Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

Honorable Tom A. Craven
County Auditor
McLennan County
Waco, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-4412
Re: .Whether school district
may use excess of,main-
tenance tax over 50#,on
the $100.00 valuation
for payment of debts
created in prior years
We have .receivedyour letter of recent date
which we quote in part as follows:
"In order to qualify for State Rural
~'Aid, it.18 necessary for fifty cents:of the
Rural:Maintenance Tax of a school to be used in
caring for the rural aid needs of such school.
Rulings from your department indicate that any
maintenanoe tax levied by a school over and above
this required fifty cents may be used for any
legal purposes.
'"The County Superintendent of McLennan
County is, I think, using a too liberal inter-
pretation of the 'term *legal purpose* as a basis
for approving certain common school d~istrict
expenditures. My contention is that current
local maintenance tax revenues are not eligible
for the payment of debts incurred.during prior
years until the necessary expenses for the
current year are satisfied. The local County
Superintendent .is paying out of currentlocal
maintenance taxirevenues; and contends he is le-
gally ~justified in doing sr.,~debts incurred in
prior years; which were,in excess of prior year
budgets, to the exclusion of necessary current
expenses~and, in some instances, when funds
are not even available to pay teacherst salaries
for the current gear."
. _. .. .-
r?,
Honorable Tom A. Craven, page 2, O-4412
We quote from Sec. 2 of the Current Rural Aid Ap-
propriation Bill (Acts 47th Leg., ch. 549):
,I
. . . .After the indebtedness in these
funds; if any, has been retired the income from
thilsmaintenance tax in excess of the required
fifty cents (504) maintenance tax may be used at
the discretion of the local school authorities
of the district for any lawful school purpose."
Your question resolves itself into the proposition
whether that part of the maintenanoe tax levy of a school
district which is in excess of fifty cents on the $100.00
valuation may be used to pay obligations of prior years.
Recently this department rendered Opinion No.
O-4257 dealing with the payment of debts of a school dis-
triot of one year with the revenues of a subsequent year.
We quote from that opinion as follows:
”
. . . This department has consistently held
that debts oreated by a schooldistriat in a
certain year whioh create a defioiency inthe
school fund for that year are in violation of
law and create no olaim aga~instthe district.
In other words.,the tnustees of a school district
are not authorized to create a debt payable
outof the revenues of~the distriot ,ofa subse-.
quent year. Opinions No. o-4001, No. O-2231;
Collier v..Peaoook, 54 S.W. 1025; Templeman
Common School District v. Boyd B. Head Company
101 S.Y. (2d) 352; First National Bank of Athens
V. Murchison Independent School Dist., 114 S.W.
(2d) 382; Rarlingen Independent School Mst.
v. C.H. Page & Bro. 48 S.W. (2d) 983.
n. . . .
i, .
. . .Debts may not begcontracted
greater than the amount oftavailable funds on
hand
_ or
- that may be reasonably enticipated for that
school year. A debt created in excess of such
amount is void and constitutes no claim against
the district. Obligations ,.expresslypayable out
of funds accruing to the ,district in a~subsequent
scholastic year may not validly be created by
the trustees of a.school district; such obliga-
tions are void and create~no liability whatsoever
,
. . --
q
y?l
Honorable Tom A. Craven, page 3, O-4412
on the part of the district. If in a previous
year a debt was validly created in reasonable
antioipation of revenues to be collected for that
year, but the fund actually realized was insufficient
to discharge the same, such debt may be paid from
the delinquent taxes of such previous year or
years prior thereto. Such a debt cannot be paid
from the revenues of a subsequent year, at least
unless there is an actual surplus in the fund
after the discharge of all the obligations of such
subsequent year; however, as there Is no such
surplus in the fund of the school district in-
volved, it is not necessary for us to pass upon
this point, and we express no opinion thereon."
We are of the opinion that the cases cited in
minion No. O-4257 are applicable to a school distriot
whether or not it levies more than a fifty cent
maintenance tax, that the same limitations are present
with respect to the funds of the district realized from a
.maintenance tax of more than fifty cents, and that the
principles announced in Opinion No. O-4257 are the~refore,
applicable to the subject matter of your inquiry. It
follows that an expenditure of school funds in violation
of such principles would not be for a lawful purpose.
We enclose a copy of Opinion No. O-4257 for your consider-
ation.
Very truly yours
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
s/ George W. Sparks
Approved Feb. 24, 1942 m George W. Sparks
Assistant
s/ Grover Sellers
First Assistant'
Attorney General
Approved Opinion Committee
By BWB, Chairman
GWS:ff/cg