# The Attorney General of Texas

October 2, 1979 MARK WHITE Attorney General
Honorable Cecil Mackey, President Texas Tech University P.0. Box4641 Lubbock, Texas 79409 Dear Mr. Mackey: Opinion No. Mw-62 Re: Sale of land by Texas Tech University.

Youinform us that real estate belonging to Texas Tech University was leased in 1977to the current tenant under alease purchase contract with an option to purchase. The lease purchase arrangement was advertised in a local paper for one week and the bid opening was scheduled for a few days later. The property was leased to the highest bidder with the option to purchase conditioned upon the passage oflegislation authorizing conveyar!ce of the property in question by the Chairman of the Board ofRegents. The sixty-sixth legislature enacted Senate Bill 213 authorizing sale of the property “only after advertisement in at least two issues of a newspaper published in the county in which ‘the land is located, the first such publication to be made at least 30 days in advance of the sale date.” The advertisement is to call for sealed bids and provide for sale to the highest bidder. You ask whether the Board of Regents must rebid the property before selling it or whether it may convey the property to the current lessee without advertising the sale. The power of the state to dispose of its property is vested in the legislature and may be exercised bv agents of the state only under legislative authorization. Conley v. Daugh‘iers of the Republic, 156S.W. 197 (Tex. 1913);see also Lorino v. Crawford Packing Co., 175S.W.2d 410(Tex. 1943);Attorney General Opinions C-207 (1964);V-320 (1947). Prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 213the regents had certain specific powers with respect to the lease or ‘conveyance of University lands, (see Educ. Code SS109.44, 109.45, 109.46, 109.48)but no statute authorized them to sell the land in question. The lease-purchase contract recognizes this lack of authority, since it conditions the purchase option on the enactment of legislation authorizing conveyance ofthe land for the stated consideration. The recently enacted Senate Bill 213is the only legislative authorization for the sale of this land. Its terms must be strictlv COmDlied with. See %&k%%ex. Civ. App.

404S.W.2d296(Tex. 1966);Wilson v. County ofCalhoun, 489

- Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.);

p. 195Honorable Cecil Mackey - Page Two (NW-621

Attorney General Opinion C-760 (1966). The Board of Regents must rebid the land and otherwise comply with the ~requirements ofSenate Bill 213. The contingent purchase option granted in the 1977 contract is unenforceable because no legislation has been enacted which authorizes sale of the land on the contract terms. The Regents had no authority in1977to bind the state to dispose ofthe property in accordance with the lease purchase contract. See State v. Ragland Clinic-Hospital, 159 S.W.2d 105(Tex. 1942). Thus. the enactmentofsenate BIB 213does not impair the obligation ofacontract enteredinto bythe state. See Tex. Const. art. I, S16. - SUMMARY The Board of Regents of Texas Tech University must comply with the terms of Senate Bill 213in order to sell the land to which it relates.

MARK WHITE Attorney General ofTexas JOHN W.FAINTER, JR.. First Assistant Attorney General TEDL.HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared bySusan Garrison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE C.Robert Heath, Chairman Martha AIlen David B.Brooks Susan Garrison William GReid Bruce Youngblood

P. 196