Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1966 )

.
Hono?a'bl&J;'WY%dgar ':~Opfnion No. C- 672
Commissioner -of'Education
-- Texas--Education:Agency .Re: Reconsideration of
Austin; :Texas ~Opinlon No. C-60h
based upon additional
Dear:Mri%dgar: facts submitted.
':'Youhave .requesteda recons.ideration of Opinion
No. c-604 (March, 1966) based upon additional facts sub-
mitted to this office. In that opinion, the question was
whether.the :res'idence.
p'ropertyowned by the schools but used
by the-Superintendent .of Schools "for his residence" was
exempt'rrom taxation by the State bfT=s, Milam County, City
of Cameron, .and~the Came,ron‘
Independent School District., Under
the-facts.submitted, we correctly held that such property,
used :hy~:'the~Superintendent
.as a .private dwelling for his re-
sidence:dnd-for'twhich'he.paid..rent, was not exempt from tax-
ation. PIhe-burden.-to:shoW:clear.:exemptlon from specific facts
and to-overcome'the~
~....__ presumptions that the property is subject
to taxation is..on:the.taxpayer.i Longview vs. Mark$n;McRae
Merno``~a~:~Hos'pl~al,:
Ll37Tex: -178,::152 S.W.2d 1112 ( 4 ).
~&dd~tlorialmat~rSai:fadt$'have now been submitted for
further consideration as to the possibility of the tax-exempt
status-of-the property:
. " ?Itibecame~rie~ces~s~ry
.and.the district was
compelled to obtain and purchase aatla-
~factory~llvlngquarters thereby to en-
aour:age a:capable person to move to and
.aerveas‘scho.ol~superintendent at Cameron.
There'sidence was bought to be occupied
/
: :by'its~superintendent, only that the school
alstrict might be better served.
"Rent houses for better school personnel are
:lmposslble in Cameron; indeed, the district
'.may be/forced to purchase additional re-
sldences,'teeicherages,'to encourage and se-
cure personnel necessary in the operation
of its school system.
Han'.J. W. Edgar, page 2 (c-672)
"The superintendent's residence, located
three blocks from the school campus, Is
'an integral part of its school plant and
operations. It is district-owned property
being paid for with its public funds. It
Is cented only to district personnel, the
superintendent, as such, who pays $75 monthly
rent, the utilities, and keeps up the premises."
It is further caused to appear from the facts supplied
us that the trustees of the Independent school district de-
termined and decided that It was necessary to expend funds
on hand f.orthe purpose of acquiring the property for liv-
ing quarters for the superintendent and whi.chwas necessary
for conducting the schools in the district and essential
under the prevalent conditions In the district to obtain
the services of a qualified superintendent. Assuming that
the actions and findings of the trustees of the school district
as above stated were duly taken and made in accordance with
law, and in the absence of some showing of abuse of discretion,
we hold that such property, being owned and used for public
purposes, is exempt from taxation. We also assume that the
property was purchased in conformity with all statutory pro-
vision?.
Section 2 of Article VIZ1 of the Constitution of Texas
states in part as follows: . . . the legislature may, by
general laws, exempt from taxation public property used for
public purposes."
Article 7150, Vernon's Civil Statutes, exempts "Public
school houses" and "All public colleges, public academies
. . .3 and all such buildings used exclusively and owned by
persona for school purposes. In addition, It exempts "All
property, whether real or personal, belonging exclusively
to this State, or any political subdivisions thereof . . . .'I
Our courts have held that all public property 'ISto be
regarded as ."used for public purposes" within Article VIII,
Section 2 of the Constitution of Texas when It is owned and
~-held for public purposes, although it is not owned or held
exclusively for such purposes and there has been no abandon-
-ment of such purposes. City of Abilene vs. State, 113 S.W.2d
631 (Tex. WV. App. 1937‘).
An Independent school district Is held to be a political
subdivision of the state, being a governmental and state agen,::
and of the same general character as municipal corporations.
:51 Tex.Jur.2d 323, 345, Schools, Sec. 6, and Sec. 14. Its
-3238-
. *
Hon. J. W. Edgar, pBge 3 (C-672)
trustees have all of the powers expressly conferred as
well as those necessarily implied therefrom. 51 Tex.Jur.2d
444, Schools, Sec. 85. It is also generally held that school
boards or districts, under their general powers of school
management, may cont.ractfor the board and lodging of its
teachers. 78 C.J.S, 1172, Schools and School Districts,
Sec. 230.
