Open Records Decision No. 227
September 17, 1979

	Re:  Whether financial statements reflecting income and expenses of lessee of 
county airport are public under the Open Records Act.

Honorable Mike Atkins
Ector County Attorney
Ector County Courthouse
Odessa, Texas  79761

Dear Mr. Atkins:

	You request our decision pursuant to section 7 of article 6252-17a, V.T.C.S., the 
Texas Open Records Act.  You have received a request for the monthly and annual 
financial statements and all other documents reflecting income and expenses submitted to 
the county by the lessee operator of the county airport.  This information is submitted to 
the county under the terms of the lease agreement under which the airport is operated.  
You contend that this information is excepted from required public disclosure under 
section 3(a)(4) which excepts “information which, if released, would give advantage to 
competitors or bidders.”  The requesting party points out that section 6(a)(1) of the Act 
specifically makes public reports and audits made for governmental bodies.  This 
situation does not involve the letting of a governmental contract.

	The operation and maintenance of an airport by a county is a governmental 
function.  V.T.C.S. art. 46d-15.  A governmental body which sells gasoline and oil and 
charges storage fees for airplane hangars to those using the airport is engaged in a 
governmental function.  City of Corsicana v. Wren, 317 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. 1958).  The 
operation of an airport remains a governmental function even though it is leased to 
another.  Flippin v. City of Beaumont, 525 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Beaumont 
1975, no writ).  See generally Schultz v. City of Houston, 551 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. Civ. 
App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 1977, no writ).

	In Open Records Decision No. 99 (1975), this office held that section 3(a)(4) has 
no application to the release of financial data by a municipally-owned radio station 
operated by the city in its governmental capacity.  It was said that:

A city acts in its governmental capacity as an agent of the state, and 
in such a role, we do not believe that it may properly be deemed to 
compete with private enterprise. . . .

In Open Records Decision No. 153 (1977), it was held that lease agreements on city 
wharves were not excepted from disclosure under section 3(a)(4) because the 
management of the wharves was a governmental function.  See State ex rel. Cummer v. 
Pace, 159 So. 679 (Fla. 1935) (access to information concerning operation of docks and 
terminals required even though sought by acknowledged competitor).

	Under these decisions, a governmental body may not deny public inspection of 
financial information concerning the performance of a governmental function.  We do 
not believe that the fact that that governmental function is performed by another on 
behalf of the county, an arrangement specifically authorized by statute, V.T.C.S. article 
46d-4, changes this rule.

	It is our decision that the section 3(a)(4) exception is not applicable to the 
information requested, and thus the information is public.

Very truly yours,

Mark White
Attorney General of Texas

John W. Fainter, Jr.
First Assistant Attorney General

Ted L. Hartley
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by William G Reid
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

C. Robert Heath, Chairman
David B. Brooks
Rick Gilpin
William G Reid
Bruce Youngblood