OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
GROVERSELLERS
&rrORNriY
OeNERAL
---------.~..,~
Ronorable Alwln E. Rape
county Attorney
Oaadalupe County
seguln, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. o-7246
Re: Effect or tax redu
a8 follows:
ThhsRlmCresk
heretorore reoeired Stats al
iug and oollectlng th
quired by auah Aot. ional 25# tax was
levied ior the extra tranep0rtat10n
vlad for the year
of Yeduoation has ad-
tkatr aid. The '
ta, is whether the Leg-
001 distridt the right to
and then to return to its
receive Stats aid.
so arises as to whether a school
ax rate to meet the sxpmueo necss-
ar, without jeopardizing its qualiflCatiOn
other words, it seems to us that a aorrsct
he InCent of (this Act) is that within the
coyered by (the Act) there must be u0 lowering
that Diatriot that was being crasessed at ths
bsginulng or that period."
gee. 2, Article I, Ch. 361, Aots 1945 (Se B. 167,
49th Leg.), the psrtinsnt portion of the Act in question, reads
as iollows:
"no school district shall be eligible to remire
any type of aid authorized under the prwieions of this
Act udlefis it shall bs prodding ror the annual support
y$on. Alwin E. Paape, Page 2
of It8 sohoole by voting, lsrylng and oollecting sor the
ourrent aohool year a looal maintenanos Lohool tabt of
not ls@s than BlSty Centa (50#) on the &a hundred Dol-
lars ($100.00) OS property valuation in the entire die-
triot. The property valuations ehall not be less than
said property la valued for state and oounty purposea.
The inoome from suoh a maintenance tax in exoeas of the
required PiSty Cents (SO@) maintenance tax muet Slrst
be used to rstfre lndsbfsdnees, I.9 any, in the local and
Equalization (Rural Aid) sahool funds. Aster the lndebt-
ednrss in these iunda, if any, has been retired, the in-
oomm from this maintenanoa tax in exoeas of the required
F’iSty Cents (bO$) maintenance tax may be used at the dls-
oration of the looal school authorities of the distriat
for any lawful aohool purpow except lnoreaalng or eupple-
@&nting any teaoher’s or adminietrabive salaries., Any
or all malntenanos tax above Fisty Cents (5Ofo may not be
lnoludad ln the oaloulation of need SOS aid, but &all
bs reported In the budget with an ltemlesd atatsment of
it,8 rrpenditaxem. Is the income from the maintenance tax
above Fifty O@ts (5Og) la not spent aa preaoribed heroin,
it shell be Included a8 reosipbs in the bud&et. In order
to comply with the terma of this seatlon, It shall be neo-
esmry for cmoh school dietriote applying for any type of
al& authorlmd under tha terms of this Aot, to report all
v&&uatlons within auoh dietriots, inoluding all oonsolidated
dlrtriota and anmxsd dietriote, and failure to report all
euoh vdluatlone ehall prevent suoh dlatriot iron moel~-
lng eny type OS aid authorized under this aot,
w* rt * * * * . ” OT~ddrraaoriug ours)
The underactored provision of the above-quoted hot haa
been dlscueeed in several previous opinions of this Department
in oonneotion width Saot eituatlona similar to the one presented
In your, letter.
In prevlouti Opinion No. 0-7260, we held that suoh above-
quoted provision was oonstitutional. In pretioua Opinion No.
o-7017, addrrseed to the PIrat Akslatant State SuptkrintsnrhHt
of Publfo Inatruotlon, we held that school dicstrlote whioh had
reduood their tax rata du$?lng the aahool year, 19434.4, were
Hon. Alwln 3. Pape, Page 3
not sligibls to reaelvs aid under the said provision, even
though such school dietriots had no way of knowing that an
action whioh thslr boards took nearly two years ago would
affeot them adversely in scouring aid udder the current
Equalization Act. Vie quote from suah opinion as Sollowa:
*The Sorsgolrg rovlsfons of de,. 2 (underscored
portion quoted above lp are plain and unambiguous. They
must be aomplled with in order for any sohool dietriot
to be eligible for any typo of aid . . , .
