Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1974 )


Menu:
  •                                                       .
    THICA~TORNEX                     GENERAL
    OF
    AU==%         TnuAm     78711
    July 2, 1974
    The Honorable J. W. Edgar,     Commissioner               Opinion No. H-339
    Texas Education Agency
    201 East Eleventh Street                                  Re:    Application to
    Austin, Texas 78701                                       Independent School Districts
    and Regional Junior Colleges
    The Honorable  Bevington Reed,                            of statute authorizing issuance
    Commissioner,   Coordinating Board                        of Certificate   of Indebtedness
    Texas College and University System
    P. 0. Box 12788, Capitol Station
    Austin, Texas 78711
    Gentlemen:
    Each of you has requested our opinion about the effect of Article
    2784g-2. V. T. C. S., currently Sec. 20.51 of the Texas Education Code,
    dealing with “Certificates of Indebtedness” issued by school districts.
    Dr. Edgar   asks:
    In authorizing a school district board to issue
    certificates   of indebtedness (in amount(s) not to
    exceed $250,000) without the requirement      of a local
    election to approve such indebtedness,     does [Sec.
    20. 511 contravene Article VII, Section 3 of the
    Constitution of Texas.
    His second question,   relating   to a specific   school district   is:
    Since [Sec. 20.511 was not enacted prior to the
    time when the district electorate  voted an authorized
    maximum maintenance tax rate (in July 1968). may a
    school district board legally appropriate and/or
    p. 1579
    .
    .       .
    ‘.   ’
    The Honorable   J. W. Edgar
    The Honorable   Betington Reed     page 2
    irrevocably  pledge local maintenance taxes as
    payment for certificates  of indebtedness issued
    pursuant to [Sec. 20.511 as amended?
    Dr. Reed inquires for the Wilbarger    County Junior College District
    about the legality of the issuance of such certificates  by the District for the
    purpose of constructing physical. education facilities  on the campus of Vernon
    Regional Junior College which the District operates.
    Pertinent provisions  of 5 20.51 of the Education    Code, incorporating
    the 1973 amendment to Article    2784g-2 61 (a), are:
    (a) Any school district,   including a junior college
    district,    may issue interest bearing Certificates    of
    Indebtedness for the purpose of (1) providing funds for
    the erection and equipment of school buildings within
    the boundaries of the district,     (2) refinancing outstanding
    certificates   as herein provided,    or (3) purchasing sites
    for the future construction of public school facilities.
    The term certificates,     as used in thin Act [Section] shall
    include all obligations authorized to be issued hereunder
    and the term ohall include interest thereon, unless
    clearly indicated by the context that another meaning is
    intended.
    (b) The governing body of the district shall make
    provision for the payment of the certificates   issued
    . . . by. . . the appropriation  and pledge of local
    school funds derived and to be derived from main-
    tenance taxes levied and assessed or to be levied
    and assessed under authority of Sections 20.02 and
    130.122 of this code . . . or other similar law . . .
    which limits the amount of tax which may be levied
    for maintenance purposes, as distinguished from
    bond requirements.    The appropriation    and pledge
    may be in the nature of a continuing irrevocable
    p. 1580
    The Honorable   J. W. Edgar
    The Honorable   Bevington Reed     page 3
    pledge to apply the firrt money6 collected or to
    be collected annually from the tax levy to the pay-
    ment of the obligation6 or by the irrevocable
    prerent levy and appropriation     of the amount of the
    maintenance tax as ir required to meet the annual debt
    service requirement6     of the obligations, in which
    event the governing body 6hall covenant to annually
    set aside the amount in the annual tax levy, showing
    the same is a portion of the maintenance tax. The
    governing body shall annually budget the amount
    required to pay the debt service requirements,      prin-
    cipal and interest,  of the obligations which may be
    scheduled to become due in any fircal year. Nothing
    herein shall be conetrued a6 permitting the levy of
    a maintenance tax in exce6a of the amount approved
    by the resident qualified property taxpaying voter6
    of the district.
    (f) Certificates   authorized to be irsued hereunder
    shall be payable at 6uch times, be in such form and
    denomination or denomination6 . . . and contain such
    other provision6 ar the governing body of the district
    may determine,        but in no event rhall any certificate
    mature    over a period in exce6s of 25 year6 from the
    date thereof, or bear interest at a rate in exce66 of
    seven percent per annum.
    (k) Certificate6 is6ued under the provi6ions of thi6.
    section shall be an indebtednerr of the school diltrict
    i6suing them, but the holder thereof shall not have the.
    right to demand payment thereof out of any fund or
    fund6 other than thoee pledged to it6 payment. . . .
    *****
    p. 1581
    The Honorable        J. W. Edgar
    The Honorable         Bevington Reed     psge 4
    (n) The provi6ionr  of this section shall be
    cumulative of existing law6 relating to the financing
    of the cost of erecting and equipping rchool building6
    by 6chool districts , it being the legislative intent
    that thi6 section shall be complete authority for the
    issuance, sale, and delivery of certificates    by school
    districtcr.
    *****
    These provisions have not yet been conrtrued         by the appellate   courts,
    but we believe    they will be held constitutional.
    Article   7, Sec.   3, of the Constitution   of Texas reads in part as
    follows:
    . . . and the Legislature     may authorize an additional
    ad valorem tax to be levied and collected within all
