Hon. L. A. Woods Opinion wo. V-872-
.~,
State Superintendent
Department of Education Re: Procedure to annexpor-
Au&n, Texas tion op spciilg Lake-
Par+ Distriot to'Texar-
kana I.S.D.,'Feconsi+
eringAttotiey General
opinion Ho. o-3823
~DearSir: dated August 7, &9&l. t
You have referred this office to Attorney Gen-
era1 Opinion Woo,O-3823 rendered by a prior administra-
tion and holding that ,TexarkanaIndependent School-Dis-
trict may annex any part or the whole of a contiguous
common distriot (Spring Lake Park Comaon District) by
complying with the prooedure.set outsin its ape&al law;
designated as Section l-a in.Chkpter'.~9,.Se~~~~ll.no. /
297 .'SpecialLaws of the *39th Legislature, 1st C-S.,
1926. ‘L .,
.^
Seotion l-a provides as +ollows:
"Whenever a zaajorityof the lnhabi-
taiits;.,qualified
to-vote fop metibersof 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 indepen-
dent school district, and a majority of such,
qualified voters sign a petition to that ef-
Sect, any three of such qualified voters may
file with the board of trustees of said inde-
pendent school distriat the said petition,
making affidavit of the facts set forth in
said petition, fully describing by metes and
bounds the territory proposed to be annexed,
and showing Its location with reference to
the existing territory of the Texarkana In-
dependent School District; provided, that
said territory proposed to be added must be
contiguous to one line of said independent
school district. 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 propos-
ed addition is necessary and practicable,
the said board of trustees, by resolution
duly entered upouits minutes, may .receive
such proposed territory as 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 terri-
tory so.received shall be a part of the
Texarkana 'IndependentSchool District;
and the.inhabit$nts thereof shall thence-
forth be entitled to all the,~~rightsand
privileges as other citizens and inhabi-
tants of,the said indeoendent schooldis-
trict: The 'wlioie.or'*& uortion‘& anY
cont.ixuouscommon school district.vwhether
bondedor not'.mav bemexed'to the-Texar- ' '.'
kana:Independent.Sohool Districtin the '
manner herein oresdribed. o .." (FderG-~,,' ~' _~'
scoring ours.~) .r ' *::
,.:;
In Opiuion No, 0-38~23,evident1 no:consider&
tion was givento
. Section"2 of Artidle 27ci' e snd Section
1 of Article,.27@f, V,C.S., enacted by the-'&l& Legisla-
ture, 1st C+.; Abts-192q0 ~Yourequestthatwe review
that opinion-in the light of such statutesgnd-@vise
whether its'holdin&is'correct.
.
~'T'
Thb 'two'1929 Aots, shove referred to; ~are~-how
in effectand must be coristruedtogether, CountySchool"
Trustees .of Orawe County v,~Dist;'Trustees~~bf~Piairie
View CoSoDo,'~137 Te$,a~c
125, /153 SOW&d 434 1,:('194.1]f.:Board
of School Trustees of You& ;;&y v. Bullock C.S,ms
S,W,2d 530 (Texa Coma;-App.1 ! ./
)P ..~
c Without repeatin all of the terms &the above
.designated sectionsof thy iii
1929 Acts,'provi.sionis-made
therelnthat 'in each coui+ty,of.thisState the:county-
board of trustees &iall.havg the authority, when duly pe-
titioned.& provided in said Acts, to deta&'from; and
annex to, any:.schooldistriqt'territory contigu6us to the
common boundary line of the two dis~tricts;provided the
board of trusteesof the district &which the'annexa-
tion is to.be,~made,:~approves-,by
m$jority vote,theproposed
transfer:ofterritory; 'Thei:Adtsprescribe further'proce-
Hon. L, A. Vioods;page .-3 '(v-872)
:
‘ ~'dure,if:more than tenpercent of the district is in-
.volved,-and speoific,ally-providethat "no schooS dis-
trict shall b&reduced $6'ep area .of.less ~tharinine
square mi1es.v .. .
