T~EA'ITORNEY GENERAL 

o~TExA~ 

AUSTIN 11. 'I-ExAS 

September 14, 1959 

Honorable Henry Wade Opinion No. W-704 

District Attorney 

Records Building Re: Provisions of House Bill 591, 

Dallas 2, Texas Acts of the 56th Legislature, 

Regular Session, 1959, Chapter 137, page 234, regarding 

Joint Board of Park CommisDear Mr. Wade: sioners. 

You have requested our opinion on the following questions: 

"1 . Under what circumstances, if any, do 

the provisions of H.B. 591 permit or require Dallas 

County to finance any of the operations contemplated 

by, the Bill from tax or other revenues of the county? 

"2 , Under what circumstances, If any, and to 

what extent are the laws governing the duties and 

actions of the County Auditor of Dallas County applicable to the operations contemplated by H.B. 591? 

"3 . Are the costs of services rendered by the 

Criminal District Attorney of Dallas County provided 

for in Section 6 of H.B. 591 reimbursable to the 

county? 

"4 . Should the election provided for in Section 

12(h) of H.B. 591 be called by the Commissioners' 

Court of each county creating by Resolution the Joint 

Board of Park Commissioners, or should such election 

be ca~lled by the Joint Board; or should such election 

be called by both Commissioners' Courts of such counties and the Joint Board of Park Commissioners?" 

Our opinion expressed herein is limited to the specific 

questions asked. Since you do not raise the constitutionality 

of Rouse Bill 591 we do not here pass on constitutional questions and specifically reserve them. 

In connection with your first question, we note that 

Sec. 12(a) of House Bill 591 provides: 
i 

Honorable Henry Wade, page 2 (WW-704) 

"For the purpose of providing funds to acquire, 

improve, equip and repair such park or parks, or 

for the acquisition by construction or otherwise 

of any facilities to be used in or connected with or 

incident to any such park or parks, or for any one 

or more of such purposes, the Joint Board shall 

have the power from~,time to time and is hereby 

authorized by resolution (hereinafter sometimes 

called the 'Resolution' ),* to procure the issuance 

of revenue bonds, . . . 

Sec. 12(c) provides: 

"The bonds may be secured by a pledge of all 

or a part of the Net Revenues (as defined in Section 12(d) hereof) from the operation of such park 

or parks, or the facilities thereof and incident 

thereto, . . ." 

Sec. 12(d) provides: 

"The term 'Net Revenues' as used in this Section and in this Act shall mean the gross revenues 

from the operation of the park or the parks, and the 

facilities thereof, leases, agreements and contracts, 

and incidents thereto, or from any one or more thereof, whose revenues shall have been thus pledged, 

after deduction of the necessary expenses as defined 

in Section 14 hereof." 

Sec. 12(f) provides: 

II Such bonds shall never be reckoned in 

determining'the power of either of the two (2) such 

counties to incur obligations payable from taxation. . . .' 

Sec. 14(a) provides: 

"The expense of operation and maintenance of 

facilites whose revenues are pledged to the payment of the bonds shall always be a first lien 

on and charge against the income thereof. . . .' 

The last sentence of Sec. 17 provides: 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 3 (WW-704) 

It shall be the duty of the Joint 

Board to so'operate said park or parks that there 

will be available from the gross revenues received 

from the operation of park facilities whose revenues are pledged to the payment of Revenue Bonds 

money sufficient to pay the operation and maintenance expenses of said facilities without the appropriation of tax money for the expense of maintaining and operating such facilities." 

In your letter you suggested that it was the legislative 

intent that Dallas County is not required to finance operation 

and maintenance from tax or other revenues. We agree with your 

conclusion insofar as it applies to the operation and maintenance expenses of facilities whose revenues are pledged to the 

payment of Revenue Bonds, and it is our opinion that Dallas 

County would not be required to finance the operation and 

maintenance of such facilities from tax money. 

