The Attorney General of Texas 

December 31, 1982 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. BOX 12546 

Austin, TX. 76711.2546 

512/475-2501 

Telex 9101674.1367 

Telecopier 51214750266 

1607 Main St., Suite 1400 

Dallas, TX. 75201.4709 

2141742-6944 

4624 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 799052793 

9151533.3464 

1220 Dallas Ave., Suite 202 

Houston, TX. 77002.6966 

7131650-0666 

606 Broadway. Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 

@x/747-5238 

4309 N. Tenth, Suite I3 

McAllen. TX. 76501.1665 

5121662.4547 

200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 

San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797 

5121225-4191 

An Equal Opportunity/ 

Affirmative Action Employer 

Honorable Donald R. Ross 

Rusk County Attorney 

Rusk County Courthouse 

Henderson, Texas 75652 

Dear Mr. Ross: 

Opinion No. Mw-580 

Re: Annexation power of rural 

fire prevention district 

You have asked whether a Rural Fire Prevention District located 

wholly within one county may annex territory that does not lie within 

the same county. Sl2e Tl?X. Const. art. III, §48-d. In connection 

therewith you advise: 

The specific context in which these questions 

have arisen is as follows: First, an attempt was 

made to create a Multi-county district (a district 

containing territory in two counties) pursuant to 

sec. 2(a) of [article 2351a-6, V.T.C.S.] and when 

the proponents of said district were denied their 

petition by the Commissioners Court in one of the 

two counties (see sections 5 & 6 of said article), 

instead of appealing that decision to the District 

court (as authorized by sec. 7), they merely 

proceeded to create a district located wholly 

within the other adjacent county and then to 

achieve their original objective by way of 

annexation across the county line, relying on the 

provisions of sec. 14.a. After the purported 

annexation, the new district then requested the 

County Tax Assessor-Collector of the county in 

which the annexed territory is situated to assess 

and collect a tax of three (3c) on the one hundred 

dollars ($100) valuation on all real and personal 

property in that territory. 

Section 2(a) of article 2351a-6, added in 1973, governs proposals 

to create multi-county districts. Petitions to call elections 

therefor must be presented to the county judge of each county wherein 

the district is sought to be created. The commissioners court of each 

county may either approve or disapprove the petition, but if one 

grants the petition, the commissioners courts of each of the other 

such counties must also grant it before an election may be called. 

p. 2148 
Honorable Donald R. Ross - Page 2 (MW-580) 

Id. §8. Elaborate provisions specify the manner in which the fire 

KGmissioners of an established multi-county district are to be 

elected. - Id. §13(a). 

Before section 2(a) was added in 1973 there was no express 

provision in the statute that would allow a district created in one 

county to expand beyond the borders of that county. Then, as now, 

section 2 of the statute (as opposed to the added section 2(a)) dealt 

with proposals to create a district "wholly within one county." 

The same legislature that added section 2(a) also added section 

14(a), which allows the Board of Fire Commissioners of a district, 

upon the petition of qualified voters who own taxable property outside 

the district, to add the territory of such property owners to the 

district by resolution (subject to later ratification by electors in 

both the district and the added territory). There is no express "one 

county" limitation set out in section 14(a) and the argument has been 

advanced that pursuant to its terms a district created in one county 

may now expand into other counties without complying with the new 

provisions expressly allowing and regulating the establishment of 

multi-county districts. 

In our opinion, section 14(a) cannot be used to circumvent the 

requirements of sections 2(a) and 8. To appreciate the relationship 

of these provisions, it is helpful to review their legislative 

history. Section 2(a) was added, and section 8 was amended, by 

chapter 260, Acts of the Sixty-third Legislature, enacting Senate Bill 

NO. 764. Section 14(a) was added by chapter 341 thereof, enacting 

House Bill No. 337. Thus, during one session the legislature enacted 

two separate measures amending the same statute. 

At the time they ware introduced, the intended operation of 

neither measure was dependent upon the enactment of the other, and at 

the time they were passed, the operation of neither was dependent upon 

the governor's approval of the other. The bill adding section 14(a), 

with its "annexation" provisions, was passed by the House on May 17, 

1973, before it passed the bill authorizing multi-county districts on 

May 19, 1973, and the "annexation" enactment became effective June 12, 

1973, almost three months before the "multi-county" provision went 

into effect. See Acts 1973, chs. 260. at 609; 341, at 768. 

For the period of time between the effective dates of the two 

enactments, districts could only be created "wholly within one county" 

pursuant to section 2, and it was the apparent intention of the 

legislature that during that interim, at least, the "annexation" 

provision would have no application to territory located without the 

county in which an annexing district had been created. We think it 

continues to be so limited. 

p. 2149 
Honorable Donald R. Ross - Page 3 (MW-580) 

The statute now contains two provisions for selecting the fire 

commissioners of a district -- one (section 13) for districts created 

wholly within one county and another (section 13a) for multi-county 

districts. Section 13, which was part of the act before the 1973 

amendments to the statute were adopted and has not since been changed, 

provides for the appointment of district fire commissioners by the 

conrmissioners court of the county within which the district was 

created. Section 13(a). which governs the selection of fire 

commissioners for multi-county districts (added by Senate Bill No. 

764), provides for their election by a combined electorate in all the 

counties comprising the district. We do not think it was the 

intention of the legislature to leave to the commissioners court of 

only one county the selection of fire commissioners for districts 

embracing several counties. 

Additionally, the original intention to restrict the operation of 

section 14(a) to counties in which districts were created is evidenced 

by the requirement of section 14(a)(3)(C) that the notice of the 

public hearing required before annexation may be effected is to be 

published "in a newspaper with general circulation in the county." 

While we believe this requirement may be adapted to annexations by 

established multi-county districts, we think its presence shows that 

section 14(a) was not originally intended to embrace annexations 

across county lines. at least not by districts established nursuant to 

section 2 of the statute. See gs enerally 53 Tex. Jur. id Statutes 

5125, at 180. 

The case of Neil1 v. Cook, 365 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

Eastland 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.), has been cited to us as supporting 

the view that the "annexation" provisions of section 14(a) should be 

read as providing an alternate means of establishing a multi-county 

district. We have no quarrel with Neil1 v. Cook, but it does not 

control the question here, which is one of intent. The Neil1 v. Cook 

court determined that the legislature intended to allow school 

authorities to annex territory in a manner that would accomplish the 

end result of "consolidation" without following the election procedure 

for consolidation. We have concluded that the intent of the 

legislature was not to allow annexation by Rural Fire Prevention 

Districts beyond- county lines without first establishing a 

multi-county district pursuant to the procedure established by 

sections 2(a) and 8 of article 2351a-6, V.T.C.S. 

Acts in pari materia enacted at the same session of the 

legislature are presumed to have been actuated by the same policy and 

imbued with the same spirit. Garrett v. Mercantile National Bank at 

Dallas, 168 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. 1943). The Sixty-third Legislature was 

careful to provide in detail for the cooperative interaction of all 

concerned counties with respect to any proposal for the establishment 

of a Rural Fire Prevention District across county lines. We do not 

p. 2150 
Honorable Donald R. Ross - Page 4 (MW-580) 

believe it intended by the enactment of the "annexation" provision to 

allow local fire commissioners to establish multi-county districts in 

disregard of those considerations. 

SUMMARY 

A Rural Fire Prevention District located wholly 

within one county may not annex territory in a 

different county. 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

RICHARD E. GRAY III 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Bruce Youngblood 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Rick Gilpin 

Patricia Hinojosa 

Jim Moellinger 

Edna Ramon 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 2151