Can an area break away from a Texas community college district to form its own district, and how?

Plain-English summary

A state senator asked, on behalf of a Randolph Metrocom Chamber of Commerce committee studying higher-education options for northeast Bexar County, whether that area could be pulled out of the Alamo Community College District to form a new community college district, how it would be done, and what would happen to the district's debt. The Attorney General concluded the disannexation was not possible without specific statutory authorization, and because none of the statutes that allow disannexation appeared to fit, it did not reach the debt questions, which assumed disannexation could happen.

The opinion started from a rule it had set in an earlier opinion (DM-297): a junior college district may disannex territory only if the Legislature authorizes it and only in the manner the Legislature provided. It then walked through the three possible authorities. Education Code section 130.069 lets a district disannex territory that also lies inside another junior college district, but there was no such overlap here. Section 130.070 lets a countywide district in an adjoining county disannex the territory of an independent school district that is the only district annexed to it; but the northeast Bexar area is within Bexar County itself, not an adjoining county, so that section did not apply by its terms. Finally, an old auxiliary-laws provision, article 2815p, lets the board of a joint county junior college district disannex territory more than fifty-five miles by highway from the college, and only if the disannexed land's taxable value is under $120,000.

The opinion noted that one of the district's four colleges, St. Philip's College, sits in northeast San Antonio, and although the office does not make factual findings, it called it highly unlikely that the northeast Bexar County area could be more than fifty-five miles by highway from a campus, and even more implausible that the area's taxable value would fall under $120,000. Only if both improbable conditions held would article 2815p apply. So, because disannexation requires specific statutory authority and none of the statutes appeared to reach this area, the opinion concluded that in all reasonable probability no such disannexation was legally permissible.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The senator and the Randolph Metrocom committee (what the opinion held for them): At the time of this opinion, the path the committee was studying, separating northeast Bexar County from the Alamo Community College District, did not appear legally available, because no statute authorized that particular disannexation. The opinion treated the route as effectively closed absent new legislation.

The Alamo Community College District (what the opinion held for it): The opinion held that, in all reasonable probability, the district's territory in northeast Bexar County could not be disannexed under the existing statutes, so the related debt questions did not arise.

Common questions

Can a community college district just let an area leave?
No. The opinion concluded a junior college district may disannex territory only when a statute specifically authorizes it, and only in the way the Legislature provided.

Why didn't the statutes that allow disannexation apply here?
The opinion explained section 130.069 requires the territory to also lie in another junior college district, section 130.070 requires an adjoining-county countywide district, and article 2815p requires land more than fifty-five miles from a college and worth under $120,000. None of those conditions fit northeast Bexar County.

Did the Attorney General make a factual finding about the distance or property value?
No. The opinion said the office does not make factual determinations, but described it as highly unlikely the area was more than fifty-five miles by highway from a campus and even more implausible its taxable value was under $120,000.

What about the questions on the district's debt?
The opinion did not answer them. Because it concluded the disannexation was not possible, the debt questions, which assumed it was, did not need to be addressed.

Background and statutory framework

The Alamo Community College District's service area is set by Education Code section 130.162, covering Bexar, Bandera, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Kerr, and Wilson counties, plus Atascosa County except the Pleasanton ISD territory. The district runs four San Antonio colleges (Northwest Vista, St. Philip's, Palo Alto, and San Antonio College). Following DM-297, the opinion treated specific statutory authorization as a precondition to any disannexation, then found the candidate statutes inapplicable: section 130.069 (overlap with another district), section 130.070(a) (independent school district annexed to a countywide district in an adjoining county), and article 2815p of the Texas Education Auxiliary Laws (territory more than fifty-five miles by highway from the college and under $120,000 in taxable value). A separate auxiliary-laws provision keyed to a county population of at least 2,200,000 also did not apply, because none of the district's counties had such a population.

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 130.162 (Vernon Supp. 2000)
• Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 130.069 (Vernon 1991)
• Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 130.070(a) (Vernon Supp. 2000)
• Tex. Educ. Aux. Laws art. 2815p (Vernon 2000)

Prior opinions:

• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. DM-297 (1994), M-1235 (1972), M-1073 (1972)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/john-cornyn/jc-0262
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2000/jc0262.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official scanned PDF. Minor character-level errors from the source OCR have been corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF TEXAS

JOHN CORNYN

July 26, 2000

The Honorable Judith Zaffirini
Chair, Human Services Committee
Texas State Senate
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068

Opinion No. JC-0262

Re: Whether an area of northeastern Bexar County may be disannexed from the Alamo Community College District (RQ-0202-JC)

Dear Senator Zaffirini:

You have asked this office a series of questions regarding the possibility of an area of Bexar County, Texas, being disannexed from the Alamo Community College District, the mechanism by which this might be done, and the implications with respect to the district's debt of such disannexation. We conclude that the disannexation about which you inquire is not possible absent specific statutory authorization. Given that the only Education Code sections which permit disannexation from a community college district as well as the only potentially relevant civil statute on the subject appear to be inapplicable here, and hence the area in question cannot be disannexed, we do not consider those of your questions which are premised on the supposition that such is possible.

