-.-- . . .._ 

AvSnS. TESAS 

~, _ _. 

December 14. 1949 

; ‘., ‘i.< :y. 

i 

‘- 

Hon. L. A. Woods 

State Superintendent 

Department of Education 

Aus tin, Texas 

Opinion No. V- 966. 

Re: Validity of contract for revaluation of property within 

Grand Prairie Independent 

School District. 

Dear Sir: 

You have requested the opinion of this office as to 

whether the Trustees of Grand Prairie Independent School District 

had the authority to enter into a particular contract. a copy of 

which is attached to your request. We gather from the accompanying file that the Grand Prairie Independent School District has been 

receiving grants from the Federal Government under the Lanham 

Act, which provides for aid in the maintenance and operation of 

those school districts wherein activities of the Federal Government 

have caused such serious financial burdens that the districts cannot finance the normal operation and maintenance of school facilities. The Federal grants supplement State and local funds available to school agencies. Tit. 42, Sec. 1535, U.S.C.A. 

The Federal authorities have questioned the propriety 

of the expenditure of the District’s funds under the contract in question. If it was within the powers of the Board of Trustees under 

applicable statutes to enter into the contract, then school district 

funds could be properly used as provided therein; and the Federal 

Government will supplement or contribute the maximum amount 

allowable as Federal aid; but if neither State nor local school funds 

could legally be used to pay for the services rendered under the 

contract, the amount expended under the contract cannot be considered in determining the amount of the Federal grant. 

The preamble to the contract recites that “the Tax Assessor and Collector of the . . . District does not have available in 

his records, lists or records showing the actual value of all property within the boundaries of the . . . District; . . . /&atf. . . Due 

to change’s in values over a long period of years thevarious equalization boards appointed by said . . . District have been unable to 

revalue the property to meet the changing . . . values. . .; and . . . 

/&at7 it will be of inestimable value . . . to the . . . board to have 

ZvaiTbble . . . records showing the different classes of properties 

and their values so that the said board may be able to efficiently 

and correctly fix the same proportionate values on all classes of 

properties in this . . . District . . .” 
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 2 (V-966) 

The contract proper is behveen the Grand Prairie Independent School District acting by and through its regularly elected 

Board of Trustees and the Texas Educational Service Company, a 

Texas Corporation, engaged in the business of valuation and appraisal. Its provisions may be summarized as follows. 

The Service Company agreed to evaluate all land by actual view and to determine the front foot value of all lots and parcels of land within the district. In appraising every lot and parcel 

of land the company was to follow the best evaluation practices and 

was to record the results of such appraisals on land and improvement record cards which were to become the permanent record of 

the district. Likewise the company was to appraise and evaluate 

all buildings and improvements upon each tract of land, recording 

numerous specific details with regard to said buildings and impiovements on the land and improvement cards above referred to. 

The contract specifically required the listing and appraisal of “all tangible personal property, machinery, fixtures and 

easements belonging to utility companies, pipe lines, communication systems, transportation systems, tank farms, refineries, gas 

companies, railroads and oil companies.” There was likewis~e a 

specific requirement to list. appraise and evaluate ‘all business 

and professional property, such as stocks of merchandise.~ materials, business and professional tools, implements, equipment, vehicles, machinery, furniture and fixtures, and libraries.” Personal_ 

property in homes, automobiles, jewelry, stocks, bonds, and intangible property were expressly excluded from this provision of the 

contract. 

In addition to furnishing one set of sectional maps on 

any property on which the District did not have such maps and to 

bringing existing maps up to date, the service company was to bring 

up to date all ownership sheets of all property within the school district. These sheets were to be on the same forms as the tax collector was then using, such forms to. be furnished by the district. 

The ‘experts” of the service company were required 

to instruct the ‘Assessors” of the school district in the methods 

of valuation and computation used by the company *so that the system may be continued and kept up-to-date in the future.” 

Likewise the company was to “cause a competent representative . . . to attend the hearings of the next Board of Equalization of the Grand Prairie Independent School District . . . to advise with said board, make recommendations to said board and to 

defend any valuations set under this contract . . . * 

a 

a 
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 3 (V -966) 

In the event “any valuation set up under the contract is 

attacked or contested in court or other legal proceedings directly 

or indirectly” the company agreed to furnish a competent witness 

to testify at such hearing as to the accuracy of the valuations “arrived at under this contract.” 

