Opinion ID: 1427904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: South Metro's Argument

Text: South Metro argues that section 72.418 applies because the plain language of section 72.418.2 provides that fire protection districts serving property included within any annexation by a city shall continue to provide these services. It argues that the court does not need to look to the context of the act to determine the meaning or legislative intent because the plain language of section 72.418 is unambiguous. South Metro makes several arguments that the legislature did not intend to limit the application of section 72.418 to only counties with a boundary commission as the city argues. First, it argues that if the legislature intended such a limited application, it would not have used the phrase any annexation, but would have used the term boundary change, which only occurs in counties with a boundary commission and includes annexations. Further, the phrase including simplified boundary changes following any annexation actually expands its application to reach changes that occur in counties with a boundary commission. Second, South Metro argues that SB 256 was not enacted only to address counties with a boundary commission. The bill amended sections in chapter 321 that did not affect or have any relationship to the boundary commission chapter. Although the city argues that the emergency clause calls for immediate action because of pending annexations before the boundary commission, the clause also calls for immediate action because there is a dispute as to fire protection and emergency medical services jurisdiction between municipal fire departments and fire protection districts.... Further, the bill was enacted after the decision in O'Reilly which declared the boundary commission act unconstitutional as a special law. 850 S.W.2d at 100. As a result of this, South Metro argues it is logical that the legislature would enact some sections that apply to all counties to prevent future constitutional challenges. Third, South Metro argues the amendment of subsection 4 to section 321.322 indicates intent to apply section 72.418 when two sections potentially apply to an annexation. Accordingly, it argues that even though this subsection does not apply here, it is evidence of a legislative intent to favor applying section 72.418 to annexed property. South Metro claims that the statutes can be harmonized by limiting the application of section 321.320 to property included in a fire protection district and a city in 1961. This interpretation is supported by the 1961 amendment deleting now or hereinafter from the verb phrase. In the alternative, if the sections are in irreconcilable conflict, section 72.418 controls because it addresses the subject matter more specifically. Section 72.418 is more specific, South Metro argues, because it references annexation as the method by which the property is included in both boundaries, addresses the taxing authority over the annexed property, as well as provides that the fire protection district will have the authority to accept or reject proposals from the city to assume responsibility for these services. This section is also the most recently enacted. [8]