Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

HonorabIe~T.'M.Thimble Firt Assistant State Superintendent of Public Instruction Austin,Texas Dear Sir: opinionNO. 0-6550 Re: Under the facts submittedvhat tax rate can be assessedand oollected by the independentschooldistrict that IS to be fOFm?d in Jefferson County? We are in receiptof your letterof May 3, 1945, In which you enclosea letterfrom Mr. W. 6. Holloway,Superintendentof the Fort BachesSchools. Mr. Hollovaysubmitsthe follcwlngquestion: "The presentboard vould like to lomv the followtiginformetion: (1) lo. 16 was formedby special'lawof the 39th Deg., H. B. #5, Ch. #153, page 363, which grantedNo. 16 the power to asseas aud collect the $1.50 tax rate. The board would like to know if this $1.50 tax rate cau be assessedand aollected by tha independentdistrictthat is to be formed. (2) If the $1,50 tax rate vi11 not be legal for the independentdistrict that is to be formed,what Is the status of the school tax rate, that is, will the independentdistrictso formedhave a $1.00 tax rate es providedby the generallaw, or will tim independentdistricthave to vote on the tax rate? (3) If the independentdistrictshouldvote on the tax rate of the gauerallaw as providedof $1.00, and should defeat the $1.00 tax levy,what would be the status of the bonded indebtaduar8T" Replying to the foregoinginquiry,it is our opinionthat since Common School DistrictWo. 16 vas createdby a speciallaw grantingit the power to assess and collecta $1.50 tax rate, such paver would not follov to an independentschool districtafter the conversionof Comon Sahool DistrictHo. 16 into au independentschool district. No. maintenance tax could be collectedby the %z@nmdent school~district~lintil euch district,by a vote of the qualifiedpropertytaxpayingvoters of the districtauthorizedthe same. In the case of Pyote Independent SchoolDistrictv. Dyer, 34 5. W. I2di exact page 580, the Court mid; - - HonorableT. N. Thimble,page 2 (o-6550) "* * an the countyschoolboard of Ward County enteredits order creatingPyote independentschool districtout of old commonschool districtBo. 4. the old districtceased to exist and all maintenancetaxes theretoforevoted by it ceased to be in force. This being the case, no power existedin any tax levyingbody to levy furthermaintenancetaxes on the propertyof of the districtuntil the new districtshouldvote such tax in the way and manner providedby law and by the Constitution.Futhermore,the commissionerscourt never has the powertolevy me&enance taxes for independentschool districts.Such tax must be leviedby the local board. R. C. S. of Texas 1925, articles2784 and 2790; also the local beard usuallyleviesall bond taxes of an independentdistrict.R. C. S. of Texas 1925, arts. 2784 and 2788. There is one exceptionto this rule, and in our opinionthat exceptionis not involvedhere. The exceptionmentionedis where, after change in school districts,or the creationof new districts out of the old districts,there has been no provisionby assumptionof the indebtednessor otherwisefor the payment of the bonds that are outstandingagainst the old district, and such facts are certifiedto the commissioners" court by the county schoolboard, then it is the duty of the commissioners' court to annuallylevy a tax for the purpose of payingthe old bonded indebtedness.See section 11, c. 84, ,ActaFirst CalledSessionlbrtleth Legislature(1927) aupra, p. 232 (Vernon'8Ann. Civ. St. art. 2742b, sec. 11). Bo such conditionexistedhere. In fact, the oppositeis shown, as the districtprodeedadwith all possibledispatch to organizeItselfand assume the bonds of the old district by a vote of the people,as providedfor in the act. Such being the case, the commissionerscourt had no authorityfor the levy of taxes to pay the bonds of the old common school district. In no event would this power exist unless tha new districthad failed to providefor the paymentthereof,and the other things providedby the act had transpired.** *v In the case of BigfootIndependentSchool Districtv. Canard,116 S. W. (2d) 804, (confirmedby the SupremaCourt) the Court said: 'share,after consolidatedschool districthad voted a maintenancetax, the consolidateddistrictwas regularly convertedinto an independentdistrict,the independent districtcould not imposethe maintenancetax without having first obtainedapprovalof voters of new district, notwithstanding the independentdistrictembracedthe identicalterritorywhich formed the consolidateddistrict." HonorableT. M. Trimble,page 3 (0-6550) By convertingthe comeonschool districtcreatedby speciallav into an independentschool district,the authoritygiven the coqmon school districtto levy a $1.50 tax rate vould not be availableto the independentschool districtsince the independentschool district would be controlledby the generallaw, which fixes the school tax rate at $1.00 on tha $100 valuatiq; and the tax of $1.00 os the $100 valuationwould not be in effect until authorizedby a vote of the property'taxpayera of the district. If the independentsahool districtahould vote on the tax rate sa providedof $1.00 on the $100 valuation,and should defeat the $1.00 tax levy, the bond tax would remain in effactbut vauld have to be leviedby the commiasioner6~ court since such tax wa6 a continuing tax levy at the time the bonds were issuadand remainsa charge againstall the propertysituatedin said districtat the time the bonds were authorized. Yours very tru!Ly ATTOBBEI(BWWAL OF tTolK3 a/ C. F. Gibson w C. F. Sibson Assistant CFO: EP/ ldw APPROVEDMAY 16, 1945 a/ GROVERSELZXIE3 FIEFjTASSISTART ATTORlEi0CRBRALOF TEEAS APmovFlD0PIE10ECOEMITTEE BY B. W. B. CHAIRMAR