. - 

THEATTORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

Hon. Hubert Roach 

County Attorney 

Aspermont, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-219 

Re: Validity of the authorization of a tax sufficient to take care of 

the maintenance and 

interest as well as sinking fund recommended by 

Dear Mr. Roach: the Commissioners'Court. 

The Peacock Rural High School Distriet, through its Board 

of Trustees, has requested the Comanissioners" Court to levy 

a tax of $2.00 on the one hundred doilars' taxable valuation 

within the school district. The proposed tax is $1.55 for the 

payment of bonds and $1.45 for aintenance purposes. 

Your question is whether this tax exceeds the limits prescribed by Article 2784(e). 

According to the records on file in thi:i af:"iee and the 

Comptroller of Public Accounts (Registration Fkmiber 31344) 

the above--named district held an election on July 21, 1956, 

to determine if the provisions of Chapter 528 (S-B, 1~6), 

Acts of the 54th Legislature, 1955, p0 1635, should be adopted 

by the district. An election was also held to authorize the 

issuance of bonds and upon the question of the levy of a maintenance tax. The nrocedure followed bv the district h&s been 

approved in King v: Carlton Independent School District, 

Tex. 295 S.W. 2d 409 (1950), and the Attorney 

General ha-proved the bonds voted in the election. Attorney 

General Bond Opinion Book No, 20, Registration No.. 2641 (lg$), 

Section 3 of Chapter 528, Acts of the gth Legislature, 1955, 

states that the provisions of the Act are cumulative of all 

other laws and the Attorney General has heretofore ruled that 

this statute presents an alternate method of local financing 

in school districts. Attorney General Opinion S-171 (1955). 
Hon. Hubert Roach, page 2 (WW-219) 

Chapter 74, Acts of the 55th Legislature, 1957, p. 167, 

amended Chapter 528, supra, In a manner not material to your 

particular Inquiry, but Sectlon 2 of that Act reads, in 

part: 

and the further fact that it is 

imie;aiive that local districts have the 

right to proceed under the alternate 

method of financing without the necessity 

of needlessllexpenditures creates Bqemergency o o D , 

In Attorney General Opinion S-171, supra, we said: 

',\ 

"A reading of the entire Act clearly 'Lgclicates that the Legislature contemplated"-, 

that Senate Bill 116 and Article 2784(e), AX 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, will be considered 

as alternate methods of securing school 

bonds which are voted after the effective 

date of the Act." 

We reaffirm that position and you are advised that the provisions of Article 2784(e) are not applicable to the Peacock 

Rural High School District which has elected to be governed 

by the provisions of Article 2784(e)-1, V,C.S., as amended. 

Under Article 2784 e)-lS V.C,S,, as amended, the district 

may levy a tax of $ 1.45 for maintenance purposes If the 

amount of the bonded debt la 7% or leas of the assessed 

value of taxable property within the diatriet as such 

limitation is imposed by paragraph 1 of Section 1 0% Chapter 

528 (The district having voted to levy a tax in accordance 

with Chapter 528 but not to exceed $1.50 per one hundred 

dollarss valuation) a 

As for bonds issued under the provisiona of Cha 

the tax (paragraph 2 of Section 1 of Chapter 52 8 

ter 

) 

528, 

Is unlimited as to both rate and amount in order that it will 

be Usufficient to pay the interest on and principal of all 

bonds issued for such purposes," 
Hon. Hubert Roach, page 3 (WW-219) 

SUMMARY 

The provisions and limitations contained 

in Artlale 2784(e) are not applicable to 

a school district which has elected to 

corn ly with the provision8 of Artiele 

278 1 (e)-1, V.C.S., as amended (Chapter 

528, Acts of the 9th Legislature, 1955, 

as amended by Chapter 74, Acts of the 

55th Legislature, 1957). Upon the adoption 

;fCtp provisions of Article 2784(e)-1, 

a school district is limited in the 

levy 0; taxes for maintenance and additional 

bonds only by the provisions of Section 1 of 

that Act, 

Very truly YOUPS, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

H. Grady Chandler, Chairman 

C. K. Richards 

F. C. (Jack) Goodman 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Geo. P. Blackburn