in contespla- tlou of the "refunding"prcavisions of subchapterA; and the require- ment of section 20.903 thaz the total amount of outstandingguaran- teed bonds shall not axced. two times the cost value or market value of the permanent school fuud (whichever is less), must be read with the languageof section20.05, subsection(i), statingthat if a
3. We understandthat all the bonds to be "refunded"here were issued after the effectivedates of the constitutionalamendmantand the 1983 legislation.This opinionis limitedto those circumstances.
p. 2109 Mr. WilliamN. Kirby - Pago 7 (JM-460)
"refunding"escrow agreementas describedhas been entered into, the refunded bonds are to be consideredto be defeased and may not be includedin or consideredto be an indebtednessof the district"for the purposeof a limitationon outstandingIndebtednessor taxation-or for any other purpose." (Lmphasisadded).
The language of the other statute authorizing a similar "refunding"mechanism,artLcle 717k, V.T.C.S., is not so strong,but when its provisionsare analysed,the effect is the same. Section 7 of article 717k provides !:hatwhen a deposit of funds in sufficient amounthas been depositedvith the state treasurerin accordancewith the statute,the deposit
shall constitutethe making of firm banking and financialarrangementsfor the dischargeand final payment or redemption of the obligationsbeing refunded.
This languagewas added to the statute in 1969, effectiveJune 14, 1969. See Acts 1969, 61st Leg., ch. 783, at 2316. Section 7A of articlemk, which providesfor an escrow arrangementsimilarto that describedin subsection(1,)of section 20.05 of the EducationCode, was added in 1979, but at that time it applied only to the refunding of "revenue"bonds. See Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 832, at 2182. In 1985, however, it wasamended, effectiveJune 8, 1985,.to apply to bonds payable from ad valorem taxes as well. -See Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 318, at 2513. The phrase, "firm banking arrsngemants,"has acquired a "final payment"judicialgloss with respect to refundingbonds. See City of McAllen V. Daniel, 211 S.W.:!d944, 947 (Tex. 1948). Absenzsrepre- sentationor unconscionablebehavior on the part of government,so long as the bonds to be Irefundedpursuant to the mechanism of a particularprovisionwere ::ssuedsubsequentto the date the provision became applicableto such bonds, the mechanismmay be utilizedvithout impairingthe obligationof the bonds because the statutoryprovision became a part of the contra,ct when the bonds were issued.
We have not been furnished the agreements involved, but no suggestionhas been made th,atthe terms of the statutesor the bonds are materiallymisleadingto the investingpublic. Cf. United States V. Sioux Nation of Indians,448 U.S. 371 (1980);UnGd States Trust Company of New York V. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977); Continental Illinois National Bank au,dTrust Company of Chicago V. State of Washington,696 F.2d 692 (!F:hr. 1983).cert. denied,460 U.S. 1077 (1983). Under such CircumXances,we are of the opinion that school districtad valorembonds which incorporatedthe provisionsof section 20.05 of the EducationCode as amanded in 1983, or the4provlsionsof article717k, V.T.C.S., section7A, as amendedin 1985, at the time
,- . As amanded in 1969. for refundingaccomplishedpursuant to section7 of article717k.
p. 2110 Mr. WilliamN. Kirby - Page!8 (JM-460)
they were issued,may be rc!f:unded pursuantto those provisionswithout impairingthe obligationof the bonds, and when such refundinghas been accomplishedpursuant to the statutorymachanism,the refunded bonds no