JIM MAlTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. BOX 12545 

Austin. TX. 78711-2548 

512/4?5-2501 

Telex 910/874-1367 

Telecopier 512l475.0266 

714 Jackson, Suite 700 

Dallas, TX. 75202.4506 

214l7428944 

4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 

9154533-3484 

1001 Texas. Suite 700 

tiouston. TX. 77002~3111 

713/223.5&5 

606 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 

SOSi747~5238 

4309 N. Tenth. Suite S 

McAllen. TX. 78501-1685 

5121682.4547 

200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 

San Antonio. TX. 78205-2797 

512,225-4191 

An Equal Opportunity/ 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

May 8, 1986 

Honorable Mark W. ljtlles 

Chairman 

Budget and 0versi:ht Committee 

Texas House of Re?:cesentativcs 

P.O. Box 2910 

Austin. Texas 7 3'769 

Opinion No. JM-490 

Re: \Jhether a school dlstricc 

may expend funds to enploy crozsing guards at incersoccions 

which do noz abur school district property 

Dear Representatim Stiles: 

You ask whether an independent school district ma); expend schccl 

funds to employ xossing guards to assist students at interseccians 

that do not abut school discricc premises. 

The Educaricn Code describes the expenditures rhat may hue: ~=ade 

out of local school funda: 

Iocal schcol funds from district taxes, tultior. -- 

fees of pupils 

. not entitled to free tuition and 

other lwal sources may be used for the purposes 

enumerated for state and county funds and for purchasing appliances and supplies, for the paywnt rf 

insurance premiums, janitors and other employees, 

for buying school sites, buying, building and 

repairing and renting school houses, and for or&r --- 

purposes-necessary in the conduct of the pul~llc 

schools to bz determined by the board of trustees, 

'the accornts and vouchers for count!: districts tc be 

approved by the county superincmdent; provided, 

that whr!n the scxte available school fund in any 

city or district is sufficient to maintain the 

schools thereof in any year for at laast eight 

months, and leave a surplus, such surplus may ba 

expended for the purposes mentioned herein. 

(Emphasis added). 

Educ. Code §20.4tN(c). Your question assumes that crossing guards at 

intersections th;.t abut public school premises are "necessary in the 

conduct of the Ilublic schools." We chink yoil are correct in that 

assumption, but we perceive no basis for concluding that crossing 

guards are only wcessary at intersections chat actually abut school 

premises. An expenditure of school funds for a cafeteria has been 

held to be wooer . . because a cafeteria may be necrssarv for the welfare 

of students. Bozeman V. Norrow, 34 S.W.!?d 654, 656-57 (Tex. Civ. App. -- 

p. 2237 
Iionorable Mark W. Stiles - page 2 (JM-490) 

- El Paso 1931, no writ). We thfnk that crossing guards rright be 

equally necessary for the weltare of students. Of course, determinjrlg 

whether and where crossing guards are necessary Is a matter for the 

discretion of school boazds. See Aitorney General Opinicr 8-133 

(1973). 

- 

It has been suggesr::d that El Paso County Community College 

District V. City of El Paso, 698 S.W.2d 248, 252 (Tex. App. - Austin 

1985, writ granted), may stand for the propositioc that a scho.21 

district may not expend fnlds for crossing guards. The holding of 

chat case is that an Independent school district is not a "political 

subdivision" within the ,meaning of a constzutional urovision 

governing tax increment financing. The court supported its holding by 

pointing out that if a school district were a political subdivision 

for purposes of tax increment fiilancing, school funda could be spent 

for a prcject to br paid :Eor through tax increment financing even 

though the protect had no educational purpose. The court did not 

consider the question of tiwther any particular use of funds was for 

school purposes. The tour: merely noted that it was undisputed that 

the tax increment financ,Log plan in question, which ca;lrd for 

improvement of city parking; facilities and rerouting of city streets, 

would enhance no education;%1 facility and involved no educaticcal 

purpose. In other words, the only relevance of the case to your 

question is that it recit,ed the well-established rule that school 

funds may be used oniy fcr school purposes. 

SUMMARY 

School district funds may be used to pay for 

crossing guards,, Derzrmining where crossing 

guards are necessary is a matter within the 

discretion of school boards. 

Very truly yours J 

3 I MkT ,hca T 0 I: 

Artorney General of Texas 

,TACK HIGHTOWFR 

First Assistant Attorney Genseral 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney Zenera 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Codttee 

Prepared by Sarah Woelk 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 2238