Opinion Number

Dear Chief Martin:

This office is in receipt of your request for an opinion of the Attorney General in regard to an agreement between St. Mary Parish Fire Protection District No. 2 and Centerville Volunteer Fire Department. You indicate The Centerville Volunteer Fire Company, a private, non-profit corporation was organized in November, 1960 with a nine man Board of Directors elected at the annual meeting of the Corporation. The St. Mary Parish Fire Protection District No. 2, a public corporation, was created in 1996 pursuant to R.S. 40:1500, and is authorized to perform all acts necessary for effective fire prevention and control for the protection of the property within the limits of the district.

You ask this office the following:

1. The District requests an opinion on a proposed Cooperative Endeavor Agreement between St. Mary Parish Fire Protection District No. 2 and Centerville Volunteer Fire Company (CVFC). You point out changes to the agreement will include a provision for renegotiations if ad valorem taxes are decreased, and a contract extension clause for the next ten years, after the current millage expires in 2005.

2. The Department requests an opinion on the incentive plan used by the Department.

3. Under the Cooperative Endeavor Agreement of March 10, 1997 the District Agrees to fund CVFC so that CVFC may be reimbursed for all amounts expended which are considered as necessary and proper for effective fire prevention or control, effective July 10, 1996. The District further agrees to fund CVFC for future amounts expended which are considered as necessary or proper for effective fire prevention or control throughout and during the existence of the said tax millage. CVFC agrees to utilize all funds received for purposes which are considered as necessary or proper for effective fire prevention or control and to be accountable to District for same. Can the District lease the fire trucks that the department owns?

It appears that the Cooperative Endeavor Agreement is a valid agreement under Art. VII, Sec. 14, La. Const., This office has consistently expressed the opinion that the political subdivision must have a legal obligation or duty to provide the service for which the cooperative endeavor exists, and the provision of the Agreement clearly sets forth it is "to accomplish the respective purposes of each". Succinctly, the District agrees to funding CVFC for purposes of the Volunteer Fire Company and the District, and CVFC agrees to be accountable for the funding used in furtherance of its responsibilities for fire prevention and protection purposes. .

In regard to your inquiry for an opinion of this office on the incentive plan, this office finds that the plan is designed to award the members on a basis of their activity so that the more active individuals receive more than those that are less active. This obviously establishes a fair system whereby those who do more are recognized for their participation by a higher remuneration.

In response to your third inquiry, we would restate our previous observation that the cooperative endeavor agreement is valid in fulfilling an obligation of both parties found "necessary or proper for effective fire prevention or control", and in this regard we would conclude it would be valid to have the District lease the fire trucks belonging to the Department.

We hope this sufficiently answers your questions, but if we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely yours,

RICHARD P. IE;YOUB Attorney General

By:____________________________ BARBARA B. RUTLEDGE Assistant Attorney General

RPI/bbr

OPINION NUMBER 94-226
MAY 31, 1994

3 APPROPRIATIONS 8-1 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 90-B-1 PUBLIC LANDS, ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER Art. VII, § 8; Art. VII § 6; Art. VII, § 14; Art. VII § 9 R.S. 37:1515; R.S. 37:1517

Board of Veterinary Medicine Examiners is authorized to purchase a building, but is not authorized to finance the purchase price nor mortgage the building. The Board would not need to go through the capital outlay process.

Ms. Virginia A. Anthony 820 North Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Dear Ms. Anthony:

You requested the opinion of this office concerning whether the Board of Veterinary Medicine Examiners (the "Board") may purchase a building for the purpose of providing the Board with permanent office space. If so, and the Board must finance a portion of the purchase price, is State Bond Commission approval necessary? Thirdly, must the Board go through the capital outlay process in order to acquire the building?

In order for a state department, agency, board of commission to buy or sell immovable property, it must be specifically authorized to do so by a legislative act. Op.Atty.Gen. 82-247.

The Board is created pursuant to La. R.S. 37:1515 and La. R.S.37:1517(A)(6) specifically authorizes the Board to "purchase or rent necessary office space, equipment, and supplies." Therefore, as you noted, the Board is specifically authorized to purchase a building to be used for office space. It should be noted that the Commissioner of Administration must sign any act of sale for the acquisition of the property. La. R.S. 39:11.

In answer to your second question, the undersigned could not find any authority for the Board to borrow money, incur debt or execute a mortgage and therefore, the Board could not finance the acquisition of the office building nor mortgage the property. La. Const. Art. VII, Sections 6 and 14. If the Board was able to obtain legislative authorization for such borrowing, it would need to obtain the approval of the State Bond Commission for any such borrowing. La. Const. Art. VII, Sec. 8.

In answer to your final question, it is the opinion of this office that if the Board is able to pay cash for the building, it would be unnecessary for the Commission to go through the capital outlay process in order to purchase or acquire the building.

The Board is not required to deposit its monies in the state treasury. Article VII, Section 9(A)(2) and Op.Atty.Gen. 78-67(A). The capital outlay procedure in Title 39 sets forth the process to be followed in order for a project to be contained in the capital outlay act, which is an appropriation act. La. R.S.39:112. If the Board's money is not in the state treasury and thus does not have to be appropriated in order to be spent, the Board would not need its project to be included in the capital outlay act. If the Board does not need to be included in the capital outlay act, it would not have to follow the capital outlay process. Op.Atty.Gen. 94-140.

Trusting this adequately responds to your request, I remain

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB Attorney General

BY: _________________________ MARTHA S. HESS Assistant Attorney General

RPI/MSH/jav 3130m