If a Texas city annexes my municipal utility district but does not dissolve it, can the city and the district both tax me for the same services?

Texas AG Opinion JM-930: Can a City and a Utility District Both Tax You After Annexation?

Plain-English summary

If you live in a Texas municipal utility district, you already pay taxes to that district to cover the water, sewer, drainage, and road improvements it bonded for. Now suppose the nearby city annexes your district. In the past, annexation usually meant the city took over the district, assumed its debts, and the district disappeared. But a 1987 change to the annexation law let a city annex a district and leave the district standing, with its own board and its own taxing power, for as long as ten years. State Representative Terral Smith asked the obvious worried question: does that leave residents paying two governments, the city and the still-alive district, for the same services? Is that unconstitutional double taxation?

The Attorney General gave a two-part answer. On the constitutional question, the answer was no, this is not unconstitutional. On a second, more technical point, the answer was that a different and more specific statute still controls how water districts get annexed, so the new general provision does not actually apply to municipal utility districts anyway.

Start with the constitution. People often assume "double taxation" is automatically illegal. In Texas it is not. The state constitution never says double taxation is forbidden. What it says, in article VIII, section 1, is that taxation must be "equal and uniform." For decades Texas courts have applied that rule to overlapping governments and reached a consistent result: when the same property sits inside both a city and a special district, and both tax it for the same kinds of services, that is not unconstitutional. The courts leaned on the fact that the two entities were created separately under the constitution, each with its own taxing power for its own purposes, and that in practice only one of them actually delivers the service. The 1987 amendment did not push past that line. It does not make the city take on the district's debts or duties, and it lets the district keep operating for a limited window. The opinion acknowledged this can fall hard on residents who pay two sets of taxes without seeing double the services, but "equal and uniform" has never meant every taxpayer gets an equal return for the money. So no constitutional violation.

Then the opinion turned to a statutory wrinkle that ends up mattering more for utility-district residents specifically. Texas has a longstanding, specific statute, Local Government Code section 43.075 (which traces back to a 1947 law), that governs how a city annexes water control and improvement districts, fresh water supply districts, and municipal utility districts. That statute takes the opposite approach from the 1987 amendment: when a city annexes all of such a district, it must take over the district's property, assume all its debts and obligations, perform its functions including providing services, and then the district is abolished. The whole point of section 43.075, courts have said, was to prevent a city and an annexed district from duplicating each other and to spread the burden of paying off the district's bonds fairly.

So the general 1987 amendment (annex but leave the district alive) squarely conflicts with the specific section 43.075 (annex, absorb, dissolve). Which one wins? Texas has a tie-breaker rule in Government Code section 311.026: when a general provision conflicts with a special one, courts try to give effect to both, and if they cannot, the special provision wins, unless the general provision was enacted later and the Legislature clearly meant for the general one to prevail. Here the general provision actually was the later of the two, enacted about a month after the code, which normally would flip the result. But the Attorney General found no sign in the legislative history that lawmakers meant to override section 43.075. The records showed the subsection was added as a floor amendment during a compromise over annexation, and nobody so much as mentioned section 43.075 or its predecessor. Without that clear intent, the specific statute keeps its priority. The bottom line: section 43.075 still governs the annexation of municipal utility districts and the other listed water districts, and the 1987 amendment does not.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988. Later statutes, court decisions, and 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 mentioned here.

Texas annexation law has changed a great deal since 1988, and this is an area where the details really matter. The old article 970a and 970c provisions were folded into the Local Government Code, and the Legislature has since substantially rewritten municipal annexation, including moving toward consent-based annexation that limits a city's power to annex without the affected residents' or voters' approval. Section numbers, the ten-year provision, and the specific rules for annexing water districts and municipal utility districts have all been revisited. The constitutional "equal and uniform" analysis is more durable, but the statutory framework this opinion parses no longer reads the way it did in 1988. Anyone facing a real annexation question today should work from the current Local Government Code, the current Water Code, and current case law, not the 1987-era provisions discussed here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1988)

Municipal utility district residents: The opinion reassured them that overlapping city and district taxes after annexation are not automatically unconstitutional, but also told them that the specific water-district statute (section 43.075), which requires the city to absorb the district and its debts and then dissolve it, still governed their situation.

