BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 2143
By: De La Garza
05-05-95
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

Currently, rural counties cannot take full advantage of taxing for
emergency services district when there is a rural fire prevention
district in the same area without dissolving the rural fire
prevention district. A county cannot coordinate an election to
create an emergency services district with an election to dissolve
a rural fire prevention district because an election to create an
emergency services district is called by the county commissioners
court; An election to dissolve a rural fire prevention district
must be called by the fire prevention district's board.

PURPOSE

To permit a county to call one election for the purpose of
simultaneously dissolving a rural fire prevention district and
creating an emergency services district.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly
grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer,
department, agency or institution.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1: Subchapter B, Chapter 775, Health and Safety Code, is
amended by adding Sections 775.023 and 775.024 to read as follows: 
     Sec. 775.023  (a) says this section and section 775.024 only
apply to a county located (1) on an international border, (2) has
a population more than 375,000; and (3) contains at least seven
municipalities, each with a population of more than 12,000.  A
petition calling for an emergency services district and for the
dissolution of those rural fire prevention districts may be filed
with the county judge of each county and the petition must be
signed by at least 100 voters who own property in the county and
the proposed emergency services district. The name of the district
proposed by the petition must be "             Emergency Services
District." 

     (b) says the petition must show: (1) that the district is to
be created and is to operate under Section 48-e, Article III, Texas
Constitution, as proposed by S.J.R. No. 27, Acts of the 70th
Legislature, Regular Session, 1987, and adopted by the voters at an
election held Nov. 3, 1987. (2) the name of the proposed emergency
services district; (3) the emergency services district's
boundaries; (4) the name of each rural fire prevention district
that exists and that is proposed to be dissolved; (5) that none of
the territory in the emergency services district is included in
another emergency services district; and (6) the mailing address of
each petitioner.

     (c) says the petition must contain an agreement signed by at
least 2 petitioners that obligates them to pay not more than $150
of the costs of forming the emergency districts.

     (d) says the county judge may receive the petition and shall
file the petition with the county clerk. 

     (e) says the commissioners court shall set hearings to
consider the petition and that one hearing must be conducted in
each rural fire district that is proposed to be dissolved. The
commissioners court may grant the petition after the conclusion of
the hearings pursuant to Section 775.017.

Sec. 775.024. (a) the commissioners court shall order an election
to confirm the creation of the emergency district, to authorize a
tax and to assume the assets and liabilities of each fire district
proposed to be dissolved.  The commissioners court shall order an
election in each rural fire district on whether to dissolve the
fire districts effective on the date that the emergency services
district is created. Applicable election sections are enumerated.

     (b) says the ballot in the election for to confirm creation of
the districts must be printed to permit voting for or against the
proposition and sets out the text. 

     (c) says an emergency service district is created if a
majority of those voting vote to confirm the creation of the
emergency districts. If a majority vote against, a rural fire
prevention district as to which the commissioners court orders an
election under Sub. (a) is not dissolved, without regard to the
results of the dissolution election.

     (d) says if a majority of those voting at the election vote to
dissolve a rural fire prevention district, the territory of the
rural fire prevention district is included in the emergency
services district. If a majority of those voting at the election
vote against dissolving a rural fire prevention district, the
territory of the rural fire prevention district may not be included
in the emergency services district. 

     (e) says on the effective date of creation of an emergency
services district as provided by an order, the board of fire
commissioners of a dissolved district shall transfer the assets and
liabilities of the rural fire prevention district to the emergency
services district. If the rural fire prevention district has
outstanding bonds to which ad valorem taxes are pledged, the board
of emergency services commissioners of the services district shall
fully pay the debt or shall annually impose an ad valorem tax on
all property located in the district and subject to district
taxation at a rate sufficient to pay the principal and interest on
the bonds. Dissolution of the rural fire prevention district does
not diminish the rights of the bond or note holders at the time of
dissolution.

SECTION 2: EMERGENCY CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
           
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The committee substitute is bracketed so that the bill only affects
a county that is located on an international border that has a
population of more than 375,000 and contains at least seven
municipalities each with a population of more than 12,000.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

HB 2143 was considered by the County Affairs Committee in a public
hearing on 4/26/95. Representative De La Garza opened. The
following person testified for HB 2143: David Mendez, representing
Hildago County. The committee considered a complete committee
substitute. Representative De La Garza closed. HB 2143 was left
pending. HB 2143 was considered by the County Affairs committee in
a formal hearing on 5/2/95. The committee considered a complete
committee substitute to HB 2143. The substitute was adopted without
objection. HB 2143 was reported favorably, as substituted, with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by the record vote
of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 0 absent. The vote by which HB 2143, as
substituted, was reported favorably with the recommendation that it
do pass and be printed was reconsidered without objection in a
public meeting of the County Affairs Committee on 5/3/95. HB 2143,
as substituted, was reported favorably with the recommendation that
it do pass and be printed and be sent to the Committee on Local and
Consent Calendars, by the record vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 3
absent.