PRICE DANIEL

,,TrORNCY

GrDIERAl February 27, 1947

Hon. William 19. Hensley opinion NO. q-se CriminalDistrictAttorney. Bexar County Be: validity or property ev-r San Antonio, Texas aluatlon contractbetween Bexar County Commissioners Court and i?$onerAppraisal Company.
Dear Mr. Hensley:

We acknowledgereoeipt or your letter of Feb. 7, 1947, with whioh you submit the draft of a proposed contractbetween Bexar County, acting by and through the Commissioners.

court 0r said county, and The Stoner Appraisal Company. The basic phrpose of this contractas 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 informationon assessed land, buildingsand personal property ior use or the Board of Equalization in reviewingand equalizingthe assessment sheets or books as submittedby assessingdepartment for their approval,as providedby Articles 7145, 7206, 7212, 7215, 7216 of the RevisedStatutes of the State or Texas."
You request the opinion df this departmentas r0110ws: "1. Is the contracta valid oontract into which the Commissioners' Court of Bexar CoFty would legally be authorizedto enter? "2. Is the contract one 'in connection with the collectionOP delinquent taxes' such as would require the approval of the Comptmller ena Attorney General?"
We think your rirst questi,on has.heretofore been answeredby the opinion of this departmentin oginion Ncr.

O-7325, approvedSept. 23, 1946, a c,opy of which is herewith enclosedr0r your iniometion.Hon. William N. Rensley, Page 2, V-56

The Commissioners Court in our view ,has the impliedauthorityto enter into the proposed contract within the limits of the foregoingopinion. We do not deem it necessaryhere to enlarge upon what is said in the prior opinion OS this departmentherewith enclosed;

In thus conSinningthe validity of the contract and the power of the Commissioners Court to make it, we expresslyrefrain from any opinion, and expressnone, as to the merits of the contract or the policy of the Commissioners

Court in making it. These are matters exclusively

within the discretionand judgmentof the Commissioners

Court.
We answer your second question in the negative. We do not construethe contractas one Sor the collection of delinquenttaxes requiringthe approval of the Attorney General and the Comptroller.

Althoughwe hold that the Commissioners' Court has the impliedpower to make the, contract,a serious question is presentedin the Sact that adequateprovisions were not made in the oxiginalbudget of Bexar County, as adopted, to provide for the expenditureof 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 refleotthat the Bexar County buaget,Sor 1947, on page ZS'thereoS,appropriatedthe sum of $47,851.7 for this contract,with an amendment allowing the expenditure OS the.Surthersum of $3,000. This budget was oSSiciallyadopted on the 22nd day of January, 1947. Subsequently,on the 29th day of January, 1947, after the originalbudget had been adopted, the Commissioners' Court amended,theoriginalbudget by reallocating the sum of $14,148.24aaaitipnal, making an aggregate total of $65,000 The budget law applicableto 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 thereaSterbe made except in strict compliance with said budget. saia Court may upon proper application transSeran existingbudget 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

. . . Requisitionsissued or contra&s entered into conformablyto the laws .oSthe State of Texas by proper authority for work, labor, services, or materialsand supplies shall nevertheless not beoome eSSectiveand binding unless and until there has been issued in connectionwith such item the certiiicateof said County Auditor that ample budget provisionhas been made in the budget therefor and funds are, or will be, on hand to pay the 'obligation

of the county or orrioerwhen due.

. .* Since the originalbudget aoes not provide for the expenditureof 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 $14,148.24to 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 plaintiffperformed servioesas alleged, yet a sine qua non to its eSSectiveness, binding quality and enforoeability was laoking, in that the County Auditor haa not issuea e certffiaatein oonneotionwith said project, stating that ample budget provisionshad previouslybeen made and that funds were on hana, or would be, to pay, when due, all obligations incurred thereunder,as requiredby A&. 1666, amended in 1939, see Vernon'sAM. 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 transferas contemplated under the budget law applicableto Bexar County. This in our view presentsa present barrier to the enforceability

of the contract,regardlessof the power of the Commissioners1 Court in the first instanceto make it. In otherwords the contract cannotbe carried out without strictly complying with the provisionsof H. B. 240, Ch. 65, p. 93, Aota of the 49th Legislature, RegularSession, 1945, the budget. law applicableto Bexar County,ana this has not been done. SUMMARY l..The Commissionersr Court has implied authority to make and enter into a contractwith expert appraisersto furnish informationto the Court as to valuationsof 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 opinionNo. O-7325, and does not require the approval of the Attorney General and Comptroller, because the same is.not a contractSor'the collectionof delinquenttaxes. 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 thereafterbe made except id strict compl.iance

with said budget, and a transfer of funds from the County Farm Fund. to the Revaluation ContractFund is not such a transfer as is contemplated

under the budget law applicableto 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