The opinion
R-32
E GENERAL
IF TEXAS
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGENERAL
January 18, 1947
Honorable T. M. Trimble, First Assistant
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-32
Re: Reduction of school bond
tax effect of on elf-
gibility of district for
school aid undoer S. B.
167, 49th Legislature.
Dear Sir:
We acknowledge your letter addressed to this
department dated December 19, 1946, wherein your request
for an opinion is set out as follows:
"5 school district which has a SO# local
maintenance tax, and on the basis of this main-
tenance tax qualifies for rural aid, has been
collecting an additional 30# tax for the liqui-
dation of their bonds. Due to increased values
within the district, and the retirement of bonds,
the bond tax has been reduced by the Commissioners
court to 256.
"Since the district continues to maintain
its original maintenance tax of 60$, can thfs
district qualify for rural aid, although the
bond tax has been reduced 5#?
"I am submitting this question in view of
the third to the last paragraph contained in
Opinion No. O-7403 issued by your Department,V1
Your specific inquiry fs whether a school district
which continues its original maintenance tax of sixty (SO#)
cents, but which has reduced its bond tax five (5#) cents
within the two years immediately preceding the year for which
State aid is applied for, may qualify for school aid under
5. B. 167, 49th Legislature, Article I, Section 2.
Acts 1945, 49th Legislature, Regular Session, Ch.
361, S. B. 167, Article I, Section 2, is the legislation
Hon. T. M. Trimble - Page 2 V-32
“‘covering tax levy matters concerning sahool dlstrlcta
who make application for school aid. from the State.
School diatrlots seeking State aid under 9. B. 167
must conform to the provisions in Section 2, Article
I, among others, to establish their eligibility under
the Act; Secti.on 2, Article I, reads, in part, as
r ollows :
“No school district shall be eligible
to receive any type of aid authorized under
the provisions of this Act unless it shall
be providiw for the annual support of its
schools by voting, levying, and collecting
for the current school year a local main-
tenance school tax of not less than Fifty
Cents (50#) on the One Hundred Dollars
($100.00) of property valuation in the en-
tire district. The property valuations
shall not be less than said property is
valued for state and county purposes. The
income from such a maintenance tax in ex-
cess of the required Fifty Cents r50$)
maintenance tax must first be used to PO-
tire indebtedness, if any. in the local
and Equalization (Rural Aid) school funds.
After the indebtedness in these funds, if
any, has been retired, the income from this
maintenance tax in excess of the reo~uired
Fifty Cents (S&z’) maintenance tax may be
used et the discretion of the looal school
authorities of the district for any lawful
school purpose except increasing or sup-
plementing any teacher’s or ad.ministrative
salaries.- Any or all maintenance tax above
Fifty Cents (5Oc) may not be include8 in the
talc-elation of’ need ?‘or aid, but shall be
reported in the budget with an itemized
statement of its expenditure. If the income
from the maintenance tax above Fifty Cents
(50#) is not spent as prescribed herein,
it sha,ll be included as receipts in the budget.
In order to comply with the terms of this
section, it shell be necessary for such
school districts applying for any type of
aid authorized under the terms of this Aot,
to report all valuations within suoh dis-
tricts, including all consolidated districts
end annexed distriote, end failure to report
all such valuations shall prevent such dis-
trict from receiving any type of aid au-
Hon. T. Y. Trlmbla - Page 3 V-32
Vo sob001 distriot
~111 be eligible
for al4 wider the provisions of thls Act
whteb her redrae Its tax nte within the
two yomrr immediately preceding the year
for whioh aid Is rpplicd for hereunder or
which brr r&wed its tax valuatlan In or-
der to ~show budgetary need.” (Emphasis ours )
In Attornoy General Opinion No. O-6687, approved
September 28, 1945, where a school district levied a main-
tenance tax of fifty (50$) cents and a bond tax of fjfty
(5(y) oeats, sr)arquently it paid off its bond issue and
had no oosaaion to levy further the fifty (506) cent bond
tax, this Department hold, and properly so, that if before
the bond tax levy of fifty (50d) cents, only fifty (506)
cents tor~mIntenance tax was levied, then the district
need mot levy o’ver fifty (506) cents for maintenance tax
ppxporos ati would not by the reduction of its entire bond
kg b-em8 disqulitied thereby to receive school aid under
the prorisloas Of Se&ion 2, Article I, S .B. 167. Further-
mere, thts Oplnfon No. O-6687 cited with approval Attorney
OeacruL 0 talon Ao. O-6768 wherein a school district had a
sovsnty-f P10 (75$) oeat maintenance tax and was transferring
Its aehelrrfiea to another district which levied a fifty
(Sop!) tent maintenance tax, and desiring to equalize the
tat rat., raqueatod to know whether If they reduced their
maintenemoe tax to fifty (50#) cents for equalization pur-
,pmoI wefo tlnf ~aatltled to State aid under S. B. 167, Thfs
Department In Op$alen MQ, O-6768 held that the provisions of
Seotl,on 2 Artiolr I, 9, B a 167, were clear and unambiguous
and that If fho distriot reduced its maintenance tax as con-
templated from seventy-five (75rl) cents to fifty (50$) cents,
the distri6t woald be InelIgIble for any type of aid under
S. B. 160 for tha next two scholastic years, and stated fur-
t;h;; that the o)iaion applies to & local maintenance tax
.
