PRICE DANIEL 

,,TrORNCY GrDIERAl February 27, 1947 

Hon. William 19. Hensley opinion NO. q-se 

Criminal District Attorney. 

Bexar County Be: validity or property ev-r 

San Antonio, Texas aluatlon contract between 

Bexar County Commissioners Court and i?$oner Appraisal Company. 

Dear Mr. Hensley: 

We acknowledge reoeipt or your letter of Feb. 

7, 1947, with whioh you submit the draft of a proposed 

contract between Bexar County, acting by and through the 

Commissioners. court 0r said county, and The Stoner Appraisal Company. The basic phrpose of this contract as 

therein stated is: 

"That the party of the secona part oontracts 

and agrees to furnish to the party or the rirst 

part the necessary technical.valuation data and 

information on assessed land, buildings and personal property ior use or the Board of Equalization in reviewing and equalizing the assessment 

sheets or books as submitted by assessing department for their approval, as provided by Articles 

7145, 7206, 7212, 7215, 7216 of the Revised Statutes of the State or Texas." 

You request the opinion df this department as 

r0110ws: 

"1. Is the contract a valid oontract into 

which the Commissioners' Court of Bexar CoFty 

would legally be authorized to enter? 

"2. Is the contract one 'in connection with 

the collection OP delinquent taxes' such as would 

require the approval of the Comptmller ena Attorney General?" 

We think your rirst questi,on has.heretofore 

been answered by the opinion of this department in oginion Ncr. O-7325, approved Sept. 23, 1946, a c,opy of which 

is herewith enclosed r0r your iniometion. 
Hon. William N. Rensley, Page 2, V-56 

The Commissioners Court in our view ,has the 

implied authority to enter into the proposed contract 

within the limits of the foregoing opinion. We do not 

deem it necessary here to enlarge upon what is said in 

the prior opinion OS this department herewith enclosed; 

In thus conSinning the validity of the contract 

and the power of the Commissioners Court to make it, we 

expressly refrain from any opinion, and express none, 

as to the merits of the contract or the policy of the 

Commissioners Court in making it. These are matters 

exclusively within the discretion and judgment of the 

Commissioners Court. 

We answer your second question in the negative. 

We do not construe the contract as one Sor the collection 

of delinquent taxes requiring the approval of the Attorney General and the Comptroller. 

Although we hold that the Commissioners' Court 

has the implied power to make the, contract, a serious 

question is presented in the Sact that adequate provisions were not made in the oxiginal budget of Bexar County, as adopted, to provide for the expenditure of the 

amount involved in this contract, pursuant to Art. 1666, 

as amended, V. A. C. S. The records of the office of the 

State Auditor refleot that the Bexar County buaget,Sor 

1947, on page ZS'thereoS, appropriated the sum of $47,851.7 

for this contract, with an amendment allowing the expenditure OS the.Surther sum of $3,000. This budget was 

oSSicially adopted on the 22nd day of January, 1947. Subsequently, on the 29th day of January, 1947, after the 

original budget had been adopted, the Commissioners' Court 

amended,the original budget by reallocating the sum of 

$14,148.24 aaaitipnal, making an aggregate total of $65,000 

The budget law applicable to your County (H.B. 

240, Ch. 65, p. 93, Acts of the 49th Legislature, R.S. 

1945; Art. 1666,.V. A. C. S., provides in part as follows: 

n . . . Upon final approval of the budget by 

the Commissioners Court, a copy OS such budget as 

approved shall be filed with the county auditor, 

the clerks of the Court, and the State Auaitor, and 

no expenditures OS the Sunds of the County shall 

thereaSter be made except in strict compliance with 

said budget. saia Court may upon proper application 

transSer an existing budget surplus during the year 

to a budget OS likes kind and fund, but no~such 

, 
Hon. William N. Hensley, Page 3, V-56 

transfer ~shall increase the total of the budget. 

". . . 

n . . . Requisitions issued or contra&s entered into conformably to the laws .oS the State 

of Texas by proper authority for work, labor, services, or materials and supplies shall nevertheless 

not beoome eSSective and binding unless and until 

there has been issued in connection with such item 

the certiiicate of said County Auditor that ample 

budget provision has been made in the budget therefor and funds are, or will be, on hand to pay the 

'obligation of the county or orrioer when due. . .* 

Since the original budget aoes not provide for 

the expenditure of the sum of $14,148.25, the same may' 

not be legally expended on this contract. -In other words, 

it is not believed the Commissioners' Court OS Bexar 

County could amend the budget for 1947 by reallocating 

$14,148.24 to this contract fund. While it is reoognixed under the budget law applicable to Bexar County 

that the Court may transfer an existing budget surplus 

"to a budget of like kind ana Suna,n it is not believed 

that the transfer of the Countyts farm fund to this oontract Suna is of “like kind and runav within the meaning 

0s the Aot. As stated in the case of Aldridge v. Ellis 

County, 167 S. W. (2d) 560: 

vHowevgr,, if it be conoeaea that the oontract 

of employment was regular, within the powers of 

the Commissioners~ Court, and that plaintiff performed servioes as alleged, yet a sine qua non to 

its eSSectiveness, binding quality and enforoeability was laoking, in that the County Auditor haa not 

issuea e certffiaate in oonneotion with said project, stating that ample budget provisions had previously been made and that funds were on hana, or 

would be, to pay, when due, all obligations incurred 

thereunder, as required by A&. 1666, amended in 

1939, see Vernon's AM. Civ. St. Art. 1666 note." 

Under the holding of this oase, assuming that 

it is within the power of the Commissioners1 Court to 

make the contraot in question, as we do, its effectiveness and enSoroeability is laoking in that the requirements of Art. 1666 as amended in 1939, the budget law 

under whioh Bexar County operates, has not been complied 

with, and the transfer of funds from the County Farm Fund 
. r. ,J 

Hon. William N. Hensley, Page 4, V-56 

to this Conf,ract Fund is not such a transfer as contemplated under the budget law applicable to Bexar County. 

This in our view presents a present barrier to the enforceability of the contract, regardless of the power 

of the Commissioners1 Court in the first instance to 

make it. In other words the contract cannot be carried 

out without strictly complying with the provisions of 

H. B. 240, Ch. 65, p. 93, Aota of the 49th Legislature, 

Regular Session, 1945, the budget. law applicable to 

Bexar County, ana this has not been done. 

SUMMARY 

l..The Commissionersr Court has implied authority to make and enter into a contract with expert appraisers to furnish information to the 

Court as to valuations of property set by the Tax 

Assessor and by him~submitted to the Court as a 

board of equalization, and such a contract is valid within the limits aovered by opinion No. O-7325, 

and does not require the approval of the Attorney 

General and Comptroller, because the same is.not 

a contract Sor'the collection of delinquent taxes. 

2. Pursuant to H. B. 240, Ch. 65, p. 93,Acts 

49th Legislature, Regular Session, 1945, upon approval of the budget by the Commissioners1 Court 

of Bexar County, no expenditures ,0r the funds 0s 

the County shall thereafter be made except id 

strict compl.iance with said budget, and a transfer 

of funds from the County Farm Fund. to the Revaluation Contract Fund is not such a transfer as is 

contemplated under the budget law applicable to 

Bexar County. 

LPL:AMEjrb 

This Opinion 

and Appro,ved 

ConSerence 

Yours very truly 

ATTORI'EXGERERAL OFTEXAS 

Considered 

By L~sk?;$y--- 

in Limited 

APPROVED FE2. 27, 1947 

AjiZii%d*s