T~~ATTOWNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

CaAWWRD ‘3:. MARTEN 

AUSTXN. TEXAS 7t3711 

*-mNlcY calWmRA& 

April 27, 1970 

Honorable G. R. Close opinion NO. ~-618 

County Attorney 

Ochiltree Caunty Courthouse Re: Certain queetions relating 

Perryton, Texas 7 9070 to construction of Wticle 

lOUrn, V.C.S., dealing with 

Regional Planning Commission. 

Dear Mr. Cloeer 

Your recent letter requests the opinion of this office 

concerning ten questions involving the construction of hrticle 1011~~ Vernon'0 Civil Statutee, dealing with Regional 

Planning Ccmmieeione. 

Your firat queation aaksr 

"1. Is there a legal difference between 

a regional planning commission, council of 

gwernments, and area development councils and, 

if so, please explain the difference.” 

In answer thereto, you are advised that insofar as the 

subject entities are formed and derive their pwers under 

Article 1Ollm there is no substantial legal difference in 

powers, provided organizational recorde clearly show that 

such entity is organized under that statutory authority. 

Bach entity, however, may be formed for different purposes 

and have different objectives. See Section 2 of Article 

1Ollm: Attorney General Opinion No. M-510 (1969). 

Your second question poses the following questiona 

" 2. Are any of the above mentioned organizationa, (the Potter and Randall Countiea Regional 

-2954- 
Ronorable 0. 1. Close, page 9 

Planning Commirsion 01 Council of Gwernntents) 

maa any mupervimion, either directly or indirectly, ,by the Federal Government or an agenay 

of the tederal Government." 

This question does not involve a legal question but a 

question of fact, which may be determined by a factual investigatien with the federal agencies mentioned. Sinae under 

Section 4 of Article 1Ollm the entity "shall be a political 

subdivision of the state,* and no authority is granted by the 

rtatute for rwch en entity to be supervised by the federal 

governmnt or any federal agency, it is the opinion of this 

office that any such supervision would be unauthorired. m 

'y. Sundberq, 5 Tex. 410 (1849); Attorney General OpinionHo. 

W-610' (1970). 

Your third question, insofar as it covers state agencies, 

“3. hre any of the above mentioned organisation under any type supervisions from other 

Federal -ate mtions, and, if so, please 

explains (Rmphamim added. 1, 

cannot be answered, as it involves a factual matter rather #an 

a legal question. Inquiry should be made of the Director of the 

Division of Planning Coordination in the Gwernor's Office as 

to such matters, including any contracts with other member gwernments which the entity may have entered into pureuant to 

Section 4 of Article 1011m. Inquiry might also be made as to 

Interstate Commissions under Section 7 ana activity under Section 8 of Article 1Ollm in international areas. 

We quote your fourth and fifth questions: 

“4. Is there any requirement that under any 

of the above mentioned organizations that representation from lw income and minority group 

members bs am8ured?" 

-2955- 
Honorable 8. 11. Close, page 3 

.!5. At ths present time, is there a requirement~that~the.visnm of established citisens groups, 

low inccme citizens and minority gMup members 

mst MI solicited before adoption of 'my majar work 

prograrrr, pooposals.ar'planniug documents...: 

We regret we are unable to answer these faalxml questions, 

which call for an investigation of the agreesnmte which have 

been l nt%red into. A lw income and minority 'groeps does not 

constitute a political entity as such; however, Section 5 of 

Article 101&a permits the cooperating governmental units to 

determine by agreement their numb8r, gualifications, and the 

means and smthod8 of operation. Conseguently, this is a matter left to the discretion of 8uch units by the statute. There 

is no statutory requirement for representation from any particular group. euch as "law income or minority groups mmnber8,m or 

for solicitation of their views before adoption of work programs, 

proposal8 or planning documents. 

Your sixth inguiry reaasr 

“6. Can Potter Counky, Randall County, the 

City of Wuuillo and the City of Canyon include 

all Panhandle aounties in their Council of Gwemaunt....* 

In our opinion, they may do SO under the authority of aticle 1Ollml prwided, hwever, the governing bodies to be included mutually agree thereto, as required by Section 3, Article 

lOllm, and meet the conditions prescribed in Section l.D, Article 101lm. Under the bylaws of the Panhandle Planning Commission all counties in the panhandle are expressly declared to be 

eligible fQr membership if the county so elects. 

