Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1973 )


Menu:
  • ATTORNlEY      GENERAL
    August   7, 1973
    The Honorable Fred Galindo                     Opinion No.   H-   80
    Criminal District Attorney
    Cameron County                                 Re:    Whether Commissioners
    Brownsville,  Texas 78520                             Court or County Tax
    Assessor    and Collector
    may employ experts to
    re-evaluate   all property
    Dear Mr.     Galindo:                                 in county.
    You have requested the opinion of this office on two questions.     The
    first is whether the Commissioners       Court of Cameron County has the
    authority to contract with a private evaluation expert for the purpose of
    re-evaluating   all property in Cameron County for ultimate consideration
    by the County Tax Assessor      and Collector  and the County Board of Equal-
    ization.   A similar question was presented to the Texas Supreme Court in
    Pritchard & Abbott v. McKenna,        
    350 S.W.2d 333
    (Tex. 1961)) involving
    the authority of the Commissioners       Court of Galveston County.   A.lthough
    no express constitutional    or statutory authority for’the contract was found,
    the Court said, “We think that authority is implied from the powers that
    have been expressly    granted to and the duties imposed upon this body by
    law. ‘I Although the Court in Pritchard & Abbott was satisfied that the
    power of contract for private assessment       services   was implied in the
    powers and duties of the Commissioners        Courts, the Legislature   amend-
    ed Article   7212, V. T. C. S., in 1963 to expressly    provide that:
    “The Commissioners      Court of any county may
    employ an individual,   firm,  or corporation
    deemed to have special skill and experience
    to compile taxation data for its use while sit-
    ting as a Board of Equalizationand    to provide
    for the payment of the compensation     for such
    professional  services  out of the proper fund
    or funds of the county. ‘I Acts 1963, 58th Leg.,
    p. 1256, Ch. 481, !j 1.
    p.   362
    The Honorable      Fred     Galindo,   page 2       (H-80)
    In our opinion there is no longer any doubt that the question     you
    present should be answered affirmatively.     See A.ttorney General      Opinions
    c-267   (1964), M-986  (1971).
    The contract in Pritchard    & Abbott was uphefd against allegations
    that it usurped the statutory responsibilities   of the County Tax Assessor-
    Collector  and involved re-evaluation    of ordinary real estate,  a task which
    appellant claimed the Assessor-Collector       and Board of Equalization  were
    capable of performing    for themselves.
    The Court    said:
    “Each of the various elected officials,    including
    the Assessor-Collector,      has the sphere that is dele-
    gated to him by law and within which the Commissioners
    Court may not interfere     or usurp.   But that is not to
    say that the functions of the Board of Equalization     and
    those of the Assessor-Collector      are so diverse that in-
    formation    may not be lawfully obtained by the Equali-
    zation Board because it may likewise be of aid to the
    Assessor    in the performance   of his duties; ” (
    350 S.W. 2d
    at 335)
    “The matter of skill required to appraise differ-
    ent kinds of property is one of degree.     The appraisal
    function not only requires an expert in the field of oil
    and gas, but also an expert in the field of what may be
    said to be ordinary real estate values.     ‘The ordinary
    person’ is no more qualified to value real estate than
    he is to value oiland gas properties.   I’ (
    350 S.W. 2d
                 at. 336)
    We emphasize     that such private appraisal is to be use,d by the asses-
    sor and the Board of Equalization     as an aid in the performance   of their
    statutory duties.   It is not to be used as a delegation of such duties nor as
    a substitute for them.     Whelan v. State, 
    282 S.W.2d 378
    (Tex. 1955);
    Nelson v. Blanc0 Independent School District,       
    390 S.W.2d 361
    (Tex. Civ.
    APP. > Austin,  1965, err. ref’d.,   n.r.e.); Darby v. Borger.Independent
    p.   363
    The Honorable    Fred   Galindo,   page 3         (H-80)
    School District;      
    386 S.W.2d 572
    (Tex. Civ. App., Amarillo,    1965, err.
    ref’d. ) n. r. e.:) ; Bass v . Aransas  County Independent.Scho.ol   District,
    3 8 9, $. W, .2 d. 16 5 (T,e x; Ci v”. App..,  Corpus Christi,    1965, err. ref’d.,
    n.r.e.).
