Legislative Services

The Texas Association of Counties has highlighted recent attorney general opinions and requests for opinions of interest to counties. Summaries below are republished directly from opinion letters issued by the Office of the Attorney General without substantive editing.

Attorney General Opinions

KP-0531: Questions commissioners court authority to approve and make purchases without approval of the County Auditor (RQ-0618-KP). The opinion finds a purchasing contract is void if it is executed by an individual who was not delegated authority to enter into the contract under Texas Local Government Code section 262.001, and if the commissioners court does not subsequently approve the contract. A void contract cannot create a debt in violation of article XI, section 7 of the Texas Constitution. We lack sufficient information from which to determine whether the contract at issue here was exempted from the competitive-purchasing requirements under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 262, subchapter C, or whether the Commissioners Court followed the competitive-purchasing process set forth therein. The Commissioners Court may not authorize the payment of goods and services without the approval of the county auditor, but the arbitrator may not arbitrarily withhold approval. Nothing in the language of Texas Local Government Code subsection 113.064(a) precludes a county auditor from auditing a claim for payment for goods or services before the county receives them. And a county auditor may audit and approve a county’s purchase of a vehicle without a signed requisition, provided that the purchase otherwise complies with the law governing county finances.

KP-0532: Questions independent school district authority to lease certain facilities and allow alcohol service by lessees (RQ-0624-KP). The opinion holds a board of trustees of an independent school district generally may lease district property to private groups when the lease does not interfere with the property’s educational purpose. Education Code subsection 37.122(a)(1) prohibits alcohol possession for consumption, sale, or distribution on public-school grounds or in public-school buildings. A lease cannot override this restriction, and a school board cannot authorize a private lessee to do what the district itself is forbidden from doing. Any provision attempting to permit alcohol on such property risks rendering the entire lease void and leaving the district unable to enforce the lessee’s rent obligation.

KP-0533: Questions eligibility for service as a commissioner on a governing board of an emergency services district under Health & Safety Code § 775.034 (RQ-0627-KP). The opinion provides to qualify as an emergency services commissioner, Health and Safety Code subsection 775.034(a) requires a person to be either a qualified voter in areas served by the emergency services district or an owner of taxable land within the district. A qualified voter residing in a municipality outside a district’s boundaries that receives emergency services from the district may qualify to serve as a commissioner. However, ownership of property in an area that is served by the district but that is outside the district’s boundaries does not satisfy the requirement that taxable land be within the district. Districts may appoint individuals who are ineligible to serve as commissioners for other roles, but those appointees may not exercise core powers reserved exclusively for commissioners. Chapter 775’s conflict-of-interest provisions do not prohibit a person from serving simultaneously as a municipal officer or employee and as an emergency services district officer or employee. Constitutional dual-officeholding restrictions may prohibit an individual from holding both a compensated municipal office and a compensated emergency services district office. The conflicting loyalties aspect of common law incompatibility generally renders the two offices incompatible when the municipal and emergency services district positions both possess the authority to contract with the other government entity.

KP-0534: Questions the Transportation Code requirements for a “junked vehicle” to constitute a public nuisance (RQ-0603-KP). The opinion states Section 683.072 of the Transportation Code declares a junked vehicle that is visible from a public place or public right-of way is, among other things, a public nuisance.

KP-0536: Questions municipal authority to abolish, vacate or fill civil service-classified firefighter positions under the Fire Fighter and Police Officer Civil Service Act in the Texas Local Government Code (RQ-0609-KP). The opinion provides the Fire Fighter and Police Officer Civil Service Act authorizes a municipality’s governing body to abolish civil service classified positions in the municipality’s fire department, but abolishment must be done in good faith. A municipality’s civil service commission and department head have authority under the Act to vacate classified firefighter positions under certain circumstances, and they may fill vacant classified firefighter positions in compliance with the procedures set forth in the Act. The Act does not confer such authority to the Valley International Airport board or airport director.

KP-0537: Asks whether a Type A general law city may accept a donation of property, including money, for municipal purposes (RQ-0613-KP). The opinions finds Subsection 51.015(a) provides Type A general-law municipalities with the authority to accept donations of property, including money, so long as it is done for a municipal purpose.

Requests for an Attorney General Opinion

RQ-0661-KP: Red River Authority Wichita Falls. Questions the eligibility requirements related to the public interest category for membership in a Regional Water Planning Group.

RQ-0662-KP: Callahan County Attorney. Asks whether Election Code § 85.062(f) permits a commissioners court to authorize a single branch polling place for early voting in a precinct outside the main polling place when all other precincts have no polling locations.

RQ-0663-KP: Texas Department of Agriculture. The revised request asks 18 questions relating to how existing Texas law applies to the use of digital assets, distributed-ledger technology, and tokenization by state and local governmental entities.