Cities considering annexation: The opinion drew a line between annexing an ordinary political subdivision (where the 1987 amendment's leave-it-standing approach could apply) and annexing a water-related special district (where section 43.075's absorb-and-dissolve rule still controls).

Municipal utility districts and their boards: The opinion confirmed that for the enumerated water districts, annexation still meant the city takes over assets, debts, and functions and the district is abolished, not the ten-year survival the amendment described.

Common questions

Is being taxed by both a city and a special district for the same services unconstitutional in Texas?
No. The Texas Constitution does not ban double taxation; it requires taxation to be "equal and uniform." Texas courts have long held that overlapping city and special-district taxes on the same property for the same kinds of services do not violate that rule.

Did the 1987 amendment let a city annex a utility district without paying off its debts?
On its face the amendment let a city annex a district and leave it (and its taxing authority) alive for up to ten years, without forcing the city to assume the district's debts. But the Attorney General concluded that amendment does not actually govern municipal utility districts, because a more specific statute does.

Which statute controls the annexation of a municipal utility district?
Local Government Code section 43.075. It requires a city that annexes such a district to take over its property, assume its debts and obligations, perform its functions, and then abolish the district.

Why did the specific statute win when the general amendment was enacted later?
Under Government Code section 311.026, a special provision beats a conflicting general one unless the general one is later and the Legislature clearly intended it to prevail. The amendment was later, but there was no sign lawmakers meant to override section 43.075, so the specific statute kept its priority.

Does any of this still apply today?
Not directly. See the currency note. The annexation statutes have been recodified and substantially amended, and Texas has moved toward consent-based annexation. Use current law for any real annexation question.

Background and statutory framework

The legislation prompting the request was section 8 of Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1077, at 7397 (Senate Bill No. 962), which amended section 8 of former V.T.C.S. article 970a, the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 8 had been repealed and codified as Local Government Code sections 42.041 and 42.042 during the same regular session, but Government Code section 311.031(c) preserves an amendment made by the same legislature that enacted the code and gives it effect as part of the code. The amendment added subsection F, providing that, subject to its terms, a city may annex a political subdivision for full or limited purposes and the subdivision, its taxing authority, and its board of directors may continue to exist for up to ten years from annexation, provided that at annexation at least ninety percent of the water, wastewater, road, and drainage improvements for which district bonds are to be issued have been installed and completed under the district's plans. The concern was that a city could annex a municipal utility district without abolishing it or assuming its bonded indebtedness, leaving residents subject to both the city's and the district's taxing authority without a corresponding increase in services.

The opinion narrowed the question to full-purpose annexation of a municipal utility district (noting that V.T.C.S. article 970c, section 7(c) bars a city from taxing property or residents of an area annexed for limited purposes on or after September 1, 1987, and that Local Government Code section 43.071 requires a city to annex the entire area of a district created under Texas Constitution article XVI, section 59 in specified circumstances; Water Code section 54.011 authorizes creation of municipal utility districts under article XVI, section 59).

On the constitutional question, the Attorney General explained that the Texas Constitution does not expressly condemn double taxation. Article VIII, section 1 commands that taxation be "equal and uniform," and that is the principle invoked in double-taxation claims. Under it, courts have held that property lying within both a city and a special district and taxed by both for the same kinds of services is not unconstitutional double taxation and is not taxation that fails to be equal and uniform (City of Pelly v. Harris County Water Control & Improvement District No. 7, 198 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. 1946); Moore v. Edna Hospital District, 449 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Kuhlmann v. Drainage District No. 12 of Harris County, 51 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1932, writ ref'd); see also Attorney General Opinions JW-626 (1987) and JM-400 (1985)). The courts applied this rule where the taxing entities were created separately under separate constitutional provisions, each delegated the power to tax for its own purposes, and were persuaded that although both could provide the same services, only one actually did. Subsection F imposes no greater burden than the courts have sanctioned; it does not require the annexing city to assume the district's liabilities or duties, nor does it divest the district of its authority during the up-to-ten-year period. Had the Legislature instead required the city to immediately assume the district's duties and liabilities while letting the district keep taxing, a clear threat of double taxation would exist (Wheeler v. City of Brownsville, 220 S.W.2d 457 (Tex. 1949)). The possibility that residents will not receive a reciprocal amount of city services does not make the annexation statute unconstitutional, because the equality-and-uniformity principle does not require that each person derive the same benefit from taxation, even if the result operates harshly on some taxpayers (Wheeler, supra; Norris v. City of Waco, 57 Tex. 635 (1882)).

