Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1974 )

__.~
- .‘ICIICYA& CL- 5//
September 18, 1974
The Honorable John. C. White Opinion No. H- 403
Commi~eionor
Texas Department of Agriculture Rc: Whether State agency may
P.O. Box 12847 construct 8 building on leamad
Aurtln, Texsr 78711 Lnd.
Dear commi~rioner white:
The Texh Dap&nent of Agriculture bar Iea*ed land for a period
o ftwenty y e a r mwith l twenty y e w r enewa l0p M o na nd intea drto erect l
lfvcrtock e x p o rlbtion
t upon the rite. You ?IWO called to ow attention
Attorney Goner4 Opinton C-Sll 0965) a ao ne wh iclphp a r a wouldntiy hold
the expenditure for the improvement to be invalid. You have arked our
opinion am to whether tbe Department may make and peg for improvements
upon private bnd leaeed for itmuse.
In Attorney General Opinion C-511 thimoffice held that under Sections
30, 51ld 52 of Article 3 end Section 6 of Article l6of the Texar Conrtitution.
the grant of public money to improve loaeed land warnunconatitutionel because
l private benefit might rerult if the lace wore terminated early.
We believe that holdtag went too irr and rhould be ovortied.
There are l number of conrtitutionel provimiwr prohibiting grate
for the benefit of individuala and requiring the uao of public fundr for public
purporer only.
In Article 3 of the Toxaa Conatitutfon:
Sec. -30. LdAN OR PLEqOE 0,F CREDIT OF STATE.
The Legirlrturo lhall have no power to give or to lad,
or to lathorko the giving or lendin& of the credit of the
p. 1880
The Honorable JohnC. White psgs 2 (H-403)
State in rid of, or to say perron, sroocistion or
corporation. wluther munidpsl or other, or to
pledge the credit of the.Stste in say naqnner wbst-
lo eva rfor
, tits
p a yment
d th elisb ilitiee,
p r o r ent
.or prospective, of sny individual, sssocistion ol .
indivlduslr, municipal or other corporationwhst-
lo o ver .
Sec. 51. GRANTS OF tiBLIC.MONEY PRO-
HIBITED: EXCEPTIGNS. Tho LsgWsturo ohaIl
h8Ve no power to mske say grsnt or suthodse the
making of any grant of pub& money8 to soy
individual, srrocistlon nl Jndhddusls, municipl
or other corporation8 whstwoevsr; provided, bow-
ever, tho Lsgidsturo msy gnat aid to indigent
snd dirsbled Confedorsto rddism sad rsilorr
under much regulstlonosad limitstions so nmy b+
deemed by ths Legirlshus sm acpsdisnt, sad to
th& .tidow in indigent drcumatsnces under lucb
reguMioam srd liadtstlona 81 nuy bo deemed by
the Lsgirlsture a# sspedient; providedthat tie
provisions of this Section sbsll not be coastrued
lo se to preiAnt the grsnt of rid in c&mea od pubIic
cslsmity.
Sac. 52. COUNTIES, CITIESOR OTHER
FOIJTICAL CORPORATIONS OR.SUBDWISIONS;
LENDING CREDIT; GRANTS. (8) Except sa othor-
wise providod by tbis soction, tho Legislature aball
have no power to authorise my county, dty, town
or other political corporstion or subdivision of the
Stab to lend its credit or to grsnt public money or
thing of vsluo in rid of, or to any individual, asrocis-
tion or corporstion whatsoever. or to become 8
stockboldqr in ruch corporstlon. sreocistlon or
e~wny.
p. 1881
The Hosorsblo’John C. White psge 3 m-403)
In Article 8:
Sec. 3 GENERAL LAWS: PUBLIC PURPOSES.
Tsxor shsll be levied end co&&d by get&al .
lswa end for public purposer only.
In cssoa wda aa De&v. Cit, oi Lubbock, 326 S; W. 2d 699 (Tat.
1959); Stak v. citv of A(. 1960); sad Barrington
v. Cokhoe, 338 S.W.2d 133 (Tax. 1760) the vslidity of 8 grsnt turned on
tho public purpoeo to be sorved, even thoagh a privsti benefit reeultsd.
These cssos. respectively, upheld the exponditurq of+public fundr for ohm
dssrsnco of lands to be dtieloped by private ow&rehip: for relocation of
pkvste utilitler nocerrsry forMghwsyimprovem&ate~ sad for moving of 8
rsiliosd right-of-wsy to sliminste grade crosringd, 43 of which sctlonr
realted in en inddentsl .benalit to the privste Nrty. :
&I ouiopinionifsn ~chdihrrOfOrtho erection, repair or maink- .
nsnce of en improvomsnt on lessod proporty is for a wooer nublic nurooee
and if the conddorstion or bone5t k the public ir sdaausto, tho transection
is not rendered invalid by the pordbility thst the privste psrty will resHse
en unsxpeckd inddentsl benefit.
Not every public purpore, however, im a proper public purpore
qpon which to bsee a public expenditure. See a. g., Attorney General
opinion H-357 (l974).. However, in Dmia v. City of Lubbock, luprs,
the Supreme Court quoted thir psrrsgi from ik prior dki&.m i’n m&
4. City of Taylor, 67 S..W, 2d 1033 (Tsx. 1934).
No exact definition csn be msdo [of public’purposes].
Suffieb it to ray that, unless 8 sourt csn say that the
purposes for which public fundr are expended are clearly
not public purpoeee, it would not bo justi5ed in holdinp
invalid a legislative act or provkion in s city chsrtor
provid_iingfunds for luch purposes (67 S. W. 2d et 1034)
pollowing there end other suthoritior thir of5ce hss issued opinions
suthorising, for exsmple, expondituror toward construction of a utility line
p. 1882
The Honorsble John C. Wbitc mgu 4 (H-403)
to service public psrks (Attorney General Opinion H-109 (1973)) end
expenditures to construct recreation facilitioe 011property ow?mdby
the federal government (Attorney Genorsl Gpinion H-257 (1974)).
Accordingli. we snewor tbst the mero fsct that the livortock
oxport rtation is to bo located on lesaod lsnd doea ngt render the expen-
diture, ipso facto, violstivo of tho Coastitution. Tl+t quoetiun muet
depend upon whether the oxpendituro 1~ for 8 proper public purpoeo endir
in cxchsngp for adequate public bonefite, 8 dotermisWioa which 10 to be
made by the Department in the @rot inhence. and, if ch8llenged. ultimste~ll
by the court.
SUMMARY
Providod the expenditure ie for a proper public
purporo end lo exchsngcd for sdoqnsto public benefitr,
tho Dopsrtmsnt of Agriculture ey oxpond funds to
erect a livortock export ltation on loseed property.
Very truly yourh
OHN 6iii
At&toy Geaorsl of Teaur
APPROVE?:
P
I
ezatE
ijxvID M. SCENDALL, Chsirmsn
Opinion Committee
p. 1683