Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
GA-0850
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2011Background
- City of Eagle Pass ordinance would require Eagle Pass ISD to fund a waterline extension for a newly built school.
- Preeexisting questions asked whether Local Government Code chapter 395, Education Code §§45.105 and 11.168, or Texas Constitution Art. III §52 restrict compliance.
- Chapter 395.022(b) exempts a school district from mandatory impact fees unless the district consents via contract.
- Education Code §45.105 restricts school funds to enumerated purposes or other board-determined necessary expenditures for public schools.
- Education Code §11.168 prohibits using district resources for non-owned/leased property improvements absent an agreement, potentially contrasting with unilateral impact fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do impact fees apply to the District under chapter 395? | District argued fees may be required absent contract? (generalized). | If impact fee exists, §395.022(b) allows district to avoid payment without agreement. | If an impact fee is imposed, district not required to pay absent agreement. |
| Are District funds permissible under Education Code §45.105 to fund the waterline? | Fund use must be for necessary in conduct of public schools. | Expenditure may be permissible if necessary for schools and approved by trustees. | Trustees must determine if expenditure is necessary in the conduct of public schools. |
| Is §11.168 applicable to unilateral city-imposed fees for district resources? | Imposition of fees is coercive use of district resources. | Unilateral imposition falls outside §11.168, which governs agreements. | §11.168 inapplicable to unilateral city-imposed actions. |
| What if the city ordinance yields a public benefit or return for the district under Art. III §52? | Question whether transfers satisfy constitutional credit/benefit test. | District determines if public purpose or consideration exists. | District must decide if payment serves a public purpose or provides return consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Groves, 376 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. 1964) (schools subject to reasonable city regulations for health/safety)
- City of Groves v. Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist., 376 S.W.2d 334 (Tex. 1964) (health/safety regulation necessity in school regulation)
- City of Sunset Valley v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 502 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1973) (distinguishes Groves; enforcement of health/safety regulations not before court)
- City of Garland v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 468 S.W.2d 110 (Tex. Civ. App.–Dallas 1971) (assessments for street improvements; city may act without district action)
- Tex. Mun. League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Tex. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 74 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. 2002) (public purpose/consideration analysis for transfers of funds)