- ,

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 ofSan Marcos Independent School District under the facts submitted.
Dear Sir:
Your request for an opinion ofthis office states that prior to 1944 the San Marcus Independent School District was amunicipal district and onDecember 12, 1944,pursuant to anelection became separated from municipal control.
On March 12, 1945, by virtue ofan order ofthe County Board of School Trustees, three contiguous common school districts, each with a scholastic population ofless than 400, were annexed in accordance with the provisions ofArticle 2922a, et seq., Vernon’s Civil Statutes, to the San Marcos Independent School District, the latter having a scholastic population ofmore than 250 to form arural high school district. The legally qualified electors ofthe entire territory containing more than 100square miles in area had previously voted in favor ofthe formation of a rural high school district onMarch 3, 1945, in accordance with Article 2922~. The proceedings were validated byActs 49th Legislature, Ch. 210,page 290, as an independent school district. Article 28158-33, V.A.C.S.
Pursuant to aresolution dated June 7, 1945, the Board ofTrustees ofSan Marco6 Independent School District and Article 2792, V. C. S. ’ designated the 

### assessor and collector oftaxes ofHays 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 ofthe election were canvassed and the results declared by the Board ofTrustees ofthe district. Pursuant to such election the Board ofTrustees ofthe San Marcos Independent School District entered an order directing the issuance ofbonds and providing for the levy and collection of atax annually in an amount sufficient to pay the interest and sinking fund of such bonds atmaturity. These bonds were approved by the Attorney General ofTexas and registered intheoffice of Comptroller ofthe State ofTexas. The approval ofthe bonds concludes that ‘“They are valid and binding obligations upon said SanMarcos Independent School District.”c

Hon. Wallace T. Barber, Page 2, (V-642)

The Board of **Trustees&** Sao **Marcos** Independent School District is desirous ofestabY6shing its own tax office where the valuations may be equalized by aBoalrd ofEqualization, the members ofwhich to be appointed bythe School Board and where the property values may be fixed and raised with aview toproducing sufficient revenue topay the teachers in accordance with the minimum salary schedule and to pay the other necessary maintenance expenses ofthe district. Question NQ- 1: IQthe San Marco sIndependent School District, same beung a **sura2%igh** s&cd district, classed as a common school district and governed by the laws relating thereto except 

### asmodified 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 asmodiffied by the rural high school laws, Chapter 19A7 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 inthis 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 ofestablishing and operating rural high schools, provided also ihai the co~uzlty$:hool trustees may annex one or moire d~~~mmo‘m -c.-OoA R Idjlstri::ts or one or more indepen,der.* school d.1 :+i.r :&t,jhavmg le6sthan two hundred ,wF. and frfty schola;lac popuY,ntron t,oacommon school drsfrict having four hujrldred or more scholastnc population or to an independent dl;,FymKtwo hundred **and** frfiy or more scholastirpmation oi 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 inthis 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 m e PBC,a a sna ,,Ixxam ns saus 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

‘Eheexisting 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. 135S.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 ofArticle 29228, the,se annexations by virtue ofthe provisions of article 2922b have not changed the status ofthe independent district to arural high school district. Caunty Board ofSchool Trustees v. Gray, 142SW. (2d) 697, writ refused.”
The facts in the cited Trinity case reveal that an election was called by the County Board ofTrustees to determine whether that Board acting under the power granted inArticle 2922a would be authorized to annex two common school districts to the Trinity Independent School District. The election having carried bymajority vote over the proposed district as a whole, its area being greater than 100square miles, the Board ordered the common school districts be annexed to Trinity Independent School District to form aunit for high school purposes. The facts herein submitted appertaining to the San Marc,os Independent District are identical in nature with the facts ofthe Trinity case, except that with respect to the San Marcos Indepe,ndent School District, three common school districts were annexed thereto to form aunit for high school purposes. The enlargement 

### or annexation proceedings ofthe San Marcos Independent School District show that the district was formed after anelection thereon by annexing three common school districts, each having a scholastic population ofless than 400 scholastics, t,othe then San **Marcos** Independent SchooI District, h,aving a scholastic population ofmore 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 ofArticle 292213 those annexations and consolidations have not changed the status ofthe Trinity Independent School District from an fndependent district to arural high school district a~.‘*
In Opinion V-562, we further stated that in Live Oak County Board, etc. v. Whitsett Common School District, 181S. **W.** (td) 846, (writ refused). -

Hon. Wallace T, Barber, Page 4, (V-642)

itwas 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 arural high school district composed of seven elementary school districts, and was not, as therein contended, tobe considered as a single enlarged independent school district.
Inthe Whitsett case, supra, the status ofthe Three Rivers Independent School District as to whether it was arural high school district classified as common under Article 2922b, or anenlarged 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 arural high school district classafaed as common under Article 2922b. It held ineffect that the Three Rivers Independent School District by virtue of an order passed by the County Board pursuant to anelection held under Article 2922~ was composed of seven elementary school districts, one ofwhich was an independent school district and six ofwhich 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 anelection authorizing same wherein each ofthe 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, 192S.W, (2d) 899; Hankins v. Connolly, 206 S,W. (2d) 89; Sabinal Tndeperde:ct School District v. County Board, 211S.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 ofEduation that all independent districts enlarged by the anl%exalian procedure set out inArticle 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,edas cornmona. The c.on&ruction placed upon the statutes in question by this office is to the effect that the status ofthe 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 ofArticle 2922b which states, ‘“shall retain its status and name as an independen,t school district under the provisions ofexisting laws.” Therefore, in answer to your question No. 1it is the opinion ofthis 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 offourHon. Wallace T. Barber, Page 5, (V-642)

elementary school districts and is not a single enlarged independ@@ school district. It is ahybrid form ofindependent 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 : :. inthe mai&er of collection and assessment ofits taxes, it is the op&$q@ ofthis ofice

*al that the San Marcos Independent School District would be author1 dto employ its own tax collector by the clear and unmistakable provisions ofArticle 2791.
The remarks stated in the last two sentences oft&s second pa#agraph onpage 4of our opinion No. V-562, the 

### same being ermmma# ft part and unnecessary in support ofthe holding ofthat opinio& ~&on@ Tirrr disregarded.
SUMMARY

APPROVED:

ATTORNEYGIEMGRAL Chester E. Ollfs~ AsSlstsJIt

’ -Burn&U WaIdrep

AL4 eistent