R-32 

E GENERAL 

IF TEXAS 

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 undoer S. B. 

167, 49th Legislature. 

Dear Sir: 

We acknowledge your letter addressed to this 

department dated December 19, 1946, wherein your request 

for an opinion is set out as follows: 

"5 school district which has a SO# local 

maintenance tax, and on the basis of this maintenance tax qualifies for rural aid, has been 

collecting an additional 30# tax for the liquidation of their bonds. Due to increased values 

within the district, and the retirement of bonds, 

the bond tax has been reduced by the Commissioners 

court to 256. 

"Since the district continues to maintain 

its original maintenance tax of 60$, can thfs 

district qualify for rural aid, although the 

bond tax has been reduced 5#? 

"I am submitting this question in view of 

the third to the last paragraph contained in 

Opinion No. O-7403 issued by your Department,V1 

Your specific inquiry fs whether a school 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, may qualify 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 legislation 
Hon. T. M. Trimble - Page 2 V-32 

“‘covering tax levy matters concerning sahool dlstrlcta 

who make application 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, among others, to establish their eligibility under 

the Act; Secti.on 2, Article I, reads, in part, as 

r ollows : 

“No school 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 by voting, levying, and collecting 

for the current school year a local maintenance school tax of not less than Fifty 

Cents (50#) on the One Hundred 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 a maintenance tax in excess of the required Fifty Cents r50$) 

maintenance tax must first be used to POtire indebtedness, if any. in the local 

and Equalization (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 may be 

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.- Any or all maintenance tax above 

Fifty Cents (5Oc) may not be include8 in the 

talc-elation of’ need ?‘or aid, but shall be 

reported in the budget with an itemized 

statement of its expenditure. If the income 

from the maintenance tax above 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 be necessary 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 any type 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 

two yomrr immediately preceding the year 

for whioh aid Is rpplicd for hereunder or 

which brr r&wed its tax valuatlan In order to ~show budgetary need.” (Emphasis ours ) 

In Attornoy General Opinion No. O-6687, approved 

September 28, 1945, where a school district levied a maintenance tax of fifty (50$) cents and a bond tax of fjfty 

(5(y) oeats, sr)arquently it paid off its bond issue and 

had no oosaaion 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 mot levy 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 0 talon Ao. O-6768 wherein a school district had a 

sovsnty-f P 10 (75$) oeat maintenance tax and was transferring 

Its aehelrrfiea to another district which levied a fifty 

(Sop!) tent maintenance tax, and desiring to equalize the 

tat rat., raqueatod to know whether 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, B a 167, were clear and unambiguous 

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

the distri6t woald be InelIgIble for any type of aid under 

S. B. 160 for tha next two scholastic years, and stated furt;h;; that the o)iaion applies to & local maintenance tax 

. 

Sabae~m~lJ', Ia Attorney General Opinion No0 O7403, rpproted' 8. 9fiembe,r 26, 1946, where a school district 

In 1941 levied a rove&y-five (75g) cent maintenance tax 

and a twant,y-fl+a (25 

t 

) oent'bond tax; in 1946 it voted a 

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

08nk to fifty (50# 7 00at8s 

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

end the district requested to 

.‘knon itt#thor ‘a mI8Iag of its bond tax to fifty (50$) cents 

and a robrtioa 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 2 of Artiole 

I, S. B. 167. This Department held therein that since 

neither the over-all tax rate, under the plan contemplated, 

nor the tax valuation would be reduced, the prohibition 

in the second paragraph of Section 2, Article I, S. B. 

167, is not applicable and the 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 and O-6768, and that Atto,rney General Opinion No0 O7246, 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 a reconsideration of former Opinions Nos. O6687 (its first submitted question answered therein), 

Opinion No. O-6768, Opinion No. O-7403 and Opinion No, 0- 

7246, this Department decided that former Opinions Nos. 

O-6687 (in which the first question and annwer only are 

considered), Opinion Nos. O-6768, and the 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 2 and same is 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 

a maintenance tax of sixty (60#) cents, Said maintenance 

tax has not been reduced within the two years immediately 

preceding the year for which school aids is applied for under S.,B. 167, and we assume, said district has not reduced 
. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

# 

. 

. 

. 

. 

5 , 

. a 

. 

. 

. 

. 

its taxvaluation in order to show budgetary need!.. Thus $, 

the district conforms to-the provisions of Section 2, . 

Article I, S. B. 167~, which ,requires, among others, that 

the district in order to be eligible for school aid must 

levy and collect for the, current school year a local 

‘maintenance taxi of not less than fifty (5Oc) cents on the ;- 

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 two year period preceding the gear fo r which it makes application for 

aid D . 

. 

We believe that the words “tax rate” as used ‘in 

the second paragraph of Section 2, Arti,cle I, S. B. 167 

,mean and should 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 no less than 

five times and wherein no mention or emp1oymen.t therein, 

or in any other part of the entire Act, is made of the 

word “bond tax.” In all other Acts dealing with school 

maintenance tax and bond tax matters, the LeRislature has 

carefully distinguished between Waintenance tax” and 

“bond taxn whep enactirg laws appertaining thereto; bee 

Opinion No.TO-6637 citing some of these laws.) and we csn 

find no authority in the Act or any rule aI statutory construction for construing “tax rate” as used in the second 

paragr’aph of Section 2 as meaning an over-all tax rate, 

For the further reasons set out in former Opfnions Nos. O-6687 and O-6768 and based on the statutes 

cited therein, it is th,e 9pinion 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 two years preceding 

the year for which aid is applied for under S. B, 167, 

its maintenance tax not having been reduced within the 

two year period, 

. 

F!!!!kG-m 

‘Undoer Section 2, Article I, S. B3. 167 

49th Lcgislsture, a school district which 

reduces its bond tax v&thin the two years 

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 and O-6768; disapproves and 

withdraws former Opinion No. o-7403; modifies in Part former Opinion No, O-7246. 

Very truly yours 

A!PTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

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 

.