Background

• Request from Texas Representative regarding whether a junior college district qualifies as a "school district" under Local Government Code § 395.022(b), which exempts "school districts" from paying impact fees unless the board consents.
• City of Weatherford argued § 395.022(b) applies only to independent school districts and thus junior college districts are not exempt.
• Chapter 395 does not define "school district," and the Local Government Code uses the term inconsistently in other provisions.
• Education Code § 130.122(f) explicitly declares junior college districts to be "school districts" for purposes of Article VII, § 3 of the Texas Constitution.
• Attorney General applied statutory construction principles (plain meaning and context) and concluded the Legislature did not signal an intent in chapter 395 to exclude junior college districts.
• Conclusion: a court would likely hold that "school district" in § 395.022(b) includes junior college districts, so they are not required to pay impact fees absent board consent.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2011) (use of plain statutory text to ascertain legislative intent)
• LTTS Charter Sch., Inc. v. C2 Constr., Inc., 342 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2011) (consideration of surrounding statutory landscape in construction)
• Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011) (courts should not rewrite clear statutory language)
• Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (enforce law as written; avoid rewriting legislative text)
• AT&T Commc'ns of Tex., L.P. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 186 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. 2006) (legislator statements do not control legislative intent)
• Shepherd v. San Jacinto Junior College Dist., 363 S.W.2d 742 (Tex. 1962) (Texas Supreme Court treating junior college districts as within the constitutional meaning of "school districts")