment zone under this sub-
    chapter, an area must:
    (1) substantially arrest or impair the sound growth of the
    municipality creating the zone, retard the provision of housing
    accommodations, or constitute an economic or social liability and be
    a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present
    condition and use because of the presence oE
    (A) a substantial number          of   substandard,   slum,
    deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
    (B) the predominance         of defective    or inadequate
    sidewalks or streets;
    (C)   faulty size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness of
    lots;
    The Honorable David Dewhurst - Page 3            (K-0106)
    (D) unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
    (E)   the deterioration of site or other improvements;
    (F) tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the
    fair value of the land;
    (G) defective or unusual conditions of title;
    (H) conditions that endanger life or property by fire or
    other cause; or
    (1) any combination of these factors;
    .
    (5) encompass signs, billboards, or other outdoor advertising
    structures designated by the governing body of the municipality for
    relocation, reconstruction, or removal for the purpose of enhancing
    the physical environment of the municipality, which the legislature
    declares to be a public purpose; or
    (6) be reasonably likely as a result of the designation to
    contribute to the retention or expansion ofprimary employment or to
    attract major investment in the zone that would be a benefit to the
    property and that would contribute to the economic development of
    the municipality.
    
    Id. $3 12.202(a).
    “The governing body [of a municipality] may not adopt an ordinance designating
    an area as a reinvestment zone until the governing body has held a public hearing on the designation
    and has found that the improvements sought are feasible and practical and would be a benefit to the
    land to be included in the zone and to the municipality after the expiration of [a tax abatement
    agreement].” 
    Id. 5 312.201(d)
    (Vernon Supp. 1999).
    For property that is within a reinvestment zone, a tax abatement agreement must be made “on
    the condition that the owner of the property make specific improvements or repairs to the property.”
    