Whether suoh provision is wise or unwise, Is not
for this Department to detrrmins. The Legislature is the
publlo polioy forming bod of thls state. Its Acts, when
not in aoniliot wtth our .!itatr Conatitutlon, or our
Bederal Conetltution and the laws of Congress passed
thereunder, are not for us to qua&ion, but must be up-
held and enforoad. *When bho Intent Is plainly expressed
in tha language of a statute, it mat be &van effect
without attempt1 to oonrtrur or lntrrgrst the law. *
39 Tax. Jur. p. 17 8.” (Parsnthstloal insertion added).
Our pre~louaOpinion, MO. O-6768, held to the same
sSSm* aa thr above quotrd opfnion, with the added holdlag
that the above undersoond portion of SIo. 2 of the Act would
ap ly to pmvsnt a reduction in the tax rats of a distrlot
whpoh has oontractsd to send all of its aoholastios to another
dietriot.
Subssqusnt to the above altrd opinions, this Depart-
ment ruled in two reoent Opinions, No. O-7217 and o-7403, as
Sollowa :
(a) That where, for administrative reasons, a
sohool district reduoad its valuations and, at the same
time, lnoreased its over-all tax rahi, tharsby retain-
ing the same net total tax revenue as b~fors, or slightly
incrsasing the ssme, its ellgibllitg for squali%etiOn aid
was hot assectsa, slnoe the valuations were held not to
have been rsduoed in order to show budgetary need.
(b) That where a sohool district rsduoed its mainte-
nance tax rate Srom $1.00 to 50$, and then levied a SO#
bona tax, the district did not disqualiiy itsslf for 6:ld
because n&her the over-all tax rate nor the tdUath¶s
had been reduced, and thersfore, ths statutory prohibl-
tlon was not applicable, It will be obsarvud that suoh
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, Page 4
prohibitory portion contained In the second paragraph
of Sao. 2 of the Aot relates to the over-all tax rata
and is not confined to the maintenance tax, ~8 is the
wording in the first ¶graph of such saotlon.
We attaoh oopies of all the above oitad previous opln-
ions of this Department for your oonvenienoe.
Turning now to the questions you have propounded, we
answer your first auestion to the effect that the seoond para-
graph of Sec. 2 of the ourrent Equalization Aid Aot (oltad
supra) does deny to a school district the right to increase
its tax rate for one year and then to decrease its tax rate
so aa to return to the original tax rata, and stS.ll(yaliSy
for State ald, if suoh deoraase osmrrad within the two year
period Ismedlataly praoedfug the, year for whioh aid Is appllad
for under the currant +ot,
Your saoond Question 1s answered to thr aama effaot,
u. ) a sohool distriot may not , under the terms of tha OUC-
wnt Aat, Sluatuata Its tax rata S?om year to yesar to aaat
changing expense raquirements without jeopardizing Its quallfi-
aatlon for State aid, i~f by suoh Sluotuatlons ite ovar-all tax
rate is thereby decreased to any extant within the abova-aan-
tlouad two year period, evan though suoh decrease does not
lower the tax rate whloh was being assessared at the beginning
of such two year parlod.
In our answer to your quastlons it Is to be noted that wa
refer to decreasea in the over-all tax rata as heretofore stated,
either the tualntahance or the bond tax rate may be changed with-
out jeopardy provided the over-all tax rata is not thereby de-
creased, and provided, further, thst the maintenanoa tax is not
deoreasad below 5Oa.
We bsve careSully ooosldered your ar,guments against
the rolihg of the State Department of Xducation relative to the
raatrl#A.ona of the current Equalixatlon Aot and our previous
opiniona, attached harato, disousa In some detail the pointa
ralsed In your brief. We repeat, therefore, that whether the
provisions of the currant Equalization Aot are wise, or unwise,it
Is not for this department to jud$a. The provision In question
is plain and unambiguous and must b+ complied with in order for
Hon. Alwin E, Papa, Page 5
any sahool aiatrict to be ali(;ibls r0r any type 03 aid under
such Act.
Trustiq that ws have rully an8vm-d your questions,
wa ramin,
Yory truly yourr
ATTORNEY Gi%XWIAL
CF TKXAS
_ --r /g?i+- d&
.S W. N. Blanton, Jr
Amistant.
wNB/JMo