. 

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 .requested a recons.ideration of Opinion 

No. c-604 (March, 1966) based upon additional facts submitted to this office. In that opinion, the question was 

whether. the :res'idence. p'roperty owned 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 residence:dnd-for'twhich 'he .paid..rent, was not exempt from taxation. 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~tlorial mat~rSai:fadt$'have now been submitted for 

further consideration as to the possibility of the tax-exempt 

status-of-the property: 

. " ?Iti became~rie~ces~s~ry .and .the district was 

compelled to obtain and purchase aatla- 

~factory~llvlng quarters thereby to enaour: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 resldences,' teeicherages,' to encourage and secure 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 determined and decided that It was necessary to expend funds 

on hand f.or the purpose of acquiring the property for living quarters for the superintendent and whi.ch was 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 provision?. 

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 'IS to 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.ract for the board and lodging of its 

teachers. 78 C.J.S, 1172, Schools and School Districts, 

Sec. 230. 

Independent school districts in Texas possess substantially 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 preelude 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 

it was held that yieacherage as provided for'%'Art. 

Judyfg;or. 1, 

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 public 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 governmental 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 progressi,ve school 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 mtlnicipalities or school districts". 

"Public use" is held to be that which will "promote 

public education" and, as stated in 84 C.J.S. 483-484, Taxation, Sec. 254, "!Phe fact 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 residence, 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 

38ilton Richardson 

John Banks 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: T. B, Wright 

-3241-