    Your second question is whether the Cameron County Tax Assessor-
    Collector    may, in his official capacity,    contract to employ experts for the
    re-evaluation    of taxable property in Cameron County when the funds for
    this purpose have been appropriated        by the Commissioners    Court.  The
    Constitution grants much narrower authority to Assessor-Collectors           than
    to County Commissioners        Courts.   Article   5, $18, as noted above, ccmfers
    jurisdiction   over all county business to the Commissioners       Court, whereas
    Article 8, $14 of the Constitution provides only that each county Assessor
    and Collector    of Taxes.   . . “shall perform all the duties with respect to
    assessing    property for the purpose of taxation and of collecting taxes,     as
    may be prescribed      by the Legislature.   ”
    The duties of the Assessor-Collector     are set out in detail in Chapter
    7 of Title 122, V. T. C. S. Article 7204 is very specific in prescribing    the
    manner and form of assessing      property within a county.    Similarly, Arti-
    cles 7195 through 7199, V. T. C. S., require in detail other procedures that
    the Assessor   must follow in making his assessments.       In our opinion none
    of these express powers and duties permit the implication       that he may con-
    tract independently for private appraisals    in place of or as an aid to the
    discharge of assessment     responsibilities expressly  delegated to his office.
    Instead, Article 7202, V. T. C. S., provides:
    “The board of equalization   or the commissioners
    court shall, if the assessor  fails to perform the duties
    required by this chapter within a reasonable   time, em-
    ploy some other competent person to have the require-
    ments of this law carried out, and the compensation
    therefor shall be deducted from the assessor’s     pay for
    that year. ”
    Likewise, Article 7252, V. T, C. S.,          indicates that no independent
    contractual power should be implied from             the Assessor’s  statutory duties.
    After providing that each Assessor-Collector             of Taxes may appoint one or     ’
    p.    364
    The Honorable    Fred    Galindo,   page 4      (H-80)
    more deputies to assist him (a provision we feel is inapplicable   to a
    contract employing private individuals to perform assessing    duties),
    the Article states that:
    II
    in counties having a population of
    355,dOO’o~ more .         the Assessor    and Col-
    lector of Taxes ma; in ‘addition contract with
    special deputies having special technical train-
    ing, skill, and experience   for the purpose     of
    assisting him in obtaining information     upon which
    to base proper valuations of oil and mineral bear-
    ing lands and properties   and interests   therein,
    industrial and manufacturing    plants, and o.t her
    properties  where special technical skill and train-
    ing is required. ”
    According    to the 1970 Federal census,      Cameron County has a
    population of approximately      114, 000 and would not qualify as a county
    in which the Assessor-     Collector    is permitted to contract for special
    deputies to assist him in his duties.        We believe the Legislature,  in
    granting this power to counties of 355,000        or more,  intended to exclude
    the exercise   of the same or similar power by a county Assessor-         Col-
    lector in counties of lesser population.
    It is therefore  our opinion that the Commissioners       Court of Cameron
    County does have the implied power to contract with private appraisal firms
    or individuals for assistance     in evaluating the accuracy    of the Assessor-
    Collector’s    assessments   of county property values,     but we do not believe
    that our courts would go so far as to find a similar contractual         power im-
    plied in the powers and duties of the Cameron County Tax Collector-Asses-
    sor, and are therefore of the opinion that any such contract entered into
    independently by him would be void.        However,    the county tax assessor-
    collector    could take into consideration   the valuations made by experts under
    contract with the Commissioners        ‘Court and his official assessments     based
    on such independent expert advice would not be rendered invalid.            Federal
    Royalty Co. v. State, 
    42 S.W.2d 670
    (Tex. Civ.App.,          1931), aff. 
    77 S.W. 2d
    1021, reh. den. , 
    80 S.W.2d 741
    (Tex. 1934).
    p.   365
    F
    The Honorable          Fred    Galindo,   page 5     (H-80)
    SUMMARY
    The commissioners     court has authority to employ
    outside help to aid in re-evaluating   alI property in the
    county for taxation purposes.     The tax  assessor  does not
    have a similar authority but is authorized to consider the
    work of the outside experts.
    Very truly yours,
    Attorney   General   of Texas
    APPRCYVED:
    /       IA/
    DAVID         M.   KENbA.LL,      Chairman
    Opinion Committee
    p.    366