A “deputy tax assessor” was to be furnished by the company “to assist in assessing taxes for the thirty (30) day period beginning December 26, 1949, and ending January 25, 1950.” 

Various other detailed provisions of the contract are 

not material to the present question. For the performance of the 

various services enumerated in the contract the schooL district 

agreed to pay the service company $11,000.00 to be paid *as the 

work progresses, in installments, as follows: The first installment 

of $1.000.00 shall be due and payable January 30, 1949. Thereafter 

payments of $1 ,OOO.OO each shall be due and payable on February 

28, 1949, Mar~ch 3 1, 1949, April 30, 1949, May 31, 1949. The balance of $6,000.00 shall be due and payable on completion of thework 

and acceptance of report” by the District. 

The general rule is that school districts may not enter 

into any contract which is not expressly authorized by law or impliedly authorized from powers expressly granted. 37 Tex. Jur. 943, 

Schools, Sec. 75. 

The expenditure of public free school funds is governed 

by Article 2827, V.C.S. Section 1 of this article provides that the 

State and county available funds shall be used solely for the payment 

of teachers’ and superintendents‘ salaries, fees for taking the scholastic census, and interest on money borrowed on short time to pay 

salaries of teachers and superintendents until school funds for the 

current year were available. 

Section 2 of Article 2827 reads as follows: 

“Local school funds from district taxes, tuition 

fees of pupils not entitled to free tuition and other local 

sources may be used for the purposes enumerated for 

State and county funds and for purchasing appliances and 

supplies, for the payment of insurance premiums, janitors and other employes, for buying school sites, buying, 

building and repairing and renting school houses, and 

for other nurnoses necessarv in the conduct of the=b1 

Iic schools to be determmed’by the Board of Trustees, 

the accounts and vouchers for county districts to be approved by the county superintendent; provided, that when 

the State available school fund in any city or district is 

sufficient to maintain the schools thereof in any year for 
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 4 (V-966) 

at least eight months, and leave a surplus, such surplus may be expended for the purposes mentioned herein.” (Emphasis ours.) 

The underscored portion of the above quoted section 

has peen construed by our courts in numerous opinions. It has been 

held sufficiently broad to authorize the trustees to expend local 

school funds for the construction of living quarters for teachers, 

Adams v. Miles, 300 S.W. 211, affirmed 41 S.W.Zd 21 (Tex. Comm. 

App. 1931); for establishing a health department as part of the school 

system, Mosely v. City of Dallas, 171 S.W.2d 36 (Tex. Comm. App. 

1929); and for employing an attorney to represent the trustees in a. 

suit to cancel a teacher’s contract. Arrington v. Jones, 191 S.W. 361 

(Tex. Civ. App. 1917). 

In general it may be said that “trustees are authorized 

to expend funds derived from local sources and the surplus of the 

State and county available school funds, for any and all purposes 

enumerated by law, and for such other purposes as, in the discretion of the board, may be reasonably necessary in the maintenance.. 

of the schools.” 37 Tex. Jur. 970, Schools, Sec. 98. 

Articles 2791, 2792, and 2792b. V.C.S., expressly deal 

with assessing and collecting taxes for independent school districts. 

Article 2791 reads as follows: 

“There is hereby created the office of assessor 

and collector of each independent school district, whether created by special or general law, who shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees thereof, and shall have 

the same power and shall perform the same duties with 

reference to the assessment and collection of taxes for 

free school purposes that are conferred by law upon the 

assessor and collector of taxes in and for any incorporated city, town or village, or upon the person or officer 

legally performing the duties of such assessor and collector,and-tre shail receive such compensatinnfor his 

services as the Board of Trustees may allow, except in 

cities and towns provided for, not to exceed four (4) 

per cent of the whole amount of taxes received by him. 