The service area of the Alamo Community College District is established by section 130.162 of the Education Code:

The service area of the Alamo Community College District includes the territory within:

(1) Bexar, Bandera, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Kerr, and Wilson counties; and

(2) Atascosa County, except the territory within the Pleasanton Independent School District.

TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 130.162 (Vernon Supp. 2000). The district includes four colleges, all located in the City of San Antonio: Northwest Vista College, at 3535 North Ellison Drive; St. Philip's College, at 1801 Martin Luther King Drive; Palo Alto College, at 1400 West Villaret Boulevard; and San Antonio College, at 1300 San Pedro. See http://www.accd.edu/ABOUT/home.htm. "The four colleges offer associate degrees, certificates and licensures in occupational programs that prepare students for jobs, as well as arts and science courses that transfer to four-year colleges and universities and lead to AA and AS degrees." Id.

As you explain the situation prompting your request, "The Randolph Metrocom Chamber of Commerce has appointed a committee to investigate higher education options in the Greater Randolph Area (Northeast Bexar County). One of the options being studied is the separation from the Alamo Community College District and the creation of a new community college district." Letter from Honorable Judith Zaffirini, State Senator, District 21, to Honorable John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General, at 1 (Mar. 3, 2000) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter "Request Letter"]. You seek to know whether and how such disannexation is possible. We conclude that it is not.

This office has considered questions concerning disannexation of some part of a junior college district in three prior opinions. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. DM-297 (1994); M-1235 (1972); M-1073 (1972). In our view, your question is governed by the law as discussed in Attorney General Opinion DM-297. In that opinion, we concluded that "a junior college district may disannex territory only if the legislature statutorily authorizes it to do so and only in the manner that the legislature has provided." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-297 (1994) at 1.

Two sections of the Education Code, sections 130.069 and 130.070, contemplate the disannexation of a part of a junior college district. See id. Section 130.069 "authorizes a junior college district to disannex any territory lying within its borders that also lies within the borders of another junior college district." Id.; TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 130.069 (Vernon 1991). No such overlap is at issue here, and accordingly section 130.069 is inapplicable.

Section 130.070 permits the disannexation of the "territory of an independent school district which is the only school district that has been annexed to a county[-]wide independent school district junior college district in an adjoining county." TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 130.070(a) (Vernon Supp. 2000) (emphasis added). In the instant case, the area you suggest might be disannexed is not in an adjoining county, but is within Bexar County. Accordingly, section 130.070 is by its terms inapplicable.

One auxiliary law that remains in force and effect, article 2815p, Texas Education Auxiliary Laws, must also be considered.[1] Article 2815p states, in relevant part, "The Board of Trustees of any Joint County Junior College District shall have the power to disannex for Junior College purposes any territory located more than fifty-five (55) miles by highway from the point of location of the Junior College, . . . provided . . . that the Board of Trustees shall not have power to disannex territory having taxable valuation, for such lands, in the aggregate, in excess of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000) . . . ." TEX. EDUC. AUX. LAWS art. 2815p (Vernon 2000) (Education Auxiliary Laws pamphlet) [Act of May 26, 1949, 51st Leg., R.S., ch. 399, § 1, 1949 Tex. Gen. Laws 741].

As we have noted, there are four junior colleges in the Alamo Community College District, one of which, St. Philip's College, is located in northeast San Antonio. See http://www.accd.edu/ABOUT/home.htm. This office does not make factual determinations in the opinion process. However, it would appear to us highly unlikely that the area in northeast Bexar County with which you are concerned could possibly be more than fifty-five miles by highway from a campus of the Alamo Community College District. Even were such the case, we think it yet more implausible that the taxable valuation of the territory of such a proposed district would not greatly exceed $120,000. Only if both these extremely improbable conditions obtained would article 2815p be applicable in this situation.

Because the disannexation of part of a junior college district requires specific statutory authorization, see Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-297 (1994) at 1, and because none of the statutes authorizing disannexation would appear to apply to a proposed disannexation of a part of northeastern Bexar County from the Alamo Community College District, in all reasonable probability no such disannexation is legally permissible.

SUMMARY

Because the disannexation of part of a junior college district requires specific statutory authorization, see Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-297 (1994) at 1, and because none of the statutes authorizing disannexation would appear to apply to a proposed disannexation of a part of northeastern Bexar County from the Alamo Community College District, in all reasonable probability no such disannexation is legally permissible.

JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas

ANDY TAYLOR
First Assistant Attorney General

CLARK KENT ERVIN
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel

ELIZABETH ROBINSON
Chair, Opinion Committee

James E. Tourtelott
Assistant Attorney General - Opinion Committee

[1] Another Act concerning disannexation is inapplicable because it concerns "[t]erritory located within one or more counties, one of which having a population of at least 2,200,000 . . . ." TEX. EDUC. AUX. LAWS art. 2815p (Vernon 2000) (Education Auxiliary Laws pamphlet) [Act of May 24, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 529, § 1, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 3076] (emphasis added). None of the counties in the Alamo Community College District service area has such a population.