Honorable David Ratliff, Chairman

Senate Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns Capitol Station Austin, Texas Opinion No. C-402 Re: Constitutionality of Senate Bill 209 Dear Senator Ratliff: You have requested our opinion concerning the constitutionality of Senate Bill 209, and in connection with such request, have posed the following questions:

"1. IS it constitutional to require the County Tax Assessor-Collector of Bexar County to assess taxes for the Bexar County Hospital District at agreater value than that assessed for County and State purposes?...

‘8 2
. Can thebill set forth Bexar County by name, ormust itbe apopulation bracket bill to satisfy constitutional requirements?" By supplemental letter ofMarch 9, 1965, you state: "With regard to the request made toyou by this committee onFebruary 10, 1965, the committee wishes to amend that request to include the following question:

-1900-Honorable David Ratliff, page 2 (C-402)

"1. If there isa serious question about the constitutionality of Senate Bill 209 as proposed and introduced, how could the bill be amended or redrafted so as to accomplish itspurpose ina constitutional manner? "Wewould appreciate your preparing such a revision to conform to your recommendations ifnecessary. "Also the committee would like to delete from our original request the question asked in ItemNo. 2." After having two committee meetings on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 209, it is our opinion that there isavery serious question about the constitutionality of said Bill. As drawn, the Bill will only apply to Bexar County and appears to be a special law inviolation of Section 56 ofArticle III of the Constitution of Texas. Further, the Bill provides for the County Tax Assessor-Collector to assess property inBexar County at agreater valuation forhospital purpose than that assessed for state and county purposes. SeeAttorney General's Opinion O-5426 (1943)which holds inter alia, that:

"The said oat&s by which he Lzhe County Assessor and Collector of Taxed isbound andwhich have been set out in this opinion, do not setup one standard ofvalue to be followed by him inmaking his assessments for school districts and another and different standard ofvalue tobe set upby him inmaking assessments for county and state purposes." The Constitution and Statutes of thisstate require uniformity of assessment of real and personal property at full cash market value, but the courts have held that assessments at a lowerpercentaqe ofmarket value arevalid ifequally and

-1901-Honorable David Ratliff, page 3 (C-402)

uniformly applied to all taxable property. Therefore, the taxing authority may require all property tobe assessed at 100%market value or any fraction thereof equally and uniformly applied. Lively v. Missouri Kansas Texas Railwav Company of Texas, 120 S.W. 852(Supreme Court 1909); Duvall v. Clark, 158 S.W.(2d) 565 (Tex.Civ. App. 1909 error ref.); El Paso v. Howse, 248 S.W. 99 (Tex.Civ. App. 1923, error ref.); Texas Constitution, Article VIII, Sections 1, 11 and 20; Vernon's Civil Statutes, Articles 7149, 7174, 7211, 7218, 7219, 7222 and 7224. Pursuant toyour request, we have prepared a suggested revision of Senate Bill 209,which, in our opinion, is constitutional. Very truly yours, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General

WVG:me W. V. Geppert Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Roger Tyler, Chairman Mary K. Wall W. E.Allen Marietta McGregor Payne APPROVED FOR THEATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Stanton Stone

-1902-