Untitled Texas Attorney General 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 .