-.
R.
R-665
332
OFTICE OP
THE ATTORNEY G~RAL
AUSTIN,TEXAS
PRICEDANIEL
ATnlReu GENERAL
September a, 1947 FAGAN DICKSON
ms8rU~lmANT
eon. L. A. w00aB
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Department of Education
Austin, Texas
Attn: Hon. T. M. Trlmble, Opinion I?o. v-370
First Assistant
Re: Obligation of the
City of Tyler to
assume part of the
0utBtsnaing bonded
'< Indebtedness of Rice
Consolidated School
District, having an- ,.
nexed a part of the,
District.
Dear Sti:
We refer to your letter wherein you request
the opinion OS this office aonoernlng the obligation of
the City of Tyler to assume its pro rata share of the
outstanding bonded indebtedness or the $36.000.00 schoof
bonds voted by the Rice Consolidated School District in
an election held on.July 18, 1946, by virtue of the City
having annexed by oralnance a portion of said school
diBtriCt on July 16, 1946, two days before the bond e-
lection was held.
The bona transcript reveals an& the submItted
facts advise that the schbol bona election was pro erly
orderha, that election notioes were posted on the kith day
of July, 1946; In the Rice Consoli@ted School Mstrict,
to determine the proposition of the issuance of a,$36,-
000.00 bona issue to be used for school building PurPoSes
in Said district aria * conformity with Articmc2785 and
2786, V.C.S., and that the statutes were fully complied
with in ordering such eledtion. The bona eledtlon was
held on the date ordered, July 18, 1946, and resulted in
a vote in favor of the bona issue. The returns were pro-
perly counted and the result declared. ~The bonds. have
been Issued and sold in full compliance with the~pro-
visions of Article 2786, V.C.S.
c
Hon. L. A. Woods - Page 2
!. 384 (v-379)
After said bond election had been ordelred
and due notice given in conformity with law, and two
days before Said election was to have been held, the
City Com@.sslon of the City of Tgler by orairmnce ex-
tended the city limits to inclluae territory situated
In several common school districts adjacent to the
oity limits without a vote of the people residing In
the territory, which extension included a portion of
the territory comprising the Rice Consolidated School
District.
The Tyler Independent School District, by pro-
,vls+?ns of the city charter, Is under the control of the,
City of Ipgler, and the Tgler Indepencient School District
limits are cotermlnous with the city limits of the City
of Tyler.
A&Idle 2804, v.c.s., provides that whenever
the limits of a city which constitutes an Independent
school district are extended and enlarged so as to em-
brace the whole or any part of any independent or common
school district adjacent to such incorporated city, tEe
~terrltory so lncltided “shall hereafter become a part and
portion of the Independent school district Constituted
by such Incorporated city.” If the city Is such an ln-
o~orporated city constituting sn independent sohool dis-
trict, then the extension of Its boundaries would auto-
matically operate to extend the boundaries of the mural-
cipally controlled Independent school district. See
Attorney General Opinion No. V-141 snd 0888s cited there-
‘In.
Artlole 2805, V.C.S., provides as follows:
‘In all cases where 8 district Is em-
bpaaed within an Incorporated city or town,
;io ;ovlaea in the preceding Article (Art.
I:. . . then such cltr. town or VillaEe
Ron. L. A. Woods - Page 3 (v-370)
the offlceps of such district the pro-
.
portion of the Interest and principal of
such bonded indebtetiess SOP which It is
liable." (Emphasis ana matter In paren-
thesis added)
We are advised that In accordance with the
prOvIsIons of &tlcle 2805, the City or '&ler recog-
nizes Its llablllty or obligation to assume Its pro-
portionate part of the school bonded Indebtedness of
the Rice Consolidated +zhool District and other common
school districts, portions of which have been annexed
to the city by Its ordinance of July 16, 1946, to the
extent and In the proportionate amount of bonded ln-
debtedness that existed as bonded debts of the district
up to and on the date OS the ennexation, but that the
City OS Tyler hesitates to assume any part OS the ln-
debtedness created by the Rice Consolidated School Dls-
trlot by virtue of and pursuant to Its s&o01 bond elec-
tion held on July 18, 1946.
The design or purpose of Articie~2805 seems
clearly Intended for the protection of holders of school
bonds which constitute and remain an outstanding lndebt-
edness against a school district where a city legally
annexes adjacent territory for all purpoaes, both muni-
cipal and school, and where the territory annexed em-
braces a portion or all of another school district or
districts. The Legislature was cognieant of the fact
and recognized therein that all the taxable property OS
a school district, such as the Rice Consolidated School
Dlstrlot, located within the bounQarles of the tistrlct,
Is subject to an annual local bona tax or levy for the
retirement and payment of Its outstanding bonded lndebt-
edness and Interest thereon. AHdoles 2784e and 2795,
V.C.S.
Under the Saots'herein presented, the 36,000
school bona voted at the election held on July 1Q, 1946,
in the Rice Consolidated School Dlstrlot constituted no
part of the bonded Indebtedness of that school district
on July 16, 1946, when a portion of the district was an-
nexed to the City of Tyler, or on July,18, 1946, when the
bonds were voted by the district, for the obvious reason
that there could be no Indebtedness therefor against the
district until such time as the same had been legally
issued and sold. Indeed, under the provisions OS Artl-
cle 2786a, V.C.S., In some Instances where sohool bonds
remain unsold they may be revoked or ancelled by the
Hon. L. A. wood8 -’ Page 4 (V-370)
voters at an election called forthat purpose, ana
thus thexreation of,8 new bonded indebtedness against
the. school district may thereby ,be ef+tlvely prevent-
ed. Flatonla Independent School Mstrlet v. Broeche,
(Clv. APR..) 176 S.W. (2d) 223, Grit refused for want of
merit.
