June 13, 1955

Mr. Carl c. Conley Opinion No. S-161 County Attorney Ramondvtlle, Texas Re: Authority of Commissioner’s Court toemploy 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 ofApril 21, 1955, which reads as follows:

“The County Auditor of Willacy Counfy, with thefollowing statement offacts, 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 ofEqualization legally hrre these individuals without the approval ofthe Assessor-Collector 7 “Question No. 2. Does the hiring ofthe individuals to aid the Board of Equalization ursurp the constitutional powers and duties of the Tax Collector**Assessor** 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)



### asfollows: Sect@ 18 of Article V ofthe Constitution provides fn part

-Each County shall

. . l be divided intofour commissioners’ precincts in anch ofwhich there shall be elected by the qualified voters 

### thereof one county com

### missioner, 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 VIIIofthe Constitution provides as

“The Legislature shall provide 

### for equalizing, as near as may be, the valuation ofall 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 

### ofall lands with refereztce to their value ig the several counties.’

The foregoing 

### are thebasic constitutional provisions pertaining to the Commissioner’s Court as a Board ofEqualisation. Sgctlon 14 ofArtkle VIII ofthe Constitution. d~ealitig with the Tax AssessorCollector, is.a8 follows:

'There shall be elected by the qualified electors of each 

### countyat the 

### same time andunder thesame.law 

### regulating~the

election of

### stateand county 

### offxers. an **Assessor** AND ,COLLECTOR of Taxes; who shall hold his office for IWO(2) years anduntil his successor is elected andqualified; AND SUCHASSESSOR 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 16of Article VIII ofthe Constitution the sheriff, in addition to his other duties, serves as Tax Asshssor-Collector in counties of 10,000 populatirrnor less.

As will be observed byanexamination of Section 18ofArticle VIII ofthe Constitution, supra. the County Board ofEquallsatlon is simply the County Commissionei’s Court sitting in a valuatlqn of property capacity. Strictly speaking, the Board ofEqualization possesses no powers except to equallse values, It has nepower 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 countybusiness.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. tothe Commissioner’s Court. Inaddition to this article of the **statute,** provision is made which directs theAssessorCollector 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 andunrendered real and personal property. Four rolls of the rendered, and three copies ofthe 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 ofthe pubtic. ’

“(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’ theAssessor-Collector also delivers to the Board ofEqualization ‘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 andapproved the ‘rolls or assessment books’ transmits copies to the Comptroller, County Clerk, and the Assessor-Collector.” The tax r.ollbeing thus completed by the Assessor-Collector, it is submitted to the Commissioner’s Court (Board of Equalization) for final approval if found tobe 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 thetibnstitutional and statutory basis ofassessing and equalizing property for taxation and itwill 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 **shtu** tory 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 andwhich knowledge the Commissioner’s Court would not,be presumed to possess, such for example as oil property or any other type of property inwhich skilled or technical knowledge is necessary in order to attain a fair valuation. One of thefirst cases to consider the authority ofthe Commissioner’s **Court** to employ outside help in valuing propertyis Roper v. Hall, 280 S.W. 289 (Tex.Civ.App. 1926). inwhich the court’ held thatthe Commissioner’s **Court** of Freestone County had authority to make a contract with a private individual to list owners or all producing oil andgas properties within the county and make a valuation ofall pipelines, refineries, tank farms, tankage, etc., used in connection with oil andgas development, including transportation facilities. The court based its decision upon **the premise**  that the value ofthe particular kind of prop

### l rty involved could not have been determined by one who possessed only 

### ordinary knowledge as to such property andhence the court hadthe implied authority to **secure** the services ofanexpert as to the value ofsuch 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 

### ofthe contract was 

### merely to aid such offi

### cers inthe performance of

### their duties. The next case inwhich 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). Inthis case the court said:

“We know ofno valid reason why a tax board cannot employ an expert to assist it in arriving at the true value of taxable property, andwhen 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 atwhich 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 uponin the case of Marquart v. Harris County, 117 S.W.Zd 494 (Tex.Civ.App. 1938, error dism.), and the contract consared inthat 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 andconstituted an appropriate expenditure of public funds. Under the’statement offacts 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 thatwould 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 tobe 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 thevalidity of an appraisal andvaluation contract which hadbeen 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 inbehalf ofa taxing district. A careful reading ofthe case, however, does not compel the conclusion that Roper v. Hall and Marquart v. Harris County, supra. are to be disregarded. Inthis 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 andtechnical knowledge. Furthermore, the court. stated that the testimony revealed thatthe 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 tzixablsproperty in the county. APPROVED: JohnAtehison 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 Atow .. Assistant