Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1948 )

- ,
AXJWTIN 11. %%XAS
PRICE DANIEL
XTTCJRNEY
GE.XEH.4,. July 28, 1948
Hon. Wallace T ~ Barber Opinion No. V-642
County Attorney
Hays County Re: Legal status of San
San Marcos, Texas Marcos Independent School
District under the facts
submitted.
Dear Sir:
Your request for an opinion of this office states that prior to 1944
the San Marcus Independent School District was a municipal district and
on December 12, 1944, pursuant to an election became separated from
municipal control.
On March 12, 1945, by virtue of an order of the County Board of
School Trustees, three contiguous common school districts, each with a
scholastic population of less than 400, were annexed in accordance with
the provisions of Article 2922a, et seq., Vernon’s Civil Statutes, to the
San Marcos Independent School District, the latter having a scholastic
population of more than 250 to form a rural high school district. The
legally qualified electors of the entire territory containing more than
100 square miles in area had previously voted in favor of the formation
of a rural high school district on March 3, 1945, in accordance with Arti-
cle 2922~. The proceedings were validated by Acts 49th Legislature,
Ch. 210, page 290, as an independent school district. Article 28158-33,
V.A.C.S.
Pursuant to a resolution dated June 7, 1945, the Board of Trustees
of San Marco6 Independent School District and Article 2792, V. C. S.
’ designated the assessor and collector of taxes of Hays County as the as-
sessor and collector for the Independent School District.
Subsequently, bonds were voted and issued by the school district
upon petition presented to the district trustees. The returns of the elec-
tion were canvassed and the results declared by the Board of Trustees
of the district. Pursuant to such election the Board of Trustees of the
San Marcos Independent School District entered an order directing the
issuance of bonds and providing for the levy and collection of a tax an-
nually in an amount sufficient to pay the interest and sinking fund of
such bonds at maturity. These bonds were approved by the Attorney
General of Texas and registered in the office of Comptroller of the State
of Texas. The approval of the bonds concludes that ‘“They are valid and
binding obligations upon said San Marcos Independent School District.”
c
Hon. Wallace T. Barber, Page 2, (V-642)
The Board of Trustees& Sao Marcos Independent School District
is desirous of estabY6shing its own tax office where the valuations may
be equalized by a Boalrd of Equalization, the members of which to be
appointed by the School Board and where the property values may be
fixed and raised with a view to producing sufficient revenue to pay the
teachers in accordance with the minimum salary schedule and to pay
the other necessary maintenance expenses of the district.
Question NQ- 1 : IQ the San Marco s Independent School District,
same beung a sura2%igh s&cd district, classed as a common school
district and governed by the laws relating thereto except as modified
by the rural high school laws, or is said district classed as an inde-
pendent school district and governed by the laws relating to indeptnd-
ent school districts except a s modiffied by the rural high school laws,
Chapter 19A 7
Question No. 2 : For tax purposes, is the entity known as San
Marcos Independent School District governed by and boundto follow
Article 2922L or is it governed by and bound to follow Article 27917
Article 2922a, V, C. S.,, reads, in part, as follows:
“‘In each organized county in this State and in any county ‘I
which shall hereafter be organized, the county school trus-
tees shall have the authority to form one or more rural
high schoobdistri.cts, by grouping contiguous common
school districts having less than four hundred scholastic
population and independent school districts having less
than two hundred and fifty scholastic population for the
purpose of establishing and operating rural high schools,
provided also ihai the co~uzlty $:hool trustees may annex
one or moire d``~mmo‘m-c.-OoA R Id jlstri::ts or one or more in-
depen,der.* school d.1:+i.r:&t,j havmg le 6 s than two hundred
,wF.
and frfty schola;lac popuY,ntron t,o a common school drs-
frict having four hujrldred or more scholastnc population
or to an independent dl;,FymKtwo hundred and frfiy
or more scholastirpmation o i 1L’
Article 2922b, V, C. S.$ is as follows:
“‘Rural high s&co% dPst:ricts as provided for in the preced-
ing article shall be classed as common school districts,
and all other di!~tricr:2, whether common or independent,
composing such rural high school district shall be referred
to in this Act as ePementary school districts; provided that
all independent sc~hool distzicts enlarged by the annexatron
‘fhereto of one or more c.ommon school dnstracts as provided
e
Tar m P BC,a a sna ,,I xxam n s s a us an
- .
Hon. Wallace T. Barber, Page 3, (V-642)
independent school district, and shall continue to operate
as an independent school district under the provisions of
‘Ehe existing laws and the laws hereafter enacted governing
other maependent school districts, except as otherwise
provrded for herein.”
In i&i opinion number V-562, this office stated:
“Furthermore, it has been held in Trinity Independent
School District v. District Trustees, etc. 135 S.W. (2d)
1021 (writ refused) that where there has been annexation
of common school districts to an independent school dis-
trict having 250 or more scholastics under the provisions
of Article 29228, the,se annexations by virtue of the provi-
sions of article 2922b have not changed the status of the
independent district to a rural high school district. Caun-
ty Board of School Trustees v. Gray, 142 SW. (2d) 697,
writ refused.”
