June 13, 1955 

Mr. Carl c. Conley Opinion No. S-161 

County Attorney 

Ramondvtlle, Texas Re: Authority of Commissioner’s 

Court to employ non-exports 

to assist County Board of 

Dear Mr. Conley: Equalization. 

You request the opinion of this office on three questions 

presented in your letter of April 21, 1955, which reads as follows: 

“The County Auditor of Willacy Counfy, with the following statement of facts, presents the following questions 

for your consideration: 

“The Willacy County Board of Equalization 

are endeavoring to ascertain the value of the 

improvements and lands in .Willacy County. 

“They have hired individuals from each precinct to gather, compile and furnish all available information and data for use by the Board 

of Equalization in determining the proper valuation to be placed upon lands and improvements 

within Willacy County. 

“This is being done without the approval of the 

Assessor-Collector of Taxes. The individuals 

are not classed as tax experts. 

“Question No. 1. Can the Board of Equalization 

legally hrre these individuals without the approval of the Assessor-Collector 7 

“Question No. 2. Does the hiring of the individuals 

to aid the Board of Equalization ursurp the constitutional powers and duties of the Tax CollectorAssessor 7 

‘Question No. 3. lf the above is legal. out of 

what fund or funds can the individuals be paid?“’ 

Your questions may be answered by a general discussion; 

hence, categorical answers are not required. 
w-m.. -,- _. -- 

. 

Mr. Carl C. Coaley, Page 2 (Opinion No. S-161) 

as follows: 

Sect@ 18 of Article V of the Constitution provides fn part 

-Each County shall . . l be divided into four commissioners’ precincts in anch of which there shall be 

elected by the qualified voters thereof one county commissioner, who ahall hold his office for two years . . . 

The couaty commissionero so chosen, with the county 

Judge, as presiding officer. shall cqmpose the County 

Commissioaers Court. . .” 

follows : 

Section 18 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides as 

“The Legislature shall provide for equalizing, 

as near as may be, the valuation of all property subject to or rendered for taxation, (the County Commissioner’s Court to constitute a board of equalisatioa); 

and inay also provide for the Classification of all lands 

with refereztce to their value ig the several counties.’ 

The foregoing are the basic constitutional provisions pertaining to the Commissioner’s Court as a Board of Equalisation. Sgctlon 

14 of Artkle VIII of the Constitution. d~ealitig with the Tax AssessorCollector, is .a8 follows: 

'There shall be elected by the qualified electors 

of each county at the same time and under the same.law 

regulating~the election of state and county offxers. an 

Assessor AND ,COLLECTOR of Taxes; who shall hold 

his office for IWO (2) years and until his successor is 

elected and qualified; AND SUCH ASSESSOR AND COLLECTOR’OF TAXES SHALL PERFORM ALL THE DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSING PROPERTY FOR 

THE PURPOSE OF TAXATXJN AND OF COLLECTING 

TAXES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE LEGISLATURE.. (Emphasis added.1 

By virtue of Section 16 of Article VIII of the Constitution 

the sheriff, in addition to his other duties, serves as Tax Asshssor-Collector in counties of 10,000 populatirrn or less. 

As will be observed by an examination of Section 18 of Article VIII of the Constitution, supra. the County Board of Equallsatlon is 

simply the County Commissionei’s Court sitting in a valuatlqn of property 

capacity. Strictly speaking, the Board of Equalization possesses no powers 

except to equallse values, It has ne power as such to maks contracts. 

This power is vested in the Commiziioner’s Court. The Tax AssessorCollector iS a coostitutional officer *ad the Commissioner.% Courtis a 

constituttonal court with i& jurisdi;=ion limited to county business. 
Mr. Carl C. Conley,Page3(0pinion No. S-161) 

Article 7211, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, outlines the procedure to be followed by the Tax Assessor-Collector in situations where 

property has been rendered to him by taxpayers as well as where the 

taxpayer’s valuation, as fixed by him. does not reflect actual values and 

to which the Assessor-Collector does not agree. The statute further directs that the Assessor-Collector shall *furnish such rendition together 

with his valuation thereon. to the Commissioner’s Court. In addition to 

this article of the statute, provision is made which directs the AssessorCollector to transmit to the Commissioner’s Court sitting as a Board of 

Equalization, assessments of rendered and unrendered property. (Articles 

7218, 7206, 2217.) After there has been returned to the Assessor-Collector 

by the Commissioner’s Court (Board of Equalization) the list of rendered 

and unrendered property theretofore equalized by the Board of Equalization as to the values, the Assessor-Collector, using forms prescribed by 

the Comptroller, proceeds as follows: 

“(1) He assesses all unrendered property. 

“(2) He prepares ‘rolls or books’ of all rendered and unrendered real and personal property. Four rolls of the rendered, and three 

copies of the unrendered property assessments 

are required, one copy of each to be distributed 

to the Comptroller, and one copy of each to the 

County Clerk’s office ‘for the inspection of the 

pub tic. ’ 

“(3) On or before August 1st the AssessorCollector transmits to the Board of Equalixation his ‘rolls or assessment books’, with his 

affidavit attached thereto in a form directed 

by statute. 

“(4) When transmitting the ‘rolls or assessment 

books’ the Assessor-Collector also delivers to 

the Board of Equalization ‘all the lists, statements’ 

theretofore received by him. and these lists and 

statements are filed in the County Clerk’s office 

and are available for inspection by the public. 

