Hon. L. A. Woods Opinion wo. V-872-

State Superintendent .~, Department of Education Re: Procedure to annexporAu&n, Texas

~DearSir: tion opspciilgLakePar+ Distriot to'Texarkana I.S.D.,'Feconsi+ eringAttotiey General opinion Ho. o-3823 dated August 7, &9&l. t

You have referred this office to Attorney Genera1 tion Opinion Woo,O-3823 rendered by a prior administraand holding that ,TexarkanaIndependent School-District may annex any part or the whole of a contiguous
common distriot (SpringLake Park Comaon District) by complyingwith the prooedure.set outsin its ape&al law; designated as Section l-a in.Chkpter'.~9,.Se~~~~ll.no. / 297 .'Special

Laws of the*39thLegislature, 1st C-S., 1926. ‘L

.^

., Seotion l-a provides as +ollows:

"Whenever a zaajorityof the lnhabitaiits;.,qualified

to-vote fop metibers of the Legfslature~of any t&ritobyadjbiiiin& the limits of the TexarkanaIndependbnt Sohool Dlstriot, shall desire such tez%itory to be added to and become a part of mid independent school district, and a majority of such, qualified voters sign a petition to that efSect, any three of such qualified voters may file with the board of trustees of said independent school distriat the saidpetition, makingaffidavit of the facts set forth in saidpetition, fully describingby metes and bounds the territory proposed to be annexed, and showing Its location with reference to the existing territory of the Texarkana Independent School District; provided, that said territory proposed to be added must be contiguous to one line of said independent schooldistrict. And upon filing of said petition, affidavits and descriptions, with- .

Hon, L, A, Woods, page 2 (V-872)

the president of the board of trustees, it shall be his duty to submit the ssme to the board, and, if upon investigation by the board it is found that the proposed addition is necessary and practicable, the said board of trustees,by resolution duly entered upouits minutes, may .receive such proposed territoryas an addition to, end as becoming a part of the colp~orate limits of the said Texsrkana Independent School District;.After the passage fnd adoption of such resolution, the territory so.received shall be a part of the Texarkana 'Independent School District; and the.inhabit$nts thereof shall thenceforth be entitled to all the,~~rights and privileges as other citizensand inhabitants of,the said indeoendent schooldistrict: 

### The 'wlioie. or'*& uortion‘& anY cont.ixuous

common school district.vwhether bondedor not'.mav bemexed'to the-Texar- ' '.' kana: Independent.SohoolDistrictin the '
manner herein oresdribed. o .." (FderG-~,,' ~' _~' scoring ours.~) .r ' *::

, .:;

tion 1 of In Opiuion No, 0-38~23, evident1 no:consider&

was givento Section"2 of Artidle 27

. ci' e snd Section Article,.27@f,V,C.S., enactedby the-'&l& Legislature, 1st C+.; Abts-192q0 ~Yourequestthatwe review that opinion-in the light of such statutesgnd-@vise whether its'holdin&is'correct.

. ~'T' Thb 'two'

1929 Aots, shove referred to;~are~-how in effectand must be coristrued together, CountySchool" Trustees .ofOrawe County v,~ Dist;'Trustees~~bf~Piairie View CoSoDo,'~

137Te$,a~c

125,/153 SOW&d 4341,:('194.1]f.:Board of School Trustees of You& S,W,2d 530 (Texa Coma;-App. 1;;&y v. Bullock C.S,ms )P ! ./

..~

cWithout repeatin all of the terms &the above .designated sectionsof thy 1929Acts,'provi.sion is-made iii therelnthat 'ineach coui+ty,of.this State the:countyboard of trustees &iall.havg the authority,when duly petitioned.& provided in said Acts, to deta&'from; and
annex to, any:.school distriqt'territorycontigu6us to the
common boundary line of the two dis~tricts; provided the board of trusteesof the district&which the'annexation is to.be,~made,:~approves-,by m$jority vote,theproposed transfer:ofterritory; ' Thei:Adts

prescribe further'proce-Hon. L, A. Vioods; page.-3 '(v-872)

:

‘~'dure, if:more than tenpercent of the district is in- .volved,-andspeoific,ally-provide that "no schooSdistrict shall b&reduced $6'ep area .of. less~thari

nine squaremi1es.v ...

.~ ,, _. ,The-repealingclause of the 1929 Acts, Chapter ‘47; Section 3+ reads in part as follows,:

,.. "All lawti and parts af laws, Gtirieral arid~S~ecial,'in'o~nfli,ct h&reijith

are'hereby repealedi

. .v'~. _ .'

a repeal of to; or in~olisistent with,
,

L. discuss **whet&r** themin (providingfor automat&z ei; of city oontrolled.sohooldistricts
was repealed by the 1929 .A&% above it has been held InCit of Beau; .: 'mont'Ind.School Dist. v. Broadus; 182 &W. 2d 0 --5mKz. ;~.,Civ. App: 19l$+;

error ref.).t&t article 2804 hasp not been-repealed,e&pressly.nor,by '1929Abts, for the. reasonthat& .o~f-the,,.

lawsrelating to :~:distr%cts,and

othersehool-,districts.inthe county shows
a manifest intention ,on%he~ part of the-law-makingbody to provide-for two separate'classSficationsof districts, nsmel~, a district locatdd~withina inuAicipal.ity, over which.the qitg has ass)uu@ control;andadistrlct over ~“

..which a City has no control. Opinion'~-3823properly ,:, holda'that~Artiole2806 is'notapplidable to Texarkana Independ~t~~School'b~kittict.

