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 supplement by 

an issuance of tax supported 

bonds or available maintenance 

funds, a grant from the Economic Development Admlnlstratlon for the construction of 

an assembly hall and related 

Dear Dr. Edgar: facilities. 

By recent letter and accompanying correspondence, you 

have requested an opinion concerning the above stated matter. We 

quote from your letter as follows: 

11 

. . . 

"The Board of Trustees of the Rio Grande 

City Independent School District has asked me 

to obtain an opinion from your office on the 

following questlone: 

"1 . Is a school district (Rio Grande 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 supplement or 

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 legally use 

other available local maintenance funts necessary 

to negotiate in the proposed project? 

The proposed facility or project in question Is outlined 

In a letter to the Education Agency from the school district, 

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

dated March 19, 1968, and Is included ln the correspondence 

attached to the opinion request. We quote from the letter as 

follows: 

1, 

. . . 

"The facility to be constructed with 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 swimming pool and varlous 

game installations. This facility Is badly needed 

to Improve the educational opportunities offered 

our students." 

Your first question asks whether the proposed project 

Is one for which the school district could legally Issue tax 

supported bonds to supplement a federal grant. 

Answer to this question depends on whether the project 

is one which Is within the authority conferred on the school 

district by Articles 2784e or 2784e-1 of Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

Section 2 of Article 2784e is quoted as follows: 

t, 

. . . 

"2. In common school and Independent districts, 

rural high school districts, and all other school 

districts, for the purchase, construction, repair 

or equipment of public free school buildings within 

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 Independent districts, rural high school districts, and: all 

other school districts, for the purchase, construction, repair or equipment of public free 

school buildings, and the purchase of necessary 

sltes'therefor, said dlstrlcts may Issue bonds 

and may levy ad valorem taxes in'an amount 

sufficient to pay the~interest on and principal 

of all bonds Issued for such'purpose, provided 

that .bonds shall~never be issued bv 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 ~of the facilities 

upon which the bonds can be legally Issued Is the s~asne under 

both statutes. to wit: ourchase. construction. reoalr or eauio- 

.ment of public free school build&s, and sites therefor. (added 

by 2784e-1). 

So, the issue Is whether the project under consideration 

is a "public free school building or site for such building." 

Taxing power is strictly construed; the presumption being 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 considered wlthln'the scope of 

Articles ,2784e or 2784e-1. On the other ~hand, it seems clear 

that the building encompassing the,assembly hall,~ classrooms, 

etc., Is within the scope of said articles, and a bond issue 

for Its construction would be proper. 

Therefore, the answer to your flrstquestlonls dependent upon the particular improvement and whether the same 

Is clearly contemplated by the statutes authorizing the issuance of. bonds and the levy of taxes In payment thereof. 

Your second question necessitates an .analysls of 

Article 2827, Vernon's Clvl,l Statutes. This 'statute enumerates 

-1306- 
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 4 (M-268) 

the various purposes upon which school districts may expend 

local tax money or money 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 sources may be used for the purposes enumerated for State and county funds and 

for purchasing appliances and supplies, for the 

payment of Insurance premiums, janitors and other 

employes, for buying school sites,'buying, bulldlng and repairing and renting school houses, and 

for other purposes necessary In the conduct of 

the public schools to be determined by 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 

to maintain the schools thereof In any year for at 

least eight months, and leave a surplus, such 

surplus may be expended for the purposes mentioned 

herein." (Emphasis added.) 

This office has 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 tax money 

to aid in operation of school lunchroom, Attorney General Opinion 

Number M-127 (1967), and aid needy school children by 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 Dallas had the dls- 

!z maintain a health program for Its pupils 

financed by local tax funds subject to Article 2827. This case 

Is discussed In detail In Opinion M-127 and you are referred to 

that discussion. 

Under the facts as submitted, it Is our opinion that 

the project In question could be financed with local school 

funds, subject to the determination by 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 contemplated by the Rio 

Grande City Independent School District. However, 

the building encompassing an assembly hall, classrooms, etc., could be financed by a bond Issue under 

authority of said statutes. 

The school district in question may legally 

use local maintenance funds under authority of 

Article 2827, Vernon's Civil Statutes, to match 

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 .of Texas 

Prepared by James C. McCoy 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman 

Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman 

John Fainter 

Tom Thurmond 

Mark White 

John Banks 

A. J. CARUBBI, JR. 

Executive Assistant 

-1308-