He shall give bond in double the estimated amount of 

taxes coming annually into his hands, payable to and to 

be approved by the president of the Board, conditioned 

for the faithful discharge of his duties. and that he will 

pay over to the treasurer of the Board all funds coming into his hands by virtue of his office as such assessor and collector; provided that in the enforced collection of taxes the Board of Trustees shall perform the 

duties which devolve in such cases upon the city council 
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 5 (V-966) 

of an incorporated city or town, the president of the 

Board of Trustees shall perform the duties which devolve in such cases upon the mayor of an incorporated 

city or town, and the county attorney of the county in 

which the independent school district is located, or the 

city attorney of the incorporated city in which said district or a part thereof is located, shall perform the 

duties which in such cases devolve upon the city attorney of an incorporated city or town under the provisions 

of law applicable thereto. It shall be within the discretion of the Board of Trustees of any independent school 

district to name an assessor of taxes who shall assess 

the taxable property within the limits of the independent school district within the time and in the manner 

provided by existing laws, in so far as they are applicable, and when said assessment has been equalized 

by a Board of Equalization appointed by the Board of 

Trustees for that purpose, shall prepare the tax rolls 

of said district and shall duly sign and certify same to 

the county tax collector, or the city tax collector as 

provided for in the succeeding article. The said assessor of taxes shall receive a fee of two (2) per cent of 

the whole amount of taxes assessed by him as shown by 

the completed certified tax rolls.” 

This article is applicable to the “tax assessor and collector of the Grand Prairie Independent School District.” 

Article 2792 provides an alternative method by authorizing the Board of Trustees to have the taxes of their district assessed and collected, or collected only, by the county assessor and 

collector, or by the city assessor and collector of an incorporated 

city or town in the limits of which the school district or a part thereof is located. Other provisions of this article pertain to valuation, 

payment of assessors and collectors, etc. 

Article 2792b authorizes the trustees of independent 

school districts lying partly within and partly without the limits of 

any incorporated city or town to have separate Boards of Equalization and separate Assessors and Collectors for such two portions 

of the district under certain circumstances. 

The above quoted and summarized articles thus confer 

upon Boards of Trustees of Independent School Districts expressly 

enumerated powers in connection with assessing and collecting district taxes. 

An assessor and collector appointed in pursuance of the 

provisions of Article 2791 is “as to powers (Art. 1147, R.S.) . . . 
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 6 (V-966) 

granted all of the authority that is prescribed in Ch. 5, Title 28, 

relating to cities, towns and villages.” Republic Ins. Co. v. Highland Park Independent School Dist.. 123S.W.Zd 184 

App. lY38. Dismissed W. 0. J. - Correct Judgment’- 

IYZ (Tex. Civ. 

see explana - 

tion 125 S.W.td 270). Independent school districts are governed 

generally in matters of taxation by the group of statutes applicable 

to cities and towns rather than by the statutes applicable to the 

State and counties. Republic Ins. Co. v. Hyde Park Independent 

School District, 141 Tex. 224 1 II S . W . 2d 342 (1943) . I t is thus apparent that the statutes con&n express directions for assessing 

and collecting school district taxes and that no express statutory 

provision authorizes a contract of the type under consideration. 

Therefore, if the Board of Trustees was authorized to enter into 

this contract, such authorization must be implied from the provision in Article 2827, Section 2, previously quoted, which authorizes the expenditure of local school funds for *purposes necessary 

in the conduct of the public schools;” and the question is whether 

such authority can be implied in view of the specific statutory provisions above cited or summarized. 

Contracts similar to the one under consideration have 

become the subject of litigation in our courts. 

In Roper v. Hal:. 280 S.W. 289 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926), 

the court held that the Commissioners’ Court of Freestone County 

had authority to make a contract with a private individual to list 

owners of all producing oil and gas properties within the county and 

make a valuation of all pipe lines, refineries, tank farms, and tankage. etc., used in connection with oil and gas development, including 

transportation facilities. The court reasoned that the particular 

property involved could not have been assessed by an ordinary person, and therefore the Commissioners’ Court under its general 

powers had the authority to secure expert assistance. The contention that duties imposed by law on the Tax Collector and Commissioners’ Court had been unlawfully delegated was rejected. The 

court said: 

*It does not appear that it was the intent or effect of the contract that Pickett should perform the 

duties imposed by law on any of the offices concerned. 

On the contrary it does appear that its purpose was 

merely to aid such offices in the respective performance of their duties,” 

In Simkins v. City of Corsicana. 86 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. 

