Contracts
Opinion
# 2001-049
Discussion of the application of the three year contract
limitation on certain public contracts. Discussion providing
that the chairman of the county commission must sign contracts
approved by the commission.
Opinion
#2002-065
Discussion of local public officials contracting with
the governmental entity they represent.
Opinion
#2002-081
Discussion explaining that the Relationship Disclosure
Form required by Act No. 2001-955 does not apply in interagency
contracts between state agencies or departments.
Opinion
#2002-171
Discussion providing that a contract employee of the county
cannot continue in his or her position once the contract
has expired if the contract is not renewed or if the commission
is deadlocked as to whether to renew.
Opinion # 2004-115
Discussion providing that a governmental agency may enter into an agreement with a University to give the University exclusive use of governmentally owned and operated property in exchange for the government’s use of other University facilities.
Opinion # 2004-145
Discussion providing that a county commission may make contracts through the revenue commissioner regarding reappraisal of county property, and can ratify such contracts and payments, where the county commission was not initially made a party to the contract.
Opinion # 2005-017
Discussion providing that a governmental entity may enter into a contract with benefits to each party, but that if it grants a private party an exclusive franchise, it must be competitively bid.
Opinion # 2005-046
Discussion providing that a municipality may contract with a volunteer fire department to provide services to the community, and discussion of several aspects of such contracts.
Opinion # 2009-003
Purchases from a discretionary fund of the sheriff are not required to be made by competitive bidding.
Opinion # 2009-003
The sheriff is not required to obtain the approval of the county commission before making expenditures from a Sheriff's Fund created by local law.
Opinion # 2009-012
Contracts between governmental entities are not required to be competitively bid.
Opinion # 2009-012
A county commission may sell real property from an abolished industrial park to a municipality for less than the actual cost of the property. The constitutional prohibition against granting a thing of value to a private entity would not apply where the sale is to another governmental entity and the county would continue to be the beneficiary of any development by the municipality.
Opinion # 2009-028
A governmental entity cannot contract with a private commercial interest for an exclusive franchise unless competitive bids are taken. An exclusive contract exists when a governmental entity grants a special privilege or contractual right for services to one entity.
Opinion # 2009-031
The county commission is not required to use the bid process when selling real estate owned by the county.
Opinion # 2009-033
“Maintenance” under the public works law is “the care and work put into property to keep it operating and productive” and includes general repair and upkeep.
Opinion # 2009-033
The constitutional prohibition against granting public funds to private entities (Section 94 of the Constitution) does not apply to the granting of public funds to other governmental entities.
Opinion # 2009-033
A local government may contract with a community center to renovate the center in exchange for the center making cultural facilities available to the public; provided that if the project exceeds $50,000, it is subject to bid under the public works law.
Opinion # 2009-060
A governmental entity may enter into unit price contracts for certain repair and renovation projects if the contracts are executed in compliance with the public works law.
Opinion # 2009-081
A community board which is an instrumentality of multiple counties must comply with the competitive bid law.
|
