controls0 far aa the eohools are comerned, does not becomemerged into and becomea part of the municipalgovernmentaa such. &ridwhere the city o~lealoncre or city councilretainaoontrolof lte pub110 schvle it aota ln a dual capacity- me as a governlnf3 bo&y of the olty ln It8 etatum as a munlclpality,and the other ae the controllingor governing board of Its schools. The two capacitiesare not tobbe confused. City of Rockdalev. Cureton, ill Tex. 1.36,~9,229 S.W. 852~ City of Fort Worth v. Zane-Cett.1,(Tex.Casmn.App.),278S.W. 183. Inso- far a8 it acts in Its strictlymunicipalgovernmentaloapacity, Its poweraare referableto Art1ol.ell.of the Constitutionand title 28 of the R. S. (Article961, et seq., ps amended (Vernon'e Annotatd civil Statutes,Artiole 961, et seq.)).meross, in the managementand controlof its eohools,ite powera are referable to Article 7'of the Constitutionand Title 49 of the R. 5. (Article 2584, et seq., as amna~a (Vernon'sAnnotatedCivil Statutee,Artiols 2584, et seq.))." . . -
stats Board of Eduoatiw, page 10 (o-4490)
The eeparataand dlstlnotoharacterof a oity school district landthe oltf under whose control it ie,operatedie most for0eful.Q illuetrated,byi&e oaee of Olty of El Paeo v. Carrollby the El Paeo Court of Civil Appeals, (1937) 108 S.W. (26) 251, (writof error refueed) wherein itwaa held that the City of El Paeo va6 not authorizedto take $54,000out of t;hegeneralma for muniolpel purposeaend loan this money to the eahool dletriotwhloh wae under the controlof the oity, for the reaeon thatthe sohooldietrlct80 conrtitutedand the city were two senarategovernmentaLentities and their respectiveflnanoeeshouldbe kept ai8th0t snd eeparato.
Baaed upon a statutoryconstructionof Article 2671 by looking to other sectionsof,the Act of 1905 whereby the 7s debt ratio lincitation wae fleet enacted,and based upon the unbrokenline of authorityof the Texas court8holding that the munioipalfunctioneof a city muat at all time6 be kept separateand apart frcanthe schooldistrictof which it has aeemnedcontrol,it ie our opinion'thatin construingArticle 2671we ehould give effect to this eepezatecharacterof the two governmentalenti- tiee. We believe,therefore,, that if the debt ratio of a city, independent of the indebtedness which may hove been createdfor school purposes,is belaw 7$, then the bcrrdsof such city we eligiblefor pWh%3e by the permanentfree school fund; and likewise,that $f the indebtednessof a city for school purpose0only, is lees than 7% of the aeeeeaedvaluation of the real propertytherein,independentof the debt6 of the city for muniolpalpurposes,then ln auoh event, the bonds of the oity leauedfor who01 purposesonly are eligiblefor investmentin the permanentfree ~oh00i ma, We believeno dietinctionexists insofarae the construction of this statuteie OOMerUed between citieshaving a populatiOngreateror less than 5,000. Nor do we believe that any dietinotlonis to be drawn In this respectbetween those citieswhioh have extendedtheir bormdarleefor schoolpurpoeeeonly, end thoee oitleewhose boundariesfor aohoolend municipalpurposesare cotermlnous. In all such caeee it is our opinion that the oity'aea munlolpalltyis a,eepazutelesuingwy &m the s&ooldlstrict under the omtrol of such olty and the bonded indebtedneee of each ehaaldbe looked to Independently of the oclpblnedbonded indebted- neee of the two governmentalunite ln applyingthe 7% debt ratio limita- tim of ~&i&e 2671.
APPROBEDAPR. 28, 1942 Yours very truly
/s/ GroverSellem A?XXdiEYGENERALOFTEXAS
FIRBTASSlSTAliT' By /e/Walter R. Koch ATTORNEY-