Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1951 )

- I
TamAm- G-
OF TEXAS
Aue~m 1% TEZXAS
PRICEDANIEL
AlTORNeYGENERAL
October 9, I.951
Eon. J. W. Edgar, Coriunlssloner .i
Texas Education Agency
Austin, Texee opinion ?io~~k-l308
'he: Lleblllty of &m&all
Independent School
Ms*rlct for paving
assessments for streets
Dear Sir: adjolnlxg its property.
Your request for an oplnlon'relates to the
llablllty of the Marshall Independent School Dl&rlct,
a munlclpally controlled district, for the.pavj+g of
streets adjolnfng the school district% property.
YOUl' f8Ctld pW%.le'ptRti~ ii3 '88 fOllOWI
:
*me Marshali Independent School Mstrlct
Is munlclpally controlled Zn that the mm-
bepa of the Board of Education a&e appointed
by the City Gcmmlesim except when ttu?Ce Is
a reslgnatlon of a board member before the
expiration of his appointed term of office,
in which case lt Ls the prerogaflve of ths
school board to appoint a member to complete
the term of office.
‘f. . .
"The title for.property owned.by the Mar-
shall Independent School Dlstrlct is vested
in the Board of Education.
18
. . .
"The Marshall School Board as authorized
through the City Charter, may contract, be
contracted with, sue, be sued, pleaa, be
Impleaded, may receive gifts, grants, con-
veyances, rloru7tlon8, and devises . . . pro-
vided, however, the sale of any property
for a value of<$ZtOOO or more isfirst ep-
proved and affirmed by the Commission ~of
the City of Marshall.
..
Hon. J.'W, Edgar, Page 2 (V-1308)
"On February 23, 1951, Prendergast &
Prendergest, Attorneys, WEII'SbEtll,
TeXaS,
enclosed with 8 letter of explanation
an InVo'Lce for proposed street paving
of Lots 1.3-23,i;l.ock2, College Heights
Addition, frontln~ 240 feet on DniVer-
city Avenue. The invoice was billed
to the Marshal.1 School Doard for worlc
to be dOne by H. R. Henderson Company
for the City pf MarslX311.
"On the basis of the fact5 stated above,
we subnit the following questlOn8:
“1. 18
the MarhsalL' Independent
School District obligated to pay for
the pavlng.of streets adjoining its
property? .
"2. If your aIMW& tb the first
question la ln the negative, does the
‘toard of trustees have the authorltg;
to voluntarily pay for such pavQ@
You have inform& us that the property On
account of which the asseasrrent was made.%8 Used
as e public achoo;l site.
Article XI,'Section 9, of the Constitution
of Texas 18 as follows:
'ITheproperty of countlea, cttles
and.towns, owned and held Only for public
such as.publlr hulldlng5 and
~~"%% therefor.isiC]' 3.2’8 E%l&Il88 alla
the. furniture thereoi, &XI all property
used, or intended for extln@sh~ flre8,
public grounds ano all other property de-
Voted exclusively to the use and benefit
of the pubI& shall be exempt from forced
sale and frdm taxation, provided, notbm
herein 5h511,prevent the etiorcement of
the vendors lien, the mechanics or bul$d-
ers lien, or other lien5 now exfstiq.
In Dower Colorado River Authorit: TidChemL-
cal B8nk & %USt CO.,. 144 T 326 190 S W 4u
ng45] the COUFt tieId thate~~OPeriY Of the bder
Colore~o River Authority used in the execution
Hon. J. W. Edgar, Page 3 (V-1308)
of the purposes for which the agency was created was
exempt from taxation by virtue of Section 9 of Ar-
ticle XI. The court stated:
"It thus appears from the provisions
of our Constitution and legislative enact-
ments thereunder, as they have been con-
strued by;!ourcourts, that LCRA is a gov-
ernmental ,a$encyserving a public purpose
in controlling and storing the flood waters
of the Colorado River and that all benefits
derived from its efforts are public bene-
fits. Hence, its property is public prop-
erty devoted~exclusively to public use and
is exempt from taxation under Art. XI, Sec.
9, of the Constitution; and the proviso
contained in Sec. 48, Art. 7150, supra, re-
quiring payments 'ii1lieu of ta~xes,'is
void because contrary to the Constitution."
Prom this case, we conclude that the exemp-
tion accorded by this constitutional provision ex-
tends to the property of any governmental agency
which is devoted exclusively to the public use. An
independent school district is a political subdivi-
sion of the State, and property used for the siteof
a public schoolsbuilding is devoted exclusively to
the use and benefit of the public.
=%Y&i;+;,
School Trustees of Willacy County, 33 S. .
civ. App. 1.933,error ref.); Daugherty v. Thompson,
71 Tex. 192, 9 S.W. 99 (1888). The conclusion that
the exemption extends.!.to
the property of an independ-
ent school district is eupported~also by the decision
in State v. City of San Antonio, 147 Tex. 1, 209 S.W.
2d m$),which held that this provision exempted
from taxation property boughtin by the City of San
Antonio and the San Antonio Inuependent School Dis-
trict on foreclosure for delinquent city and school
district taxes.
In Harris County v. Boyd, 73 Tex. 237, 7 S.W.
71.3 (1888j, it was held that the exemption in Article
XI, Section 9, included special assessments for street
improvements. The court said:
Ifn P . there is no apparent reason why
the exernpiionfin the.constitution should
not be taken in the ordinary and more
comprehensive sense, so as to include
rion.J. ‘ir.
Ed,,yar,
P,lge11 (v-1338)
~71.1.taxation, special.as well as gen-
eral. The purposes of the exemption
obtain equa~!.ly ezainst special.asess-
me xt s 5 5 a ‘~1
rv ;i.
nst general taxation.
T!ke inhibit:f~on zgalnst sa1.ewould.seem
to negative the power to assess. . . .
“The court ho1.d.s ‘chatthe sction of
the city authorities in essessing the
tax qsinst the courthouse site, 2nd in
attempting to hind.the county 2s the
owner, 11~s inhibited :I? section 9, ert.
II.,of the constitution of the state.
It wes without authority as well. as
rgalnst the count;r2s azzinst the prop-
er4.g.”
In v5.e~of tk foregoing aut??or?.tle~,:.t;.s
t the City of IkrslWl.1.
our opinion tliz ,?oesn,>t!.k?r-c
to l.evyan essessment 2,Ta~l.net
t5.e?utliGr;.t:‘r :i7n?ert:,:
Llser;~
?.Sa puLJ1.I.c site unless the fart th7t t!:
sc~~.ool.
Marshi21.1.
Independent School District is a munici?:!1,::
control.I.ed
c?istrictca~l.1~
for the ,appl.Lcation
of r
c’ifferentrule. On June 31, 1.$&g,:the City of Ker-
adopteti;Icharter amendment provi6i.n~y
sh.71.1. t~l?.,?
t t.-me
improvement of :itsstreets sh0ul.dtie,govemefiby t;:e
7rov3.sion.5
of p,rtic!.e
1.1.351d,
V.C.E. This ctrtutk
,-uthorizesthe governi.nzboclyof tlk city to prov:i),:- trar-
tees are incorporated ,-ndmF.de3,b0d.ycorpor$te in
12~ un:?erWe neme of “Marshall.School.i3oar(l,.” Sy
$:ct!.on1.05,the Pbsolute tit1.ean