Independent school districts in Texas possess sub-
stantially the+ame powers as common school districts.
Article 2797, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides that both
Common School Districts and Independent School Districts
may issue bonds "in the same manner as provided by law for
the issuance of other bonds ~to build and equip school houses
and to purchase sites therefor, for the purpose of'purchasing
or building a teacher's home and for purchasing land in
connection therewith . . . ."
It has been held that the above statute does not pre-
elude the school trustees from usinn local funds. crovided
statutory conditions exist, Adams ;s. Miles, 41TS;W.2d 21
(comm. App. 1931).~
In Land&n vs. Centennial Rural.High School Dist.,
146 S.W.2d 799 (T Civ. App. 194rerror di Judyfg;or. 1,
it was held that yieacherage as provided for'%'Art.
sucra,.comes within.the meaning of a schoolhouse or school'
building.
Since the property In question is owned by the District,
the crucial question'is whether it is being used for a pub-
lic purpose. Under the holding of Adams vs. Miles, 300 S.W.
211, affirmed by Commission of Appeals, 41 S.W.2d 21 (1931),
a school teacherage for living quarters, where necessary to
the proper maintenance of the local schools, would be a govern-
mental function and publlo,use; and it is within the statutory
power of the school district trustees to expend public funds
In the acquisition or construction of teacher's homes. The
Court said in part:
"It Is not difficult to conceive of conditions
existing In some school districts, especially
those in remote communities, which would render
such facilities desirable. Those facilities
In some cases, depending upon the conditions
In particular districts, would undoubtedly
enable the trustees to produce better and more
experienced teachers, under more advantageous
coubracts of employment would house the teachers
in close proximity to the school rooms, affording
-3239-
Ron. J. W. Edgar/page 4 (C-672)
constant oversight and protection of the
school properties. It is perhaps a matter
worthy of judicial notice that many pro-
gressi,veschool communities In the State,
and particularly in the southwestern portion
of the State, have provided homes or dormitories
for their faculties. The Legislature has re-.
.cognlzed the desirability and necessity of
this Improvement in Independent and common school
districts by authorizing the Issuance of bonds,
when voted, for the purpose of buying sites and
constructing "teacher's homes" in connection
with schools. Article 2797 . . . ." (300 S.W. 214)
The above authority is in accord with,the general rule
that suoh are proper public uses. 79 C.J.S.-IO, Schools and
School Districts, Sec. 324; Taylor vs. Board of Public
Instruction of Lafayette Counte 157 Fl 4 2 2b Y 2d
See also Craig vs. Belf, 211 Sri. 4273 46 s0:E.2?$2,
, wherein the construction and use of's residence'
by the school district for the superintendent was upheld ati
a proper school purpose and the Court took notice of the
trend in decisions in taking a "liberal view of-the implied
-powers of mtlnicipalitiesor school districts".
"Public use" is held to be that which will "promote
public education" and, as stated in 84 C.J.S. 483-484, Tax-
ation, Sec. 254, "!Phefact that income is derived from the
use of the property does notprevent the use from being a
public use or for public purposes . .~. .'
It is also generally held in this connection that
married student's dormitories are a proper a;d appropriate
educational or public use. It is held that . they are
considered to be a necessary responsibility of'e&cational
institutions in light of the number of married students,
particularly at the graduate and professional level."
Schueller vs. Board of Adjustment of City of Dubuque (Iowa),
95 N .W .2d 731, 733 (19591.
SUMMARY
-------
'Under the submitted facts the real property
purchased and held by the Cameron Independent
School District for the superintendent's re-
sidence, where found to be essential to obtain
the services of a qualified superintendent and
:&on,3. W. Edgar, page 5 (c-672)
necessary for conducting a school in the
district,~is exempt from taxation as being
public property used for a "public purpose"
under Section 2 of Article VIII of the
Constitut;on of Texas and Article 7150,
Vernon's Civil Statutes.
Yours very truly,
WAGGONER CARR
Attorney General
By&Tti
Assistant
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Arthur Sandlin
Robert Flowers
38iltonRichardson
John Banks
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: T. B, Wright
-3241-