III your letter of Deoem~r 21, 1940, you requort w opinion s to whether a certain oontraot made between George 0. Ehrenborg Company, as firs% party, and the City of Amarillo, the Board of Truatteea of hurillo Indepemd- eat S&o01 Didriot, and the Commtasioners' Court of Pottsr~Cowty, TOXAS, as second parties, made on Oc'bbm 8, 1940, in a valid and Madiag obligation 88 between Ehrenlmrg and Pottem Camty.

The obligatiomundmrdatha cofiraot relate to all of the territory embraced in the boundaries of Lnrillo Iadpenemdspt School District in Potter Couatp and in your letter you advise that about 9f$ of the ad valexw~~ taxes oollsoted in Potter Cou#ty co111011 froaa the affeched ares. Im the agree- ment, among other things, first partJr is required to prepare seotional maps, to f’unish the services of experts in build- tiuatiom methods who will msasum aad descriti buildimgs aad improvements upon lots a8d par0018 ia the territory involved, applying faotors of valuation and deproaiatlon for eaoh, based upon the fair market oost of new reporduot%om,rith speoifio deprecia- tion, if any, axpresrred i# oae psroemtaga the oomsidentioa of meohanioal deterioration, obsolesoenoe, age amd lack of utility, and to tabluate imform- atlox and data for eaoh building. First party is alao required to furnish the aervioes of experts in the valuation of personal property and ', equipwnt oonnronly used for public utilities and imdistrial plants, and to make appr&al of all suoh propartg aad equipnemt.

Reoords of such work are 40 bo made available to the county amd first party agrees that ito erpert;a will furnish instruotion tothe tax assessor in the present uses of the methoda of wluatioaamd oomputation SO that the systQa installed may bs continued aad kept up-to-date in the future.

paragraph 2 of said ocmtraot reads as follorsr *2 "The party of the first part agrees to furnish the serrioes of expert;s in land valuation methods arho till, with the help of a local board, furnished at no cost to party of the first part by the parties of th* seoond prt, ascertain the valuations of eaoh single street to the lots and parcels of land fronting thereon. This having been done, the experts will compute the valuation of all lots and parcels aoaurately and proportionately and truly aooording to such unit foot valuations, smd take in consideration depreoi- ation for bad looation, oreeks, overflow, etc. This surrey not to cover farm lands."

For suoh servioes the three parties of the seoond part agree to pay first party the sum of #9,500.00 in installments. It is unneoessary for us to set out the contents of the oonttaot in any more detail than above, singe -a believe that the quoted provision of the contraot renders it invalid.

There is no oontrclling difference between said paragraph 2 of the contract in question and paragraph 4 of the oonfraot involved in the case of Marquart v. Harris County, 117 5.W. (2d) 494, by the Qelveston Court of Civil hppeals. Frcanthe opinion of the court in that 0880 we quote as follows: "Wxile the Connuissionersl Court may validly employ 'skilled experts* to value for taxation purposes proper* in speoial instanoes,where teohniaal equip- ment is required, sinoe this contra& - by its express terms-embraces a valuation of the entire taxable property of Harris ounty, as reflected by its tax reoords, it necessarily supersedes the pornrers, utiae, and functions of 1

the tax assessor and colleotor, and since those duties are devolved by law upon him, such an attempted employment 'by that body of other persons to, in the first instance, perform such duties ;--toad, is an expenditure of publio funds for an unauthorized purpose. . . .

"No extended discussion willbe indulged in under this last-stated ground. Suffice it to say that such am apparent undertaldng of a oommisaionsrsl court to itself initially revalue the entire taxable property of a oounty, under the guise of using the same for its own information and guidance whoa sitting as a Board of Equalizgtion, does not seean to this oourt to square with the talamced system of relative pourers and duties oonferred upon that body by our laws, as -parable to the correlative one8 oonferred upon the OOU~ tax assessor-oollsotor; . . .

"The authorities oited under ground (5) supra seem to make it quite clear t&t this oontraot did evidence an undertaking to in effect usurp the Offi- cial privileges and obligations of the tax assessor-oolleotor, as vouohsafed inthe statutes there collated, while uponthe other hand, the differing and oorrelativa duties of the oonwLssioaers* OOUI% -- *s a Board of Equalieatiom-- are mbraoed within R.S., Articles 7206, 7211 and 7212. Bdertbem it would seen never to have been oontsmplated that the Board of Equaliza~:iom should a& upon whimg other than the assessments first rendered to them %the tax assessor-collaotor, amd not initially upon their ORB motion. . . "

c -c -

The fact that the instant contract is oonfined to the territory embraced in the &arillo Independent School Distriot and that farm lands are excluded from its operation makes no difference in principle.

Inths case of Roper v. Hall, 290 S&f. 289, the Waoo Court of Civil Appeals sustained a oontraot made by Freestone County iaith Thomas Y. Pickott for the oolleotion and assembly of information oonoerning oil r~r~p-ar- ties and the fMng of values thereo% However, it was pointed out 8s the basis for that holding that those servioes involved an exbraordinary skill not possessed by the ordinary tax assessor. The pewor of the county oonnnission- ers* Courts to make oontraots of the charaoter involved in Ro r v. Rail was reoognised in the ldarquart case. But, in our opinion the serv oe8 req -red in paragraph 2 of the oontiraot in question are not of the type dealt with in the Ro r aa8e. At least as muoh skill and speoial knowledge is required in attaoh- P- ng valuations to farm lands as in valuing a large part of bity properties. To hold that the servioes provided for in said paragraph 2 are expert services which can be oontraoted for by a conmissioners* court would be to wipe auf the distinotion recognized in Roper v. Hall, and expressly drawn and followed in Marquart v. Harris County.

The provisions of the quoted paragraph of the oontraot forms P major part of the oomsideration of the agreement, aad so iaaeparably bound to other provisions thereof, that the entire contra& mu& fall regardless of the validity of any suoh other parts. Marquart V. &rris County, supra. Hence, we rest our opinion at this point and answer your puestion fn the negative.

Yours ver~r truly ATTORNEY GEXBAL OF 'TEXAS APPROVED JAN 23, 1941 By /s/Glenn I?. L&i8 /t747mv;;uvper8

Glann R. Lewis AlTORNEYffENERAL Assistmzt APPROVBD GRL:EP:62gil opinion Conmlihtee

By xw B Chairman