Sabae~m~lJ', Ia Attorney General Opinion No0 O-
7403, rpproted' 8.9fiembe,r 26, 1946, where a school district
In 1941 levied a rove&y-five (75g) cent maintenance tax
and a twant,y-fl+a (25 ) oent'bond tax; in 1946 it voted a
?ltty-tSwo Thousati ( t 55,OOO.OO) Dollar bond issue neces-
tiitatingtho reIsf of its bond tax from twenty-five (25g)
08nk to fifty (50# 7 00at8s end the district requested to
.‘knonitt#thor ‘a mI8Iag of its bond tax to fifty (50$) cents
and a robrtioa Of ita maintenance tax to fifty (50#) cents
se that, the over411 sohool tax would remain at One ($1.00)
Dollar, whothor these eontenplated acts would disqualify it
,
Hon. T. M. Trimble - Page 4 V-32
for school aid under provisions of Section 2 of Artiole
I, S. B. 167. This Department held therein that since
neither the over-all tax rate, under the plan contemplated,
nor the tax valuation would be reduced, the prohibition
in the second paragraph of Section 2, Article I, S. B.
167, is not applicable and the district would be qualified
to receive school aid under S. 8. 167, other provisions
of the Act having been met0
It is immediately apparent that.the holdings
of this Department in its Opinion No. O-7403 ,is in direct
conflict with the holdings in its former Opinions Nos. O-
6887 and O-6768, and that Atto,rney General Opinion No0 O-
7246, approved October 4, 1946, to the extent that it fol-
lows and cites Opinion No. O-7403 in answering the second
question submitted in Opinion No, O-7246, is in conflict
with former Opinions Nos, O-6687 and O-6768,
In recent limited conference called for the
purpose of a reconsideration of former Opinions Nos. O-
6687 (its first submitted question answered therein),
Opinion No. O-6768, Opinion No. O-7403 and Opinion No, 0-
7246, this Department decided that former Opinions Nos.
O-6687 (in which the first question and annwer only are
considered), Opinion Nos. O-6768, and the answer of this
Department to the first subnitted question in Opinion No.
O-7246 properly interpret and construe Section 2, Article
I, S. B. 167, in the light of the facts submitted apper-
taining thereto, and to that extent, same are re-adopted
as the opinions of this Department; but that Opinion No.
O-7403 being in d~irect conflict therewith incorrectly con-
strues said Section 2 and same is accordingly witb&ra,wn
ena overrulul herein; that the holding of this DeGartment
in answer to the first submitted question in Opinion No0
O-7246 under its fact situation is correct, but that this
Department's answer therein to the second submitted ques-
tion is clearly erroneous in that it construes inaccurately
Section 2, Article I, S. B. 167, Opinion No, O-7246 is
therefore modified herein to the extent above set out, and
as modified conforms to our holdings in Opinion Nos- O-
6687 and O-6768.
Under the facts submitted in your immediate
opinion request, the school district will continue to levy
a maintenance tax of sixty (60#) cents, Said maintenance
tax has not been reduced within the two years immediately
preceding the year for which school aids is applied for un-
der S.,B. 167, and we assume, said district has not reduced
5 ,
. a
. .
.
.
. .
its taxvaluation in order to show budgetary need!.. Thus $,
. the district conforms to-the provisions of Section 2, .
Article I, S. B. 167~, which ,requires, among others, that
.
the district in order to be eligible for school aid must
levy and collect for the, current school year a local
‘maintenance taxi of not less than fifty (5Oc) cents on the ;-
One,Hundred ($,lOO.OO) Dollar valuation of property val-
uation in the entire district. It is our considered opin-~
. ion that said district, under the facts submitted, is not
.
prohibited, from receiving aid under ,the Act by reason of
havinq reduced its bond tax rate within the two year per-
iod preceding the gear fo r which it makes application for
aid D .
.
.
#
We believe that the words “tax rate” as used ‘in
the second paragraph of Section 2, Arti,cle I, S. B. 167
,mean and should be construed to ,mean “maintenance tax
rate”; that this second paragraph should be construed to-
gether wi,th all theaother provisions of said Section 2
wherein the words ?!naintenance tax” is used no less than
five times and wherein no mention or emp1oymen.t therein,
or in any other part of the entire Act, is made of the
word “bond tax.” In all other Acts dealing with school
maintenance tax and bond tax matters, the LeRislature has
carefully distinguished between Waintenance tax” and
“bond taxn whep enactirg laws appertaining thereto; bee
. Opinion No.TO-6637 citing some of these laws.) and we csn
find no authority in the Act or any rule aI statutory con-
struction for construing “tax rate” as used in the second
paragr’aph of Section 2 as meaning an over-all tax rate,
For the further reasons set out in former Opfn-
ions Nos. O-6687 and O-6768 and based on the statutes
.
cited therein, it is th,e 9pinion of ,this Deoartment that
the school district in question, under the facts set out
,and conforming to other provisions of S. B. 167, may
qualify for school aid even though its bond tax hes been
reduced by five (56) cents within the two years preceding
the year for which aid is applied for under S. B, 167,
its maintenance tax not having been reduced within the
two year period,
.
F!!!!kG-m
.
‘Undoer Section 2, Article I, S. B3. 167
49th Lcgislsture, a school district which
reduces its bond tax v&thin the two years
preceding the year for, which aid is applied
.
~for under S. B. 167, its maintenance tax
. :
. .
. *
Ron. T. Id. Trlmblc - Page 6, Q-32
not having been reduced within the two
year period, is qualified for aid under
E;1e;.m;f7, other provisions thereof having
0
This opinion Fe-adopts former Opinions
Nos. O-6687 and O-6768; disapproves and
withdraws former Opinion No. o-7403; mod-
ifies in Part former Opinion No, O-7246.
Very truly yours
A!PTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
Chester E. Ollison
Assistant
APPROVEDJAN. 18, 1947
This opinion overrules This opinion modifies
Opinion Noo. O-7403 Opinion No. O-7246
CEO:ajm:mmc*:grb
.