We nw quote your seventh and ninth guestiohe: 

*7. On the other hand, may a city, like the 

City of Perryton, a Ochiltree County, which do-ES0 

not adjoin Potter or Randall County, if it should 

desire, join the Potter and Randall County Council 

of Government? 

-2956- 
. . 

Honorable G. R. close, page 4 

-9. Way counties that have mutual problems, 

but axe not contiguous, form a council of gwerpments ox a rsgionalplauuing aommission. For example, QQuld Ochilttee County and Eansfoxd County,- 

form a coancil of gwexuments with Pioberts and 

Armstrong CountiesPg 

These gsestiens must bs answered in the negative. Article lOllm, Sestion 1.0, declares that: 

*'Region', 'Area', or 'Regional' means a 

geographic area consisting of a county or part 

thereof, Tao ox moxe a- counties ox ajoininq-parts thereof, which have camWon pxoblelM....' (knphasis added.) 

,We now consider your eighth question, 

“8. Is it pemissible for the regional 

planning coanaission or council of gwsrnments 

to have written into its by-laws that the 

governing body, or council, shall be camposed 

of only elected officials who Were elected at 

an eleotion,held under the Texas Election Code?* 

We answer this question in the affirmative, as it is 

within the authority given the gwerning bodies of the cooperating governmental units under Section 5 of Article 1Oll.m. 

Your final tenth question is a0 follws: 

'10. Finally, at the present time, Ocbiltree 

County doe8 not belong to the Amarillo Council of 

Gwermaents or any other regional planning cosunission 

or coma11 of gwernments. If Ochiltree County should 

want to make application for State and/or Federal Funds, 

w0ula its application bs required to bs screened or 

approved by the &sarillo Council of Gwernments, since 

they have included twenty-five of the Panhandle counties, 

including Ochiltrw County, TeXaB, in their area?” 

-2957- 
. - 

Eouorable 0. R. Close, page 5 ,. 

We find nothing in ~the'statute which requires such an 

applieatiou to bescreened ox approved by .the &sari110 Council 

of Gwernments: 

We regret that we axe unabls to answer this guestion as 

posed, for it involves guestions of administrative policy and 

of fact, involving feasibility and fact finding by a etate 

agency i This~office has no authority to determine a factual 

guestion. 

(1) There is no legal difference between 

regional planning cosuaission, councils of gwernment, ana area Uevelopment councils organized pursuant to the terms of Article lOllm, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes. 

(2) Regional planning coaanissions may not 

legally be supervised by the fedexal gwernment ox 

its agencien. 

(3) Representation from lw income and minority 

groups on regional planning cosu@Ws~is not a statutory prereguisite to the establishment ox operetion of 

such commisBions. 

(4) A county cannot be incluaea in a x&gional 

planning commission without it0 assent to joining Sm, 

although under the bylaws of the Panhandle Planning 

Commission all counties in the panhandle are expressly 

declared to be eligible for membership if the comnty 

so elects. 

(5) Two counties cannot form a regional planning 

commission unless they w each other. 

-2958- 
xonorable 0. R. ClOSer page 6 

(6) It is permissible for a regional planning 

coauaissiea to stipulate in its by-laws that the governing body of such caamission shall be composed only of 

officials that were elected at an election held pursuant to the terms of the Texas Eleation Code. 

(7) We fina nothing in the statute which reguimsanch au a~licatien to be screenedor approved 

by then &sax1110 Council of GoJornments. 

neral of Texas 

Prepared by James Swearingen and Austin C. Bray, Jr. 

4ssistant Attorneys General 

APPRovED~ 

OPImow c!omI~ 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. S. Allen, Aating Co-Chaiman 

Roger Tyler 

Ivan Williams 

Rex White 

Fielding Barly 

MEADB F. GRWFIH 

Staff mgal &ssistant 

ALFmD vim 

Bxecutive Assistant 

mLA wEIT 

First Assistant 

-2959-