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

HonorableMark W. ljtlles Chairman Budget and 0versi:htCommittee Texas House of Re?:cesentativcs P.O. Box 2910 Austin.Texas 73'769 OpinionNo. JM-490 Re: \Jhethera schooldlstricc may expend funds to enploy crozsing guards at incersoccions which do noz abur school districtproperty Dear Representatim Stiles: You ask whether an independent school districtma);expend schccl funds to employ xossing guards to assist students at interseccians that do not abut schooldiscriccpremises. 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, 'theaccorntsand vouchers for count!: districts tcbe approved by the county superincmdent; provided, that whr!nthe 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 purposesmentionedherein. (Emphasisadded). Educ. Code §20.4tN(c).Your question assumes that crossing guards at intersections th;.tabut public school premises are "necessary in the conduct of the Ilublicschools." We chink yoilare 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 tobe wooer because a cafeteriamay be necrssarv for thewelfare

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

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

- El Paso 1931, no writ). We thfnk that crossing guards rrightbe equallynecessary for theweltare 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::dthat El Paso County Community College DistrictV. 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 itsholdingby 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 :Eorthrough 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,Logplan in question, which ca;lrd for improvementof city parking;facilitiesand rerouting of city streets, would enhance no education;%1facility and involved no educaticcal purpose. In other words, the only relevance of the case to your question is that it recit,edthe well-established rule that school fundsmay be used oniy fcr schoolpurposes. SUMMARY School district funds may be used to pay for crossing guards,, Derzrmining where crossing guards are necessary is a matter within the discretionof schoolboards.Very trulyyours 

# J ,hca

3 I MkT T 0 I: Artorney General of Texas ,TACK HIGHTOWFR FirstAssistantAttorney Genseral MARY KELLER ExecutiveAssistantAttorney General ROBERTGRAY SpecialAssistantAttorney Zenera RICK GILPIN Chairman,Opinion Codttee Preparedby SarahWoelk AssistantAttorney General

p. 2238