Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

lBovsmber30, 1951

Hon. L. E. King opinion HO. v-1362' County Attorney Sabine C~ounty Re: Rendition of a gas plant Hemphill, Texas fbr school taxes where the Legislature directed rendition to tilecounty tax assessor-collector' for division between two school dfstrkts but the districts have since been Dear Sir: changed by con~solldations. We pefsr to gour'request for an opinion of this-office conoernlng the rendition of a gas plant fe~~sohool taxes where the Legislature in 1925 direotedrenditi-on to the county tax asseasor- colleatur for division of taxes between two school districts but the boundaries ef the districts have since been changed by annexation. You state in your letter In substance~the following Pactsr InMarch, 1925, the Legislature by amendatoryapecial law (R;B. 676, Spec. Laws 39th Leg., R.S. 1925, ch. 222, p. 65%) recreated landredsPined Pineland Independent School District HO. 3 of Sablne C,ountyto ~l-nclade a portion of Common School Mstrlct Ho. 31. Under ths boundary ~desorQytlonIn Section 1 of,that,bill, one of the lines of the Pineland,Mstr1ict ran directly through the middle of Magnolia Gas Plant prop- erty which is nat owned by United Gas Pipeline Comparry: Section 2b of House Bill 676, stmra, reads as follows:, 'Befitsftmthwr~~~vvlUuU, ~that ,the~ PIagnoliaGas Plantprupsrty;'Kfiich IS lmatwd~k$ thisb~ll ,one-halfin Plne- land Independent School District Bo. 3 and one-half in the Comon School District

Hon. L. E. King, page 2 (V-1362)

Ho. 31, be ,rwnderedto the county tax asssssCWaI!nually and he in making the assessment to sahool districts shall divide equally to both above named schools the amount ,oftaxes to be paid by said MagnoliasGas Plant and each of said dls- tficts shall receive ~totheir credit one- half of tha'amount of the entire valua- tion of the said Magnolia Gas Company plant." About tfirse-yaam ago, Bronson In- dependsnt School District Ro. 2 and Com- mon ScfioolDistrict Ho. 31 were consoli- dated'inackordanc~e with Article 2'806, V.C.S. As a result, the ,consolidated Brvnsa-~distrlet wasppaid one-half the taxes realized on such gas plant, end Pineland district the other half. Shvrtlg ther8aWer, .m Swptembsr 10, 196, setlng under and Is ~aecordameawith, Section2 of Article 27kQe and Section 1 of Article QT42f, V~.C.S.,the,Saline Coun- tT ~Sehvvl~ Beard tluta~chwdfrom the,Bronson ditirlct a purtim of its ax-es (laclndlng that half' of.the gas plant vh%ch was form- erly wlthinths bounds of,Ci%maonSchool District Ro. 31) Andyannexed it to the Pinelam diatrictr This placed the entire property of the 'gasplant withln t@~,bound- a&es of one school district:,the~pineland InQepsndent School Distrlat No. 3,.as en- larged ,byanmxatiom. It is the view of the present owners of,such gasplantthat ,timgshould con- tlnue~tb.~rends~~the~~entlmplant to the county tax assessor-collector for school t:,-: purposes. It ie your opinion that the owners should now render all of the plant to the tax assessor of the Plneland In- dependent School District for echo01 tax purposea. The question which now presents IQ* self and on which you desire our opinion isthisr

Hon. L. E. King, page 3 (V-1362)

*Is the United Gas Pipeline Company now required to render the entire proper- ties of said Magnolia Gas Plant to the tax assessor of Plneland Independent School District Ho.'3?" Prior to the amendment of Section 3 of Article VII of our Constitution In 1926, that sec- tion authorized the Legislature to "provide for the formation of school districts by general or special law.’ The PineIand~Independent School District Ro. 3 of Sablne County was created and enlarged by spe- cial actsof the Legislature prior to 1926. H.B. ;g; Spec. Laws 35th Leg., R.S. 1917, oh. I32, p. H.B, 576, Spec. Laws 39th Leg., R.S. 1925, ch. 222: p. 658. Section 3 of Article VII, au ra as amend- ed, speoiflcally authorizes the Legis -l%-’ a ure to ‘pro- vlde for the formation of school districts ,by general laws" and, further, *to pass laws for the assessment and collection of taxes in all said districts." Therefore, except where seme right having its founaa- tion in the Constitution will be lmpairea by the change, the Legislature, by virtue of the above con- stitutional provision, has authorltg to change by general law the territorial boundaries of any school district and to provide the mode andagencies by,whlch such change shall be effected. Prosper Independent Schoo~l'Districtv. County School Trustees, 58 S.W.2d 5 (Tex:Comm~App. 1933); City of Beaumont Ind. School Distrlc~.v':~Broadns.~,I%2 Sa.2d 406 Tex. Clv.,App: 1944, error ref.); &xIe LakzeIndepeAdent School Dis- trict v. Columbus Independent School Mstrlct, 219 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Civ. App. 1949, error ref.). Articles 2806, 2742e, and 2742f, V.C.S., are general lawa providing the mode and agencies for changing the boundaries of school districts, such as the Pineland and Bronson Independent Districts and the Common School District herein involved. Your sub- mitted facts state that the changes in the boundaries of the Pineland District and the Common School Dls- trict Ro. 31 were effected In accordance with those general laws. We assume, for purposes herein, that the boundaries of the Pineland District as so changed are valid. See H.B. 86, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 3.951, ch. 74, p. 119.

