High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
OF
TEXAS
GREG
ABBOTT
-----
--
-
---
-September14,-2009-MI.Francis
J.
Coleman,JI.GeneralCounseltoHASDevelopmentCorporation
1803
SouthBoulevardHouston,Texas770980R2009-12960DearMI.Coleman:YouaskwhethercertaininformationissubjecttorequiredpublicdisclosuretmderthePublicInformationAct(the"Act"),chapter552
ofthe
GovemmentCode.YourrequestwasassignedID#355024.TheHASDevelopmentCorporation("HASDC")receivedtworequestsfordocumentsandcommunicationsbetweenHASDCandTomlinInvestmentsrelatedtoapotentialairportinDentonCounty,Texas.HASDCasselisitisnotagovemmentalbodysubjecttotheAct.Wehaveconsideredyourargumentsandreviewedthesubmittedinformation.Wehavealsoconsideredcommentssubmitted
by
one
of
therequestors.
See
Gov'tCode
§
552.304(providingthatanypersonmaysubmitcommentsstatingwhyinfonnationshouldorshouldnotbereleased).TheActappliesto"govenunentalbodies,"
as
that
tenn
isdefinedinsection552.003(1)(A)
of
theGovenllnentCode.Accordingtothatsection,a"govemmentalbody"isthepari,section,orportion
of
anorganization,corporation,commission,cOlmnittee,institution,oragencythatspendsorthatissuppOliedinwholeorinpart
by
publicfunds[.]Gov'tCode
§
552.003(1)(A)(xii)."Publicnmds"meansnmds
of
thestateor
of
agovenllnentalsubdivision
of
thestate.
Id.
§
552.003(5).Thedetennination
of
whetheranentityisagovemmentalbodyforpurposes
of
theActrequiresananalysis
of
thefacts
POSTOFFICE
Box
12548,
AUSTIN,TEXAS
78711-2548
TEL:(512)463-2100
WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US
AllEqualEmploymelltOpportullityEmployer.Prillted
Oil
RecycledPaper
Mr.Francis
J.
Colelhan-Page2sUlToundingtheentity.
SeeBlankenship
v.
BrazosHigherEduc.Auth.,Inc.,
975
S.W.2d353,360-362(Tex.
App.-Waco
1998,pet.denied).FUliher,
in
AttomeyGeneralOpinionJM-821(1987),thisofficeconcludedthat"theprimaryissueindetenniningwhetherceliainprivateentitiesare
gove111mental
bodieslmderthe[predecessorofthe]Actiswhethertheyaresupportedinwhole
or
in
part
by
publicfimdsorwhethertheyexpendpublicfimds."
Att0111ey
GeneralOpinionJM-821at2(1987).Weadditionallynotethattheprecisemam1er
of
publicfundingisnotthesoledispositiveissuein.detenniningwhetheraparticularentityissubject
to
theAct.
See
JM-821at3;OpenRecordsDecisionNo.621at9(1993).Otheraspects
ofa
contractorrelationship
may
makeitmorelikelythataparticularentitywillfallwithintheAct.
JM
-821at
3.
For
example,acontractorrelationshipthatinvolvespublicfimds,andthatindicatesa
COlllinon
purposeorobjectiveorthatcreatesanagency-typerelationshipbetweenaprivateentityandapublicentitymaybringtheprivateentitywithinthedefinition
of
a"govenunentalbody"undersection552.003(1)(A)(xii)
of
the
Gove111ment
Code.
Seeid.;
ORD621at
11
n.10.Someentitieswill
be
considered
gove111111ental
bodies
if
theyprovideservicestraditionallyprovided
by
gove111111ental
bodies.
Id.
The·overallnature
ofthe
relationshipcreated
by
thecontractisrelevantindetenniningwhethertheprivateentityissocloselyassociatedwiththegovenunentalbodythattheprivateentityfallswithintheAct.
Id.
HASDCisanon-profitcorporationthestated
pUl-pose
of
whichistobenefittheCity
of
Houston(the"city")andtheHoustonAirportSystem(the"system").HASDChasenteredintocontractswiththesystem,
in
whichthesystemagreestoprovideservices
in
exchangeformonetaryconsiderationfromHASDC.Specifically,HASDCpaysthesystem180%
of
thecost
of
servicesprovided,resultinginasubstantialprofitmargintothesystem.HASDCthensellstheseservicestothirdparties,such
as
foreignairportsorprivateorganizations,whostand
to
benefitfromthesystem'sexpertise.Accordingly,HASDCisfimded
by
thesethirdparties,not
by
thecityorthesystem.AlthoughHASDCreceivesservicesfromthesystem
to
aidin
HASDC's
support
of
itsthird-patiyclients,itprovidesconsiderationforsuchservicesintheform
of
monetarypayments;ratherthanreceivingfundsfromthecityorthesystem,HASDCprovidesfunds
to
thesepublicentities.FUliher,althoughHASDCoftenworksinconceliwiththesystem,we
do
notfindthatHASDCandthesystemshareacommonpurpose
arid
objectivesuchthatanagency-typerelationshipiscreated,
or
thattheservicesprovidedtothirdparties
by
HASDCaretraditionallyprovided
by
cities
or
municipalairpOlisystems.
Id.
Thus,uponreview,wefindHASDCisnota
gove111111ental
body
subject
to
theAct.Therefore,HASDCneednotrespondtothepresentrequestsforitsinfonnation.Thisletterrulingislimitedtotheparticular
info111lation
atissue
in
thisrequestandlimited
to
thefactsaspresentedtous;therefore,thisrulingmustnot
be
relieduponasapreviousdetenninationregardinganyotherinfomiationoranyothercircumstances.'ThisrulingtriggersimpOliantdeadlinesregardingtherightsandresponsibilities
of
thegovernmentalbodyand
ofthe
requestor.Formoreinf?nnationconcemingthoserightsand
Add a Comment