Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

The Attorney General of Texas February 6, 1980 Honorable Henry Wade Opinion No. m-199 District Attorney Sixth Floor, Records Buildin Re: Validity of county prohibition Dallas, Texas 75202 on the purehese of faeign automobiles. Dear Mr. Wader You ask whether the Dsllas County Commiskners Court has authority to adopt a policy against the purchase of foreign cars for official county purposes. We first must determine whether the purchase of automobiles by Dallas County is subject to article 2366% V.T.C.B., which requires competitive btddingfor any county purchase of $3,000 or mae. In the past, section 2 of article 2368a made the competitive bidding requirement inapplicable to counties having a population of mere than 350,600 inhabitants. Bee Acts 1973,6&d Leg., ch 269, S l, at 635. Thus, it did not apply to Dalla~ounty. However, sectia~ 2 of article 2368a was revised by the 66th Legislature. It was the subjeot of two amendmen&l, which retained the population limitation. Senate Bill No. 4S6, Acts lS79,66th Leg., ch. 436, at 540; Senate Bill No. SOS,Acts 1929, 66th Leg., ch, 824, at 2147. Another statute expressly repealed the population limitation. House Bill No. 1612, Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch 770, at ISOl, to be codified as V.T.C.S. art. 2368a.3, S 8. The repealing statute was enacted cn May 24 and became effective on June 13. Each of the amendments was enacted at ti earlier date thsn ~the repeakr, hut became effective at a later date. Senate Bill 436 was enacted on May I2 and became effective August 27. Senate BilI 309 was enacted UI .May 18 end became effect4 ve on June 14. Where conducting statutes are enacted by the name session of the legislature, the latest expression of legislative intent prevails Jcp Ex Jesus de la 0. 227 S.W.td 212 (Tex. Crim. MO); Attorney General Opm on -The . repealing statute was the last enacted statute, and thus represents the most recent expressian of legislative intent cn the subject. It fs suggested, however, that the statute with the latest effective We, rather than date of enactment, should prevaiL We do not find a Texas case or Attorney General opinion that deals with this issue, The Code Construction Act, however, states the following general rule: p. 1147 . _ . Honorable Henry Wade - Page Two (Mw-139) . . . if statutes enacted at the same or different sessions of the legislature are irreconcilable, the statute latest in date of enactment prevails. V.T.C.S. art. 5429b-2, S 3.05(a). Although article 2368a, V.T.C.S., is not part 0f.a code and thus not subject to the Code Construction Act, see Harris County v. SuburbanUtility Company, 547 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. Civ. App. - Ho@& ilst Did.] 1977, no wit), th& provision does express the legislature’s view that the date of enactment is the significant date. Moreover, this question has been addressed by legal scholars and by the courts of other jurisdictions. Sutherland on Statutory Construction states the following rule: Because the latest expression of the legislative will prevails, the statute last passed will prevaii over a statute passed prior to it, irrespective of whether the prior statute takes effect before Q after the later statute. lA SutherlandStatutory Construction, S 23.17, at 251(4th ed. by C. Sands 1972). See also al 1905); Phelps vi City of Minneapolis, 219 N.W. 87E conclude that House Bin 1612,as the latest expression of legislative intent, repealed the population limitation formerly found in section 2 of article 2368a, V.T.C.S. Dallas County is now subject to the competitive bidding requirement of that statute. In Texas Highway Comm’n v. Texas Ass% of Steel Importers, Inc., 372 S.W.2d.525 (Tex. 1963), the court dealt with a Highway Department rule restrictmg bids ‘to those providing that materials furnished would be .manufactured in the United States, its territories end possessions. The court held that the rule was illegal as a violation of the relevant eompetitive bidding statute and quoted with approval the following statement regarding competitive bidding from Sterrett v. BelJ. 240 S.W.Bd516, 520 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1955no writ): Its purpose is to stimulate competition, prevent favoritism and secure the best work and materials at the lowest practicabLs price, for the beat interests and benefit of tha taxpayers and property owners. There can be no competitive biddingin a legal sense where the terms of tha letting of the contract prevent or restrict competition, favor a contractor or material man, or increase the cost of the work or of the materials cc other items go@ into the project. 372 S.Wld at 527. Attorney General Opinion H-1086 08771 determined that a county requirement restricting the source of materials would also be an illegal restriction upon competitiar Consequently, Dallas County may not adopt a policy against the purchase of foreign cats for official county purposes where .the value of the contract exceeds $3,000. p. 448 . .: Honorable Henry Wade - Page Three (Mw-139) SUMMARY Dallas County is subject to the competitive biddirrgrequiremmts stated in article 2366a, V.T.C.S. It may not adopt a policy agfhd the purchase of toreign ars ice official county purposes where the contract price exceeds $3,000. Y%$g;# Attorney General of Texas JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General TED L. HARTLEY Executive As&ant Attorney General Prepared by Susan Garrison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED:. OPINIONCOMMITTEE C. Robert Heath, Chairman Jim Allison David B. Brooks . Walter Davis Bob Gammage Susan Garrison Rick Gilpin Bruce Youngblood i p. 449