Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1973 )

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