# The Attorney General of Texas

December 31, 1982
MARK WHITE Attorney General

SupremeCourt 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 HonorableDonald R. Ross Rusk CountyAttorney Rusk County Courthouse Henderson,Texas 75652

DearMr. Ross: OpinionNo. Mw-580

Re: Annexationpower of rural firepreventiondistrict

You have asked whether a Rural Fire Prevention District located wholly within one countymay annex territory that does not liewithin the same county. Sl2e Tl?X.Const. art. III, §48-d. In connection therewithyou advise:

The specific context in which these questions have arisen is as follows: First, an attemptwas made to create a Multi-countydistrict (adistrict containing territory in two counties)pursuant to
sec. 2(a) of [article 2351a-6,V.T.C.S.] and when the proponents of said districtwere denied their petitionby the CommissionersCourt in one of the two counties (see sections5 & 6 of said article), insteadof 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 collecta 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,governsproposals to create multi-county districts. Petitions to call elections thereformust be presented to the county judge of each countywherein the district is sought tobe created. The commissionerscourt 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. 2148HonorableDonald 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 createa district "whollywithin 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 petitionof qualifiedvoterswho own taxableproperty outside the district, to add the territory of such property owners to the district by resolution (subject to later ratificationby electors in both the district and the added territory). There is no express "one county" limitation set out in section 14(a) and the argumenthas 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-countydistricts.

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-thirdLegislature,enacting SenateBill NO. 764. Section 14(a) was added by chapter 341 thereof, enacting House Bill No. 337. Thus, during one session the legislatureenacted two separatemeasures amending the same statute.

At the time they ware introduced, the intended operation of neithermeasurewas dependentupon the enactment of the other, and at the time theywere passed, the operationof neitherwas dependentupon 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 authorizingmulti-county districts on May 19, 1973,and the "annexation"enactmentbecame effectiveJune 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,districtscould only be created "whollywithin one county" pursuant to section 2, and it was the apparent intention of the legislature that during that interim, at least, the "annexation" provisionwould have no application to territory located without the county in which an annexing district had been created. We think it continues tobe so limited.

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

The statute now contains two provisions for selecting the fire commissionersof 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 statutewere adopted and has not sincebeen changed, provides for the appointment of district fire commissioners by the conrmissionerscourt 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 electionby 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 intentionto restrict the operationof section 14(a) to counties inwhich districtswere 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 requirementmay be adapted to annexations by establishedmulti-county districts,we think its presence shows that section 14(a) was not originally intended to embrace annexations
across county lines.at leastnot by districtsestablishednursuant 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 questionhere,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 followingthe electionprocedure 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 legislatureare presumed to have been actuatedby 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 Legislaturewas careful to provide in detail for the cooperative interaction of all concerned countieswith respect to any proposal for the establishment of a Rural Fire Prevention District across county lines. We do not

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

believe it intendedby the enactment of the "annexation"provision to allow local fire commissioners to establishmulti-county districts in disregardof those considerations.

SUMMARY

A Rural Fire PreventionDistrict locatedwholly within one county may not annex territory in a differentcounty.

MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas

JOHNW. FAINTER,JR. FirstAssistantAttorneyGeneral

RICHARD E. GRAY III ExecutiveAssistantAttorneyGeneral
Preparedby Bruce Youngblood AssistantAttorneyGeneral

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE

SusanL. Garrison,Chairman Jon Bible Rick Gilpin PatriciaHinojosa Jim Moellinger Edna Ramon BruceYoungblood

p. 2151