- , 

AXJWTIN 11. %%XAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

XTTCJRNEY GE.XEH.4,. July 28, 1948 

Hon. Wallace T ~ Barber 

County Attorney 

Hays County 

San Marcos, Texas 

Opinion No. V-642 

Re: Legal status of San 

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 Article 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 assessor 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 election 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 annually 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 independent school district and governed by the laws relating to indeptndent 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 

which shall hereafter be organized, the county school trustees 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 indepen,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 drsfrict having four hujrldred or more scholastnc population 

or to an independent dl;,FymKtwo hundred and frfiy 

or more scholastirpmation o i 1L’ 

‘I 

Article 2922b, V, C. S.$ is as follows: 

“‘Rural high s&co% dPst:ricts as provided for in the preceding 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 

Tar e 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 district having 250 or more scholastics under the provisions 

of Article 29228, the,se annexations by virtue of the provisions of article 2922b have not changed the status of the 

independent district to a rural high school district. Caunty 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 appertaining 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 Indepe,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 Independent 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 fndependent 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 scholastics after an election held as required under Article 2922c, the district 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 Independent 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 Article 2922b, was not in issue. The court throughout its opinion repeatedly 

refers to the district enlarged by annexation as the Three Rivers In&pendent 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 composed of seven elementary school districts, one of which was an independent 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 Independent 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 beeA n, 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 District 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 district 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 

*al 

that the San Marcos Independent School District would be 

author1 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#agraph 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: 

ATTORNEYGIEMGRAL 

Chester E. Ollfs~ 

As SlstsJIt 

’ -Burn&U WaIdrep 

AL4 eistent