*I. . a Hon. E. H. Thornton,~ Jr. Opinion No. S- 110. Chairman. State Highway Crnnmission Texas Highway Department Re: (A) Authority of the State Austin 14. Texas Highway Commission to is- sue voucher for a lump sum for-payment of preliminary expenses of the Texas Turn- pike Authority. (B) Author- ityof the Texas Turnpike Authority to pay expenses incurred by the Authority for office rental, supplies, bnnd premiums, and sal- aries as Upreliminary ex- Dear Mr. Thornton: penses.” Your request for an opinion reads in part as follows: “To provide for the construction, operation and maintenance of Turnpikes within the State of Texas, the 53rd Legislature by the passage of House Bill 4 created the Texas Turnpike Authority, a bndy politic and Agency of the State, and prescribed~~its powers, duties and limi- tations. The Legislature did not include in House Bill 4 an appropriatron to the Turnpike Authority for the pay- -ment -of preliminary expenses prior to the sale of reve- nue bonds, nor was an appropriation to the Texas Turn- spike Authority made in the Departmental Appropriation Bill. Section 20 of the Act autlmrizes the State Highway Commission, if requested by the Authority, to spend High- way Funds for the study of a project, and to use its engi- neering and other forces including consulting engineers, and traffic engineers, and to pay for such additional en- gineering and traffic and other expert studies as may be deemed expedient, and all such expenses incurred by the State Highway Commission prior to the issuance of turn- pike revenue bonds should be paid by the State Highway Commission and charged to the project. Upon the sale of turnpike revenue bonds, the funds so expended by the Highway Commission in connection with the project, shall be reimbursed from the proceeds of such bonds. ” . . . Hon. E. H. Thornton, Jr., page 2 (S-110) “(1) Is the State Highway Commission authorized under the terms of House Bill 4 to issue voucher on the State Highway Fund, and is the Comptroller authorized to issue warrant therefor as an advance to the Texas Turn- pike Authority a lump sum of money from the State High- way Fund from which the Texas Turnpike Authority could pay its preliminary expenses, provided such sum is repaid to the Highway Commission by the Turnpike Authority from the sale of revenue bonds. “(2) Is the State Highway Commission authorized. to issue vouchers on the State Highway Fund, and is the Comptroller authorized to issue warrants therefor, for the following kinds of obligations incurred by the Texas Turnpike Authority as preliminary expenses prior to the sale of revenue bonds by the Authority: “Office rental, office supplies and ex- penses, bond premiums for members of the Board of Directors and employ- ees of the Authority, traveling expens- es of members of the Board of Direct- ors and employees of the Authority, sal- aries of employees of the Authority, con- sulting engineers employed under con- tracts made by the Authority for study of tur,npike projects, and other prelim- inary operational and organizational ex- penses incurred by the Authority, all of said expenses to be reimbursed to the State Highway Commission by the Turn- pike Authority from the sale of revenue bonds.” Section 20 of House Bill 4. Acts 53rd Legislature, Regular Session, 1953, reads as follows: “The State Highway Commission is hereby author- ized in its .discretion. if and to the extent requested by the Authority, to expend out of any funds available for the pur- pose, such moneys as may be necessary for the study of a Project and to use its engineering and other forces, includ- ing consulting engineers and traffic engineers, for the pur- pose of effecting such study and to pay for such additional engineering and traffic and other expert studies as it may deem expedient and all such expenses incurred by the State Highway Commission prior to the issuance of turnpike rev- enue bonds under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid t. - Hon. E. H. Thornton, Jr., page 3 (S-1,10) by the State Highway Commission and charged to such Proj- ect, and the State Highway Commission shall keep proper reck- ords and accounts showing each amount so charged. Upon the sale of turnpike revenue bonds for any such project, the funds so expended by the State Highway Commission in connection with such Project shall be reimbursed to the ,State Highway Commis.sion from the proceeds of such bonds.” (Emphasis added.) Your questions ,resolve themselves into a problem of stat- utory interpretation whereby we must determine the legislative intent in this case. We must determine whether the Legislature intended for the State Highway Commission to turn over a lump sum to the Texas Turn- pike Authority, in the beginning, before any expenses are incurred by that Authority and allow that Authority to pay its expenses as they ac- crue, or whether the Legislature intended that the Highway Commission pay the expenses of the Turnpike Authority as such expenses accrue. Where a statute is ambiguous or presents alternative methods of accomplishing a particular act, there are innumerable canons or rules of construction which come into play to help us determine the legislative intent. Koy v. Schneider, 110 ‘Tex. 369, 221 S.W. 880 (1920). However, where a statute presents no ambiguity, we are limited to a less ,dubious guide to the determination of what the Legisla- ture intended. Weaver v. Robison, 114 Tex. 272. 268 S.W. 133 (1924). In such a case we are limited to the wording of the statute itself to de- termine its meaning. The statute here in question directs the State Highway Commission to expend funds for “all such expenses incurred . . . prior to the issuance of turnpike revenue bonds.” This language makes no mention of lump sum payments, payments in advance, or expenses in- curred in the future but only “expenses incurred.- The words used give reference only to the past tense. No ambiguity exists in the wording of this Act and we must, therefore, follow the wording of the Act. It makes reference only to one type of payment of these expenses and any other procedure would be improper. We must. therefore, answer your first question %o” and your second question “Yes”. It is our opinion that the statute contemplates the expendi- ture of funds for all of the purposes listed in your second question, if same are determined by the Authority to be necessary for the study of a Project. Hon. E. H. Thornton, Jr., page 4 (S-110) SUMMARY (A) The State Highway Commission has no au- thority to issue a voucher for a lump sum advance to the Texas Turnpike Authority to cover its preliminary expenses. (B) The State Highway Commission does have authority to pay certain specified expenses in- curred by the Texas Turnpike Authority as “prelim- inary expenses.’ APPROVED: Yours very truly, V. F. Taylor, (acting) JOHN BEN SH~EPPERD State Affairs Division Attorney General Willis E. Gresham Reviewer Robert S. Trotti First Assistant Assistant