Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                          GREG
    0
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    ABBOTT
    Aprilll, 2014
    The Honorable Joseph Deshotel                        Opinion No. GA-1050
    Chair, Committee on Land and
    Resource Management                                Re: Whether section 505.152 of the Local
    Texas House ofRepresentatives                        Government Code authorizes an economic
    Post Office Box 2910                                 development corporation to fund certain
    Austin, Texas 78768-2910                             entertainment projects (RQ-1156-GA)
    Dear Representative Deshotel:
    You ask whether certain projects would qualify for use as "entertainment" under section
    505.152 ofthe Local Government Code. 1 Chapters 501 to 505 ofthe Local Government Code
    authorize municipalities to create entities commonly referred to as economic development
    corporations. See TEX. Loc. Gov'T CoDE ANN. §§ 501.001-505.355 (West Supp. 2013). Many
    provisions in those chapters specify and limit the kinds of projects that a particular development
    corporation, depending on its authority, may fund. /d. § 501.002(13) (defining "project"). You
    ask about a Type A corporation, which is governed by Chapter 504 of the Local Government
    Code. /d. §§ 504.001-.353. Along with the specific projects authorized by chapter 504, section
    504.152 permits an election procedure whereby the voters of a municipality may authorize the
    use of sales and use tax for projects permitted under chapter 505. /d. § 504.152; see also id
    § 50 1.002(16). Section 505.152, titled "Projects Related to Recreational or Community
    Facilities," provides:
    For purposes of this chapter, "project" includes land, buildings,
    equipment, facilities, and improvements found by the board of
    directors to be required or suitable for use for professional and
    amateur sports, including children's sports, athletic, entertainment,
    tourist, convention and public park purposes and events, including
    stadiums, ball parks, auditoriums, amphitheaters, concert halls,
    parks and park facilities, open space improvements, museums,
    exhibition facilities, and related, store, restaurant, concession, and
    1
    See Letter from Honorable Joseph Deshotel, Chair, House Comm. on Land & Res. Mgmt., to Honorable
    Greg Abbott, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 2-3 (Oct. 8, 2013), http://www.texasattomeygeneral.gov/opin ("Request Letter").
    The Honorable Joseph Deshotel - Page 2                   (GA-1050)
    automobile parking facilities, related area transportation facilities,
    and related roads, streets, and water and sewer facilities, and other
    related improvements that enhance any of the items described by
    this section.
    !d. § 505.152. You ask whether specific types of projects would qualify as "entertainment
    projects" under this provision? Request Letter at 2-3.
    You first ask whether "fund[ing] building renovations and equipment upgrades for a local
    radio station qualifies as an entertainment project under section 505.152." !d. at 3. You question
    whether the statute should be construed to authorize only projects to fund recreational and
    community facilities "that are open and ... accessible for public use." !d. At the outset, we note
    that whether a particular project or specific expenditure is authorized under the Act involves fact
    issues that may not be resolved in the opinion process and that are matters for the board of
    directors to determine in the first instance. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0819 (2010) at 3. Thus,
    we cannot advise whether a specific economic development corporation may fund a particular
    project; however, we can answer your general questions about the construction of section
    505.152.
    Section 505.152 authorizes projects "suitable for use for ... entertainment ... , including"
    a list of specific facilities. TEX. Loc. Gov'T ANN. § 505.152 (West Supp. 2013). Under the
    Code Construction Act, use of the term "including" should not be interpreted as "creat[ing] a
    presumption that components not expressed are excluded."               TEX. Gov'T CODE ANN.
    § 311.005(13) (West 2013). To be included within a statute's illustrative list, however, an
    unenumerated object must be like the objects enumerated. Cnty. of Harris v. Eaton, 
    573 S.W.2d 177
    , 179 (Tex. 1978) (construing a statute that lists specific examples to include others "of the
    same kind or class as the ones expressly mentioned"). "[W]hen words of a general nature are
    used in connection with the designation of particular objects ... or things, the meaning of the
    general words will be restricted to the particular designation." Hi/co Elec. Co-op., Inc. v.
    Midlothian Butane Gas Co., 
    111 S.W.3d 75
    , 81 (Tex. 2003).
    While section 505.152 authorizes projects for purposes of "entertainment," a more
    general term, it narrows that authorization by designating particular types of projects that could
    be funded, "including stadiums, ball parks, auditoriums, amphitheaters, concert halls, parks and
