Opinion No.
Background
- City of Eagle Pass informed Eagle Pass Independent School District that it requires the District to fund a waterline for a new school under a city ordinance.
- The asking council sought guidance on whether Local Government Code chapter 395, Education Code sections 45.105 and 11.168, or Texas Constitution article III, § 52 prohibit compliance.
- Town precedent indicates health and safety considerations may determine when a school district must obey city regulations (Groves vs Sunset Valley line of cases).
- Chapter 395 authorizes impact fees; section 395.022(b) exempts school districts from mandatory fees unless the board consents via contract.
- Education Code 45.105 restricts school funds to purposes necessary in conduct of public schools; whether the waterline fits that is a factual question for district trustees.
- Education Code 11.168 prohibits using district resources for non-owned property without an agreement; its applicability depends on whether the city action is unilateral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Eagle Pass ordinance impose an impact fee under chap. 395? | City asserts an impact fee applies to the District's waterline. | District may avoid payment unless an agreement exists under 395.022(b). | If the ordinance is an impact fee, the District is not required to pay absent a contract. |
| Is the waterline expenditure permissible under Education Code 45.105 as 'necessary in the conduct of public schools'? | City seeks enforcement of infrastructure funded by District funds. | District trustees decide necessity consistent with 45.105. | Trustees must determine whether the waterline expenditure is necessary in the conduct of public schools. |
| Does Education Code 11.168 restrict the District from using district resources for non-district property without an agreement? | City's unilateral action may implicate 11.168. | 11.168 applies only to agreements; unilateral imposition is not restricted by 11.168. | 11.168 does not apply where the city action is unilateral; 395.022(b) governs. |
| Will paying for city-mandated infrastructure violate Texas Constitution article III, § 52? | Transfer of funds to a political subdivision must be for a public purpose or with consideration. | If the expenditure serves a public purpose of the District, it may be permissible. | If the District determines it serves a public purpose and aligns with court standards, it does not violate 52. |
Key Cases Cited
- Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Groves, 376 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. 1964) (health/safety considerations for regulation of school facilities;)
- City of Groves v. Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist., 376 S.W.2d 334 (Tex. 1964) (schools subject to reasonable city ordinances for health and safety)
- City of Sunset Valley v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 502 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1973) (distinguishes Groves; health/safety regulation context differs)
- City of Garland v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 468 S.W.2d 110 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1971) (expenditures for street improvements not always restricted by school board decisions)