Does a Texas emergency services district have to provide fire and ambulance service to tax-exempt property, like a port or public school, inside its boundaries?

Texas AG Opinion JM-1129: Must an Emergency Services District Serve Tax-Exempt Property?

Plain-English summary

Texas emergency services districts are special districts, authorized by article III, section 48-e of the Texas Constitution and organized under article 2351a-8 of the Revised Civil Statutes, that provide fire prevention, firefighting, emergency medical, and ambulance services and support themselves with a property tax. The chairman of a Senate water subcommittee asked whether such a district must provide its services to tax-exempt entities inside its boundaries. The specific concern was the Port of Brownsville, and the question came up as the district evaluated the need for services before providing them, not as a claim that the district had failed to respond in a particular emergency.

The Attorney General concluded that these districts may not deny services to tax-exempt entities within their boundaries. The statute states that the districts exist "for the protection of human life and health," and the petition provisions require the commissioners court to find that a district will be "conducive to the public safety, welfare, health, and convenience of persons residing in the district." People who live in the district work at tax-exempt facilities like the port, and their children attend tax-exempt public schools while residents use tax-exempt public hospitals and clinics. Denying emergency services at those places would leave district residents unprotected while they happen to be standing on tax-exempt ground, which the Attorney General did not think the Legislature intended.

The structure of the statute reinforced that reading. The Legislature wrote express exemptions into the law: a business that provides its own fire prevention, fire control, ambulance, and other emergency services is not subject to the district's taxation or other powers, and there are special provisions about whether a district should take in an incorporated city that already runs its own emergency services. Because the Legislature carefully specified what property to remove from a district's authority, it would have expressly removed tax-exempt entities too if that had been the goal. The opinion did not address whether the district is liable for failing to respond in a specific case (a sovereign-immunity question) or where the district chooses to place its fire and ambulance stations (a policy decision), and it expressly declined to pass on the constitutionality of the self-service tax exemption.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Emergency services districts are now governed largely by chapter 775 of the Health and Safety Code, which recodified and has since amended the former article 2351a-8. Anyone dealing with a present-day district's service obligations should consult the current Health and Safety Code rather than the 1989 statute analyzed here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1989)

Emergency services districts: The opinion told these districts they could not deny fire, medical, and ambulance services to tax-exempt property within their boundaries, because their statutory purpose is protecting the people in the district wherever they are.

Tax-exempt entities in a district (ports, public schools, public hospitals): These entities, and the people present on their property, were entitled to the district's emergency services even though they paid no district property tax.

Businesses providing their own emergency services: The opinion noted the statute's express exemption for a business that furnishes its own fire, ambulance, and other emergency services, which removes it from the district's taxation and other powers. Tax-exempt entities did not fall into that or any comparable express exemption.

Common questions

Does an emergency services district have to serve tax-exempt property?
Yes. The Attorney General concluded that a district organized under article 2351a-8 may not deny its services to tax-exempt entities located within its boundaries.

Why, when tax-exempt property pays no district tax?
Because the district's purpose is protecting the life, health, and welfare of persons in the district, and those persons are present at tax-exempt places (working at a port, attending a public school, being treated at a public hospital). The Legislature also wrote explicit exemptions into the statute and did not exempt tax-exempt entities, which signaled it did not intend to strip them of protection.

Are there any properties the district's powers do not reach?
Yes. A business that provides its own fire prevention, fire control, ambulance, and other emergency services is not subject to the district's taxation or other powers, and there are special provisions about including an incorporated city that already provides emergency services.

Did the opinion decide whether a district can be sued for not responding to a call?
No. That is principally a sovereign-immunity question the opinion did not reach, and it did not evaluate where the district chooses to place its stations.

Background and statutory framework

Article III, section 48-e of the Texas Constitution (adopted pursuant to S.J.R. 27, § 1, Acts 1987, 70th Leg.) permits the creation of special districts to provide emergency services and authorizes a supporting property tax. The Legislature enacted article 2351a-8, V.T.C.S., allowing the organization of emergency services districts to carry out fire prevention, firefighting, emergency medical, and ambulance services, and to levy and enforce taxes within the district (§ 14, § 14(a)(5); see Attorney General Opinion JM-1010 (1989)). A separate statute, article 2351a-9, authorizes emergency fire services districts in counties of 125,000 or less, which the opinion did not address.

The opinion framed the question in terms of the districts' statutory purposes rather than tort liability. It distinguished the sovereign-immunity question of liability for failing to respond in a specific instance (see V.T.C.S. art. 2351a-8, § 15; City of Denton v. Van Page, 701 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. 1986); Black v. Nueces County Rural Fire Prevention Dist. No. 2, 695 S.W.2d 562 (Tex. 1985); Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 101.055; Attorney General Opinion JM-748 (1987)), and the policy question of where to locate stations (State v. Terrell, 588 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. 1979)).

Section 1 of article 2351a-8 states that districts may be organized "for the protection of human life and health," and section 7 requires the commissioners court, before granting a petition, to find that the district will be "conducive to the public safety, welfare, health, and convenience of persons residing in the district." Reading those purposes together with the residents' presence at tax-exempt facilities, the opinion concluded the Legislature did not intend to deny services to persons while they are on tax-exempt property. It reinforced that conclusion with the statute's express exemptions, notably section 13(d), which exempts a business entity that provides its own fire, ambulance, and other emergency services (as amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 606, § 1, at 1999), and the provisions about including an incorporated municipality. Because the Legislature expressly identified property to remove from a district's authority, it would have removed tax-exempt entities had it intended to; instead, the opinion concluded, the Legislature intended districts to serve tax-exempt entities within them. The opinion did not address the constitutionality of the self-service tax exemption.

