T~EA'ITORNEY GENERAL o~TExA~

AUSTIN 11.'I-ExAS
September 14, 1959

Honorable Henry Wade OpinionNo. 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. 591permit 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 Countyapplicable to the operations contemplatedby H.B. 591?
"3

. Are the costs of servicesrendered by the CriminalDistrictAttorney of Dallas Countyprovided for in Section 6 of H.B. 591 reimbursable to the county? "4

. Should the electionprovided for in Section 12(h) of H.B. 591 be called by the Commissioners' Court of each county creatingby Resolution the Joint Board of Park Commissioners,or should such election be ca~lled

by the Joint Board; or should such election be calledby both Commissioners'Courts of such counties and the Joint Board of Park Commissioners?"
Our opinion expressedherein is limited to the specific questionsasked. Since you do not raise the constitutionality of Rouse Bill 591we do not here pass on constitutionalquestions and specificallyreserve them.

In connectionwith your first question,we note that Sec. 12(a) of House Bill 591provides:i

Honorable HenryWade, page 2 (WW-704)

"For the purpose of providing funds to acquire, improve, equip and repair suchpark or parks, or for the acquisition by constructionor otherwise of any facilities to be used in or connectedwith or incident to any suchpark or parks, or for any one or more of suchpurposes, the Joint Board shall have the power from~,time to time and is hereby authorizedby resolution (hereinaftersometimes called the 'Resolution' ),* to procure the issuance of revenue bonds,

. . . Sec. 12(c)provides:
"Thebonds may be securedby a pledge of all or a part of the Net Revenues (asdefined in Section 12(d) hereof) from the operation of suchpark or parks, or the facilities thereof and incident thereto,

. . ."
Sec. 12(d)provides:
"The term 'NetRevenues' 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 shallhave been thus pledged, after deduction of the necessary expenses as defined in Section 14 hereof."
Sec. 12(f)provides: II Such bonds shallnever be reckoned in determining'thepower of either of the two (2) such counties to incur obligationspayable from taxation.

. . .'
Sec. 14(a)provides:
"Theexpense of operation and maintenance of faciliteswhose revenues are pledged to the payment of the bonds shall always be a first lien on and charge against the income thereof.

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

It shall be the duty of the Joint Board to so'operate saidpark or parks that there will be available from the gross revenues received from the operation of park facilitieswhose revenues are pledged to the payment of Revenue Bonds money sufficientto pay the operationand maintenance expenses of said facilitieswithout the appropriation of tax money for the expense of maintaining and operating such facilities."
In your letteryou suggestedthat 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 facilitieswhose revenues are pledged to the payment of Revenue Bonds, and it is our opinion that Dallas Countywould not be required to finance the operation and maintenance of such facilities from tax money.

Sec.'17provides:
"BeforeJuly 1st of each year the Joint Board shallprepare and not later than July lst, file with the CountyJudge of each of the two (2) such counties,a complete statement showing the financial status of the Joint Board, itsproperties, funds and indebtedness. The statement shallbe soprepared as to show separatelyall information concerning the Revenue Bonds, the income frompledged facilities,and expenditures of such revenues,and ail information concerningmoneyswhich may have been appropriated to the Joint Board by the Commissioners Court of each of the two (2) such counties for operationaland maintenance expenses. Concurrentlywith the filing of such statement,the Joint Board shall filewith the ,CountyJudge of each of the two (2) such countiesa proposed budget of its needs for the next succeedingcalendaryear. After approval of such budget, the County Judge of each of the two (2) such counties shall incorporateone half (6) of the total amount of the same in the countybudget.