On the statutory conflict, the opinion explained that after the City of Pelly line of cases the Legislature moved to spread the burden of retiring certain districts' indebtedness to the taxpayers of annexing home rule cities. In 1947 it enacted article 1182c-1, V.T.C.S., codified in part as Local Government Code section 43.075. Section 43.075 applies to a municipality that annexes all or part of a water control and improvement district, a fresh water supply district, or a municipal utility district that includes no area in another municipality, and to municipalities that incorporate over such districts and adopt an applicable ordinance (Local Gov't Code section 43.075(a), (b); Attorney General Opinion JW-565 (1986)). If all of the district is annexed, the municipality must take over the district's property and assets, assume its debts, liabilities, and obligations, and perform all its functions including providing services, with the transfer occurring by ordinance within 90 days (or on the 91st day by operation of law), after which the district is abolished (section 43.075(d), (e)). This reflects a longstanding public policy, carried through several related provisions (Local Gov't Code sections 43.022(d), 43.074(d), 43.076(b), 43.077(b)), of requiring cities to assume the bonded indebtedness of annexed portions of water-related special districts. Courts have said the purpose of section 43.075 was to avoid duplication of functions by a city and an annexed district (State ex rel. Richmond Plaza Civic Ass'n v. City of Houston, 270 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.), construing former article 1182c-1) and to equitably adjust the tax burdens of the lesser and greater areas (Ford v. Town of Coppell, [volume not legible] S.W.2d 304 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.)).

Subsection F, a general provision on annexation of any political subdivision, conflicts with section 43.075, the specific provision on annexation of the enumerated special districts. Government Code section 311.026 provides that a general and a special provision should be construed to give effect to both if possible, but if the conflict is irreconcilable the special provision prevails as an exception to the general, unless the general provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail. Although both former articles 970a and 1182c-1 were repealed and codified simultaneously, the amendment to article 970a was approved nearly a month after the Local Government Code (Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, at 2548, approved May 21, 1987; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1077, at 7403, approved June 20, 1987), so the more general provision happened to be the later enactment. But the legislative history of Senate Bill No. 962, including tape recordings of the hearings, revealed no intent to override the specific provision governing water districts, and no mention of section 43.075 or its predecessor. The bill appears to have been a compromise (the House had adopted House Bill No. 1193 to circumscribe limited-purpose annexation, and subsection F was added as a floor amendment). Without a manifest intent that the general provision prevail, the Attorney General concluded that section 43.075 governs the annexation of the enumerated water-related special districts (Government Code section 311.026(b)).

Citations

Statutory authority:

• V.T.C.S. article 970a, section 8 (Municipal Annexation Act; subsection F added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1077, Senate Bill 962), codified as Local Government Code sections 42.041 and 42.042
• V.T.C.S. article 970c, section 7(c) (no city taxes on an area annexed for limited purposes on or after September 1, 1987)
• Local Government Code section 43.071 (city must annex the entire area of certain districts)
• Local Government Code section 43.075 (annexation of water control and improvement, fresh water supply, and municipal utility districts; city assumes assets and debts and district is abolished)
• Local Government Code sections 43.022(d), 43.074(d), 43.076(b), 43.077(b) (related district-annexation debt-assumption provisions)
• Water Code section 54.011 (creation of municipal utility districts under Texas Constitution article XVI, section 59)
• Government Code section 311.026 (construction of conflicting general and special provisions)
• Government Code section 311.031(c) (repeal by a code does not affect a same-session amendment)
• Former V.T.C.S. article 1182c-1 (1947; codified in part as Local Government Code section 43.075)
• Texas Constitution article VIII, section 1 (equal and uniform taxation)
• Texas Constitution article XVI, section 59 (conservation and reclamation districts)

