. .

Hon. Glyndon M. County Attorney Cleburne, Texas

Dear Mr. Hague: December 13, 1957

Hague Opinion No. ~11-308

Re: Does the TaxAssessorCollector for Johnson County have the proper authority to asseas and collect taxea for the Johnson County Rural Fire Prevention District established under the Rural Fire Prevention Districts Act, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, Article 2.531a-6? Yourequest the opinion of this office upon several questions involved in the above-captioned matter. Your questions are as follows:

1. Does this office (Tax AssessorCollector) have proper authority to assess andcollect this tax in Johnson County, Texas?” 2. “Mayit be assessed andcollected on real property? personal property? tangible property? intangible properties?, said properties being within the boundaries of Johnson County,” 3. “If the tax as levied Is not paid andbecomes delinquent, what authority does this office have to collect said tax?” 4. “Does the election of November 6, 1956, meet the requirements of Section 8-a of the Rural Fire Prevention Districts Act concerning th& inclusion of incorporated cities, towns andvillages located in Johnson County so as to make said incorporated cities, towns andvillages apart of said Rural Fire District and property located therein subject to the .03 cent tax?”Han, Glyndon M.Hague, page 2 (~~-308)

At the outset, weare confronted with the question whether the County Assessor-Collector of Taxes in Johnson County, has any authority ,tocollect this tax. Nowherein the Act as It finally passed is this authority conferred upon him; nor under the Act does the Board of Fire Commissioners, which constituted the governing board of the Fire Prevention District, have anypower to confer ,this authority upon the TaxAssessor-Collector of Johnson County. There Is nothing In the Act from which It might be reasonably inferred that the TaxAssessor-Collector of Johnson County has the authority to collect the tax. It is, therefore, apparent that if the TaxAssessor-Collector has the authority to collect this tax, wemust find it elsewhere.

If the fire prevention tax is a county tax then under the constitutional and statutory authority conferred upon the TaxAssessor-Collector generally to collect county taxes this would be sufficient to support the collection of this tax by him. Therefore, the first question wemust answer: Is this a county tax? If it is, the County Tax Assessor-Collector has this authority to collect this tax, otherwise not. Wehave reached the conclusion that it is not a county tax andnot k&ended by the Legislature that it should be. Weare led to this conclusion by the terms of Section 48-d of Article III of .theCcnstitution which is the constitutional authority for the establishment and creation of Rural Fire Prevention Districts andthe levy of the tax of -03 cents per OneHundred ($100.00) Dollars valuation on .theadvalorem property situated in such district. This constitutional provision reads as follows:

"TheLegislature shall have the power to provide for the establishment and creation of rural fire prevention districts andto authorize a tax on the advalorem property situated in said districts not to exceed Three (34) Cents on the OneHundred ($100.00) Dollars valuation for the support thereof; provided that no tax shall be levied In support of said districts un,til approved by vote of the peop.le residing therein, (Emphasis added.) It is observed that the taxes levied must be for the support of the district, andwethink clearly it 1s intended that it be considered andtreated as a district tax, as distinguished from a county tax.Hon. Glyndon M.Hague, page 3 (~~-308)

Section 8 of the Act says In part as follows:

“The election to confirm the district or authorize the levy of the tax shall be submitted as a single proposition to the people residing therein whoare qualffied to vote,” (Emphasis added.) Section 8(a) IS in part as follows:

“Nodistrict hereafter created shall include the area of anv incornorated citv. town, or village, unless amajority of the electors residing in the municipality and participating in the election called by the Commissioners’ Court to confirm the district andlevy the tax have voted in favor of both the creation of the district andthe levy of the tax.” (Emphasis added.) Section 10with reference to the authority of the district is in part as follows: 11

. to levy andenforce the collection 0; taxes in lands andother property within the district for the district revenueaccept andreceive donations; andto do any andall lawful acts required end expedient to carry out the purposes of this At 11 c

. (Emphasis added.) Section 12reads In part as follows: 11 e

. . TheBoard of Blre Commissioners shall annually levy and cause to be assessed andcollected a tax upon all properties, real andpersonal, situated within the district andsubject to taxation In an amountnot to exceed %ree Cents (34) on the OneHundred Dollars ($100.00) valuation for the support of the district, andfor the purposes authorized in this Act.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, it appears that throughout the Act emphasis is laid upon the creation andpowers of the districts andthe levy of the taxes in support of the districts.. -

Hon. Glyndon M,Hague, page 4 (WW-308)

is, therefore, manifest that Legislature to authorize the It it was the intention of the levy andassessment of this tax as a district tax solely for the benefit and support of the Fire Prevention District and Is not a county tax. Anydoubt in this regard Is removed by the fact that Senate Bill No. 372 as originally Introduced haa the following provision in It:

"Such tax levy shall be certified to the County TaxAssessor andCollector, who shall be the assessor-collector for the district. The tax rolls of the County shall be the tax rolls of the District." This was eliminated by a Committee amendmentIn the Senate by the substitution of the following:

"The values of property in the said district shall be the samevalues as shown on the County tax rolls." (See Senate Journal, 55th Legislature, Regular Session, dated March26, 1957, pages 598-599.) which, as will be observed, is the language of the bill as It finally passed andwas approved.

TheLegislature, therefore, took pains to makesure that the TaxAssessor-Collector hadno authority to collect this tax andwethink clearly manifested a legislative intent that the tax is not a county tax but strictly a district tax. It is of no importance that the boundaries of the district are tioterminus with the boundaries of the county. It is still aFire Prevention District.

Theforegoing constitutes a sufficient answer to your question No. 1. Since wehave held that the tax Is not a county tax andnot collectable by the County TaxAssessorCollector, wefind It unnecessary to answer questions Nos. 2 and 3as they become moot In view of the facet that your questions andthe answers you makeare directed to andpertain to the duties of the TaxAssessor-Collector.

Wedo answer your fourth question, however, which is separate andapart from the authority of the County Tax Assessor-Collector to collect the taxes. Wehold that the election of November 6, 1956, In view of the validating provisions of the Act pertaining to districts previously established Is sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 8(a) concerning the inclusion of incorporated cities, towns andvillages so as to makethemapart of said Rural Fire District andthe property therein is subject to the Three (3#) Cent tax.Hon. Glyndon M.Hague, page 

### 5 (Ww-308)

It is not to be inferred from this opinion that wehold that the governing board of the Rural Fire Prevention District maynot set up its owntax assessing andcollection system but refrain from any specific ruling thereon in this opinion. SU.MMARY

TheCounty TaxAssessor-Collector of Johnson County has no authority under Senate Bill No. 372 to assess or collect the Three 

### (34)Cent tax on the OneHundred ($100.00) Dollar valuation of property located In aFire Prevention District for the tax is not a county tax andnowhere in said bill is authority conferred upon the County TaxAssessor-Collector to assess or collect the tax. It is unnecessary to answer your questions Nos. 2and 

### 3as they become moot in view of our answer to your question No. 1. Theelection held November6, 

### 1956,in view of the validating provisions of the Act meets the requirements of Section 

### 8(a) of the Rural Fire Prevention District concerning the inclusion of incorporated cities, towns, andvillages located in Johnson County andthe residents of said District andtheir property is subject to the tax provided .for in the Act. LPL:gs APPROVED OPINIONCOMMITTEE Very truly yours, WILLWILSON Attorney General

BY L. P. Lollar Assistant George P. Blackburn, Chairman John H. Minton Marietta MacGregor Payne B. HiTimmins, Jr: Fred Werkenthin REVIEWEDFOR

THEATTORNEYGENERAL BY: JamesN. Ludlum