Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

The Attorney General of Texas
May 8, 1986
JIM MAlTOX
Attorney General
Honorable Mark W. ljtlles Opinion No. JM-490
Supreme Court Building Chairman
P. 0. BOX 12545 \Jhethera school dlstricc
Budget and 0versi:ht Committee Re:
Austin. TX. 78711-2548
512/4?5-2501
Texas House of Re?:cesentativcs may expend funds to enploy croz-
Telex 910/874-1367 P.O. Box 2910 sing guards at incersoccions
Telecopier 512l475.0266 Austin. Texas 7 3'769 which do noz abur school dis-
trict property
714 Jackson, Suite 700
Dallas, TX. 75202.4506 Dear Representatim Stiles:
214l7428944
You ask whether an independent school district ma); expend schccl
funds to employ xossing guards to assist students at interseccians
4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160
El Paso, TX. 79905.2793
that do not abut school discricc premises.
9154533-3484
The Educaricn Code describes the expenditures rhat may hue:~=ade
out of local school funda:
1001 Texas. Suite 700
tiouston. TX. 77002~3111 Iocal schcol funds from district taxes, tultior.
713/223.5&5
--
fees of pupils
. not entitled to free tuition and
other lwal sources may be used for the purposes
606 Broadway, Suite 312 enumerated for state and county funds and for pur-
Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 chasing appliances and supplies, for the paywnt rf
SOSi747~5238 insurance premiums, janitors and other employees,
for buying school sites, buying, building and
4309 N. Tenth. Suite S repairing and renting school houses, and for ---
or&r
McAllen. TX. 78501-1685 purposes-necessary in the conduct of the pul~llc
5121682.4547 schools to bz determined by the board of trustees,
'theaccornts and vouchers for count!:districts tc be
200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 approved by the county superincmdent; provided,
San Antonio. TX. 78205-2797 that whr!n the scxte available school fund in any
512,225-4191 city or district is sufficient to maintain the
schools thereof in any year for at laast eight
months, and leave a surplus, such surplus may ba
An Equal Opportunity/
Affirmative Action Employer
expended for the purposes mentioned herein.
(Emphasis added).
Educ. Code §20.4tN(c). Your question assumes that crossing guards at
intersections th;.tabut public school premises are "necessary in the
conduct of the Ilublic schools." We chink yoil are correct in that
assumption, but we perceive no basis for concluding that crossing
guards are only wcessary at intersections chat actually abut school
premises. An expenditure of school funds for a cafeteria has been
held to be wooer
. . because a cafeteria may be necrssarv for the welfare
Bozeman V. Norrow, 34 S.W.!?d654, 656-57 (Tex. Civ. App.
of students. --
p. 2237
IionorableMark W. Stiles - page 2 (JM-490)
- El Paso 1931, no writ). We thfnk that crossing guards rright be
equally necessary for the weltare of students. Of course, determinjrlg
whether and where crossing guards are necessary Is a matter for the
discretion of school boazds. -See Aitorney General Opinicr 8-133
(1973).
It has been suggesr::d that El Paso County Community College
District V. City of El Paso, 698 S.W.2d 248, 252 (Tex. App. - Austin
1985, writ granted), may stand for the propositioc that a scho.21
district may not expend fnlds for crossing guards. The holding of
chat case is that an Independent school district is not a "political
subdivision" within the ,meaning of a constzutional urovision
governing tax increment financing. The court supported its holding by
pointing out that if a school district were a political subdivision
for purposes of tax increment fiilancing,school funda could be spent
for a prcject to br paid :Eor through tax increment financing even
though the protect had no educational purpose. The court did not
consider the question of tiwther any particular use of funds was for
school purposes. The tour: merely noted that it was undisputed that
the tax increment financ,Log plan in question, which ca;lrd for
improvement of city parking;facilities and rerouting of city streets,
would enhance no education;%1 facility and involved no educaticcal
purpose. In other words, the only relevance of the case to your
question is that it recit,ed the well-established rule that school
funds may be used oniy fcr school purposes.
SUMMARY
School district funds may be used to pay for
crossing guards,, Derzrmining where crossing
guards are necessary is a matter within the
discretion of school boards.
J ,hca
Very truly yours
3 I MkT T 0 I:
Artorney General of Texas
,TACKHIGHTOWFR
First Assistant Attorney Genseral
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney Zenera
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Codttee
Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General
p. 2238