Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1951 )


Menu:
  •       -       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                            

Document Info

Docket Number: V-1308

Judges: Price Daniel

Filed Date: 7/2/1951

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017