. , 

Hon, H. A. Triesch 

Couaty Attomiey 

Coma1 CoUnty 

New Braunfils, Texas 

Da&r Sir! 

Opinion No. V-1161 

Re: Exemption from ad valorem 

taxes of Coma1 Plant, vailous 

properties used in connection 

therewith, and Kuehler Power 

Station Site, all owned by City 

of San Antonio, 

We quote the following excerpt from your letter of Februrey 1, 1951: 

“On October 24, 1942, the City of San Antonio 

a@$uired all of the electric power plants and facilities 

t&ratefora operated by the San Antonio Public Service 

COmpany, except the local distz~ibution systems located 

within the corporate limits of other mcorporated towns 

and eLtfas. Among the propica-ties so acquired was the 

cllltctric generating plant in the City of N,ew Braunfels. 

commorly known as the Comai Plant, various tracts of 

land, electric transmission lines., transformers, easements, and other proP+rty used in connection therewith, 

all of which is situated in Coma1 County, Texas. A 

forty-seven acre tract abutting on the Guadalupe Rive1 

k@#wn as the Kuchler Power Station Site was included 

in the property that was acquired in the sale, 

“At the time of the acquisition of these properties 

by the City of San Antonio it l?ased all of the properties 

in Coma1 County with the ,exception of three transmisdon lines to the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority which 

l&ase is non-assignable except with the consent of the 

cityp butt the lease does provide that it might be assigned 

to the Lower Colorado River Authority. This lease has 

been assigned by the G. B. R. A. to the L. C. R. A. and 

the L.. C. R. A. is now operating theee properties. 

“The history qf tk+ tramsactions by which these 

properties were acqbired by the city 01 San Antonio is 

f&y act brth ln the opinion of Guadalupe-Blanco River 

Authority vs, City of San Antonio, 200 S.W. (2nd) 989. 
. 

Hon. H. A. Triesch, Page 2 (V-1161) 

“All cf the properties with the exception of the 

three transmission lines are now operated by the L. C, 

R. A. under the lease agreement and all of the properties so operated by the L. C. R. A. with the exception 

of the Kuehler Power Station Site constitute an integral 

part of the system, 

“Among the many provisions of the lease agreement, we find the following: 

“ARTICLE V, Section 1: ‘The Authority agrees 

to supply and the City agrees to take and pay for all of 

the power and energy requirements of the City up to a 

maximum requirement of 66,000 kilowatts over and 

above that supplied by its Station “B”, and such additional power and energy as the City may require and 

the Authority may have available.’ 

“ARTICLE V, Section 21: ‘If for any cause whatc.oever, the Authority shall, at any time, be unable to 

supply the power and energy requirements of all of its 

customers, including the City, the City is to be entitled 

to receive, to the extent of its requirements, as specified in this Article V, the entire output of the Coma1 

Plant not in excess of 66,000 kilowatts, and failure of 

the Authority to make ava:ilable to the City such output 

shall constitute a default within the meaning of Section 

1 of Article VI hereof,’ 

“ARTICLE VI, Section 1; ‘Section 1. The city 

shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of 

any of the property dascribed in “Exhibit A” attached 

to this Agreement and occupied and used by the Authox - 

Ity (which has not then been purchased by and conveyed 

to the Authority), upon the happening of any of the following events: * * * 

l”(b) If during the term of this contract the Authority, except for causes ret out in Section 3 of AMcle VIII of thin contract, fails or refurer to deliver to 

the City electric power’ and enex gy an provided in Article V hereof.’ 

“The legality of the lease sgreemont between thr 

Clty of San Antonio and the 0. B. R. A. bar beon sdjudicated and was upheld as a valid leare in GuadalupeBlanc0 River Authority vs. City of San Antonio, 200 S.W. 

(2nd) 989. The right of ownership to the plant has also 

been adjudicated in the case of City of New Braunfelr 
Hon. H. A. Triesch, Page 3 (V-1161) 

vs. City of San Antonio, 212 S. W. (2nd) 817, ref. n.r.e. 

“The assessor and collector of taxes has been 

listing and assessfag this property on his roll ever since 

the acquisition of the plant by the City of San Antonio 

and has been instructed by the Comptroller to continue 

listisg and assessiag the same even though the City of 

San Antorio refuses to list it because of their claim of 

exemption. 

“I am submitting the following three questions 

with the request that you be kind enough to give us your 

opinion thereon. 

“(1) Are the electrical generating plant, the lands 

on which the same is situated, easements, transmission 

lines, transformers and other facilities used in connection with the operation of said plant subject to taxation? 