Cases (all Texas state courts):

• City of Pelly v. Harris County Water Control & Improvement District No. 7, 198 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. 1946) (Texas Supreme Court; overlapping city and district taxes not unconstitutional double taxation)
• Moore v. Edna Hospital District, 449 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (overlapping taxing districts)
• Kuhlmann v. Drainage District No. 12 of Harris County, 51 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1932, writ ref'd) (overlapping taxing entities)
• Wheeler v. City of Brownsville, 220 S.W.2d 457 (Tex. 1949) (Texas Supreme Court; annexation, assumption of indebtedness, and equal-and-uniform taxation)
• Norris v. City of Waco, 57 Tex. 635 (1882) (Texas Supreme Court; equality and uniformity does not require equal benefit)
• State ex rel. Richmond Plaza Civic Ass'n v. City of Houston, 270 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (purpose of former article 1182c-1, now section 43.075)

Prior Attorney General materials referenced: JW-626 (1987); JM-400 (1985); JW-565 (1986).

(The opinion also cites Ford v. Town of Coppell (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.), at page 304 of a South Western Reporter, Second Series volume; the scan left the volume number illegible, so the full citation is not reproduced.)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-930
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1988/jm0930.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor OCR errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative. Case names the scan rendered illegible or dropped have been restored from the reporter citations and, where a value could not be recovered, are marked in brackets.

July 22, 1988

Honorable Terral R. Smith
Chairman
Natural Resources Committee
Texas House of Representatives
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78769

Opinion No. JM-930

Re: Whether a city and a utility district may impose taxes for overlapping services (RQ-1307)

Dear Representative Smith:

You ask whether a recent amendment to the Municipal Annexation Act has the effect of subjecting residents of a special district, such as a municipal utility district, to the unconstitutional burden of double taxation when the district is annexed to a city but has not been dissolved. We conclude that the amendment does not expose the residents of an annexed political subdivision to the threat of double taxation by the city and the political subdivision. It does, however, create a conflict with section 43.075 of the Local Government Code, which governs the annexation of certain special districts.

The legislation that prompted your request is section 8 of Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1077, at 7397 (Senate Bill No. 962). The bill amends section 8 of former V.T.C.S. article 970a, the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 8, however, was repealed and codified as sections 42.041 and 42.042 of the Local Government Code during the regular session of the 70th Legislature. Section 311.031(c) of the Government Code provides that the repeal of a statute by a code does not affect an amendment of the statute by the same legislature which enacted the code and that an amendment is preserved and given effect as part of the code.

The specific portion of Senate Bill No. 962 which draws your concern adds subsection F to section 8:

F. Subject to the provisions of this Subsection, a city may annex a political subdivision for full or limited purposes and the political subdivision, its taxing authority, and its board of directors may continue to exist for a period not to exceed ten (10) years from the date of such annexation; provided that at the time of such annexation at least ninety percent (90%) of the water, wastewater, roads, and drainage improvements for which district bonds are to be issued have been installed and are complete in accordance with the plans of such political subdivision to serve all of the area within its boundaries.

Acts 1987, supra, at 7399-7400. For convenience, we shall refer to this provision as subsection F. Your concern is that subsection F authorizes cities to annex political subdivisions such as municipal utility districts without abolishing the districts and assuming their bonded indebtedness. The residents of the annexed area would thus become subject to the taxing authority of both the city and the annexed political subdivision without an increase in the level of services provided to the area. You ask whether the residents would thereby be subjected to the unconstitutional burden of double taxation.

We note at this point that section 7(c) of article 970c, V.T.C.S., prohibits a city from imposing taxes on the property or residents of an area annexed for limited purposes on or after September 1, 1987. Article 970c was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 962. See Acts 1987, supra, at 7396. We also note that your question is preceded by a reference to a municipal utility district that lies wholly within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a home rule city. We will therefore assume that your question concerns the "full purpose" annexation of the entire area of a municipal utility district. See Local Gov't Code section 43.071 (city must annex entire area of district created under Tex. Const. art. XVI, section 59, outside city's boundaries if no part of district is within extraterritorial jurisdiction of another city); Water Code section 54.011 (municipal utility district may be created under art. XVI, section 59).