Citations

Statutory and constitutional authorities:

• Texas Constitution art. III, § 48-e (special districts for emergency services)
• V.T.C.S. art. 2351a-8 (emergency services districts); § 1 (protection of human life and health); § 7 (petition findings); § 13(d) (exemption for self-provided emergency services); § 14, § 14(a)(5) (powers and taxation); § 15 (referenced on immunity)
• V.T.C.S. art. 2351a-9 (emergency fire services districts in counties of 125,000 or less; not addressed)
• Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 101.055 (referenced on immunity)
• S.J.R. 27, § 1, Acts 1987, 70th Leg. (adopting art. III, § 48-e)
• Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 606, § 1, at 1999 (amending art. 2351a-8, § 13(d))

Cases:

• City of Denton v. Van Page, 701 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. 1986) (sovereign immunity context)
• Black v. Nueces County Rural Fire Prevention Dist. No. 2, 695 S.W.2d 562 (Tex. 1985) (same)
• State v. Terrell, 588 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. 1979) (policy decisions on station location)

Attorney General opinions referenced:

• JM-1010 (1989); JM-748 (1987)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-1129
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1989/jm1129.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

Honorable Hector Uribe
Chairman
Subcommittee on Water
Texas State Senate
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711

Opinion No. JM-1129

Re: Whether an emergency service district is required to provide services to tax-exempt entities in its district (RQ-1769)

Dear Senator Uribe:

Article III, section 48-e, of the Texas Constitution (adopted pursuant to S.J.R. 27, § 1, Acts 1987, 70th Leg.) permits the creation of special districts to provide emergency services and authorizes a property tax to support them.[Footnote 1] Pursuant to this constitutional authority, the legislature adopted article 2351a-8, V.T.C.S., allowing the organization of emergency services districts with power "to carry out the objects of their creation, including fire prevention, fire fighting services, emergency medical services, and ambulance services." V.T.C.S. art. 2351a-8, § 14.[Footnote 2] The district may "levy and enforce the collection of taxes in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in this Act against the lands and other property within the district for the district revenues." Id. § 14(a)(5); see Attorney General Opinion JM-1010 (1989).

You point out that tax-exempt property is located in emergency service districts and ask the following question:

Are these emergency service districts required to provide emergency services to tax-exempt entities inside their district?

The specific tax-exempt entity that you are concerned about is the Port of Brownsville. We understand that the question arises in the context of evaluating the need for emergency services in the district in advance of providing them. You are not asking whether an emergency services district is liable for failing to provide emergency services in a specific instance. The latter question is principally a matter of the district's sovereign immunity. See V.T.C.S. art. 2351a-8, § 15; see also City of Denton v. Van Page, 701 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. 1986); Black v. Nueces County Rural Fire Prevention Dist. No. 2, 695 S.W.2d 562 (Tex. 1985); Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.055; Attorney General Opinion JM-748 (1987). Nor are we evaluating any policy decisions the district might make as to where fire stations or ambulance stations are to be located. State v. Terrell, 588 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. 1979). We will address your question from the perspective of the statutory purposes of emergency service districts, and will attempt to determine whether or not the denial of services to tax-exempt entities located in the district would be consistent with these purposes.

Various provisions of article 2351a-8, V.T.C.S., indicate the purposes of emergency services districts and the population they are to serve. Section 1 of article 2351a-8, V.T.C.S., provides as follows:

Emergency services districts may be organized in this state under Article III, Section 48-e, of the Texas Constitution for the protection of human life and health as provided by this Act. (Emphasis added.)

With respect to the hearing on a petition to establish a district, section 7, in part, provides as follows:

If at the hearing it appears to the commissioners court that the organization of a district as petitioned for is feasible and practicable, and will be conducive to the public safety, welfare, health, and convenience of persons residing in the district, the court shall make those findings and grant the petition and fix the boundaries of the district. (Emphasis added.)

The district's purpose is stated in terms of protecting the welfare of persons in the district. Persons residing in the district may work at a tax-exempt facility, such as the Port of Brownsville. The public schools attended by children in the district and public hospitals and clinics at which residents of the district receive medical services are tax-exempt facilities. In many instances, providing emergency services to tax-exempt entities located in the district will be "conducive to the public safety, welfare, health, and convenience" of persons in the district. We do not believe that the legislature intended emergency services to be denied to persons in the district during the time that they are physically present on tax-exempt property.

Moreover, article 2351a-8, V.T.C.S., includes express exemption for certain properties. Section 13(d) provides that a business entity located in an emergency services district is not subject to taxation by the district or to the other powers of the district if it provides its own fire prevention, fire control, ambulance, and other emergency services as specified in the statute. See Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 606, § 1, at 1999 (amending V.T.C.S. article 2351a-8, section 13(d)).[Footnote 3] In addition, there are special provisions relating to whether a proposed district should include an incorporated municipality, which might already provide its own emergency services. These express provisions for removing certain property from the district's authority indicate that the legislature gave this matter some thought, and suggest that it would have expressly removed tax-exempt entities from the district's powers and authority, if it had intended that result. The legislature, in our opinion, intended that an emergency services district provide services to tax-exempt entities located within it.

SUMMARY

Emergency services districts established under article 2351a-8, V.T.C.S., may not deny services to tax-exempt entities within their boundaries.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

MARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General

LOU MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Susan Garrison
Assistant Attorney General

Footnote 1: Another constitutional provision also identified as article III, section 48-e authorizes legislation creating jail districts. H.J.R. 18, § 1, Acts 1987, 70th Leg.

Footnote 2: Article 2351a-9, V.T.C.S., authorizes the creation of emergency fire services districts in counties with a population of 125,000 or less. Because you only ask about article 2351a-8, we do not address the provisions of article 2351a-9.

Footnote 3: We do not address the constitutionality of this tax exemption.