Civ. App. 1935), suit was brought by the City of Corsicana against 

Mrs. Eliza J. Simkins to recover delinquent taxes for the years 

1921 to 1929. inclusive, and to foreclose a tax lien on the land against which the taxes had been assessed. The defendant alleged 
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 7 (V-966) 

that in 1928 the city had entered into a contract with one Erinborg 

under which he was to place a value for tax purposes on all real 

property within the city; that defendant’s property had been excessively valued by said Erinborg; that the city had arbitrarily and 

without hearing adopted said valuation over defendant’s protest, 

that said action was illegal and void, and that therefore the city 

had no right to collect the taxes. The court held that the trial court 

had erred in not submitting to the jury the question of whether the 

valuation as fixed by the board was grossly excessive and reversed 

and remanded the case. In the course of the opinion the court, 

speaking through Judge Alexander, said: 

“We know of no valid reason why a tax board cannot employ an expert to assist it in arriving at the true 

value of taxable property, and when such expert has 

been employed the board should have a right to take into consideration the information so furnished by him 

in ascertaining the true value of property for tax purposes. . . . But it must be remembered that such experts so employed bear no official relationship to the 

property owner and have no statutory authority to fix 

the value at which the property is to be assessed . . .* 

(P. 794) 

In Marquax t v. Harris County, 117 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 

Civ. App. 1938, error dism.), a contract which contemplated a revaluation by two firms of a-1 the property within Harris County “of 

the type now generally assessed for taxation” was held to be void. 

The court first stated that the contract as a whole showed that it 

was made by the Commissioners’ Court “in connection with the collection of delinquent taxes” within the meaning of Articles 7264a 

and 7335a and that since it had not been approved by either the Comptroller or Attorney General, nor by both acting together, was prohibited by these statutes. 

It has been held that.a contract made by an independent 

school district with an attorney for collection of delinquent taxes 

did not have to be approved by the Attorney General and the Comptroller, although the amount of the fee for such services was limited to that provided by law for State and county taxes. Beil v. Mansfield Independent School District, 133 Tex. 403. 129 S.W.Zd 629 (lY3q. 

Therefore, the first reason for invalidating the contract in the Marquart case is not applicable here even if we were of the opinion that 

the contract~under consideration was in the nature of a contract “in 

connection with the coklection of delinquent taxes,” a point which we 

do not need to decide. 

However, the court found the contract void for the further reason that it amounted to an attempted deiegation of the duties 
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 8 (V ,966) 

devolved by law upon the tax assessor and collector. We quote 

from the opinion of the court at pages 502, 503: 

“(4) (5) While the Commissioners’ Court may 

validly employ ‘skilled experts ’ to value for taxation 

purposes property in special instances, where technical equipment is required, since this contract--,by 

its express terms --embraces a valuation of the entire 

taxable property of Harris County, as reflected by its 

tax records, it necessarily supersedes the powers, 

duties, and functions of the tax assessor and collector, 

and since those duties are devolved by law upon him, 

such an attempted employment by that body of other 

persons to, in the first instance, per,form such duties 

instead, is an expenditure of public funds for an unauthorized purpose. Article 5. sec. 18, State Constitution; Sec. 18 and Sec. 14, as amended November 8, 1932, 

of Art. 8, State Constitution; Sections 6 and 10 of Art. 

16, State Constitution; Section 3 of Art. 1, State Constitution; Art. 3, Sets. 44, 53, and 55 of State Constitution; 

Articles 7148. 7161, 7162, 7183, 7184 to 7205. inclusive, 

all of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925; Missouri, K. 

& T. Ry. Co. v. Shannon, 100 Tex. 379, 100 S.W. 138, 

10 L.R.A.N.S., 681; Maud v. Terrell, 109 TEX. 07, 200 

S.W. 375, Von Rosenberg v. Lovett, Tex. Civ. App., 

173 S.W. 508; Roper Y. Hall, Tex. Civ. App.. 280 S.W. 

289; Federal Royalty Co. v. State, Tex. Civ. App., 42 

S.W.2d 670; Id., 124 Tex. 290, 77 S.W.Zd 1021, 80 S.W. 

2d 741. 

