Case Information

*1 December 30. 1986 Opinion No. JM-605 Eonorable Terra1 R. Smith Chairman Re: Whether a rural Criminal Jurisprudence Committee fire pre- vention district must continue Texas Rouse of Representatives to and P. 0. Box 2910 888688 taxes against residents Austin, Texas 18169

of an area recently annexed by a municipality Dear Representative Smith:

You ask two questions about the status of an area of a rural fire prevention districts annexed by a city. These questions, in reverse order, are as follows:

1. What proce.dures are necessary to remove a full-purpose municipal annexation area from the ‘* tax rolls and obligations of a rural fire preven- tion district created prior to September 1, 1985? 2. Must a rural

created prior taxes, provide direct services and be liable residents of a recently annexed area into an article 1269m, V.T.C.S., service municipality which was within boundaries of the fire district full-purpose annexatioa the area municipality? 2351a-6, V.T.C.S., provides for creating and governing Article

rural fire prevention districts. Set Tex. Coast. art. III, 148-d (authorizing legislature for establishment and creation of rural districts). A 1985 amendment to article 23510-6, V.T.C.S., added provisions dealing with the inclusion in a or extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city. The enactment of Senate Bill No. 783 amended section 8A of article 2351a-6. V.T.C.S., and added sections 8B and 14b to article 2351a-6, V.T.C.S. See Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 93, at 525. Section 8A now requires the zissioners court to determine that the proposed district would provide certain public benefits within any extraterritorial of a city it proposes to encompass. as well as any area within limits. Section 8B. a new provision, provides that territory within a city or *2 Honorable Terra1 R;-Smith - Page 2 (m-605)

its extrateqitorial jurisdiction may not be.included in a rural fire unless the governing body of the city gives written inclusion. V.T.C.S. art. 2351a-6, §8B(a). If consent to the the governing body does not consent, voters and property owners the territory proposed for inclusion in -the district may petition goverument it; -with.. f-ire protection. Id. §8B(b). The failure.or,refusal of the governmental body to provide fire protection consent inclusion of the area in the proposed district. Id. 588(c).

Section 14b is a new section which provides as follows: See: 14b. (a) The governing body of a city _ .~. .‘: that has an area .within or extra- territorial included within a rural fire may, on agreeing to provide fire protection to the srea as provided by Section 8B of this Act . . . notify the secretary of the board of fire commissioners in writing excluded _ f ram the district’s the :territory. .~ (b) On receipt of the notice under Subsection the board shall cease

(a) of this section, provide further service to the area, exclude the axes by-order from the district, and .redefine the district~s boundaries.

The bill analysis of Senate Bill No. 783 states of section 14b:

This section provides that if .a~city has territory within a district and the city agrees

fire protection . . . the governing body shall notify the secretary of ‘the board of cowsissioners in writing this change. On receipt this notice, the board shall cease to provide service.

Bill Analysis to S.B. No. 783. prepared for Aouse Committee on Urban Affairs, filed in Bill File to S.B. No. 783, Legislative Reference Library. Attorney General Opinion JM-453 (1986) this office determined

that section 14b applies to the removal of territory from rural prevention districts created before September 1, 1985. See Attorney See also Attorney Genex Opinion General Opinion JX-453 (1986). .I&591 General Opinion JM-453 (1986) also considered how the removal of territory from arural fire-~ prwentio=.district would affect .its tax* rolls and obl~igations. The opinion noted that except issuance of bonds and notes, could contract only that indebtedness payable out of excess funds on hand or current revenues. for the year. Thus, the obligations at issue were

Eonorabls Terra1 R. S&h - Page 3 (JM-605)**

obligations to bondholders, ObligatiOnS protectid the contract by clauses of both the federal and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. art. 1, 510, cl. 1; Tex. Const. art. I, 516; Attorney Feral Opinion JM-453 (1986) and authorities cited therein. Legislation which removes the source repayment tu -bondholders without substituting something of equal efficacy way impaik the obligation of contract and violate the coustitution. - City of- Aransas Pass v. Keeling. 247 S.W. 818, 821 (Tex. 1923); Burns v. Dilley Couoty Line Independent School 295 S.W. 1091, 1094 judgment adopted (Tex. Cosm’n App. District, 1927); Attorney General Opinions J’M-453 (1986); O-1205 (1939).

