Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Hon. R. L. Thompson County Auditor Taylor Co,unty Abilene, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion Number O-4775 Re: (.l)Liability of City of Abllene for pro rata part of,bonded indebtedness of common school district when city extends its limits to include part of territory of such district. (2) Liability of City of Abilene for taxes on pro- perty within limits of school 'districtpurchased by city for airport purposes. We are in receipt of your letter of recent date in which,you submit the following inquiry: 'The City ,ofAbilene has Incorporated territory of a ConsolidaizedCommon School District which has an outstanding bonded indebtedness; and the City of Abilene has also purchased territory of this district which territory is not incorporated within city limits. The Mayor of Abilene ques- tions the City'sresponsibillty'of assuming its 'prorata part of,the outstanding bonded indebtedness of said Common School District. "Question:L Is the City of Abilene liable for pro rata part ofbonded indebtedness of Common School District which~pro,rata part is to be based upon valuationof entire dts- trict and territorydetached as set by the equalization board of Taylor County? .l , Hon. R. L. Thompson, page 2 (O-4775) "Question 2. Sho,uldthe City continue to pay taxes on this purchased territory which has not been Incorporated?", You have furnished us with further information in your letter of November 4, as follows: "In reply to your letter,of November 2, 1942 relative to further Information concern- ing tracts of land which have been detached from Common School District 29 of Taylor County and incorporated by the City of Abilene having been purchased by the City of Abilene. The schools of Abllene are bo,undedby the limits of the City of Abilene. The taxes for running the schools are levied by the city and certain amo,untsare allocated to the schools. "A portion of District 29 which was pur- chased by the City of Abilene has been in- corporated within the City limits of Abilene and Is a part of the.Abilene School system. And a part of this purcha8.ewas not for school purposes and,has not ,been incorporated within the.City of'Abllene. This last purChase was forthe purpose of adding adcJltiona1lands to the,Airport near Abilene. In answer to.yourquestion regarding the city's liability for its pro rata part of the bonded indebtedness of the common school district from which the territory was detached, we call your attention to Articles 2804 and 2805, Revised Civil Statutes, which read as follows: "Art. 2804. Extending city limits to Include district.,- Whenever the limits of any incorporated city or town constituting an Independent school district are so ex- tended or enlarged as to embrace the whole or any part of any Independent or common school district adjacent to such Incorporated. city or town, that portion of such adjacent district so embraced within the corporate Hon. R. L. Thompson, page 3 (O-4775) 1 limits of such incorporated city or town shall thereafter bedome,a part of,the lnde- pendent school district constituted by such incorporated city or 'town. "If within the portion of such district so embraced there should be situated any real property belonging to,such district, such city or town may acquire the same upon such terms as may be mutually agreed upon between the govern- ing body of such city or town and the author- ities of such distiiqt. ,"This 'artidleshall not 'applywhere it shall be determined at.an election held within s,uchcity or town by majority vote of those voting thereon that the territory or any por- tion thereof to be so embraced shall not thereby become a part of the independent school district .constitute&by such city or town, but shall be taken into the city limits for muni- cipal purposes only,.and shall remain for school purposesa portion of the adjacent in- dependent or common school district as 'though said city limits had not been extended. Acts ii",$.S.~l917, p. 35; Acts 2nd C.S. 1919, p. . "Art. 2805. Municipality assuming indebted- ness. - In all cases where a district is em- braced within an incorporated city or town, as provided in the preceding article; and in all cases where any town or village has been or may be Incorporated for free school purposes only and which shall include within the limits thereof any portion of any common school dis- trict which has an outstanding bonded indebted- ness; then such city, town or village shall become liable and bound for the payment of such proportion of the bonded indebtedness of such district as the assessed value of the portion thereof so included bears to the entire as- sessed value of the district from which the I . Hon. R. L, Thompson, page 4 (O-4775) same was taken. The assessed values of the dis- tricts so included shall be those shown upon the last preceding county tax assessment roll after such districts are so Included; such incorporated city, town or village shall pay either directly or through the officers of such district the proportion of the interest and principal of such bonded indebtedness for which it Is liable. Id." It seems clear from the above that the City of Abilene assumes its proportionate part of the bonded indebtedness of the Common School District. The city has the right to tax the annexed territory for school purposes. Todd v. City of Houston, 276 S.W. 419. The answer to your second question, regarding the liability of the city for school taxes on the land purchased by the city to be added to the airport, depends upon whether or not the operation of an airport by a municipal corporation is a "public purpose'. The Constitution, Article 8, Section 2, authorizes the Legislature to exempt by general law public property used for public purposes.~ We quote from the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Galveston Wharf Co. v. Galveston, 63 Tex., exact page 23, as follows: "It is property held only for purposes essentially public, and may be said to be devoted exclusively to the use and benefit of the public; indeed, it would.be hard to imagine a use more essentially public than is tha~tof a wharf which extends along the front of a city, and upon which Is received a large part of the articles which go to make up the inward and outward commerce of the State. It is a property which all persons and vessels have the right to use under proper regulations, and without the use of which the business of the city could not be conducted. That com- pensation is received for Its use does not withdraw from it its public ckaracter. Dillon on Municipal Corpora- tions, 103-113. The Supreme Court of Missouri, In passing'on the question as to whether the acquisition, improvement and development of land for an airport is a public purpose Hon. R. L. Thompson, page 5'(0-4475) in the case of Dysart v. City of St. Louis, 11 S.W.(2d) 1045, used the folloaing language: "An airport with its beacons, landing fields, runways and hangars is analogous to a harbor with its lights, wharves and docks;,the one is the landing place and haven,of ships that navigate the water, the other of those that navigate the air. With respect to the public ‘use which each subserves they are essentially of the same character." The same court in the same opinion made the.followlng observation: "The question of whether the ~acquisitlon and control of a municipal airport is a public purpose within the purview of the constitutional principle heretofore adverted to is obviously ,anew one. The courtswhich have had oc- casion to consider It have, however, answered in the af- firmative. City of Wichita v. 'Clapp, 125 Kan. 100, 104; State ex rel City of Lincoln v. Johnson State Auditor, 220 N.W. 273; State ex rel Hile v. City of Cleveland et al., 160 N.E. 241; and no court of last resort, so far as we are advised, has ever held the contrary." In the case of.Clty of Abilene v. State, 113 S,W.(2d) 631, Judge Funderburk said: "It is, therefore, our view that when the 'factsof a given case establish the ownership of property by a municipal corporation, which has been acquired for an authorized public purpose, and the purpose for which it is owned and held has not been abandoned, such property is to be regarded as used for public purposes, and the Legislature has the power $0 provide by general law for its exemption from taxation. We conclude from the foregoing,authorities that the City of Abilene is not liable for taxes on the land purchased for an addition to its airport. Very truly yours APPROVED NOV 10, 1942 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS /a/ Grover Sellers Dy /s/ C. F. Gibson FIRST ASSISTANT C, F. Gibson ATTORNEY GENERAL Assistant CFG/s/am