## THE ATTOECNEY GENEECAL
OF TEXAS

The HonorableM. L. Brockette Commissioner of Education Texas EducationAgency 201 East Eleventh Street Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Dr. Brockette: Opinion No. R-798

Re: Amount of maintenance tax which can be leviedby
a particular schooldistrict.

You have requested otir opinion regarding the"smount of maintenance tax which may be leviedby the Hutto Independent School District. We 

## a0 not determine

## disputed questions of fact, and we assume the.factsyou presentare correct. You state that in 1965 the Districtvoted pursuant to then article 2784e,V.T.C.S:, ti, authorize the~annual levy of a school tax at a rate not to exceed $1.50 on each $100.00 valuation of taxableproperty. ,Thattax included a bona tax not to exceed 50& per $100 valuatidn and a maintenance tax not tom

exceed the differencebetween $1.50 ana the 50$or less allocated to the bona tax,. The maintenance tax portion of article 2784eprovided:

The amount of maintenance tax, together with.the amount of bona tax of any district, shall never exceed One Dollar and Fi'fty

Cents ($1.50)on the One Hundred ($100.00)Dollars valuation of taxable property; and if the rate of bona tax, together 'width

the rate of maintenance tax voted in the district shall at any time exceed On& ~Dollarand Fifty Cents ($1.50)
on the One Hundred ($100.00)Dollars valu+ion, such bona tax shall operate to reduce the maintenances tax to the differencebetween the rate of the bond tax~.and

One Dollar.and Fifty Cents ($1.50). V.T.C.S. art. 2784e, S 3.

p.3366The HonorableM. L. Brockette - page 2 (H-7.98)

Thus, under article 2784e the bond tax and maintenance tax
were interdependent;i.e., if an increase in the bona tax raised the sum of the two above $1.50per $100valuation, the maintenance tax had to be reduced accordingly.

In 1969, the Legislature enacted the Texas Education code. The Code establisheda bond tax and a maintenance tax independentof each other. Education Code, S 20.04. But the new tax structure of the Code was not made applicable to taxes previously authorized. Section 7 of House Bill 534, which enacted the Education Code, provided that

th(? repeal of statutesby this act shall not repeal or affect any tax
or authority or power heretofore granted by the Legislatureunder 'whichany tax has heretoforebeen authorized.

. .by an election 'heldunder any act or acts of the legislature.heretoforeenacted whether general or special. Acts 1969, '61stLeg., cb. 889 at 3026.
Cotiseqtiehtly,

even after enactment of the Education Code, the authority of the Hutto IndependentSchool District to issue bonds and to levy taxeswas derived from article 2784e.

In 1975, however, the District held an election on two propositions: (1)to authorize the school board to levy an annual maintenance tax not to exceed $1.50per $100 valuation, pursuant to section 20.04(d)of the Education Code; and (2)to authorize the issuanceof unlimited tax bonds under section'20.04(b)(1). The bond propositionwas enacted but themaintenance tax propositionwas defeated. As a result of the election, therefore, the District is authorized to levy a bond tax under the Education Code. By the terms of section 20.04(b)(l), such tax must be "sufficient,without limit as to rate or amount, to pay the principal of and interest on said bonds." Since the maintenance tax proposal failed of enactment,however,maintenance taxes continue to be subject to the restrictionsof section 3 of article 2784e. Indeed, section 20.08 of the Education Code provides:

p.3367The HonorableM. L. Brockette - page 3 (H-798)

. . .a11maintenance taxes heretoforevoted in any schooldistrict in accordancewith lawmay be levied and collected in the
manner providedby the law in effect at the time such bondswere voted, or issued in the
manner provided in this subchapter, to the extent pertinent and applicable,without an additional election.

Maintenance taxes leviedunder article 2784e, however, are tied to the amount of bona tax. Even though the amount of bona tax is, as a result of the 1975 election, required to be unlimited, it is neverthelessour opinion that the amount of maintenance tax plus the amount of bona tax must not exceed $1.50per $100valuation so long as the limitations of article 2784e, section 3 are applicable in this district. Thus, in answer to your first question,whenever the rate of bond tax togetherwith the rate of maintenance tax exceeds this amount, the maintenance taxmust be reduced to a rate equal to the differencebetween the total annual bona tax and $1.50.

You also ask whether the Districtmay levy a bond tax in excess of SO& per $100valuation, in light of the $1.50 maintenance-bond tax limitationof article 2784e, section 3. Article 2784e, section 2 previously limited the permissible bond tax to 5Ob per $100valuation. In the 1975 election, however, the voters approved the bond tax authorizedby the Education Code in section 20.04(b)(1). This bond tax is no longer limited to 506per $100 valuation and, indeed, is required to be "sufficient,without limit as to rate or amount, - -.

to pay the principal and interest on saidnz." (Emphasisadded). Thus, we conclude that the District is
now permitted to levy a bona tax in excess of 5Op! per $100 valuation.

D.3368The HonorableM. L. Brockette - page 4 (H-798)

SUMMARY

APPROVED: So long as the Hutto IndependentSchool

District derives its authority to levy
a maintenance tax from article 2784e, section 3,V.T.C.S., it must, whenever the rate of its bond tax, togetherwith the rate of its maintenance tax, exceeds $1.50per $100valuation, reduce the maintenance tax to a rate equal to the differencebetween the total annual bona fax and $1.50. The District is now permitted to levy~abona tax in excess of 5Ob per $100 valuation.

Very truly yours,

of Texas

Opinion Committee
jwb

p.3369