Sec.'17 provides: 

"Before July 1st of each year the Joint Board 

shall prepare and not later than July lst, file 

with the County Judge of each of the two (2) such 

counties, a complete statement showing the financial 

status of the Joint Board, its properties, funds 

and indebtedness. The statement shall be so prepared as to show separately all information concerning the Revenue Bonds, the income from pledged 

facilities, and expenditures of such revenues, and 

ail information concerning moneys which may have 

been appropriated to the Joint Board by the Commissioners Court of each of the two (2) such counties 

for operational and maintenance expenses. Concurrently with the filing of such statement, the Joint 

Board shall file with the ,County Judge of each of 

the two (2) such counties a proposed budget of its 

needs for the next succeeding calendar year. After 

approval of such budget, the County Judge of each 

of the two (2) such counties shall incorporate one 

half (6) of the total amount of the same in the 

county budget. . . .' 

The statement filed with the County Judges would reflect 

the financial status of the Joint Board and should indicate 

whether the needs shown in the proposed budget could be met in 

whole or in part with any funds of the Joint Board such as park 

revenues, grants or gratuities. If the Joint Board included in 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 4. (WW-704) 

its proposed budget items, such as operation and maintenance expenses of facilities other than those the income from which was 

pledged to the payment of Revenue Bonds, or items such as expenses specified in Sections 3, 4 and 6, then one-half the total 

amount of the same should be incorporated in the tentative budget 

of each county. It is our opinion that the counties would be 

permitted to finance these items out of tax and other revenues, 

In reaching this conclusion, we are guided by the principle which requires that a statute be construed in such a 

manner as to make it workable, effective and operative. The 

courts will not interpret laws so as to nullify or impair them, 

when their language reasonably admits of a different meaning. 

Spears v. City of San Antonio, 110 Tex. 618, 223 S.W. 166, 

affirming 206 S.W. '(03. It seems likely that the Joint Board 

would be without income from park facilities for a period of 

time until it had completed certain initial plans, acquired 

park facilities and commenced receiving revenue therefrom. 

To permit the counties to create the Joint Board and prevent 

them from giving it necessary financial assistance would render 

the statute inoperative and defeat the legislative intent. See 

Robinson v. Varnell, 16 Tex. 382, 390. It is possible that 

park facilities will 

have no revenues and 

by the counties with 

conceivable that the 

should be allowed to 

funds to operate and 

be transferred-to the Joint Board which 

which have been operated and maintained 

tax money and other revenues. It is inLegislature intended that such parks 

deteriorate because the Joint Board lacked 

maintain them. 

We are not unmindful of the possibility that a Joint 

Board could operate solely on income from park facilities, 

and the "grants and gratuities" mentioned in Sec. 19, but we 

find nothing in the Act which suggests a legislative intent 

that the Joint Board operate solely on such funds. The proposed budget of the Joint Board included in both counties' 

tentative budgets would be subject to the budgetary procedure 

in effect in both counties and it would be included in the 

counties' budgets only if it were approved by the Commissioners' 

Courts. Conceivably, certain Items could be provided for out 

of Park Board funds and other items might be provided for out 

of tax monies of the counties. 

In our answers to the foregoing question and the one 

following, we do not propose to discuss all conceivable "circumstances" as such would require an extensive treatise. Such 

would not be in accordance with our opinion procedure. We 

have attempted to cover the particular circumstances discussed 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 5. (WW-704) 

in your letter. In the event that you have further questions, 

we shall be happy to give you our opinion thereon. 

With reference to your second question, you quote the 

following from Section 17 of House Bill 591: 

"The' Joint Board shall file with the County 

Judge of each of the two counties a proposed budget of its needs for the next succeeding calendar 

year. After approval of such budget, the County 

Judge of each of the two counties shall incorporate one-half of the total amount of the same 

in the county budget to be prepared by him during 

the month of July of each year. As a part of 

each of the two such counties' tentative budgets, 

the items thus certified by the Joint Board shall 

be subject to the procedure for the county budget 

of each of the two such counties prescribed by 

Chapter 206, Acts of the Regular Session of the 

42nd Legislature, Section 10 to 13, both inclusive, carried forward in Vernon's Annotated 

Statutes as Articles bega- to b89a-12." 