    school districts heretofore     formed or hereafter formed,
    for the further maintenance of public free schools, and
    for the erection and equipment of school buildings
    therein; provided that a majority of the qualified property
    taxpaying voter6 of the district voting at an election to be
    held for that purpose, &all vote such tax not to exceed
    in any one year one ($1.00) dollar on the one hundred
    dollars valuation of the property subject to taxation in
    such district,  but the limitation upon the amount of
    school district tax herein authorized shall not apply to
    incorporated    cities or towns constituting separate and
    independent 6chool di6tricts.      nor to independent or
    common school district6 created by general or special
    law. (Emphasis added)
    Although the portion of Article 7, Sec. 3, here considered appears to
    refer to a single tax to be voted for maintenance and school building purposes,
    the Lgiilrtum,    historically, has treated taxes for such respective purpose6
    p. 1582
    ,
    The Honorable   J. W. Edgar
    The Honorable   Bevington Reed,   page 5
    as separate, distinct taxes, each requiring separate voter approval.
    (See, Seer. 20.02,   20.04, 130.122, V. T. C.S., Education Code).
    In Madeley v. Trustee6 of Conroe I. S. D., 
    130 S.W.2d 929
    (Tex.
    Civ. App. , Beaumont, 1939, err. dt6%n., judgment car. ), the Court
    conridered two statutory forerunner6  of the above noted Education Code
    provisions.   All the public free 6ChOOl6 in the dirtrict were adequately
    maintained and a large surplur had accumulated in the maintenance tax
    fund which the Trustee6 proposed to 6pend for building improvementr.
    What shall the Trustees do with thir ru,~lur?      It
    cannot be expended in the support and maintenance
    of the public free 6ch0016, for it is not needed for that
    purpose; it cannot be diverted from public free school
    purposes,    for under the Conrtitution it was collected
    for that purpore.   It cannot be returned to the tax
    payers.
    It6 allocation to the maintenance fund was by
    legislative    edict for the purpore of rupporting and
    maintaining the public free rchool.      When that
    purpose ha6 been effectuated,      the fund io no longer
    6ubject to the control of the statutes, for the purpore
    of the statute6 has been fully effectuated,     If and
    when the statutes cease to control the fund, then
    it becomes a conrrtitutional fund and not a rtatutory
    fund, and may be ured by the trurteer for the con-
    stitutional nurpose6; one of the constitutional purposes
    is ‘the erection and equipment of rchool buildingr’
    within the dirtrict.     (Emphasir added)
    In Allen v. Channelview Ind.Sch. Dist., 
    347 S.W.2d 27
    (Tex. Civ.App.,
    Xaco, i961, writ ref’d. ) the plaintiff attacked the constitutionality  of
    Article 2786e, V. T. C. S., now Sec. 20.43(a) of the Education Code,
    which authorized school districts to issue time warrants against main-
    tenance tax proceeds for certain purposes, including the repair,       pur-
    chase, renovation and equipment of 6ChOOl properties.        The rtatute, in
    effect, pledged “delinquent taxerr (except bond taxes) penalties and
    interest to the payment of outstanding warrants.”     But the Court denied
    that Article 7, Sec. 3 of the Constitution forbade deficit financing.
    p. 1583
    .
    The Honorable   J. W. Edgar
    The Honorable   Bevington Reed,    page 6
    The plaintiff argued that the previour maintenance tnx elections had
    authorized levy and collection of taxes for maintenance only for a current
    year, and that no new elections had been held to authorize the collection
    of taxes to pay such time warrants.      But Ue Court noted that only
    “available”   maintenance trx money, collected purmant to an election,
    properly held, was used. [Prelrumably,       surplus tax money rimilar
    to the hind discuseed in the Madeley case: note Sec. 3 of Acts 1953,
    53rd Leg.,    R. S., p. 1038, ch. 427, and see Attorney General Opinion
    C-197 (1963)].
    In discussing   thi6 claim,   the Court said:
    They contend the statute unconstitutionally
    authorizes issuance of warrant6 payable from taxes
    without an election at which the tax is voted.   If by
    this is meant a special election at the time the
    warrants are irsued, Section 3 does not require it,
    and there is no contention maintenance taxes ‘available’
    were not properly voted.    (Emphasis added)
    The Madeley case would seem to teach that where the statute authorize6
    the collection   of the tax for current year maintenance purpo6e6    only, the
    money cannot be ueed for anything else until all maintenance requirements
    for the year have been met.      The Allen case teaches that maintenance tax
    ..
    funds “available”    can be pledged to pay time warrants,  if the practice is
    legislatively  sanctioned.
    In our view, surplus maintenance tax receipts,    remaining unexpended
    after maintenance purpose6 have been fulfilled,    may be pledged as payment
    for Certificates  of Indebtedners under the above-quoted portions of Sec. 20.51,
    whether the election authorizing the levy of the maintenance tax funds Used
    for iia accomplishment    occurred before or after the effective date of
    Sec. 20. 51.
    SUMMARY
    Surplus maintenance tax receipts, remaining
    unexpended after maintenance purposes have been
    fulfilled,  may be pledgriar payment for Certificate6
    p. 1584
    :*
    .
    The Honorable   J. W. Edgar
    The Honorable   Bevington Reed,    page 7
    of Indebtedne66 under the above-quoted portion6
    of Sec. 20.51, whether the election authorizing
    the levy of the maintenance t6x fund6 ured for it6
    accomplirhment    occurred before or after the
    effective date of Sec. 20.51.
    Very   truly yours,
    DAVID M. KENDALL,       Chairman
    Opinion Committee
    p. 1585
    

Document Info

Docket Number: H-339

Judges: John Hill

Filed Date: 7/2/1974

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017