R-32



## GENERAL E IFTEXAS

PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEYGENERAL January 18, 1947

Honorable T. M.Trimble, First Assistant State Superintendent of Public Instruction Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-32 Re: Reduction of school bond tax effect of on elfgibility of district for school aid undoerS. B. 167, 49th Legislature.
Dear Sir: Weacknowledge your letter addressed to this department dated December 19, 1946, wherein your request for anopinion is set outasfollows:

"5 school district which has aSO#local maintenance tax, and onthe basis of this maintenance tax qualifies for rural aid, has been collecting anadditional 30#tax for the liquidation of their bonds. Dueto increased values within the district, andthe retirement of bonds, the bond tax has been reduced bythe Commissioners court to 256. "Since the district continues tomaintain its original maintenance tax of 60$, can thfs district qualify for rural aid, although the bond tax has been reduced 5#? "I amsubmitting this question in view of the third to the last paragraph contained in Opinion No. O-7403 issued byyour Department,V1 Your specific inquiry fs whether aschool district which continues its original maintenance tax of sixty (SO#) cents, but which has reduced its bond tax five (5#) cents within the two years immediately preceding the year for which State aid is applied for, mayqualify for school aid under 5. B. 167, 49th Legislature, Article I, Section 2.

Acts 1945, 49th Legislature, Regular Session, Ch. 361, S. B. 167, Article I, Section 2, is the legislationHon. T. M.Trimble - Page 2 V-32

“‘covering tax levy matters concerning sahool dlstrlcta whomakeapplication for school aid. from the State. School diatrlots seeking State aid under 9. B. 167 must conform to the provisions in Section 2, Article I, amongothers, to establish their eligibility under the Act; Secti.on 2, Article I, reads, in part, as 

## rollows :

“Noschool district shall be eligible to receive any type of aid authorized under the provisions of this Act unless it shall be providiw for the annual support of its schools byvoting, levying, and collecting for thecurrent school year alocal maintenance school tax of not less than Fifty Cents (50#) on the OneHundred Dollars ($100.00) of property valuation in the entire district. The property valuations shall not be less than said property is valued for state and county purposes. The income from such amaintenance tax in excess of the required Fifty Cents r50$) maintenance tax must first be used to POtire indebtedness, if any. in the local andEqualization (Rural Aid) school funds. After the indebtedness in these funds, if any, has been retired, the income from this maintenance tax in excess of the reo~uired Fifty Cents (S&z’)maintenance tax maybe used et the discretion of the looal school authorities of the district for any lawful school purpose except increasing or supplementing any teacher’s or ad.ministrative salaries.- Anyor all maintenance tax above Fifty Cents (5Oc) maynot be include8 in the talc-elation of

’ need ?‘or aid, but shall be reported in the budget with anitemized statement of its expenditure. If the income from the maintenance taxabove Fifty Cents (50#) is not spent as prescribed herein, it sha,ll be included as receipts in the budget. In order to comply with the terms of this section, it shell benecessary for such school districts applying for any type of aid authorized under the terms of this Aot, to report all valuations within suoh districts, including all consolidated districts end annexed distriote, end failure to report all such valuations shall prevent such district from receiving anytype of aid au-Hon. T. Y. Trlmbla - Page 3 V-32

Vo 

### sob001 distriot ~111 be eligible 

### for **al4 wider**  the provisions of thls Act whteb her 

### redrae Its tax nte within the twoyomrr immediately preceding the year for 

### whioh aid Is rpplicd for hereunder or whichbrrr&wed 

### its tax valuatlan In order 

### to~showbudgetary need.” (Emphasis ours) 

### InAttornoy General Opinion No. O-6687, approved September 28, 1945, 

### where aschool district levied amain

### tenance tax of fifty (50$) cents andabond tax of fjfty (5(y) 

### oeats, sr)arquently it paid off its bond issue and had

### nooosaaion to levy further the fifty (506) cent bond tax, this Department hold, and properly so, that if before the bond **tax** levy of fifty (50d) cents, only fifty (506) cents tor~mIntenance tax was levied, then the district need motlevy o

’ver fifty (506) cents for maintenance tax ppxporos ati 

### would not by the reduction of its entire bond kg b-em8 disqulitied thereby to receive school aid under the prorisloas Of

### Se&ion 2, Article I, S.B. 167. Furthermere, thts **Oplnfon**No. O-6687 cited with approval Attorney OeacruL 0talon Ao. O-6768 wherein aschool district hada

P 

### sovsnty-f 10 (75$) oeat maintenance tax andwas transferring 

### Its aehelrrfiea to another district which levied afifty 

### (Sop!)tent maintenance tax, anddesiring to equalize the tat 

### rat., raqueatod to knowwhether If they reduced their maintenemoe 

### tax to fifty (50#) cents for equalization pur- 

### ,pmoI wefo tlnf ~aatltled to State aid under S. B. 167, Thfs Department In Op$alen MQ,O-6768 held that the provisions of Seotl,on 2 Artiolr 

### I, 9, Ba167, were clear and unambiguous 

### andthat If fho distriot reduced its maintenance tax as contemplated from seventy-five (75rl) cents to fifty (50$) cents, the 

### distri6t woald be InelIgIble for anytype of aid under S. B. 160

### for thanext two scholastic years, and stated 

### furt;h;; that the o)iaion applies to & local maintenance tax

. Sabae~m~lJ', Ia Attorney General Opinion No0O8. 7403, rpproted' 9fiembe,r 26, 1946, where aschool district In 1941 