‘(2) Is the forty-seven acrs tract (Kuehltr Power 

Station Site) aubjsct to taxation? 

‘(3) If any part of the property is exempt from 

taxation, should the prop&ties so exempt be listed and 

rendered by the alsessor in accordance with the provisions of Azticle 7192 and Article 7193, R. C. S.? * 

The various properties covered by your first question 

are public properties held for public purposes and are clearly exempt from taxation. Tax. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 9; City of New Braunfele v. City of San Antonio, 212 S.W.Zd 817, 825 (Tex. Civ. App. 1948, 

error x-e . nz.8. ‘: A. h b.. Consolidated Independent School Dist. v. 

p 184 S.W.Zd 914 (1945); Lower Colorado 

u or ty v. Chemkai Bank & Trust Co., 144 Tex. 3L6, 1YO 

. . 40 (1945) s 

In your letter requesting our opinion, you state the folIowIng facts relating, to the Kuehler Power Station Site: 

u 

. . . it should be observed that the 47-acre,tract 

is not presently used in the operation of, the plant. None 

of the facilities of the plant are situated thereon. The 

same in fact, constitutes a small park that is being maintained and used by the employees of the L. C. R*.A. which 

Authority has charge of the property under the lease. 

Various local organizations are accorded the right to 

use it upon request and with permission of the Authority. 

The property was originally acquired by the San Antonio 

Public Service Company for a powers station site but the 
Hon. H. A. Triesch, Page 4 (V-1161) 

same was abandoned after purchasing the present 

Coma1 Plant site. While in the hands of the Public 

Service Company the same was used for Boy Scout 

purposes which use has been discontinued since the 

acquisition of the property by the City of San Antonio.” 

The fact that the Kuehler Power ‘State site is not 

presently used in connection with the operation of the Coma1 Plant 

does not make the property subject to taxation. At the time the 

City of San Antonio acquired the properties of the San Antonio Public Se’rvice Company, the City issued and sold revenue bonds in the 

sum of approximately $34,000,000.00 and used the funds to purchase 

the outstanding stock of the Public Service Company. The Trustees 

in Dissolution of the S.A.P.S. Company conveyed all of the assets 

of the Company to the City. These facts just summarized are given 

in Guadalupe-Blanc0 River Authority v. City of San Antonio, 145 

Tex. 611, 200 S.W.Ld 989 (1941). The property which was purchased 

with money from a special fund, thi $34,000,000.00 bond issue, in 

excess of the portion required for actual operation of the electric 

power system is a-part of the special fund amd iS therefore held by:the 

Cityibf Sarxtin&enio fos a.l%&&c;prrrpos&and is exempt from taxation. 

State v. City of Houston, 140 S.W.2d 277 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940; error 

ref.). 

ThC answer to your third question is,;as stated in your 

brief, that the Assessor and Collector of Taxes is without authority 

to list and assess the ejLempt properties for taxation. Article 7145, 

V.C.S. 

SUMMARY 

The Coma1 electric generating plant, various 

tfacts of land, electric transmission lines, transformers, easements, and other property used in connection therewith, owned by the City of San Antonio 

and opeeated by the Lower Colorado River Authority 

as assignee under a lease agreement with the City is 

public property held for public purposes and is exempt 

from taxation. Tex. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 9; City of New 

Braunfels v. City of San Antonio, 212 S.W.2d 817, 8d.5 

~TCX, Clv., App. 1948, error ref. n.r.e.); A. & M. Consolidated Ind. School District v. City of Bryan, 143 Tex. 

348 184 S W 2d 914 (1945) Lower Colorado River Authoiity i. ?h;mical Bank & Trust G 0.2 4 Tex. 326, 

190 S . W . Ld 48 (1945). Th e Kuehler Power Station site 

was acquiieb by the City of San Antonio for public purposes~and is still held by the city as a part of the fund 

created.by the sale of revenue bonds. Such site is therefore exempt from taxation even though it is not presently 
. . 

Hon. H. A. Triesch, Page 5 (V-1161) 

used in connection with the operation of the Coma1 

plant. State Y. City of Houston, 140 S.W.2d 277 (Tex, 

Civ. App. 1940 , error Pe s D l%s Assessor and Collector of Taxes has no authority to lisb and assess 

exempt properties for taxation. Art. 7145, V.C.S. 

Your8 very truly, 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

,W. V. Geppert 

Taxation Divisiom 

-Mrs. MariettaMcGreg6r Creel 

Assistant 

Jesse P. Luton, Jr. 

Reviewing Assistant 

Char&es D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

MMC/mwb