Re: Constable's authority in the county outside of the constable's own precinct; permissible scope of interlocal agreements concerning law enforcement (RQ-0136-GA)

S U M M A R Y

A constable may perform law enforcement services on property that extends into another precinct of the county.

A county may not by agreement extend its law enforcement jurisdiction into another county. Counties may agree for the deputy sheriffs of one county to perform law enforcement services in another county, but only as officers of the latter county, subject to the command of the latter county's law enforcement authorities.

Opinion No. GA-0190

The Honorable Mike Krusee

Chair, Committee on Transportation

Texas House of Representatives

Post Office Box 2910

Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Re: Whether a county may lease airport land without engaging in competitive bidding (RQ-0137-GA)

S U M M A R Y

Government Code chapter 263 requires a county commissioners court to lease county land at a public auction or by a sealed-proposal or sealed-bid procedure. When a county leases county airport land under Local Government Code section 263.051 or Transportation Code section 22.024(a), it must comply with Local Government Code chapter 263. When it leases airport land pursuant to Transportation Code section 22.020 or 22.021, the county is not required to comply with Local Government Code chapter 263.

Opinion No. GA-0191

Bob Hillman, D.V.M.

Executive Director

Texas Animal Health Commission

Post Office Box 12966

Austin, Texas 78711-2966

Re: Whether the Texas Animal Health Commission may charge a fee for reviewing and processing health certificates after their completion by a private practitioner (RQ-0140-GA)

S U M M A R Y

The Texas Animal Health Commission is not authorized to charge a fee for reviewing and processing health certificates after their completion by a private practitioner.

Opinion No. GA-0192

The Honorable Florence Shapiro

Chair, Education Committee

Texas State Senate

Post Office Box 12068

Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Validity of a local ordinance that allows a nonconforming sign to be replaced with a new nonconforming sign (RQ-0129-GA)

S U M M A R Y

A local sign ordinance that allows a permit to be issued to replace a nonconforming sign with a new nonconforming sign is not invalid under state law, but state law supercedes such local provisions in areas along highways that are subject to the federal Highway Beautification Act. Such provisions do not place federal funding for Texas highways in jeopardy. It is not possible to determine in the abstract that the nonconforming use belongs to either the sign owner or the land owner. Interests in the nonconforming use must be evaluated in terms of the applicable statues, regulations, ordinances, and contracts.

For further information, please access the website at www.oag.state.tx.us. or call the Opinion Committee at 512/463-2110.

TRD-200403485

Nancy S. Fuller

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

Filed: May 24, 2004