Attorney General Opinion JU-453 concluded that an area removed from a rural fire district would still be required,to pay its pro rata share of such obligstions existing when the territory is’withdrawn from the district. It stated as follows:

Article 2351a-6 contains no express provision payment of the excluded territory’s pro rata share of an existing district indebtedness. Cf. Water Code 5553.268, 54.731 -(on payment pro rata share of existing district indebtedness. excluded taxpayars are released from liability to the district and payment of taxes). It is our opinion that article 2351a-6, as recently. amended to authorize the exclusion of a city from a district, is not facially unconstitu- tioual . particular situations where In obligation of contract to bondholders would be impaired, the statute may be unconstitutionsl as applied without the col2ectiou from the taxes excluded area to pay its pro rata share of obliga- tions to bondholders that are in existence at the time the city is withdrawn from See General Opinion MW-337 (1981). Attorney General Opinion.JM-453 (1986) at 4.

The quoted holding of Attorney General Opinion JM-453 applicable where the territory detached from the rural fire prevention less than the entire city. Thus, Attorney General Opinion JM-453 provides the answer to your first question. See, e.g., art. 2351a-6, 1119-22. :

Our answer question one also provides a partial answer to question two, which asks as follows:

Must a rural created taxes, provide direct -and be liable to residents of a recently annexed area into a 1269m. V.T.C.S., service municipality which was within the *4 Eonoxable Terra1 k.. Smith - Page 4 (JKA605k

boundar,ies .of tlae fire distric’t prtot.. to full- purpose-‘annexation the rmmici- palsty? ken if thedfty government rexovu the recently annexed area . . . _ - -.

frox the. rura&; fire preVentSor&. dlst+ct, its pro 3ata share of the disirict!‘a .oblfgatj.ons mm.+ ,be firlfilled. rewvxl, however, the After board fiir’~qommlda~ionerx of tie. ‘district “shall cesse to provide fyrther service ,to t&area. ~. . .” V.T.C.S. art. 2351a-6, S14b. . . . tie ‘event that...the city does’ not r-e. ,the recently annexed

area from .the.firc’diatrict,.,that area ViU continue to be,part of the dia,trfcF~:,. Article ,, ‘1269ia,.: ,V.T.C.S., eatablfshea a firemen’s polickken’~~ civil senrice in cities irlthin the statutory description, ;-~.but it doas not deal with the firefighting responsibilitfea of those

cities. ‘Tbe.diatrict~wlll continue to have tha same powers and duties tow&d then residents of the annaxed area axe it had prior to the annex- ation. A city, with;fta broad statutory police powers, may overlap .eth a special purpoae:.municipu~ entity, such as a rural terrkory City Pelly v..Earria County Water Control fire’ proteciion 6 lmprovwent District No. 7, 198 S.U.2d 450 (Tex. 1946); Attorney General Opinioa J&400

‘-~ B C.M M A. R Y When .a mini~ipality- annexes territory within a :preventlon crested prior .’ Skptembsr .l; 1985, the territory remains part of

then district- unless the city removes it .from the diptrict , pursuant section 14b ‘article men a samicipality removes an 2351ak6, V;TIC.S.

annexed iafea:from is to cease providing services that &ea. of Tbxas

AttorneyGenera.l JACg HIGDTO!&

First Aaaiataat .Attorney General

MARY KEUER

txecutive Aassistant Atiomey Genera1

RICK GILPIlo

Chsirman. Opinion‘ Cmsnittee

Prepared by Susan L. Garrison

Assistant Attorney General