Case Information
*1 iaCWX%N il. TE- Honorable Chas. A. Tosch
County Auditor
Dallas County
Hall of Records
Dallas, Texas Opinion No. o-1164
Dear Sir:
Re: Can salaries of right-of-way be paid from the right-of-way bond fund?
Explanation: our opinion No. O-1379, pertaining to the method of the payment of compensatih similar employees.
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of recent date, from which we quote as follows:
“Can salaries of right-of-way agents employed by the County to work exclusively on the projects for which the bonds were voted be paid out-of bond funds?
“Your opinion to Moseley is very clear and answers the purpose in so far as the appraisers’ fees are concerned, but the Commissionerst Court of.this County has employed several agents, on salaries, who make the actual purchase of the right-of-way.
‘We are very anxious to know whether or not these salaries can be paid out of the same fund, . .
This opinion supplements.and explains, particulars, our opinion No. O-1379, addressed to HonorableZE. G. Moseley, Civil District Attorney, Dallas, Texas. in opinion No. O-1379, the Commissioners’
Our department held Court of Dallas County to employ an attorney appraisers in the acquisition of rights-of-way, and to pay the of such employees out of the funds derived from the sale of bonds voted by the people of Dallas County for the DUrpOSe of constructing roads and highways and acquiring rights-of-way therefor. The reasoning set forth in that opinion, and the authorities cited therein, likewise justify the conclusion the Conunissionerst Court Dallas County is to employ *2 right-of-way agents for the-purpose of making the actual purchases of the rights-of-way.
Pertaining to the method of the payment of the compensation such special employees, there appears in our opinion No. O-1379 the following statement:
(1 . .that the appraisers may be compensated on a per tract .
or per day basis- in a reasonable sum-from the bond-funds. .
and
II . . .we believe that the attorney should be employed for a specific sum of money to institute and prosecute condemnat ion law suits. .”
After carefully considering the question of the basis of the payment of compensation to such authorized employees, which may be adopted by the commissioners~ court, we feel that our opinion No. O-1379 in such respects, should be clarified.
The cases cited in our opinion to, did not invol,ve the question of the method of payment of compensation to indivl- duals specially employed by a commissionersf court, whether individual were an architect (Russell v. Cage, 1 S.W. 270) or an attorney (City National Bank V. Presidio County 26 S.W. 775; Grooms v. Atascosa, 32 S. W. 188; Jones v. Veltman, 171 S. W. 287; Galveston County v. Gresham, 220 5. W. 560) or a paving company to manage, supervise, operate, advise, and so forth, in the construction of a two million dollar county road system (Gulf Bitulithic Company v. Nueces County, 11 S.W. (2nd) 305). These cases are authority for the proposition situations, the commissionersr court to contract for special assistance, and further payable in such situations must reasonable and c0mmensurat.e with the services performed. Possessing the authority to employ appraisers,
and/or an attorney, and the corollary right to compensate such of the payment such compensation employees, the method or basis becomes peculiarly the function of the commlsslonerst determine in consonance with the test reasonableness invoked in the cited cases. Manifestly, this quPstlon can only be pro- perly resolved by practical considerations; in other words, in
the manner whereby the county will receive the required services in return the most economical financial expenditures. Questions of fact and of the exercise of discretion only are involved. It is not the prerogative of this department to resolve such fact and discretionary questions, assume It would be more practicable and economical to compensate an appraiser, or a right-of-way agent, or an attorney on a per day or a per tract
thereupon rule that the commissioners 1 court would be unauthorized *3 ,
adopt either of these methods. We merely recognize it is the duty of the commissioners t court to adopt the most practic- able and economical method the county, and point out that the court would unauthorized to compensate any special employee beyond the limit of a reasonable expenditure commensurate with the services required and actually rendered.
You are therefore respectfully advised it is the opinion of this department that the Commissioners* Court of Dallas County to employ right-of-way to work on the proJects for which the bonds were voted, the compensation whom may be paid out of the funds received from our opinion No;O- 1379, of such employee, together with that of an apprasier and/or an attorney, which the commissionersr is to employ as held in the opinion to, may be paid on a per day or a per tract provided paid is reasonable expenditure commensurate with the services rendered.
;;;;;ng that the foregoingadequately answers your inquiry, we
t
Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS Walter F. Koch Assistant BY Zollie C. Steakley ZCS:PAM!cge
APPRCVEDJAN 13, 1940
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
Approved Opinion Committee
By BWB, Chairman