(Emphasis added by you.) 

Upon referring to Section 12 of the above-referenced 

statute (Article 68ga-11, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes) 

we find the following provision: 

,I 

. . . Provided, however, that in all counties 

of this State containing a population in excess of 

three hundred and fifty thousand (350,000), according to the last preceding United States census, the 

provisions hereof shall not apply to the making of 

such county budgets, and in such counties all matters pertaining to the county budget shall be governed by existing law." 

It is our opinion, therefore, that the laws governing 

the duties and actions of the county auditor of Dallas County, 

in preparing the county's tentative budget, are applicable 

to the proposed budget of the Joint Board contemplated by 

House Bill 591. To give the statutes under consideration any 

other construction would result in purposeless preparation 

by the County Judges of budgets in counties where that duty 

is imposed by law on the county auditor. It is our opinion 

that the proposed budget filed by the Joint Board with the 

County Judge should be incorporated (to the extent of onehalf of the total amount thereof) in the tentative county 

budget to be prepared by the county auditor. 
. - 

Honorable Henry Wade, page 6. (w-704 1 

In connection with your third question you quoted from 

Section 6 of House Bill 591 as follows: 

"The Joint Board may employ secretaries, 

stenographers, bookkeepers, accountants, technical experts and such other agents and employees, 

permanent or temporary, as it may require and 

shall determine their qualifications, duties, and 

compensation. In addition, the Joint Board may 

also employ and compensate a manager for any Park 

or Parks and may give him full authority in the 

management and operation of the Park or Parks, 

subject only to the direction and orders of the 

Joint Park -Board. The County Attorney or Criminal District Attorney of either of the two such 

counties shall perform all the necessary legal 

services for such joint Board of Park Commissioners." (Emphasis added by you.) 

While this section spells out the authority of the 

Joint Board to employ and compensate employees and administrative personnel, it does not provide for compensation for the 

County Attorney or Criminal District Attorney. Neither do we 

find elsewhere in the Act any suggestion that the counties are 

to be reimbursed for services rendered by the County Attorney or 

the Criminal District Attorney. It is our opinion, therefore, 

that the costs of services rendered by the Criminal District 

Attorney of Dallas County provided for in Section 6 of House 

Bill 591 is not reimbursable to the counties. 

With reference to your fourth question, Sec. 12(h) 

provides: 

!I . . . Which election shall be held and 

notice thereof given as is provided in Chapter 

1, Title 22, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 

1925, as amended. . . .I' 

The reference Act does not specify whether the Commissioners' Courts or the Joint Board shall call the election. 

However, Article 702 thereof contains the following language: 

"In all cases when the governing body of 

a county, city or town shall order an election 

for the issuance of the bonds of the county, 

city or town or of any political sub-division 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 7. (w-704) 

or defined district of a county, city or town, 

such body shall at the same time submit the 

question of whether or not a tax shall be 

levied. . . .' 

In the absence of our being able to find any legislative pronouncement on this question, we are of the opinion that, 

in adopting the foregoing, it was the legislative intent that 

the election under consideration is to be called by the governing bodies of the counties, that is, the Commissioners' Courts. 

We wish to repeat that we reserve all questions of 

constitutionality. No doubt these questions will be presented 

in due course when bonds are presented for approval. 

SUMMARY 

Dallas County may finance certain operations of 

the Joint Board out of tax money. The county 

auditor of Dallas County should include one-half 

of the proposed budget of the Joint Board in the 

tentative budget of Dallas County. The cost of 

services rendered by the Criminal District Attorney of Dallas County for the Joint Board are not 

reimbursable to Dallas County. The election provided for in Sec. 12(h) of House Bill 591 should 

be called by the Commissioners' Court of each 

county. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

BY cb^kJay Howell 

JH:zt Assistant 

APPROVED 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Leonard Passmore 

C.Dean Davis 

Howard Mays 

Elmer McVey 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W.V.Geppert