    Id. § 312.204
    (Vernon 1992). You ask whether the movement of a structure from one location on
    a piece of property to another location on the property constitutes a “specific improvement or repair”
    to the property for purposes of the Act. We do not know whether the property about which you ask
    is within a reinvestment zone or whether it would qualify for inclusion in a reinvestment zone.
    Moreover, whether a particular improvement or repair is consistent with chapter 312 involves
    questions of fact that cannot be resolved in an attorney general opinion. Thus, we do not determine
    whether a tax abatement agreement is possible for the property you describe. Instead, we address
    The Honorable David Dewhurst - Page 4           (JC-0106)
    your question only as a matter of statutory construction: whether moving a structure f?om one
    location to another is an “improvement” or “repair” within the meaning of section 3 12.204 of the
    Tax Code.
    Chapter 312 does not define “improvement” or “repair.” Thus, we begin by looking at the
    ordinary definitions of the terms. See TEX. GOV’T CODEANN. 5 311.01 l(a) (Vernon 1998). An
    “improvement” in the most general sense is “[t]he turning of a thing to profit or good account;
    profitable management or use; making the most of a thing for one’s own profit; realization of the
    profits of anything.” VII THEOXFORDENGLISHDICTIONARY750 (2d ed. 1989). When used more
    specifically in reference to real property, the term also includes buildings and other permanent
    structures attached to land:
    Improvement. A valuable addition made to property (usually real
    estate) or an amelioration in its condition, amounting to more than
    mere repairs or replacement, costing labor or capital, and intended to
    enhance its value, beauty or utility or to adapt it for new or further
    purposes. Generally has reference to buildings, but may also include
    any permanent structure or other development, such as a street,
    sidewalks, sewers, utilities, etc. An expenditure to extend the useful
    life of an asset or to improve its performance over that of the original
    asset.
    BLACK’SLAW DICTIONARY
    757 (6th ed. 1990); see also VII THEOXFORDENGLISHDICTIONARY
    75 1
    (2d ed. 1989) (“A piece of land improved or rendered more profitable by inclosure, cultivation, the
    erection of buildings, etc. . [T]he buildings, fences, etc., themselves.“).
    As the term “improvement” is understood in the general sense, almost any endeavor that
    makes the property or the structures on it better than they were would constitute an improvement.
    Moving a structure from one location on a piece of property to another location on the property
    might constitute an improvement to the property overall, or to the specific structure itself, by
    enhancing its value, extending its useful life, or otherwise making its condition better. A structure
    placed on a formerly vacant part of the property certainly is an improvement, in the more narrow
    sense, to that part of the property. Whether the relocation of a structure constitutes an improvement
    to property must be determined, however, on the facts of the particular case.
    A “repair” is “[t]he act of restoring to a sound or unimpaired condition” or the “[rlestoration
    of some material thing or structure by the renewal of decayed or worn out parts, by refixing what has
    become loose or detached.” XIII THEOXFORDENGLISHDIC~ONARY627 (2d ed. 1989). “The word
    ‘repair’ contemplates an existing structure or thing which has become imperfect, and means to
    supply in the original existing structure that which is lost or destroyed, and thereby restore it to the
    condition in which it originally existed, or as nearas may be.” BLACK’SLAW DICTIONARY1298 (6th
    ed. 1990).
    The Honorable David Dewhurst - Page 5             (JC-0106)
    You tell us that the tax abatements would require the property owners to move structures, not
    necessarily fix or restore them. While the act of moving the structures would not constitute a
    “repair” in the ordinary sense, the agreement to move the structures might encompass fixing or
    restoring them to a good condition once they are in their new location. Thus, an agreement to
    remove a structure and relocate it on the property might, depending again upon the facts, constitute
    a repair to property in the ordinary sense.
    But we must also consider what constitutes an improvement or repair in the context of
    chapter 312. See TEX. C&VT CODE ANN. 5 311.01 l(a) (Vernon 1998). Chapter 312 was enacted
    in anticipation of an amendment to the Texas Constitution, ratified by voters in 1981, which permits
    the legislature by general law to authorize local taxing units “to grant exemptions or other relief from
    ad valorem taxes on property located in a reinvestment zone forthe purpose of encouraging
    development or redevelopment and improvement of the property.” TEX. CONST. art. VIII, ?j l-g
    (emphasis added). Pursuant to this constitutional authority, chapter 3 12 authorizes local taxing units
    to enter into tax abatement agreements with owners of property located in reinvestment zones.
    Chapter 3 12 requires taxing units to adopt guidelines and criteria for tax agreements before
    entering into any such agreement. TEX. TAX CODEANN. $5 312.002(a), .401(a) (Vernon 1992 &
    Supp. 1999). The substance of the criteria governing tax abatement agreements is a matter within
    the discretion of the local entity making the agreement. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-456 (1997)
    at 6. Chapter 3 12 imposes two limitations on the commissioners court discretion. First, the property
    owner must agree to make specific improvements and repairs to the property.                   Second,
    “improvements that form the basis of a tax abatement agreement must be consistent with the purpose
    of the reinvestment zone designation.” 
    Id. Accordingly, not
    only must the subject of a tax abatement agreement be an improvement or
    repair in the ordinary sense, it must also serve the economic development purposes of the
    reinvestment zone, and benefit the public as well as the property owner. You believe that moving
    a structure from a public beach to another location on the same property would constitute an
    improvement for the purposes of chapter 3 12 because it would:
    1) reduce the possibility that the structure would be damaged or lost
    in a storm; 2) preserve the property as property tax base (which would
    be lost if destroyed or condemned); 3) make the entire property more
    marketable; and 4) improve the public’s access to and use of the
    public beach.
    Request 
    Letter, supra, at 2
    .
    We find nothing in chapter 3 12 that would preclude, as a matter of law, a local government
    from granting a tax abatement to a property owner in return for the owner’s agreement to move a
    structure from a public beach to another part of the owner’s property. However, whether any
    particular endeavor would actually improve or repair property in the ordinary sense is a
    The Honorable David Dewhurst - Page 6            (X-0106)
    determination that must be made on the facts of that endeavor. Likewise, whether the improvement
    or repair is consistent with the purpose of the reinvestment zone designation, a designation that must
    benefit the public as well as the property owner, depends upon the particular facts at issue.
    Consequently, we do not determine whether a tax abatement agreement is possible for any specific
    property. Such determinations are for local governmental bodies to make in the good faith exercise
    of their discretion.
    SUMMARY
    The movement of a structure from one location on a piece of
    property in a reinvestment zone to another location on the property
    may constitute a “specific improvement or repair” to the property for
    purposes of a tax abatement agreement under Property
    Redevelopment and Tax Abatement Act, chapter 312 of the Tax
    Code, if it improves or repairs the property in the ordinary sense and
    if the improvement or repair is consistent with the purpose of the
    reinvestment zone designation.
    Yo sverytrul        ,
    4 i
    JO&N
    CT&
    CORNYN
    T
    Attorney General of Texas
    ANDY TAYLOR
    First Assistant Attorney General
    CLARK RENT ERVIN
    Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel
    ELIZABETH ROBINSON
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    Barbara Griffin
    Assistant Attorney General - Opinion Committee
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JC-106

Judges: John Cornyn

Filed Date: 7/2/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017