    park facilities, open space improvements, museums [and] exhibition facilities." TEX. Loc.
    Gov'T CODE ANN. § 505.152 (West Supp. 20 l3). The enumerated projects are each unique, but
    they share certain characteristics. They are all spaces or facilities that are open and accessible to
    2
    You ask only about the types of projects authorized under section 505.152 of the Local Government Code,
    and this opinion is limited accordingly. The authority of a particular development corporation may be further
    limited by the resolution creating the corporation or ballot language restricting the use of taxes. See TEX. Loc.
    GOV'T CODE ANN.§ 504.152(b) (West Supp. 2013).
    The Honorable Joseph Deshotel - Page 3                         (GA-1050)
    the public ·and where members of the community may gather for events or recreation. While the
    statute may authorize other projects not expressly listed, any unenumerated projects must be like
    those enumerated. 
    Eaton, 573 S.W.2d at 179
    . With regard to your question, a court could
    conclude that funding for a private radio station's equipment upgrades and building renovations
    is not "of the same kind or class" of project as those projects expressly authorized in section
    505.152 and that section 505.152 therefore does not authorize an economic development
    corporation to fund that type of project. 3 We note, however, that the Legislature granted the
    board of directors of an economic development corporation broad discretion in determining
    whether a specific project is "required or suitable for use for ... entertainment," and it is for the
    board to decide in the first instance.
    You also ask whether funding "improvements for a city owned pavilion qualifies as an
    entertainment project under section 505.152." Request Letter at 3. You describe a specific
    pavilion at issue that "has been and continues to be used for public community events," like the
    Southeast Texas Mardi Gras and the Zachary Breaux Jazz Festival, and that city residents may
    rent for family gatherings, school functions and other privately-held events. /d. at 3--4. As you
    describe it, the pavilion appears to be a community facility that would be open to the public,
    similar to the recreational or community facilities that are expressly authorized in section
    505.152. A court would likely conclude that section 505.152 authorizes the project. This office,
    however, cannot perform the factual inquiry and review necessary to confirm that an economic
    development corporation is authorized to fund a particular project.
    3
    An economic development corporation's authority to grant public funds to a private corporation is limited
    by ati icle Ill, section 52 ofthe Texas Constitution, which precludes political sttbdivi sions from using public fund s
    for private purposes. TEX. CONST. art. III, § 52(a). The exas Supreme Court has explained that the grant of public
    fund s that benefit a private entity will avoid violating thi s section if it satis fies a three-part test: (1) the predominant
    purpose of the expenditure is to accompli h a public purpose, not to benefit pri vate patties; (2) there are adequate
    public contr Is in place to ensure that the pub lic purpose is accomplished and to protect the public's investment; and
    (3) the politica l subdivi sion is rece iving adequate cons ideration. Tex. Mun. League lntergov 'tl Risk Pool v. Tex.
    Workers· Camp. Comm 'n, 74 S, W.3 d 377, 384 (Tex. 2002). Thus, if an economic development corporation decides
    to provide funds to a private entity, it must ensure that these requirements are met. ee Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-
    0362 (200 1) at 6 (requiring "a contract or other arrangement sufficient to ensure that the funds are used for the
    purposes authorized, consistent with the constitutional restrictions on the expenditure of public funds").
    The Honorable Joseph Deshotel - Page 4           (GA-1050)
    SUMMARY
    A court could conclude that funding for a private radio
    station's building renovations and equipment upgrades is not of the
    same kind or class of project as those projects expressly authorized
    in section 505.152 ofthe Local Government Code and that section
    505.152 therefore does not authorize an economic development
    corporation to fund that proposed project. The Legislature granted
    the board of directors of an economic development corporation
    broad discretion in determining whether a specific project is
    "required or suitable for use for ... entertainment," and it is for the
    board to decide in the first instance.
    A court would likely conclude that funding for a city
    owned pavilion is of the same kind or class of project as those
    projects expressly authorized in section 505.152.
    Attorney General ofTexas
    DANIEL T. HODGE
    First Assistant Attorney General
    JAMES D. BLACKLOCK
    Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
    VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    Virginia K. Hoelscher
    Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
    

Document Info

Docket Number: GA-1050

Judges: Greg Abbott

Filed Date: 7/2/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017