The constitution of this state does not expressly condemn double taxation. Article VIII, section 1, of the constitution, however, commands that taxation be "equal and uniform." It is this constitutional principle that is invoked in cases concerning claims of double taxation. Under this provision, the courts have held that property lying within the boundaries of both a city and a special district and subject to taxation by both for the same kinds of services does not constitute unconstitutional double taxation or taxation that is not equal and uniform. City of Pelly v. Harris County Water Control & Improvement District No. 7, 198 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. 1946); [Moore v. Edna Hospital District], 449 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.); [Kuhlmann v. Drainage District No. 12 of Harris County], 51 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1932, writ ref'd). See also Attorney General Opinions JW-626 (1987); JM-400 (1985). The courts applied this rule where the taxing entities were created as separate entities under separate provisions of the constitution, and both were delegated the power to assess and collect taxes to accomplish their respective purposes. It also appears that the courts were persuaded by the fact that while both entities had the authority to provide the same services to the same area, only one of the entities could actually provide such services. See City of Pelly, supra, at 454.

Though this rule bears potentially harsh consequences for the residents of an annexed political subdivision, it is a rule that finds acceptance in a number of other states. See, e.g., Rhyne, Municipal Corporations section 44.23 and cases cited therein. Subsection F of section 8 imposes no greater burden on these taxpayers than the courts have sanctioned. Subsection F does not require the annexing city to assume either the liabilities or duties of the political subdivision, nor does it divest the political subdivision of its lawful authority for a period not to exceed ten years following the annexation.[1] If the legislature had required the city to immediately assume the duties and liabilities of the political subdivision, yet allowed the subdivision to retain its taxing authority, then a clear threat of double taxation would exist. See Wheeler v. City of Brownsville, 220 S.W.2d 457 (Tex. 1949) (statute requiring city to assume indebtedness attributable to part of water district annexed by city did not violate article VIII, section 1, of the Texas Constitution, where district continued to operate over and assess taxes on the annexed area).

[1] The ten-year limitation may be intended to allow the political subdivision to phase out its operations, retire its bonded indebtedness, and delay the city's assumption of the duties of the district. The legislative history of this provision, however, provides little insight into the factors motivating the adoption of the ten-year limitation.

The possibility that the residents of the annexed political subdivision will not receive a reciprocal amount of services from the city upon annexation does not render unconstitutional the statute authorizing the annexation of the political subdivision. The principle of equality and uniformity in taxation does not require that each person derive the same benefit as others from the expenditure of funds raised by taxation. Wheeler v. City of Brownsville, 220 S.W.2d 457 (Tex. 1949). This may operate harshly or even unjustly against some taxpayers; however, this result does not offend the "equal and uniform" provision of article VIII, section 1, of the constitution. Norris v. City of Waco, 57 Tex. 635 (1882).

Though we do not believe that subsection F imposes an unconstitutional burden of double taxation on the residents of a political subdivision annexed by a city pursuant to its provisions, we believe it creates a conflict with another statute affecting the authority of a city to annex the territory within certain kinds of special districts. In the years following the City of Pelly and [related] cases, the legislature sought to spread the burden of retiring the indebtedness of certain kinds of special districts to the taxpayers of home rule cities that annexed such districts. In 1947 it enacted article 1182c-1, V.T.C.S., codified in part as section 43.075 of the Local Government Code. Section 43.075 applies to a municipality that annexes all or part of the area of a water control and improvement district, a fresh water supply district, or a municipal utility district if the district does not include any area located in another municipality. Local Gov't Code section 43.075(a)(1), (b). It applies also to municipalities that incorporate over all or part of the area of such districts and adopt an ordinance making section 43.075 applicable to the municipality. Id. section 43.075(a)(2). See Attorney General Opinion JW-565 (1986). If all the area of the district is annexed, the municipality is required to take over all the property and other assets of the district, assume all debts, liabilities, and obligations of the district, and perform all functions of the district, including the provision of services. Id. section 43.075(d). This transfer of duties and obligations must take place by ordinance of the municipality within 90 days after the date the area becomes part of the municipality, or on the 91st day by operation of law. Id. section 43.075(e). The district is abolished once this transfer occurs. Id. The remainder of the statute details the conditions under which and the methods whereby the municipality discharges the obligations of the district and acquires its assets and facilities.

