### TETE ATFORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
**AiwrxN, -rExAn**  **78711**

August 14, 1968

Hon. J. W. Edgar Opinion

### No.M- 268 Commissioner of Education Texas Education Agency Re: Whether an independent Austin, Texas school district Is authorized to accept, and supplementby an issuance of tax supported bonds or availablemaintenance funds, a grant from the Economic DevelopmentAdmlnlstratlon for the construction of an assemblyhall and related Dear Dr. Edgar: facilities.

By recent letter and accompanying correspondence,you have requested an opinion concerning the above statedmatter. We quote from your letter as follows:

11

. . . "TheBoard of Trustees of the Rio Grande City Independent School District has askedme to obtain an opinion from your office on the following questlone: "1

. Is a school district (RioGrande City I.S.D.) authorized to accept a grant under E.D.A. (Act of 1965, P.L. 

### 89-136) and issue, if voted; school district bonds necessary to supplementor match funds needed to construct the facility or project proposed thereunder? “2. In the event question 1 is answered in the negative,may the district legallyuse other available localmaintenance funts necessary to negotiate in the proposed project? The proposed facility or project in question Is outlined In a letter to the EducationAgency from the schooldistrict,

-1304-Hon. J. W. Edgar, Page 2 (M-268)

dated March 19, 1968, and Is includedln the correspondence attached to the opinion request. We quote from the letter as follows: 1,

. . . "The facility to be constructedwith EDA and school funds Is a large building surrounded~ by recreational and parking areas. The building will contain one assembly hall seating 1,000 persons, a library, classrooms, offices,health clinic and a kitchen. Since our auditorium recently burned, we badly need this building. Surrounding the building will be two baseball diamonds, a parking lot, tennis court, a swimmingpool and varlous game installations. This facility Is badly needed to Improve the educational opportunities offered our students."
Your first question askswhether the proposed project Is one for which the schooldistrict could legally Issue tax supportedbonds to supplementa federalgrant.

Answer to this questiondepends on whether the project is one which Iswithin the authority conferred on the school district by Articles 2784e or 2784e-1 ofVernon's Civil Statutes.

Section 2 of Article 2784e is quoted as follows: t,

. . . "2. In common school and Independentdistricts, rural high schooldistricts, and all other school districts, for the purchase, construction,repair or equipment of public free schoolbuildingswithin the limits of such districts and the purchase of the necessary sites therefor, a tax not to exceed Fifty (504)Cents on the One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars valuation such tax to be for the payment of the current Interest on and provide a sinking fund sufficient to pay the principal of bonds which said districts are empowered to Issue for such purposes;" Subsection 2 of Section 1 of Article 2784e-1 is quoted as follows:

-1305-Hon. J. W. Edgar, Page 

### 3 (M.-Z%)

I,

. . . "2

. In common school and Independentdistricts, rural high schooldistricts, and: all other schooldistricts, for the purchase, construction, repair or equipment of public free schoolbuildings, and the purchase of necessary sltes'therefor, said dlstrlctsmay Issuebonds andmay levy ad valorem taxes in'an amount sufficientto pay the~interest on and principal of all bonds Issued for such'purpose,provided that .bondsshall~neverbe issuedbv any district in an amount which would exceed ten per cent (10%) of the assessed value of taxable property~ in such school district, according to the then. last completed and approved tax rolls of such district." .,,
Articles 2784e and 2784e-1 are alternative..methods of t:g:? E~;'(~;%~: Attorney General Opinion Numbers S-171 However, the nature~ofthe facilities upon which the bonds can be legally Issued Is the s~asne under both statutes. to wit: ourchase. construction.reoalr or eauio- .mentof public free schoolbuild&s, and sites therefor. (added by 2784e-1).

So, the issue Is whether the project under consideration is a "public free schoolbuilding or site for suchbuilding." Taxing power is strictly construed; the presumptionbeing that the Legislature has granted In clear terms all it Intended to grant. State v.Houston & T.C. Ry. Co., 209 S.W.,820 (Tex.Clv. App. 1919,no writ).

Based upon the facts submitted, it is our opinion that the project as a whole cannot be consideredwlthln'the scope of Articles ,2784eor 2784e-1. On the other~hand,it seems clear that the building encompassing the,assemblyhall,~classrooms, etc., Is within the scope of said articles, and a bond issue for Its constructionwould be proper.

Therefore, the answer to your flrstquestlonls dependent upon the particular improvementand whether the same Is clearly contemplatedby the statutes authorizing the issuance of.

bonds and the levy of taxes In payment thereof.
Your second question necessitates an .analyslsof Article 2827,Vernon's Clvl,lStatutes. This 'statuteenumerates

-1306-Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 4 

### (M-268)

the various purposesupon which school districtsmay expend local taxmoney ormoney acquired from other local sources.

Section 2 of Article 

### 2827 is quoted as follows: ,t

. . . "2. Local school funds from district taxes, tuition fees of pupils not entitled to free tuition and other local sourcesmay be used for the purposes enumerated for State and county funds and for purchasing appliances and supplies, for the payment of Insurancepremiums, janitors and other employes, for buying school sites,'buying,bulldlng and repairing and renting schoolhouses, and for other purposes necessary In the conduct of the public schools to be determinedby the Board of Trustees, the accounts and vouchers for county a?.stricts

to be approved by the county superlntendent; provided, that when the State available school fund In any city or district Is sufficient tomaintain the schools thereof In any year for at least eightmonths, and leave a surplus, such surplusmay be expended for the purposesmentioned herein." (Emphasisadded.) This officehas held that the above underlined language of Section 2 being a discretionary power of some latitude authorized the Board of Trustees to expend local school taxmoney to aid in operation of school lunchroom,Attorney General Opinion Number M-127 (1967), and aid needy school childrenby providing free lunches from the school cafeteria,Attorney General Opinion Number C-601 

### (1966).

Both of the above opinions cite as authority the case of Mosely v. City of Dallas, 

### 17 S.W.2d 

### 36 (Tex.Comm.App.

### 1929), which holds th t th cretlonary autkoriti bllc school system of Dallashad the dls- !z maintain a health program for Its pupils financedby local tax funds subject to Article 2827. This case Is discussed In detail In OpinionM-127 and you are referred to that discussion.

Under the facts as submitted, it Is our opinion that the project In question could be financedwith local school funds, subject to the determinationby the Board of Trustees that such a project is necessary in the conduct of the public school In question.



### -1307-. -

Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 5 (M-268)

SUMMARY Articles 2784e and 2784e-1,Vernon's Civil Statutes, do not authorize Issuance of bonds for the whole project as contemplatedby the Rio Grande City Independent School District. However, the building encompassing an assembly hall, classrooms, etc., could be financedby a bond Issueunder authority of said statutes. The school district in questionmay legally use localmaintenance fundsunder authority of Article 2827,Vernon's Civil Statutes, tomatch or supplement federal funds for the contemplated project if determined as necessary in the conduct of the public school. truly yours, L$fs+zr D c, MARTIN ney General .ofTexas Preparedby James C. McCoy AssistantAttorney General
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman John Fainter Tom Thurmond Mark White John Banks
A. J. CARUBBI, JR. ExecutiveAssistant

-1308-