Judges: WRITTEN BY: Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, Ralph H. Gillan, Assistant Attorney General.
Filed Date: 3/13/1978
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
REQUESTED BY: Ronald D. Lahners, Lancaster County Attorney. Is property which is transferred from one school district to another subject to the annual levy to redeem bonds issued before such transfer by the district to which such property was transferred?
Yes.
Property which formerly was a part of the School District of Waverly has been annexed to the City of Lincoln, and is therefore automatically a part of the School District of Lincoln. At the time of the annexation the School District of Lincoln had bonds outstanding to be redeemed by annual levies against the taxable property in such district. Your question is whether this levy should be applied to the newly annexed property.
Section
"The phrase school district, as used in section
10-711 , is hereby declared to mean the school district as it existed immediately prior to and at the time of the issuance of any bonds by said school district, including all lands, property and inhabitants contained in said school district at the time of the issuance of any bonds, and all portions of said district subsequently separated from said district, whether by the formation of a new district or by any change of boundaries of the original district."
This section appears to give a contrary answer, by permitting the argument that the newly annexed territory is not, for purposes of section
In Clother v. Maher,
". . . Although not very happily expressed, the design we think was merely to hold subsequently detached territory for the payment of such bonds, but not to exclude such as might be added to, nor property brought within the district afterwards."
The court also expressed doubt as to the constitutionality of a contrary construction, on the ground that the uniformity clause (now found in Article
Apparently one of the reasons urged for not subjecting the newly annexed territory to the levy for the Lincoln School District bonds is that, pursuant to section
In two opinions of this office, dated October 14, 1950, Report of the Attorney General, 1949-1950, p. 945, and June 24, 1952, Report of the Attorney General, 1951-1952, p. 566, we have relied upon Clother v. Maher in holding that the annexed territory is liable for preexisting bonds of the annexing district.
Other jurisdictions appear to reach the same conclusion our court has, in the absence of specific statutory language to the contrary. In Lowden v. Luther,
"The parties call our attention to no statute applying to such a situation, and we know of none. In the absence of such a statute it is settled that the taxable property in the annexed territory is subject to taxation to pay its share of the preexisting debts of the school district to which it is annexed."
In Wilcox v. County of Olmsted,
"The property not only became a part of the City of Rochester, acquiring the many advantages that come with annexation by way of established public services and facilities, but became as well a part of School District No. 4, sharing in the benefits and burdens of the school district including levies for improvements not fully paid for at the time of annexation."
It is obvious that the answer to this problem cannot depend upon whether or not there are outstanding bonds in the old district for which the annexed property is still liable. In the first place, there is no statutory authorization for such a solution. Second, an attempt by the Legislature or anyone else to decide the question on that basis would lead to absolute chaos, because of the infinite variety of situations that would arise. There might, for example, be only an insignificant amount still owing on the bonds of the old district, as opposed to a large amount owing on the bonds of the new district, or vice versa.
Disregarding, therefore, the fact that the territory may be liable for Waverly School District bonds, we consider whether, as an equitable matter, it should be liable for the Lincoln School District Bonds. The bonds were issued for construction of school facilities in the district that inure to the benefit of the entire district, including the newly annexed territory. These facilities are, we presume, still in use. To exempt the newly annexed territory from any liability for the payment of the cost of these facilities would, in our opinion, be the height of inequity, and might raise the issue of lack of uniformity of taxation to which the court referred in Clother v. Maher.
We therefore adhere to our previous opinions, and are of the opinion that the levy for Lincoln School District bonds should be applied to the annexed territory.