recognizing that article VIII, section 1-g(b) provides for the 2 A proposed constitutional amendment to grant authority to counties was defeated by the voters in 2011. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-1076 (2014) at 2 (noting rejection), GA-0981 (2012) at 3 (same). The Honorable Joseph C. Pickett - Page 5 (KP-0004) participation by political subdivisions in the city's tax increment financing plan
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that article VIII, section 1-g(b) provides for the 2 A proposed constitutional amendment to grant authority to counties was defeated by the voters in 2011. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-1076 (2014) at 2 (noting rejection), GA-0981 (2012) at 3 (same). The Honorable Joseph C. Pickett - Page 5 (KP-0004) participation by political subdivisions in the city's tax increment financing plan
- recognizing that article VIII, section 1-g(b
- construing the term "political subdivisions" in article VIII, section 1-g(b) consistent with the 1981 implementing legislation to include school districts because "the reason for proposing the amendment was to provide a constitutional basis for the [Tax Increment Financing] Act"
- construing the term “political subdivisions” in article VIII, section l-g(b) consistent with 1981 implementing legislation to include school districts because “the reason for proposing the amendment was to provide a constitutional basis for the Act”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOTION FOR REHEARING ON A CAUSE
In motions for rehearing, El Paso Independent School District and El Paso Community College seek clarification of our July 16,1986 opinion holding the Tax Increment Financing Act, article 1066e, constitutional. Our opinion reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the cause to that court. — S.W.2d-. The school districts raised several points of error before the court of appeals. The court of appeals, after considering only three points of error, held the Act unconstitutional. 698 S.W.2d 248 . Therefore, we remanded the cause to the court of appeals to address those points not considered. The points sustained by the court of appeals are:
Point 1: The El Paso ordinance was unconstitutional because ad valorem tax revenues of the school district were pledged to be used for non-educational purposes.
Point 2: The El Paso ordinance was unconstitutional because ad valorem tax revenues of the school district could not be pledged or used without .the consent, and against the express direction, of the respective boards of trustees.
Point 3: The El Paso ordinance was unconstitutional because the school districts were not “political subdivisions” within the meaning of article VIII, section lg(b).
In reversing the court of appeals we wrote primarily on Point 3 above. Thus, the school districts question whether our opinion eliminates Points 1 and 2 from reconsideration on remand. It does. By holding that school districts are political subdivisions, we held that school district ad valorem tax revenues are within the domain of the El Paso Tax Increment Financing plan. Therefore, the Texas Constitution is not offended if such funds are used for non-educational purposes (Point 1) and without the consent of the boards of trustees (Point 2). Tex. Const.Ann. art. VIII § l-g(b). Accordingly, the motions for rehearing by El Paso Independent School District, El Paso Community College, the Attorney General, and the City of El Paso are overruled.