“(5) No extended discussion will be indulged in 

under this last-stated ground. Suffice it to say that 

such an apparent undertaking of a commissioners’ 

court to itself initially revalue the entire taxable p:operty of a county, under the guise of using the same for 

its own information and guidance when sitting as a Board 

of Equalization. does not seem to this court to square 

with the balanced system of relatrve powers and duties 

conferred upon that body by our laws, as comparable 

to the correlative ones conferred upon the county tax 

assessor-coilector; it may be, as much testimony in 

the statement of facts indicates, that in this instance 

the commissioners’ court concluded that the tax assessor-collector’s office had broken down, and that its so 

occupying his place and performing his functions Instead, 

justified an original assumption of such power upon its 

part; but it is not this court’s understanding that our 

statutes in such cases conferred upon it any such authcrity; on the contrary, it would seem to have been the tax 
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 9 (V-966) 

assessor-collector’s legal right to independently perform the duties actually conferred upon him by law. 

Terre11 v. Greene, 88 Tex. 539, 31 S.W. 631, 634; 34 

Tex. Jur. p. 444. 

‘(6) The authorities cited under ground (5) supra 

seem to make it quite clear that this contract did evidence an undertaking to in effect usurp the official privileges and obligations of the tax assessor-collector, as 

vouchsafed in the statutes there collated. while upon the 

other hand, the differing and correlative duties of the 

commissioners’ court--as a Board of Equalization-- 

are embraced within R.S. Articles 7206, 7211, and 7212. 

Under them it would seem never to have been contemplated that the Board of Equaiization should act upon 

anything other than the assessments first rendered to 

them by the tax assessor-collector. and not initially upon their own motion. County of Galveston v. Galveston 

Gas Co., 72 Tex. 509. 1O.S.W. 583. Further, under R.S. 

Article 7217--after the assessor-collector had discharged 

his duties under those preceding statutes and had furnished the lists therein called for to that Board--it is obligated to return the same to him for presentment to the 

Grand Jury of his county.” 

In Aldrich v. Dailas County, 167 S.w.Zd 560 (Tex. Civ. 

App. 1942, error dism.). the court stated at page 565 that they perceived no material difference between the contract there under consideration and the one involved in the Marquart case and that the 

contract was therefore invalid. 

Neither the Marquart case nor the Aldrich case refers 

to Simkins v. City of Corsicana, supra. We think that the decisions 

in obese two cases conflict with the 1anauaEe used by Judge Alexander in the City of Corsicana case. No &it was applied for in the 

City of Corsicana case. In view of the fact that applications for 

writs of error were refused in the Marquart and Aldrich cases. we 

are of the opinion that we must be guided by these derisions. 

The contract made by Grand Prairie Independent School 

District varies, of course, from the contracts considered in these 

two cases, but we think in view of these decisions it would be clearly outside the powers of a commissioners’ court. 

As we have previously stated. school districts are governed generally in matters of taxation by a different group of statutes than are counties, i.e., by those provided for cities, towns and 

villages. It is true that these statutes are less numerous and less 

specific than those which apply to the State and counties; but they 
Hon. L. A. Woods. Page 10 (V-966) 

none the less clearly contemplate that the assessor and collector 

shall make up the assessment rolls of all property taxed, Art. 1044. 

V.C.S.; and that he shall make out a list of all property which has 

not been given in for assessment and assess same in the name of 

the owner if known, etc.. and shall present same to the board of 

equalization for valuation by the board. Arts. 1045. 1046. V.C.S. 

Further specific duties are set out in Articles 1047, 1050, 1052, 

1055, and 1057. V.C.S. For an excellent summary of the assessor’s 

powers. see Blew&t v. Richardson Independent School Dist.. 240 

S.W. 529, 532, 533 (Tex. Civ. App. 1922). 

We think that the contract with the Service Company 

was, for practical purposes, a contract to list and revalue all the 

taxed property within the district. (The only property excepted 

from its terms was personal property in homes, automobiles, jewelry. stocks and bonds and intangible property.) We are of the opinion that in view of the specific statutes providing for the manner of 

listing and valuing property there is no room for finding implied 

authority in the Board of Trustees to contract for the performance 

of these duties, and the contract is therefore void. 

SUMMARY 

The Board of Trustees of Grand Prairie Independent School District had no authority to enter into 

a property listing and valuation contract which provided for the performance of duties devolved by law 

upon the District’s Tax Assessor and Collector. and 

said contract is therefore void. Cf. Marquart v. Harris County, 117 S.W.Zd 494 (Tex. C-iv. App. 1938, error 

dism.); Aldrich v. Dallas County, 167 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. 

Civ. App. 1942, error dism.). 

APPROVED ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS 

Yours very truly 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Assistant 

MMC/mwb