.~ ,, _.
,The-repealingclause of the 1929 Acts, Chap-
ter ‘47; Section 3+ reads in part as follows,:
,..
"All lawtiand parts af laws, Gtirieral
arid~S~ecial,'in'o~nfli,ct
h&reijithare'here-
by repealedi . .v'~. _ .'
a repeal of
to; or in~olisistentwith, ,
L.
discuss whet&r
themin (providing for automat&z ei;
of city oontrolled.sohool districts
was repealed by the 1929 .A&% above
it has been held InCit of Beau;
.:'mont'Ind. School Dist. v. Broadus; 182 &W. --5mKz.
2d 0
;~.,Civ. App: 19l$+;error ref.).t&t article 2804 haspnot
been-repealed, e&pressly.nor,by
'1929 Abts, for the.reasonthat&
.o~f-the,,.
laws relating to
: ~:distr%cts,andothersehool-,districts.in the county shows
a manifest intention ,on%he~part of the-law-making body
to provide-for two separate'classSfications of 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'~-3823 properly
,:,holda'that~Artiole 2806 is'notapplidable to Texarkana
Independ~t~~School'b~kittict.
"The ~egisl&X've historycoiicerning the TeXar-
: kana Independent'SohoolDistrictshows'that it is not a
munioipaIIy controlled sohodl district. '-Itis.an inde-
pendent scihool~distriatcreated~~bgBpecial'law;divorc-
city cdjitrolin 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 ,legis-
lative history which would operate~to save from the re-
pealing &feats of ths 1929 Acts, school district.8like
Texarkanacreated bye special law and which do not fall
within the classification of.a municipally controlled
school digtr1c.t.
- .
Han, L, A. Woods, page 4 (V-872).
It is our opinion, therefore, that to the ex-~
tent that the annexation provisions found in Section lo+
of S.B. 297 (the s ecial law applicable to the Texarw
Independent SchoolP are repugnrat to, or inconsistent
with, the Acts .of 1929 (Section 2 of Article 27&e md
Section 1 of Article 27&f) they have been repealed by
the Section 3 of the.1929 Acts, above quoted.
Section l-a of S.B.-297 provides that the pe-
titlon for annexation of'contiguous territory to the
district~.shallbe filed with the board of trustees of
the Texarkana district, ,,andthat such.board by resolu-
tion may receive such territory. The subsequent 1929'
Acts provide that such a petition for detachment and an-
nexation of territory to a contiguous district shallbe
submitted with the county board of trustees, and (the
. other procedure of the Acts being complied with) the
county board may pass an order transferring said terri-~
tory. Construing the Acts of 1929 together, asthey must
be Qen common and independent districts are involved,
they contain the express prohibition that "no school
-‘districtshall be~reduced to.an area of lessthan nine
square miles.". Thus,.the,oounty school board has au-
.thority~&der~Section 1~of Article 27wf, and Section.2
of Artiole 27428 to detach snd'annex portions of~,school 5
districts in accordance with the procedure ,thereof,but
_,,they ~wouldhave no authority~thereunder to annex or de-
,i~
tach an entire ac,tiveschool'distri6t..Weiriert I.S.D. v.
Ellis, $? S.W.2d 374 (Tex;~'Civ.Ap& 1932) * &g&nbothsm
v. County School Trustees,.220 S.W.2d,213. ITsx. C,iv.App.
/I :
1949).
Clearly, therefore, the authority~grsnted~:Coun-
.ty School boards,and~the procedure prescribed in the1925
Acts herein considered confli&~$with and supersedes the
authority granted Texarkana 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 .the contiguous common school district
may be involved, Tothis extent, Sectiqn l-a is repeal-
ed by @he subsequent 1929 Acts.
.Thes~e1929 Acts~,however, d6 not oonflict.with
i the authority granted the Texarksna board.in~s'uohSectiti
1-a stopannex'the whole of splycontiguous con+n'district