Could the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Board use Texas article 999b to provide extra law-enforcement officers to Dallas?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-160: Airport Board Police Agreement
Plain-English summary
JM-160 concluded that the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Board could not use article 999b to enter an agreement providing Dallas with additional law-enforcement officers.
"Accordingly, it is our opinion that the airport board may not enter into any agreement with the city of Dallas under the provision of article 999b."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
Article 999b applied when one county or municipality temporarily supplied officers to another county or municipality. The airport and its board did not fit either category.
"Article 999b authorizes one county or municipality to provide law enforcement officers to another county or municipality in case the latter finds itself temporarily in need of additional officers."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf"Neither the airport nor its board is a county, and neither is a municipality as defined in article 999b."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
What agreement did the requester ask about?
The proposed agreement would have required the airport to provide Dallas with additional law-enforcement officers under article 999b's interlocal-assistance provisions.
"You have asked our opinion as to whether the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Board may enter into an agreement with the city of Dallas by which the airport would agree to provide the city with additional law enforcement officers under the interlocal assistance provisions of article 999b, V.T.C.S."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
How was the airport board created?
Dallas and Fort Worth created it through a joint agreement under article 46d-14.
"The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth created the airport board by a joint agreement pursuant to article 46d-14, V.T.C.S."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
Could the board employ its own security force?
The joint agreement empowered the board to employ a security force, but Dallas and Fort Worth had to approve the board's plans.
"Although the agreement empowers the board to employ a security force and to formulate airport regulations and define penalties for their violation, the governing bodies of the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth must approve all such board plans."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
Why did article 999b not cover the airport board?
The statute defined a municipality as a city or town, including home-rule, general-law, and special-charter cities. The opinion said the airport board was not within that definition.
"Section 1 of 999b defines 'municipality' as 'any city or town, including home-rule city or a city operating under the general law or a special charter.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
Did JM-160 decide whether Dallas and Fort Worth could make a similar agreement directly?
No. The opinion expressly left that question open.
"We do not address in this opinion the authority of two or more cities to enter into the kind of agreement contemplated here."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
Background and legal framework
The board's authority over law-enforcement employment came from paragraph 8f of the cities' joint agreement.
"The agreement defines the board's authority with respect to the employment of law enforcement officers in its paragraph 8f."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
The statutory problem was institutional status. Article 999b authorized county-to-county, county-to-city, or city-to-city temporary assistance, while the airport board was a different kind of entity.
"Neither the airport nor its board is a county, and neither is a municipality as defined in article 999b."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
Holding
"The Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Board may not enter into an agreement with the city of Dallas under the interlocal assistance provisions of article 999b."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0160
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0160.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
June 6, 1984
Honorable Henry Wade
Criminal District Attorney
601 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Opinion No. JM-160
Re: Whether a regional airport board may enter into an agreement with a municipality under article 999b, V.T.C.S.
Dear Mr. Wade:
You have asked our opinion as to whether the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Board may enter into an agreement with the city of Dallas by which the airport would agree to provide the city with additional law enforcement officers under the interlocal assistance provisions of article 999b, V.T.C.S.
The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth created the airport board by a joint agreement pursuant to article 46d-14, V.T.C.S. The agreement defines the board's authority with respect to the employment of law enforcement officers in its paragraph 8f. Although the agreement empowers the board to employ a security force and to formulate airport regulations and define penalties for their violation, the governing bodies of the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth must approve all such board plans.
Article 999b authorizes one county or municipality to provide law enforcement officers to another county or municipality in case the latter finds itself temporarily in need of additional officers. Section 1 of 999b defines "municipality" as "any city or town, including home-rule city or a city operating under the general law or a special charter." Neither the airport nor its board is a county, and neither is a municipality as defined in article 999b. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the airport board may not enter into any agreement with the city of Dallas under the provision of article 999b. We do not address in this opinion the authority of two or more cities to enter into the kind of agreement contemplated here.
SUMMARY
The Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Board may not enter into an agreement with the city of Dallas under the interlocal assistance provisions of article 999b.
Very truly yours,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.