THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

November 4. 1971 

Miss Nae#ni Haney 

County Attorney 

Opinion No. M-986 

Potter County Courthouse RS: Does H.B. 646, Acts 62nd 

Amarillo, Texas 79101 Leg., R.S., 1971 (ch.513, 

p. 1751, codified as Art. 

1581h, V.C.S.) authorize 

a county to contract with 

a City within the county 

I to have the city tax assessor-collector to assess 

Dear Miss Harney: county taxes? 

You have requested our opinion as follows: 

"Whether H.B. No. 646, passed March 20, 1971, by 

the 62nd Legislature, authorizes a county to 

contract with a city located within the county 

to have the city's tax assessor and collector 

assess county taxes yearly?" 

The facts stated in your request are that Potter County 

(having a population of over 10,080) wishes ~to enter into a 

contract with the City of Amarillo to have the city tax assessor and collector assess all property located in Potter County 

for purposes of taxation and that the County Assessor and 

Collector for Potter County shall continue to collect the 

taxes for the state, county and school districts. 

Article 8, Section 14, of the Constitution of the State 

of Texas provides: 

"Sec.14. Except as provided in Section 16 [which 

covers counties of less than 10,000 population] 

of this Article, there shall be elected by the 

qualified voters of each county, an Assessor and 

Collector of Taxes, who shall hold his office for 

four 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 taxation 

and of collecting taxes, as may be prescribed by 

the Legislature." 

-4809- 
Miss Naomi Barney, page 3 (M-986) 

In the case of Missouri, K. 6 T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. 

Shannon, 100 Tcx. 379, 100 S.W. 138 .(1987) 

ofs interpreted Section 14 of Article'8 

the Supreme Court 

as follows: 

"While we think that the Legislature could not 

strip the assessor of all authority, and probably 

that it was intended by the framers of the 

Constitution that all ordinary assessments of 

Froperty for taxation should be made hy him, 

still we think it was not intended to deDrfVe 

the Legislature of the power of devolving the 

duty upon another officer, or board to assess 

property in some special case, where, as in the 

present instance, the county assessors were 

clearly unable from the means at their disposal 

to ascertain with any reasonable degree of 

approximation the value of the intangible 

assets of the railroad company, and still less 

capable of making intelligently the apportionment due to their respective counties." 

(Emphasis added.), 

It is our opinion that the power to assess which your 

request contemplates is an ordinary assessment of property 

for taxation and therefore falls within the type of assess- 

-which framers of the Constitution intended should 

be made by the county tax assessor and collector. Missouri, 

K. c T. Ry: Co. of Texas v. Shannon, supra. 

In light of this interpretation of Section 14 of Article 

8 of the Texas Constitution, any authority given in House Bill 

No. 646 for someone other than the elected county tax assessor and collector.to make ordinary assessments of property 

in the county for taxation would be contrary to the Constitution and therefore void and of no effect. This result is 

in accord with and follows the reasoning and holding of 

Attorney General Opinion No. W-70 (1967). 

For the above reasons, Rouse Bill No. 646 does not 

authorize a county to contract away the duty of its elected 

tax assessor and collector to make ordinary assessments of 

property for taxation purposes. A county may, however, enter 

into a contract for services, such as the making of appraisal 

or assessment recommendations, that would not constitute an 

abrogation of the duties of the county tax assessor-collector 

-4810- 
Miss Naomi Harney, page 3 (M-986) 

granted by the Constitution. Pritchard & Abbott v. McKenna, 

162 Tex. 617, 350 S.W.Zd 333 1'1961). 

SUMMARY 

H.B. 646, Acts 62nd Leg., R.S., 1971 

(Article 1581h, V.C.S.) does not authorize 

a county to contract with a city for the city 

tax assessor and collector to assess all the 

property in the county for taxation purposes 

but a county may, however, enter into a contract 

for services, such as the making of appraisal 

or assessment recommendations, that would not 

constitute an abrogation of the duties of the 

county tax assessor-collector granted by the 

Constitution. 

Prepared by Wardlow Lane 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

James Broadhurst 

Melvin Corley 

Harold Kennedy 

0-1 -.v-T.1.. a-3 Allen 

SAW MCDANIEL 

Staff Legal Assist&t 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WBITE 

First Assistant 

-4811-