A proposed bill was introduced in the Alabama Legislature to annex Riverchase to Hoover. In its Opinion of the Justices, 381 So.2d 632 (Ala. 1980), this Court questioned the adequacy of the legal notice given for the proposed legislation regarding the annexation and raised doubts about portions of the annexation agreement, specifically the tax exemption provisions. Another proposed bill was enacted into law (1980 Ala. Acts 590).

We have previously held that residents of both the annexed and the annexing territories had a direct interest in a proposed local law that provided for annexation by the City of Hoover of territory in Jefferson and Shelby Counties. Opinion of the Justices No. 268, 381 So.2d 632 (Ala. 1980). Therefore, we conclude that publication in only Limestone County will not satisfy the requirements of § 106.

Section 110 does, however, still provide for local laws when a law does not apply to the entire state and does not apply to one class as established in Section 11-40-12. [Opinion of the Justices No. 268, 381 So.2d 632 (Ala. 1980)]. If the Act is a local law, it violates several provisions of Article IV, Section 104 and Article IV, Section 105 of the Alabama Constitution.

The purpose of § 106, as amended, is the prevention of deception and surprise. It requires that all those immediately affected by local legislation be informed of the substance of the proposed legislation so that they may have a fair opportunity to protest or otherwise express their views. Opinion of the Justices, 435 So.2d 731 (Ala. 1983); Opinion of the Justices, 381 So.2d 632 (Ala. 1980); Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115 (Ala. 1981). Section 106 provides for the publication of a notice of intention to apply to the legislature for passage of a bill prior to the introduction of the bill.

In any case, we do not think resolution of the issue as framed by plaintiffs would be any different as a result of the adoption of Amendment 375 in light of our recent holding that an annexation bill is a local law, within the meaning of the amendment, where it is limited in its application to a single political subdivision of this state. Opinion of the Justices, 381 So.2d 632 (Ala. 1980). In addition to the contention that the Act does not apply to a political subdivision, plaintiffs maintain the Act cannot be local because it confers authority on the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board) to revoke retail beer licenses for violation of the Act.