Case Information
*1 _ --
,-
E NEY GENElthAL OF TEXAS
Honom ble J. M. Allen
Oount Auditor
Hunt ounty B
Cbeenvills, Texas Dear Sir: Oplnioa Number O-8316
Rar Efhot of tax voted at bond rlsotion tipon maximum malntsn~ocr tax authorlzrd at a prior elrotion oallrd for that purpom.
We 80kno~l6dge you ZWpIaa~ our Opln ! reoei your 16tter t [02] on on the follorring qurationr of &prLl a$, in whSah “Will. the tru’rtser of thir rohool be prrmLttrd to art we not to axoaod @la00 per he tax Ezto at My 2% or would they o roerrtrieted to the olcruoo Sn 00.00 6 U33tJ sLoot9on leha 1 n@v@r oxoood 18$ on tho 00.00 vcrluetlon~f~~
The f'aotr undrrly3.n your qurrtlon are that in 195% the rohool dlatrlot the maintenanor hrl an rlrot5on for the purpoao of rrduoieg t tax levy pwviourly ruthorlsad, md aa a result of 6uoh elrotion the tax W'PE reduord from #l,OO on the $100 valuation to IS#, ruoh reduoed fLgurr rrprrmntrd the maximum tax authoriced to be levied for both malntmanoa and bond purpooeae
In 1831 a bond rlrotSon wa8 held whioh rrrultod favorably to the Irruanoo of the bond8 and 1Lkowlro authorlard a levy of a tax 8uiiLolont the ourrmt lntrrrrt on raid bondr to L errof am thr aam@ l o o ruoe, nlth tha and to pay the prlnol$ &I further provlrion tha tho malntrnanoo tax and tha bond tax together for an CUIO year rhould novrr ono dollar oa rxooed on oa raid proprrtyr the $100 valuat 9
We are not in poarrrrlon ol lnlormatlon a# to the a at pro- porition rubmltted to the voter8 at the tlmr thr 76 7 leVy wan authorized, but WQ or11 your attention to the iaot that the only ~prolilo authority the dlrtrlot hrr iOr the Voting of P tax relatea to a malntmanor tax. Artlolr 8186 ol vemonfr Annotated Btatuter, preroribsr the manner ln whloh guoh eleotlon #hall bo held and ret8 out the form Of ballot Honorable J. M. Allen, page 2, O-2316
to be used in common sohool districts and independent school distriots. In independent school districts the ballot shall readn "For Maintenance Tax", or "Against Maintenance Tax". Article 2784 limits the tax that may be levied for both _ maintenance of the public schools and the erection and equipment of buildings therea - this limit being #l.OO on the $100 valuation of taxable property located within the district - and the article further resoribes that the bond tax should never exoeed 504 on the P 100 valuation, and that the maintenance tax, together with the bond tax, should never exceed $#l.OO on the $100 valuation of taxable property. It will be seen from this that a bond tax can be authorized only in connsotion with the issuance of bonds, and will operate so as to reduce the tax for matitenance purposes.
It is obvious that the voters in the independent school district of your county, when voting specifically upon the proposition of the levy of a maintenance tax, confined such levy to 754 on the $100 valuation, and e;p,ressly provided that the maintenance tax and bond tax together for any one year should not exceed that amount. You have informed us that 3.n 1937 the following question was submitted: "Shall the board of trustees of Caddo Mills Independent School Pistrict be authorized to issue the bonds of said district in the amount of $4,500 of ?i q< for the purpose of the purchase or repair and equipment of free public school buLldSngs within the limits of said district, or Q 9 and whether there shall annually be levied and collected on all of the taxable property in said school district for the current year and annually thereafter while said bonds or any of them are outstanding, a tax sufficient to pay the current interest on said bonds and to pay the principal thereof as the same shall become due, provided that the maintenance tax and the bond tax together for any one year shall never exceed one dollar on the $100 valuation on said property." This election was for the purpose of voting bonds and authorizing the levy of a tax to pay them. It is our conclusion that since the election in 1937 was called expressly for the purpose of voting bonds to construct oertain improvements within the district, the matter of fncreasing the aggregate tax that may be levied in the district was not specifically before the voters, and that such proviso in the proposition submitted, as quoted above, was insUffiCient for the purpose of authorizing an increase in the total amount that might be levied for both maintenance and bond pullpOSes+ In the opinion of this department, numbered O-1913, preoisely the same question was submitted for our consideration; however, the facts underlying that case were not analogous to those of your situation, but we think the conclusion reached there applies with equal force to your situation. Accordingly, we advise that in our opinion the trustees of the school district
Honorable J. Id. Allen, page 3, O-2316
referred to In your letter are still restrlcted by the terms of the election held in 1932, for the reason that the qualified voters of the district have never consented to be taxed at a rate greater than the maximum rate which they voted in 1932, and that if the rate of bond tax, together with the rate of maintenance tax, voted In the district, should at any time exceed '73# on the $100 valuation, such bond tax will operate to reduce the maintenance tax to the difference between the rate of bond tax and the total rate authorized.
We are enolosing herewith a copy of our opinion number o-1913, with the thought that it, in oonneotion with the discussion contained herein, will answer your question.
Very truly yours ATTORITEY GEXERAL OF TEXAS s/ Clarence E. Crowe BY Clarence E. Crowe Assistant CEC-s/cg
APPROVED MAY 18, 1940
s/ Gerald C. Mann
ATTORREY GEmER.AL OF TEXAS
APPROVED Opinion Committee
By RWF, Chairman