Case Information

*1 -.

R. R-665 332 OFTICE OP

THE ATTORNEY G~RAL AUSTIN,TEXAS

PRICEDANIEL September a, 1947 FAGAN DICKSON ATnlReu GENERAL ms8rU~lmANT

eon. L. A. w00aB State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Department of Education

Austin, Texas

Attn: Hon. T. M. Trlmble, Opinion I?o. v-370

First Assistant

Re: Obligation of the City of Tyler to assume part of the 0utBtsnaing bonded '< Indebtedness of Rice Consolidated School District, having an- ,. nexed a part of the, District.

Dear Sti:

We refer to your letter wherein you request the opinion OS this office aonoernlng the obligation of the City of Tyler to assume its pro rata share of the

outstanding bonded indebtedness or the $36.000.00 schoof bonds voted by the Rice Consolidated School District in an election held on.July 18, 1946, by virtue of the City having annexed by oralnance a portion of said school

diBtriCt on July 16, 1946, two days before the bond e-

lection was held.

The bona transcript reveals an& the submItted facts advise that the schbol bona election was pro erly orderha, that election notioes were posted on the ki th day of July, 1946; In the Rice Consoli@ted School Mstrict,

to determine the proposition 000.00 bona issue to be used for school building PurPoSes of the issuance of a,$36,-

in Said district aria * conformity with Articmc2785 and 2786, V.C.S., and that the statutes were fully complied with in ordering such eledtion. The bona eledtlon was held on the date ordered, July 18, 1946, and resulted in a vote in favor of the bona issue. The returns were pro- perly counted and the result declared. ~The bonds. have been Issued and sold in full compliance with the~pro-

visions of Article 2786, V.C.S.

c

!. 384 Hon. L. A. Woods - Page 2 (v-379)

After said bond election had been ordelred

and due notice given in conformity with law, and two days before Said election was to have been held, the City Com@.sslon of the City of Tgler by orairmnce ex- tended the city limits to inclluae territory situated In several common school districts adjacent to the oity limits without a vote of the people residing In the territory, which extension included a portion of the territory comprising the Rice Consolidated School District.

The Tyler Independent School District, by pro- ,vls+?ns of the city charter, Is under the control of the, City of Ipgler, and the Tgler Indepencient School District limits are cotermlnous with the city limits of the City of Tyler.

A&Idle 2804, v.c.s., provides that whenever the limits of a city which constitutes an Independent school district are extended and enlarged so as to em- brace the whole or any part of any independent or common school district adjacent to such incorporated city, tEe ~terrltory so lncltided “shall hereafter become a part and portion of the Independent school district Constituted by such Incorporated city.” If the city Is such an ln- o~orporated city constituting sn independent sohool dis- trict, then the extension of Its boundaries would auto- matically operate to extend the boundaries of the mural- cipally controlled Independent school district. See Attorney General Opinion No. V-141 snd 0888s cited there- ‘In.

Artlole 2805, V.C.S., provides as follows: ‘In all cases where 8 district Is em- bpaaed within an Incorporated city town, ;io ;ovlaea in the preceding Article (Art. . . then such cltr. town or VillaEe I:. *3 Ron. L. A. Woods - Page 3 (v-370)

the offlceps of such district the pro- portion of the Interest and principal of such bonded indebtetiess SOP which It is liable." (Emphasis ana matter In paren- thesis added)

We are advised that In accordance with the prOvIsIons of &tlcle 2805, the City or '&ler recog- nizes Its llablllty or obligation to assume Its pro- portionate part of the school bonded Indebtedness of the Rice Consolidated +zhool District and other common school districts, portions of which have been annexed to the city by Its ordinance of July 16, 1946, to the extent and In the proportionate amount of bonded ln- debtedness that existed as bonded debts of the district up to and on the date OS the ennexation, but that the City OS Tyler hesitates to assume any part OS the ln- debtedness created by the Rice Consolidated School Dls- trlot by virtue of and pursuant to Its s&o01 bond elec- tion held on July 18, 1946.

The design or purpose of Articie~2805 seems clearly Intended for the protection of holders of school bonds which constitute and remain an outstanding lndebt- edness against a school district where a city legally annexes adjacent territory for all purpoaes, both muni- cipal and school, and where the territory annexed em- braces a portion or all of another school district or districts. The Legislature was cognieant of the fact and recognized therein that all the taxable property OS school district, such as the Rice Consolidated School Dlstrlot, located within the bounQarles of the tistrlct, Is subject to an annual local bona tax levy for the retirement and payment of Its outstanding bonded lndebt- edness and Interest thereon. AHdoles 2784e and 2795, V.C.S.