Section 43.075 reflects a longstanding and consistent public policy of requiring cities to assume the bonded indebtedness of the annexed portions of water-related special purpose districts. This policy is carried forth in a number of provisions relating to the annexation of water control and improvement districts, fresh water supply districts, municipal utility districts, irrigation districts, and conservation and reclamation districts. See Local Gov't Code sections 43.022(d); 43.074(d); 43.076(b); 43.077(b). The courts have determined that the purpose of section 43.075 was to avoid the duplication of functions by a city and an annexed district. State ex rel. Richmond Plaza Civic Ass'n v. City of Houston, 270 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (construing former article 1182c-1, V.T.C.S.). But these provisions also appear to be inspired by a desire to equitably adjust the tax burdens of the lesser and greater areas. Ford v. Town of Coppell, [volume not legible] S.W.2d 304 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Section 43.075, then, addresses the problem described in your letter requesting this opinion.

Subsection F creates an apparent conflict with section 43.075. Subsection F deals with the annexation of territory of any political subdivision by a city, while section 43.075 deals with the annexation of enumerated special districts, including municipal utility districts, the focus of your inquiry. Because section 43.075 is the more specific but earlier enactment, we must determine whether subsection F governs the annexation of the special districts enumerated in section 43.075.

Section 311.026 of the Government Code provides that in the event a general provision in a code conflicts with a special provision, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that both may be given effect. If the conflict is irreconcilable, the special provision prevails as an exception to the general, "unless the general provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail." (Emphasis added.)

Although both articles 970a and 1182c-1 were repealed and codified simultaneously, the amendment to article 970a was approved nearly one month after the approval of the Local Government Code. See Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, at 2548 (approved May 21, 1987), with Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1077, at 7403 (approved June 20, 1987). It happens that the more general provision is the later enactment, but our review of the legislative history of Senate Bill No. 962 reveals no intention to override the more specific provision governing the annexation of water districts. Indeed, in the tape recordings of the legislative hearings that were made available to this office in the preparation of this opinion, no mention was made of section 43.075 or its predecessor, article 1182c-1.

The legislative history of Senate Bill No. 962 suggests that it was a compromise bill designed to accommodate a variety of competing interests. As originally introduced, the bill gave cities the authority to engage in limited purpose annexation. At approximately the same time, the House of Representatives adopted House Bill No. 1193, which sought to circumscribe the authority of cities to annex territory for limited purposes. H.J. of Tex., 70th Leg., Reg. Sess. 497 (1987). The engrossed versions of both bills contained virtually identical versions of article 970c. See S.J. of Tex., 70th Leg., Reg. Sess. 1739 (1987). Neither, however, contained subsection F. The latter was added as a floor amendment to Senate Bill No. 962 in the House of Representatives. See H.J. of Tex., 70th Leg., Reg. Sess. 3907 (1987).

House Bill No. 1193 was tabled in the Senate, but the substance of the bill was incorporated into Senate Bill No. 962. The senate bill thus appears to be the product of legislative compromise. We think that the floor amendment adding subsection F to the bill may also reflect an attempt to strike a happy medium between the interested parties. See Debate on Tex. S.B. 962 on the Floor of the House of Representatives, 70th Leg. (May 29, 1987) (tape recording available from House Staff Services). Still, there is no indication in the available legislative history that the legislature considered section 43.075. Thus, we cannot conclude that the "manifest intent" of the legislature was that the general provisions of subsection F govern a city's annexation of all or part of the area of a water control and improvement district, fresh water supply district, or municipal utility district. Accordingly, we conclude that section 43.075 of the Local Government Code governs the annexation of such special districts by a city. Gov't Code section 311.026(b).

SUMMARY

Section 8 of Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1077, at 7397 (amending section 8 of former article 970a, V.T.C.S.) does not impose the burden of double taxation on residents of a political subdivision annexed by a city pursuant to its provisions. This provision does not govern the annexation of the kinds of special districts described in section 43.075 of the Local Government Code.

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 Steve Aragon
Assistant Attorney General