. . .' The statement filedwith 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 inHonorable Henry Wade, page 4. (WW-704)

its proposed budget items, such as operationand maintenance expenses of facilities other than those the income from which was pledged to the payment of Revenue Bonds, or items such as expenses specifiedin Sections 3, 4 and 6, then one-half the total amount of the same shouldbe incorporated in the tentative budget of each county. It is our opinion that the countieswould be permitted to finance these items out of tax and other revenues,

In reaching this conclusion,we are guided by the principlewhich requires that a statutebe construed in such a manner as to make itworkable, effectiveand operative. The courtswill not interpret laws so as to nullify or impair them, when their languagereasonably admits of a differentmeaning. Spearsv. 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 frompark facilities for a period of time until it had completed certain initialplans, acquired park facilitiesand commencedreceiving revenue therefrom. To permit the counties to create the Joint Board and prevent them from giving it necessary financialassistancewould render the statute inoperativeand defeat the legislative intent. See Robinsonv. Varnell, 16 Tex. 382, 390. It is possible that park facilitieswill have no revenues and by the countieswith conceivablethat the shouldbe allowed to funds to operate and be transferred-tothe Joint Board which which have been operated and maintained tax money and other revenues. It is inLegislature intended that suchparks deterioratebecause the Joint Board lacked maintain them.
We are not unmindful of the possibility that a Joint Board could operate solely on income frompark facilities, and the "grantsand gratuities"mentioned in Sec. 19, but we find nothing in the Act which suggestsa legislative intent that the Joint Board operate solely on such funds. The proposed budget of the Joint Board included in both counties' tentative budgetswould be subject to the budgetaryprocedure in effect in both countiesand it would be included in the counties'budgets only if itwere 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 suchwould require an extensive treatise. Such would not be in accordancewith our opinionprocedure. We have attempted to cover the particular circumstancesdiscussedHonorable Henry Wade, page 5. (WW-704)

in your letter. In the event that you have further questions, we shallbe 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 filewith the County Judge of each of the two countiesa 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' tentativebudgets, the items thus certifiedby the Joint Board shall be subject to the procedure for the county budget of each of the two such countiesprescribed by Chapter 206, Acts of the Regular Session of the 42nd Legislature, Section 10 to 13, both inclusive, carried forward inVernon's Annotated Statutesas Articles bega- to b89a-12." (Emphasisadded by you.) Upon referring to Section 12 of the above-referenced statute (Article 68ga-11,Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes) we find the followingprovision:

,I

. . .Provided, however, that in all counties of this State containinga population in excess of three hundred and fifty thousand (350,000),according to the lastpreceding United States census, the provisions hereof shallnot apply to the making of such countybudgets, and in such countiesall matters pertaining to the county budget shallbe governed by existing law."
It is our opinion, therefore, that the laws governing the duties and actions of the countyauditor of Dallas County, inpreparing the county's tentative budget, are applicable to the proposed budget of the Joint Board contemplatedby House Bill 591. To give the statutesunder considerationany other constructionwould result in purposelesspreparation by the County Judges of budgets in countieswhere that duty is imposed by law on the county auditor. It is our opinion that the proposed budget filed by the Joint Boardwith the County Judge shouldbe 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 connectionwith your third questionyou quoted from Section 6 of House Bill 591 as follows:

"TheJoint Board may employ secretaries, stenographers,bookkeepers,accountants, technical experts and such other agents and employees, permanent or temporary, as it may require and shalldetermine their qualifications,duties, and compensation. In addition, the Joint Board may also employ and compensatea 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 CountyAttorney or Criminal DistrictAttorney of either of the two such counties shallperform all the necessary legal services for such joint Board of Park Commissioners." (Emphasisadded by you.) While this section spells out the authority of the Joint Board to employ and compensateemployeesand administrativepersonnel, it does not provide for compensation for the County Attorney or CriminalDistrictAttorney. Neither do we find elsewhere in the Act any suggestionthat the countiesare to be reimbursed for servicesrendered by the CountyAttorney or the CriminalDistrict Attorney. It is our opinion, therefore, that the costs of servicesrenderedby the CriminalDistrict Attorney of Dallas Countyprovided 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 shallbe 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 specifywhether the Commissioners' Courts or the Joint Board shall call the election. However, Article 702 thereof contains the following language:

"Inall caseswhen the governingbody 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-divisionHonorableHenry 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 shallbe 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 electionunder consideration is to be calledby 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 questionswill be presented in due coursewhen bonds are presented for approval.
SUMMARY

Dallas Countymay 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 tentativebudget of Dallas County. The cost of servicesrendered by the CriminalDistrict 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

cb^kBY Jay Howell Assistant JH:zt
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