### levied arove&y-five (75g) cent maintenance tax and

### atwant,y-fl+a (25t)oent'bond tax; in 1946 it voted a 

### ?ltty-tSwo Thousati ( 55,OOO.OO) Dollar bond issue

### necestiitatingtho reIsf 08nk to fifty (50# 00at8s 7 of 

### its bond tax from twenty-five (25g)

end the district requested to .‘knon

itt#thor 

### ‘amI8Iag of its bond tax to fifty (50$) cents 

### andarobrtioa Of

### ita maintenance tax to fifty (50#) cents se 

### that, the over411 

### sohool tax would remain at One ($1.00) 

### Dollar, whothor these eontenplated acts would disqualify it,

Hon. T. M.Trimble - Page 4 V-32

for school aid under provisions of Section 2of Artiole I, S. B. 167. This Department held therein that since neither the over-all tax rate, under the plan contemplated, nor the tax valuationwould be reduced, the prohibition in the second paragraph of Section 2, Article I, S. B. 167, is not applicable andthe district would be qualified to receive school aid under S. 8. 167, other provisions of the Act having been met0

It is immediately apparent that.the holdings of this Department in its Opinion No. O-7403 ,is in direct conflict with the holdings in its former Opinions Nos. O6887 andO-6768, andthat Atto,rney General Opinion No0O7246, approved October 4, 1946, to the extent that it follows and cites Opinion No. O-7403 in answering the second question submitted in Opinion No, O-7246, is in conflict with former Opinions Nos, O-6687 and O-6768,

In recent limited conference called for the purpose of areconsideration of former Opinions Nos. O6687 (its firstsubmitted question answered therein), Opinion No. O-6768, Opinion No. O-7403 andOpinion No, 0- 7246, this Department decided that former Opinions Nos. O-6687 (in which the first question andannwer only are considered), Opinion Nos. O-6768, andthe answer of this Department to the first subnitted question in Opinion No. O-7246 properly interpret and construe Section 2, Article I, S. B. 167, in the light of the facts submitted appertaining thereto, and to that extent, same are re-adopted as the opinions of this Department; but that Opinion No. O-7403 being in d~irect conflict therewith incorrectly construes said Section 2and sameis accordingly witb&ra,wn ena overrulul herein; that the holding of this DeGartment in answer to the first submitted question in Opinion No0 O-7246 under its fact situation is correct, but that this Department's answer therein to the second submitted question is clearly erroneous in that it construes inaccurately Section 2, Article I, S. B. 167, Opinion No, O-7246 is therefore modified herein to the extent above set out, and as modified conforms to our holdings in Opinion Nos- O6687 and O-6768.

Under the facts submitted in your immediate opinion request, the school district will continue to levy amaintenance tax of sixty (60#) cents, Said maintenance tax has not been reduced within the twoyears immediately preceding the year for which school aidsis applied for under S.,B. 167, andweassume, said district has not reduced.

.

.

.

.

.

. #

.

.

.

. 5 ,

. a

.

.

.

.

its taxvaluation in order to showbudgetary need!..Thus$, the district conforms to-the provisions of Section 2,

. Article I, S. B. 167~,which ,requires, amongothers, that the district in order to be eligible for school aid must levy and collect for the, current school year alocal

‘maintenance taxiof not less than fifty (5Oc) cents onthe ;- One,Hundred ($,lOO.OO) Dollar valuation of property valuation in the entire district. It is our considered opin-~ ion that said district, under the facts submitted, is not prohibited, from receiving aid under ,the Act by reason of havinq reduced its bond tax rate within the twoyear period preceding the gear forwhich it makes application for aidD
.

.

Webelieve that the words “tax rate” as used‘in the second paragraph of Section 2, Arti,cle I, S. B. 167 ,meanandshould be construed to ,mean“maintenance tax rate”; that this second paragraph should be construed together wi,th all theaother provisions of said Section 2 wherein the words ?!naintenance tax” is used noless than five times andwherein nomention or emp1oymen.ttherein, or in any other part of the entire Act, is madeof the word “bond tax.” Inall other Acts dealing with school maintenance tax andbond tax matters, the LeRislature has carefully distinguished between Waintenance tax” and

“bond taxn whepenactirg laws appertaining thereto; bee Opinion No.TO-6637 citing someof these laws.) andwecsn find noauthority in the Act or any rule aI statutory construction for construing “tax rate” as used in the second paragr’aph of Section 2as meaning anover-all tax rate,

For the further reasons set out in former Opfnions Nos. O-6687 and O-6768 andbased onthe statutes cited therein, it is th,e9pinion of ,this Deoartment that the school district in question, under the facts set out ,and conforming to other provisions of S. B. 167, may qualify for school aid even though its bond tax hes been reduced by five (56) cents within the twoyears preceding the year for which aid is applied for under S. B, 167, its maintenance tax not having been reduced within the twoyear period,

. F!!!!kG-m

‘UndoerSection 2, Article I, S. B3.167 49th Lcgislsture, aschool district which reduces its bond tax v&thin the twoyears preceding the year for, which aid is applied ~for under S. B. 167, its maintenance tax

. :

. .. *

Ron. T. Id.Trlmblc - Page 6, Q-32

not having been reduced within the two year period, is qualified for aid under E;1e;.m;f7, other provisions thereof having

0 This opinion Fe-adopts former Opinions Nos. O-6687 andO-6768; disapproves and withdraws former Opinion No. o-7403; modifies in Part former Opinion No, O-7246. Very truly yours A!PTORNEY

GENERAL



### OFTEXAS

Chester E. Ollison Assistant

APPROVED

JAN. 18, 1947

This opinion overrules This opinion modifies Opinion Noo.O-7403 Opinion No. O-7246

CEO :ajm:mmc*:grb

.