"The ~egisl&X've historycoiicerningthe TeXar- : kana Independent'SohoolDistrictshows'that it is not a munioipaIIy controlled sohodl district. '-It is.an independent scihool~distriat created~~bg

Bpecial'law;divorccity cdjitrol

in 1920. Chap. 31, S.B. 9, Acts Legislature, 3rd C.S., 1920, as.amended'by-Chap-;-. 297;~ SDec. Laws of 39th Leg., 1st C.S., 1926; A.G. :OpinionNo. 0-3823;.V-650. We find no like ,legislativehistory which would operate~to save from the repealing &feats of ths 1929 Acts, school district.8 like Texarkanacreated byespecial law and which do not fall within the classification of.amunicipally controlled schooldigtr1c.t.- .

Han, L, A. Woods, page 4 (V-872).

It is our opinion, therefore,that to the ex-~ tent that the annexationprovisions found in Section lo+ of S.B. 297 (the s ecial law applicable to the Texarw Independent School P are repugnrat to, or inconsistent with, the Acts .of1929 (Section2 of Article 27&e md Section 1 of Article 27&f) they have been repealedby the Section 3 of the.1929 Acts, above quoted.

Section l-a of S.B.-297 provides that thepetitlon for annexationof'contiguous territory to the district~.shall

be filed with the board of trustees of the Texarkana district,,,and that such.boardby resolution may receive such territory. The subsequent 1929' Acts provide that sucha petition for detachment and annexation of territory to a contiguous district shallbe submittedwith the county board of trustees, and (the

. otherprocedure of the Acts being compliedwith) the county board may pass an order transferring said terri-~ tory. Construing theActs of 1929 together, astheymust be Qen common and independent districts are involved, they contain the expressprohibition that "no school -‘districtshall be~reduced to.an area of lessthan nine squaremiles.". Thus,.the,oounty school board has au- .thority

~&der~Section 1~

of Article 27wf, and Section.2 of Artiole 27428 to detach snd'annexportions of~,school5 districts inaccordance with the procedure ,thereof, but ,i~ _,, they~would

have no authority~ thereunder to annex or detach an entire ac,tive school'distri6t.. Weiriert I.S.D. v. Ellis, $? S.W.2d 374 (Tex;~'Civ. Ap& 1932) *&g&nbothsm

v. County School Trustees,.220 S.W.2d, 213. ITsx. C,iv.

App. 1949). /I :

Clearly, therefore, the authority~ grsnted~:Coun- .tySchool boards,

and~theprocedure prescribed in the1925 Acts herein considered confli&~$with and supersedes the authority grantedTexarkana board of trusteesand the procedure prescribed in Section l-a of Senate Bill 297,~~ insofar as the power and procedure for,annexatlon of a part orportion of .thecontiguous common school district may be involved, Tothis extent, Sectiqn l-a is repealed by @he subsequent 1929 Acts.

i .Thes~e 1929 Acts~,

however, d6 not oonflict.with the authority granted the Texarksna board.in~s'uoh Sectiti 1-a stop

annex'the whole of sply contiguous con+n'district <underthe procedureand in the manner therein prescribed. The Springlake Park districtnot being dormant so as to.

.A be subject to the provisions of Article 27&&e& V.C.S.;,

j or Article VIII of S.B. 116, slst'Legislature, those

laws could not beapplicable to conflict with the authority granted the Texarkana Board in Section l-a to annex

I i

## 659

,Hon*L. A. Woods, page 5 (V-872)

the whole of that contiguous common schooldistrict. Article 2806, authorizing oonsolidation of schooldistricts by an electionprooedure therein provided,does not contain a repealing clause. Article 2806.-t **be** ing repugnant to the provisions of SectionAl-a,it is merely cumulative.

Accordingly, Opinion po. O-3823, dated August 7, X9,!& is fnodifiedby the holding of this opinion; To the extent, also, that A. G. Opinion.V-650 follows and relies on the holding in Opinioh o-3823, it is modified -by this opinion. ,

The authority granted the board of trus- -.&es of Texarkana Independent District'~and the procedure prescribed in Section l-a of' S.B. 297,~SpecialLaws of ,39thLegislature, 1st called sessipq, 1926, to ,annexa portion of a contiguous oommon school'distriot,beiln&nflict with Section 2 of Article /
r;&e and Section 1 of Article 27&f (Acts "'of 19 ); have'beeqlrepealedby-Sectioni3, GhaP* AcQtB.1929. Atlnexatiozl of a portion of contiguouS Springlake'~Pz&k Common Sohool.Distri+ ho~~T~+kanaDistrict may be aocomplished-'tbrough the county board of trustees ina-ccordanoewith and subject to the.-provisio&i

ofSection 2 oP~A~ti@l6 27.&e .&dSection l~.of

Article 2'(&f;V.C%3. .AtV tomiey; General Gpin+ons-100s.. 9-3823 and Vi650 hire

-~aocoi.di~ly~~modif~~d’~~ere)lgI, -;.':i,:.- i. ', : .'.:. ~y;,;,.ve& tmk&

ATTpRNEY GENERAL
GEO:bh:gr:mw Chester E. Ollison Assistant