“(5) The Board of Equalization, after it has examined and approved the ‘rolls or assessment 

books’ transmits copies to the Comptroller, 

County Clerk, and the Assessor-Collector.” 

The tax r.oll being thus completed by the Assessor-Collector, 

it is submitted to the Commissioner’s Court (Board of Equalization) for 

final approval if found to be correct. This roll, as finally approved, is returned to the Assessor-Collector by the Commissioner’s Court (Board of 

Equalization) and he proceeds to collect the taxes .therein levied as authortaed by Article 7253, V.C.S. 
- 0 

. . . 

Mr. Carl C. Conley, Page 4 (Opinion No. S-161) 

The foregoing constitutes the tibnstitutional and statutory 

basis of assessing and equalizing property for taxation and it will be observed that the relationship between the Commissioner’s Court (Board 

of Equalisation) and ~the Assessor-Collector in this assessing and equalizing process is definitely defined. 

It is observed that none of these constitutional and shtutory provisions specifically confer any power upon the Commissioner’s 

Court to employ outside or independent help either to assist the Tax 

Assessor-Collector or the Commissioner’s Court’ sitting as a Board of 

Equalization in the performance of their respective official duties. It 

has been definitely decided by our courts, however; that the Commissioner’s Court has the implied power to employ independent assistants 

to assist in arriving at the value to be fixed by the Commissioner’s Court 

as a Board of Equalisation where’technical or special knowledge is necessary and which knowledge the Commissioner’s Court would not, be presumed to possess, such for example as oil property or any other type of 

property in which skilled or technical knowledge is necessary in order 

to attain a fair valuation. One of the first cases to consider the authority 

of the Commissioner’s Court to employ outside help in valuing propertyis Roper v. Hall, 280 S.W. 289 (Tex.Civ.App. 1926). in which the court’ 

held that the Commissioner’s Court of Freestone County had authority to 

make a contract with a private individual to list owners or all producing 

oil and gas properties within the county and make a valuation of all pipelines, refineries, tank farms, tankage, etc ., used in connection with oil 

and gas development, including transportation facilities. The court based 

its decision upon the premise that the value of the particular kind of propl rty involved could not have been determined by one who possessed only 

ordinary knowledge as to such property and hence the court had the implied authority to secure the services of an expert as to the value of such 

property. The court was careful to point out, however, that the contract 

precluded the possibility that the expert would perform any of the duties 

imposed by law on the Tax Assessor-Collector or the Board of Equallsation, stating that the purpose of the contract was merely to aid such officers in the performance of their duties. The next case in which the court 

had occasion to consider the power vested in a taxing authority to employ 

assistants in arriving at fair appraisals is Simkins v. City of Corsicana. 

06 S.W.Zd 792 (Tex.Civ.App. 1935). In this case the court 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 aseertaming 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. . . . 
-9 

-- 

Mr. Carl C Conley, Page 5 (Opinion No. S-161) 

The same problem was later presented and ruled upon in 

the case of Marquart v. Harris County, 117 S.W.Zd 494 (Tex.Civ.App. 1938, 

error dism.), and the contract consared in that case was condemned by 

the court because of its broad application to all of the taxable property in 

the county and, in effect, superseded the statutory powers of the Tax Assessor-Collector. The case followed, however, the previous decisions 

that contracts of employment of experts to aid in valuing certain types of 

property were legal and constituted an appropriate expenditure of public 

funds. Under the’statement of facts submitted by you, concededly the persons to be employed by the Commissioner’s Court are not experts, nor 

does it appear that any properties are involved that would require expert 

knowledge in the proper appraisal of their value for taxation purposes. 

Presumably, the Tax Assessor-Collector and the Board of Equalization 

whose duty it is to assess property and to equalize its value would possess the same general information and knowledge that the persons possess 

who are to be employed. 

The last case to consider this problem is Crosby v. P. L. 

Marquess and Co., 226 S.W.2d 461 (Tex.Civ.App. 1950. error ref. n.r;e.), 

whtch case uphoms the validity of an appraisal and valuation contract 

which had been entered into by the trustees of the Kuntz Independent School 

District and P. L. Marquess and Company. This case has apparently gone 

further than any prior case in upholding the validity of a contract to appraise property in behalf of a taxing district. A careful reading of the 

case, however, does not compel the conclusion that Roper v. Hall and Marquart v. Harris County, supra. are to be disregarded. In this case the 

court stated specifically that it followed the case of Roper v. Hall and that 

case does not extend the implied doctrine applicable to appraisal contracts 

beyond expert and technical knowledge. Furthermore, the court. stated 

that the testimony revealed that the Marquess Company worked with the 

Tax Assessor-Collector of the school board. They did not attempt to value 

land in the school district but merely supplied information and made appraisals of improvements. 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioner‘s Court does not have the authority to employ and pay from public funds laymen concededly possessing no special or technical skill in the 
Mr. Carl C. Conley, Page 6 (Opinion No. S-161) 

evaluation of property to assist them as a Board of 

Equalieation tn equalizing the taxable values of all 

tzixabls property in the county. 

APPROVED: 

John Ate hison 

Reviewer 

J. C. Davis., Jr. 

Reviewer 

Robert S. Trotti 

First Assistant 

John Ben Shepperd 

Attorney General 

Yours very truly. 

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 

Attorney General 

By Ato .. w 

Assistant