The facts in the cited Trinity case reveal that an election was called
by the County Board of Trustees to determine whether that Board acting
under the power granted in Article 2922a would be authorized to annex two
common school districts to the Trinity Independent School District. The
election having carried by majority vote over the proposed district as a
whole, its area being greater than 100 square miles, the Board ordered the
common school districts be annexed to Trinity Independent School District
to form a unit for high school purposes. The facts herein submitted apper-
taining to the San Marc,os Independent District are identical in nature with
the facts of the Trinity case, except that with respect to the San Marcos In-
depe,ndent School District, three common school districts were annexed
thereto to form a unit for high school purposes.
The enlargement or annexation proceedings of the San Marcos Inde-
pendent School District show that the district was formed after an election
thereon by annexing three common school districts, each having a scholastic
population of less than 400 scholastics, t,o the then San Marcos Independent
SchooI District, h,aving a scholastic population of more than 250.
We quote from the Trinity case, supra, at page 1023:
“While the record shows that there have been consolidations
and annexations of school districts with Trinity Independent
School District, under the express terms of Article 292213
those annexations and consolidations have not changed the
status of the Trinity Independent School District from an fn-
dependent district to a rural high school district a ~ .‘*
In Opinion V-562, we further stated that in Live Oak County Board,
etc. v. Whitsett Common School District, 181 S. W. (td) 846, (writ refused)
. -
Hon. Wallace T, Barber, Page 4, (V-642)
it was held that where there has been annexation of six common school
districts to an independent school district having 250 or more scho-
lastics after an election held as required under Article 2922c, the dis-
trict so created was a rural high school district composed of seven
elementary school districts, and was not, as therein contended, to be
considered as a single enlarged independent school district.
In the Whitsett case, supra, the status of the Three Rivers Inde-
pendent School District as to whether it was a rural high school district
classified as common under Article 2922b, or an enlarged district which
retained its status and name as an independent school district under Ar-
ticle 2922b, was not in issue. The court throughout its opinion repeatedly
refers to the district enlarged by annexation as the Three Rivers In&pen-
dent School District, and n.evnr refers to it as a rural high school district
classafaed as common under Article 2922b. It held in effect that the Three
Rivers Independent School District by virtue of an order passed by the
County Board pursuant to an election held under Article 2922~ was com-
posed of seven elementary school districts, one of which was an indepen-
dent school district and six of which were common school districts. Thus
c,onstrued as composed of seven elementary districts and under Article
2922~ as it then read, the court ruled that the County Board may annex
other districts to the Thee Rivers Independent School District only after
an election authorizing same wherein each of the elementary districts to
constitute the enlarged rural high Echo-nit shall vote in favor thereof.
See also Frio Independent School District et al v. Sabinal Indepen-
dent School Districtr et al, 192 S.W, (2d) 899; Hankins v. Connolly, 206
S,W. (2d) 89; Sabinal Tndeperde:ct School District v. County Board, 211 S.W.
(2d) 331.
Your factual :j,ua’%n refi,ects that the San Marcos Independent School
District has always ope:~‘.ed a:; &x. iz:depende.nt district, Furthermore, we
are advised by the Departmar~lt of Eduation that all independent districts
enlarged by the anl%exalian procedure set out in Article 2922a, or enlarged
like the San Marcos Independent School District by annexation under Articles
2922a and 2922c have always beeAn, recognized and listed by that Department
as indepdadent school districts and have never been treated or regarded as
rural high school dis%ri&s ~Eas$if?l,ed as cornmona.
The c.on&ruction placed upon the statutes in question by this office
is to the effect that the status of the San Marcos Independent School Dis-
trict was not changed by the annexation referred to in your opinion request
and that it comes within the category of an independent school distri,ct and
within the purview of Article 2922b which states, ‘“shall retain its status
and name as an independen,t school district under the provisions of existing
laws.” Therefore, in answer to your question No. 1 it is the opinion of this
office that the San Marcos Independent School District is an independent dis-
trict and governed by the laws: relating thereto. It is, however, an independent
school district enlarged for :``a1 high school purposes and composed of four
Hon. Wallace T. Barber, Page 5, (V-642)
elementary school districts and is not a single enlarged independ@@
school district. It is a hybrid form of independent school, di&rio%to
be governed by the laws applicable to independent school distr$@R,
except as otherwise provided i## the rural high schools laws, A:@&&
2922b, Whitsett case, supra.
Retaining its status and name as an independent .$oho& &8&&i@
and being subject to the laws applicable to independent S&o01 d&t&&e : :.
in the mai&er of collection and assessment of its taxes, it is the op&$q@
of this o fice that the San Marcos Independent School District would be
author1 *al d to employ its own tax collector by the clear and unmistakable
provisions of Article 2791.
The remarks stated in the last two sentences of t&s second pa#a-
graph on page 4 of our opinion No. V-562, the same being ermmma# ft
part and unnecessary in support of the holding of that opinio& ~&on@ Tirrr
disregarded.
SUMMARY
APPROVED:
Chester E. Ollfs~
As SlstsJIt
ATTORNEYGIEMGRAL
’ -Burn&U WaIdrep
AL4eistent