Hon. L, E, King, page 4 (V-1362)

In 1924, when bg House Bill 676, su ra the boundaries of the Pineland District were. lxed --F- to divide the properties of ,the thenMagnolia Gas Plant, ~theLegislature saw need to-facllbtate the aSS8SSStWnt,and collection,-of.schooltaxes as to that plant, since portion5 of its ,propertieswere located in two school distrlcts~ Accordingly, the Legislature provided for the alleviation of that problem in the enactment oftSection 2b of that bill. But the circumstance which then activated the Legis- lature to provide a8 to rendition of the plant and distribution of school taxes thereon does not now exist. The boundaries of the Plneland District have been changed so as to include within the confines of that one district the entire properties of the gas plant. It is our opinion that Section 2b of House Bill 676, su ra is no longer operative by virtue of the erad cation of the boundary line which -#-' occasioned its passage and by the lawful inclusion in the Pineland District of all of the property of the gas plant In question, It has been said that a statute becomes inoperative for all practical pur- poses when conditions have so changed that its ob- iect has vanished and its reason has ceased. See interstate Forwarding Co. v. Vineyard, 3 S,W,2d 947, 957 (Tex. Civ. App. 1928) reversed on other points, 121 Tex. 289 49 S.W.2d'~4i)3 (1932); Bills v, State, 42 Tex. 305 (1875); Chast1e;o.nCorporation v. Sin- clair, 264 U,S, 543, 547 (1 24) . Section 3 of House Bill 796 su ra eatingthe Plneland District, invoke5 ;o&D"i%ict the general laws governing taxation by independent eahool districts and providing the modes and. agencies -for tax aseessmentand eolleetionwith%n such dls- trlcts * You 0adv15e that.thePineland Mstrict, in accordance with Article 2791, V.C.S., ha5 its own appointed tax assessor-collector and that with respect to all other taxable properties in that diStriot, ren- ditions are made to, and school taxes are collected by, the special tax assessor-collectop of the district. Article 2791, su ran provides also for the appointment of a board o+- equalization by the board of trustees of the independent school district. It provides further that the district shall have the same power with referenoe to the assessment and col- lection of taxes for free school purposes that are

Hon. L. E. King, page 5 (V-1362)

conferred by law upon the assessor and collector of taxes in and for any incorporated city, town, or village. Thus we are referred to Articles 1043 and 1044, which require renditions to the tax as- sessor-collector for the taxing unit; to Article 1060a, which makes available all the provisions of Title 122, R.C.S. 1925, insofar as necessary to all school districts; and to Article 7211, which also provides for renditions to the tax assessor- collector for the taxing unit. v. HIghland Park Ind. School Dis S.W.28 184 (19371; Att'y Gen. 0 Since under the facts submitted Section 2b of House Bill 676 does not, in our opinion, have any present application to the gas plant in question, we agree that the gas plant properties are now aub- ject to the same general laws governing other tax- able properties In the Pineland Independent School District in the matter of assessment and collection of Its school taxes. These general laws above re- ferred to would require the United Gas Pipeline Com- pany to render for school tax purposes its taxable properties located entirely within that district to the tax assessor-collector appointed for the Pineland Independent School Distrlet 180.3.

The United Gas Pipeline Company pr,opertglocated within the confines of one school district, Pineland In- dependent School Dlstrlet Ho. 3, should be rendered for school tax purposes to the special tax assessor-collector ap- pointed for that district. Section 2b of House Bill 676, Spec. Laws 39th Leg., R.S. 1923, ch. 222, p. 558, requiring that property be rendered to the county tax assessor-collector 15 no longer operative under the submitted circumstances. APPROVED: Your5 very truly, 3, C. D5vi5, Jr. PRICE DARIEL County Affairs Division Attorney General Jesse P. Luton, Jr. Reviewing Assistant -/E?z2zr- BY Charles D. Mathews Chester E. Ollison First Assistant Assistant

CEO;mh