THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

0F TEXAS 

P 

April 12, 1988 

P 

Honorable Hugh Parmer 

Chairman 

Opinion No. JM-891 

Intergovernmental Relations Re: Whether an emergency 

Committee communication district is 

Texas State Senate authorized under article 

P. 0. Box 12068 1432e, V.T.C.S., to supply 

Austin, Texas 78711 emergency communications 

service under contract 

with other jurisdictions 

(RQ-1338) 

Dear Senator Parmer: 

You ask three questions in regard to the authority 

and operation of the Lubbock Emergency Communication 

District. We restate those questions as follows: 

1. Does the district have the authority 

to contract to provide emergency communications services to other jurisdictions without 

those jurisdictions becoming part of the 

district? 

2. Does the district have the authority 

to impose an additional fee on an incoming 

jurisdiction to cover the costs of providing 

emergency communication services to that 

jurisdiction? 

3. How and when does the membership of 

the board change when new jurisdictions are 

added to the district? 

We have been informed by a brief submitted in response to 

your questions that the Lubbock Emergency Communication 

District [hereinafter the district] was created in 1986 

pursuant to article 1432e, V.T.C.S. [hereinafter the act]. 

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 288, at 1331. 

Section 2 of the act identifies the purpose of the 

act as follows: 

p. 4364 
Honorable Hugh Parmer - Page 2 04-891) 

It is the purpose of this Act to establish the number 9-l-l as the primary 

emergency telephone number for use by 

certain local governments in this state and 

to encourage units of local government and 

combinations of those units of local government to develop and improve emergency communication procedures and facilities in a 

manner that will make possible the quick 

response to any person calling the telephone 

number 9-l-l seeking police, fire, medical, 

rescue, and other emergency services. . . . 

The district is composed of Lubbock County and all incorporated cities located in Lubbock County. The questions 

arise because the district has received inquiries from 

Hale County and the City of Plainview in regard to 

becoming a part of the district or receiving the services 

of the district. 

? 

Your first question, regarding the authorfty of the 

district to contract to provide emergency communication 

services to a jurisdiction that is not part of the 

district, is answered in the affirmative. We understand 

your question to be whether an entity that is authorized 

to become a part of the district pursuant to the act may, 

in the alternative, merely contract for 9-l-l services. 

The Interlocal Cooperation Act was enacted in 1971 with 

the purpose of improving "the efficiency and effectiveness 

of local governments by authorizing the fullest possible 

range of intergovernmental contracting authority at the 

local level." V.T.C.S. art. 4413(326), 51. That act 

allows local governments to contract for the performance 

of governmental functions and services. V.T.C.S. art. 

4413(32c), 54. Section 3(l) of the act defines "local 

government" in part as 'Ia county; a home rule city or a 

city, village, or town organized under the general laws of 

this state: a special district." Section 3(2) defines 

lqgovernmental functions and services" as "all or part of 

any function or service included within the following 

general areas: police protection and detention services; 

fire protection . . . public health and welfare." 

-, 

That act would seem to have anticipated exactly the 

kind of contract under consideration here; however section ? 

4(b) requires that all parties to a contract for the 

performance of governmental functions or services must be 

authorized to perform those functions or services. See 

Attorney General Opinion Nos. H-28 (1973); H-392 (1974). 

? 

p. 4365 
Honorable Hugh Parmer - Page 3 (JM-891) 

The Lubbock Emergency Communication District is authorized 

to provide 9-l-l emergency service. See uenerally 

V.T.C.S. art. 1432e. 

In general, the duty of municipalities to provide for 

the health, safety, and welfare of their inhabitants and 

their authority to do so through ordinance and contract is 

well established in Texas law. &S Texas-New Mexico 

Utilities Co. v. Citv of Teacue 174 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Civ. 

APP. - Fort Worth 1943, writ iefld w.o.m.): Neal v. San 

Antonio Water S oolv 

Antonio 1919, wzit r;fld) 

21; itWin; (Tex. Civ. App. - San 

h T lewhone C 

182 S.W.42 (Tex. Civ. Appf! - 

0. v. Citv of 

sr 

Dallas 1915, writ 

- Local Gov't Code 5551.001, 51.012, 51.014, 51.032, 

51.051: 51.072. 

Counties do not have the broad range of authority in 

the area of health, safety and welfare that cities have. 

Counties have no powers or duties except those that are 

expressly granted and defined by statute or constitution. 

Harrison Countv v. Citv of MarshalL 253 S.W.2d 67 (Tex. 

Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1952, writ rei'd); Attorney General 

Opinion JM-789 (1987). We find authorization for a county 

to provide 9-l-l emergency service only in article 1432g, 

which authorization is limited to a county that has a 

population of more than 1.5 million and in which a 

communication district has not been established under 

article 1432c, V.T.C.S. Accordingly, we find that the 

district may contract with a county that comes within the 

terms of article 1432g and with any city, general law or 

home rule, that has an ordinance allowing the city to 

provide 9-l-l emergency service. Any such contract would 

need to meet the requirements of both the Interlocal 

Cooperation Act (article 4413(32c)) and the district's 

enabling act (article 1432e). Hale County does not, 

however, fall within this statute because its population 

is substantially less than 1.5 million. Therefore, Hale 

County may participate in the district only by joining as 

a member jurisdiciton pursuant to article 1432e, V.T.C.S. 

Your second question concerns the authority of the 

district to impose on a jurisdiction, which is becoming a 

part of the district, an additional charge to cover the 

cost of providing service. Section 27 of the act provides 

that a public agency in the county in which the district 

is located or in an adjoining county may become a part of 

the district on adoption of a resolution by the governing 

board of the public agency and approval by the district's 

board. Section 3(2) of the act defines "public agency" 

p. 4366 
Honorable Hugh Parmer - Page 4 W-891) 

as *'any city or county that provides or has authority 

to provide fire-fighting, law enforcement, ambulance, 

medical, or other emergency services." ? 

Section 11(c) enumerates charges that are assessable 

to public agencies that enter the district after its 

formation. That section expressly authorizes the board to 

charge the incoming jurisdiction "an additional amount of 

money to cover the initial cost of providing the service 

to the incoming jurisdiction." Accordingly, we answer 

your second question in the affirmative. 

Your third question involves the reorganization of 

the board upon the addition of new jurisdictions. For the 

purposes of this opinion we will assume that an adjoining 

county is to be added to the district. As noted above, 

section 27 of the act clearly permits non-participating 

jurisdictions to join the district after its initial 

formation by the joint action of the board of managers and 

the governing body of the incoming jurisdiction. 

Because the city of Lubbock meets the definition of 

"most populous city" found in section 3(6) of the act, 

section 6(a) governs the appointment of the members of the 

board of managers. That section reads in part as follows: 

? 

Sec. 6. (a) If the district has a city 

meeting the definition of 'most populous 

city,' the district's governing authority is 

a board of managers composed of: 

(1) one voting member for each county in 

the district, with the commissioners court 

of each county appointing its own member: 

(2) two voting members appointed by the 

governing body of the most populous city in 

the district: 

(3) one voting member appointed by the 

governing body of the second-most populous 

city in the district: 

(4) one voting member appointed to 

represent the other cities and towns lying 

wholly or partly within the district, that 

appointment to be made by the mayor's 

council established to administer urban 

development block grant funds if such a 

p. 4367 
Honorable Hugh Parmer - Page 5 (JM-891) 

P 

mayor's council exists and, if a mayor's 

council does not exist, then by action of 

the other board members, on the advice and 

recommendation of the governing bodies of 

all other cities and towns lying wholly or 

partly within the district: and 

(5) one nonvoting member appointed by 

the principal service supplier. 

While the legislative intent to change the composition of 

the board upon the addition of new territory is not clear 

from the language of section 6(a), such an intent is clear 

from the language found in section 6(b), which governs the 

composition of the board where there is 

city" within the district. 

no "most populous 

Section 6(b)(l)(B) reads as 

follows: 

[I]f only one county was in the district 

as the district was originally created but 

more than one county is currently in the 

district, two voting members appointed by 

the commissioners court of the county in 

which the district was originally located 

and one voting member for each other 

in the district, 

county 

with the commissioners 

court of each of those other counties 

appointing its own member. . . . 

That section clearly indicates that the membership of the 

board will change with a change in the territory that is 

included in the district. We find no reason in that 

regard to distinguish a district that includes a most 

populous city from one that does not. The legislature 

intended to create a representative board, albeit remotely 

representative in the case of other cities and towns in 

the district (M section 6(a)(4) above). 

The legislature has given no direction in regard to 

the change in the membership of the board upon the 

addition of new territory. We can find no reason to 

unseat the member currently representing the second most 

populous city upon the addition of another city. Furthermore, there is public policy to be served by allowing that 

member to serve the remainder of his term. The statute 

does not, however, contemplate the immediate addition of 

an additional member to the board. Consequently, we 

conclude that the member currently appointed by the second 

most populous city should serve the remainder of his term, 

p. 4368 
Honorable Hugh Parmer - Page 6 (JM-891) 

and the member appointed by the newly added second most 

populous city should not begin to serve his term until the 

completion of the term of that member whom he will ? 

replace. 

SUMMARY 

The Lubbock Emergency Communication District has the authority under the Interlocal 

Cooperation Act to contract to provide emergency communication services to jurisdictions 

that are not part of the district. The district has the authority to impose a fee on an 

incoming jurisdiction to cover the cost of 

providing emergency communication services to 

that jurisdiction. The membership of the 

board will not change until the expiration of 

the term of the member who will vacate the 

board. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

MARY KELLER 

First Assistant .Attorney General 

LOU MCCRKARY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLKY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Karen C. Gladney 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 4369