Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas Opinion No. C-301 Re: Is a city building code ap- plicable to construction, as well as to the Installation therein of electrical and I plumbing facilities, of build- ings on State college or uni- verslty land (State-owned) located within the city's Dear Dr. Harrington: boundaries? You have requested the opinion of this office as to the question of whether~a city building code is applicable to the construction, as well as to ~the Installation therein of electrical and plumbing facilities, .of buildings onState col- lege or university land (State-owned) located within the city's boundaries. In your-letter of request, you state that diffi- culties have arisen with-the cities of Galveston and Arlington over this question, In that these cities contend that their building code requirements should be observed for buildings be- ing constructed or renovated by the Texas AkMUniversity System. The building at Arlington isbeing constructed under the authority of Article 2gOgc, Vernon's Civil Statutes, which Is quoted In part as, follows: “Sec. 2. The buildings and structures and additions to buildings and structures constructed or Improved pursuant to this au- thority together with the equipment therein shall be of types and.for purposes which the authorizing governing board shall deem appro- priate .and shall ,deem to be for the good of the institution, provided such governing boar.d shall approve the total cost, type, and plans and speclflcatlons of such construction, lm- provement and equipment; . . ." '(Emphasis added).' - 143 4- Dr. M. T. Harrington, page 2 (C-301) The building at Galveston houses the Texas Maritime Acade- my,~ as well as laboratories and research facilities of the Depart- ment of Oceanography and Mete.orology. This building was transfer- red' to the Board of Directors of Texas A&MUniversity by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. JL portion of this building is occupied as a classroom.' The work being done on the building constitutes general repair and r.ehabilitation undertaken under the authority,of Article, 2613a-1, Vernon's.Civll Statutes, and 1s financed by specific appropriation bf the.Leg'islature. Arti- cle 2613a-1, Vernon's Civil Statutes, reads in part as follows: "Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Agricultural and'Mechanlca1 College of ,~Texas 1s hereby authorized to contract with persons, firms or corporations for the purchase of, or the acquisition of, or the erection of permanent improvements on or conveniently lo- cated-ins reference.to the campus of said Co12 ..lege, or to the campuses of any or all of its branch institutions, and to purchase, sell, or lease lands and other appurtenances forythe construction of such permanent improvements . . . *' II . . ; “Sect. 7. The Board of Directors Is here- by empowered to do any and all, things necessary and/or convenient to carry out the purpose and intent of this law." Attorney General's Opinion No. V-977 (199)~ was direct.ed to-just such a situation a8 we are dealing with here.. In that opinion it was held, that the provisions of a city building code setting up certain plumbing SttXndardS, are notappllcable~to regu- Late construction of bui'ldlngs by the State on State property with- in the city limits. Attorney' General's Opinion V-977 (1949) was exhaustively researched and constitutes a treatise on United .; States law~onthis subject, since there was no Texas case dealing. with the problem at that time. In 1964; the Texas Supreme Court, in Port Arthur Inde- endent School District vs. City of Groves,,.Tex.516 S.W. d 330 hand d down another detailed exam&%sn of theiubject re &quesetl,on. This case involved the prob$sm of whether a ~school.dlstrict wassubject to'.a city?8 building cqde in the con- struction of school buildings. The Supreme Cowt determined that the s&sol district wa's indeed subject to the city's authorlty. ,~In reaching this conclusion, the court, at page 333, made the fOllOWlXIgQbserVatiOnS: -1435- Dr. M. T. Harrington, page 3 (C-301) ” . Although our independent school dls- . . tricts are creatures of the state and receive sub; stantial funds for their oberatlon from the state. they are independent polit&& entities and we wiil not classify their property as state property_. The Legislature in Its wisdom has vested the local school board with broad powers and we know'of no, state which allows more control of Its looal school8 to the local people thaii'does the State, of Texas. The Legislature; in provldlng..that local'school boards shall contract for the erection of school building8 and superintend the construction of Same, made no provision whatsoever that they should regu- late, supervise or control in any manner the build- ing of school buildings and provided no'safety regu- lations for the-protection of the occupant8 or the property of others in the vicinity df~the, school buildings." (Emphasis added). From the foregoing, it can readily be seenthat the.Supreme Court drew a diStinction between actlon by the State concerhing State property, and that which bs essentially l~action and local property. In the out-of-state cages upomch~the Supremurt based It8 deC~l8ion, the SarIIe,dk3t%nctionwa8 drawn, and similar results were'reached; These are the same cases utilized in At- torney General~s'Oplnion No. V-977 (l*g), and the same results were reached.in regard to State property.. Article 2909c, Vernon's Civil Statutes, quoted in part above, glves,to"'the'Board :~ofDirectors~ of the :TeXa8 A&M Univer- sity System full power'to~regulate,.supervise and Control in all ways the building of any structure, other than a classroom bulld- ing. -Article 2613a-1, Vernon's Civil Statutes, also quoted above, in more general language conveys~the Identical authority to the sai'aBoard of Directors. Such general statutes preempt the provisions of a city's charter. Further, it 18 clear that the.Board of Director8 of the Texas JI&M University System are not a separat,e~polJtical entity-in th&nature of, c+ school board, -but they constitute a Board that 5.8a direct agency~ of the Execu- tive Branch of State government. The property of then Texas A&M University System ls.not local property in any way but Is the property of.the State of Text%8, and is not t&epable to the'juris- diction of a city. Therefore, -in consideration' of the aforementioned authori- ties, it.18 the opinion of this Office that Attorney General's Opinion Ho. V-977 should be reaffirmed in it,8 holding that the provisions of a cltyls'building code, requlring,building permits and ccPnpliance with ci~ty-established plumbing and electrical -1436- Dr. M. T. Rarrington, page 4 (C-301) standards, are notapplicable to construction or renovation.of buildings by the State on State property within the city limits. SUMMARY The provisions of a city building code re- quiring building pennits.and compliance with city-established plumbing ‘and, electri- cal standards, are not applicable to con- struction of buildings by the State 'on State property within the city.llmits, irhere gener- al law has vested 'control and supervision responsibility for such constructlon.in the State agency. Yours very truly,. _~WAGGONER CARR Attorney Gsner&l MLQ:ms AP?itOvED: OPIlfIOleco- U. V. Geppert, Chair&n Paul'Phy .John Allison' Larry Merrimh 'Jerry Brock APPROVRDPOR TH'ATl!ORREYGEXRRAL By: Stanton Stone ..‘, ^ 1437- ,