Under the Saots'herein presented, 36,000 school bona voted at the election held on July 1 Q , 1946, in the Rice Consolidated School Dlstrlot constituted no part of the bonded Indebtedness of that school district on July 16, 1946, when a portion of the district was an- nexed to the City of Tyler, or on July,18, 1946, when the bonds were voted by the district, for the obvious reason that there could be no Indebtedness therefor against the district until such time as the same had been legally Indeed, under the provisions OS Artl- issued and sold. In some Instances where sohool bonds cle 2786a, V.C.S., remain unsold they may be revoked or ancelled by the *4 Hon. L. wood8 -’ Page 4 (V-370)

voters at an election called forthat purpose, ana thus thexreation of,8 new bonded indebtedness against the. school district may thereby ,be ef+tlvely prevent- ed. Flatonla Independent School Mstrlet v. Broeche, (Clv. APR..) 176 S.W. (2d) 223, Grit refused for want of merit. then arises as to whether

,The question City of Tyle~;by reason ofthe fact that.the Rice Con- solidated Soh~ol District some few days (July 8, 1946) Prior to the.date when the clt annexed part of the als- to the city, (July 16, 19 6) 1 had legally trlct called a school election to be held in .me diBtPiCt, was thereby prohibited frog annexing any portion of sala’school area until such a date or time whefi’ the qontemplated bonded lndebtedness.agalnst the district would be finally con- summated. ‘. We, have been tunable to find a ease or a stat- ute in point which WOUld~sUstain the proposition thus advanced. It Is, our opinion that a home-rule city, such as 1s the City of Tyler, which has the necessary power to annex adaitional adjacent terrltory’to Its city llm- Its andwhich exercises that power In accordance with the provisions of &tlcle 11’75, Subsection 2, V.C.S., anti Its charter provisions appertaining thereto, would not Abe prohibited from legally exercising such power ‘by, the,actlon of an adjacent school district In calling

a sehool bondelection to be,held In the dlstrlct, pro- vided the area ln question to,be annexed does not eon- stltute a pax-t of an lncorporitea~clty. on the poweD of home-

The only llmltatlon rule city to annex additional territory under Its char- ter, adopted according to the Home-Rule Amendment, &tl- cle XI, Section 5, Constitution of Texas, and Enabling Act, Article 1175, Subsection 2, V.C.S., Is that It be thereto and not a part of any other lncorpor- adjacent ated city. City of Houston v. State, Rx Fe1 City of West University Place (Sup. Ct.) 176 S.W. (26) 928. The Courts are not ooncerned wit+ the motive of the govern- flus body of the city in undertaking to annex territory.

Thbis power of’ a home-rule olty to fix boundarier ti annex territory being a leglslatlve power’whlch Is not to revision by the judicial power, It hollows subjdct that it is ,subject only to such further llmlttiti?n con- sistent wlth.the Home-Rule Amendment as the I@giSbtUPe City, of'lioustqi ,cape, ‘supra,, and other ~may ,prescrlbe. ‘. cases therein cited.

,> .; ‘_ ‘.

-;

i

c

Eon. L. Woods - Page 5 (V-370)

The problem presented herein is not a case of the rule of this State announced for the appllcatlon in State v. Baker (Sup. Ct.), 40 S.W. (26) 41, that where coordinate jurisdiction over a particular sub- ject matter 1s vested in two dlstltict tribunals,

tribunal first acquiring jurisdiction has the right to retain jurisdiction until it has oompietely disposed of ~11 matters and Issues ao presented to it,, and no oootidinate tribunal &as any right to ‘interfere with the trfbunal first acquiring jurlsdiotloni The City of Tyler has the right to provide ror Its natural and &o- noaric growth or expansion by the annexation of adaltlon- al territory to its olty Units and may legally annex the area in question even though it oonstltutes a por- tion oS legally created school district. The Rice Consolidated School District, on the other hand, has no authority to annex or attach to Its area any terri- tory comprising a part of the City of Tyler or Its ln- de&Xulent sohool district. The subject matter here Involved with respect to the Rice District relates to Its authority to exeoute school bonds for school bullcl- lng purposes; the subject matter with respect to the City of T@er concerns its authority to annex addltlon- al terrltbry J~lsdlctlon to the city for all purposes.

In these matters la separate and distinct, the parties involved having no coordinate concurrent jurisdiction In either matter.

Under the facts submitted and based on our oon- struotlon of laws hereinabove noted, It Is our opinion that the City of Tyler Is not liable OP obligated to assume any part of the $36,000.00 bpnded Indebtedness of the Rice Consolidated School District where said bonded indebtedness was created by said District after the ef- Sective date of the annexation ordinance.

Whether or not the ordlnanoe In question was legally executed or enaoted In accordance with the laws and the city charter provisions, we cannot advise. ‘The thereof depends upon the determination validity of Sect questions beyond the provlhce OS this office. Common School District No. 16 v. Keeling, 261 S.W. 364.

We have assumed for the purposes of this opln- ion that the taxable valuation oS the Rice Consolidated remaining after the said annexation of Sehool Dietriot a part of Its territory by the City of Tyler Is suffl- olent to meet the interest and principal payments on the *6 L Hon. .L. Woods -,Page 6 (v-370)

bonds voted by the Rice district on July la, x94& as and when they beeoms due and payable.

Under the Sdcts submitted, t&e City of Tyler is not liable or le

gated to assume anj part of

bonded .lndebtedness of the

dated School Dlstriot, where said bonded indebtedness was voted after the effective date, of the city ordinance. anne nortion o? the said school dlstrio Ta 8Fea to- the City of Tyler for all puqwses.

Mt. 2804; 2805, V.C.S.

Very truly your8 AT’PORREX OXHIQUL OF THIS By-<-,

.Chester E. Olllson.

Omotdjm Assl’stant

APPROVED8 This opinion Was considered

and approved In oonferedoe.