,The question then arises as to whether the
City of Tyle~;by reason ofthe fact that.the Rice Con-
solidated Soh~ol District some few days (July 8, 1946)
Prior to the.date when the clt annexed part of the als-
trlct to the city, (July 16, 191 6) had legally called a
school election to be held in .me diBtPiCt, was thereby
prohibited frog annexing any portion of sala’school area
until such a date or time whefi’the qontemplated bonded
lndebtedness.agalnst the district would be finally con-
summated. ‘. We,have been tunable to find a ease or a stat-
ute in point which WOUld~sUstain the proposition thus
advanced. It Is, our opinion that a home-rule city, such
as 1s the City of Tyler, which has the necessary power
to annex adaitional adjacent terrltory’to Its city llm-
Its andwhich exercises that power In accordance with
the provisions of &tlcle 11’75, Subsection 2, V.C.S.,
antiIts charter provisions appertainingthereto, would
not Abe prohibited from legally exercising such power
‘by, the,actlon of an adjacent school district In calling
a sehool bondelection to be,held In the dlstrlct, pro-
vided the area ln question to,be annexed does not eon-
stltute a pax-t of an lncorporitea~clty.
The only llmltatlon on the poweD of a home-
rule city to annex additional territory under Its char-
ter, adopted according to the Home-Rule Amendment, &tl-
cle XI, Section 5, Constitution of Texas, and Enabling
Act, Article 1175, Subsection 2, V.C.S., Is that It be
adjacent thereto and not a part of any other lncorpor-
ated city. City of Houston v. State, Rx Fe1 City of
West University Place (Sup. Ct.) 176 S.W. (26) 928. The
Courts are not ooncernedwit+ the motive of the govern-
flus body of the city in undertaking to annex territory.
Thbis power of’ a home-rule olty to fix boundarier ti
annex territory being a leglslatlve power’whlch Is not .
subjdct to revision by the judicial power, It hollows
that it is ,subject only to such further llmlttiti?n con-
sistent wlth.the Home-Rule Amendment as the I@giSbtUPe
~may,prescrlbe. City, of'lioustqi ,cape, ‘supra,, and other
cases therein cited. ‘.
,>
.;
‘_ ‘.
-;
i
.
c
Eon. L. A. Woods - Page 5 (V-370)
The problem presented herein is not a case
for the appllcatlon of the rule of this State announced
in State v. Baker (Sup. Ct.), 40 S.W. (26) 41, that
where coordinate jurisdiction over a particular sub-
ject matter 1s vested in two dlstltict tribunals, the
tribunal first acquiring jurisdiction has the right to
retain jurisdictionuntil it has oompietely disposed
of ~11 matters and Issues ao presented to it,, and no
oootidinate tribunal &as any right to ‘interfere with the
trfbunal first acquiring jurlsdiotloni The City of
Tyler has the right to provide ror Its natural and &o-
noaric growth or expansion by the annexation of adaltlon-
al territory to its olty Units and may legally annex
the area in question even though it oonstltutes a por-
tion oS a legally created school district. The Rice
Consolidated School District, on the other hand, has
no authority to annex or attach to Its area any terri-
tory comprising a part of the City of Tyler or Its ln-
de&Xulent sohool district. The subject matter here
Involved with respect to the Rice District relates to
Its authority to exeoute school bonds for school bullcl-
lng purposes; the subject matter with respect to the
City of T@er concerns its authority to annex addltlon-
al terrltbry to the city for all purposes. J~lsdlctlon
In these matters la separate and distinct, the parties
involved having no coordinate or concurrent jurisdiction
In either matter.
Under the facts submitted and based on our oon-
struotlon of laws hereinabove noted, It Is our opinion
that the City of Tyler Is not liable OP obligated to
assume any part of the $36,000.00 bpnded Indebtedness of
the Rice Consolidated School District where said bonded
indebtednesswas created by said District after the ef-
Sective date of the annexation ordinance.
Whether or not the ordlnanoe In question was
legally executed or enaoted In accordance with the laws
and the city charter provisions,we cannot advise. ‘The
validity thereof depends upon the determination of Sect
questions beyond the provlhce OS this office. Common
School District No. 16 v. Keeling, 261 S.W. 364.
We have assumed for the purposes of this opln-
ion that the taxable valuation oS the Rice Consolidated
Sehool Dietriot remaining after the said annexation of
a part of Its territory by the City of Tyler Is suffl-
olent to meet the interest and principal payments on the
.
L
Hon. .L. A. Woods -,Page 6 (v-370)
bonds voted by the Rice district on July la, x94&
as and when they beeoms due and payable.
Under the Sdcts submitted, t&e City
of Tyler is not liable or le
gated to assume anj part of
bonded .lndebtedness of the
dated School Dlstriot, where said bonded
indebtedness was voted after the effective
date, of the city ordinance. anne
nortion o? the said school dlstrio
Ta 8Fea
to- the City of Tyler for all puqwses.
Mt. 2804; 2805, V.C.S.
Very truly your8
AT’PORREX OXHIQUL OF THIS
By-<-,
.Chester E. Olllson.
Omotdjm Assl’stant
APPROVED8
This opinion Was considered
and approved In oonferedoe.
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion