No. 1-79
The county court of a third class county may, under certain circumstances, lease space in the county courthouse for a proper charge to an auto license fee agent, or to the Social Security Administration and may provide free space to the State Highway Patrol.
Cite as Mo. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 1-79
COUNTIES:
COUNTY COURT:
HIGHWAY PATROL:
The county court of a third class county may,
under certain circumstances, lease space in
the county courthouse for a proper charge to
an auto license fee agent, or to the Social
Security Administration and may provide free space to the State
Highway Patrol.
September 21, 1979
OPINION NO. 1
The Honorable George Pickett
Prosecuting Attorney
Clinton County
116 North Main
Plattsburg, Missouri 64477
Dear Mr. Pickett:
Fl LED
1
This opinion is in response to an opinion request by your
predecessor, Lawrence V. Fisher, asking as follows:
"(1)
Does the County Court of a third
class county in the State of Missouri have
the right to lease space in a county court-
house to a person operating a license fee
bureau?
"(2)
Does the County Court of a third
class county in the State of Missouri have
the right to allow a license fee bureau to
occupy space in a county courthouse with-
out the payment of rent?
"(3)
Does the County Court of a third
class county in the State of Missouri have
the right to permit other state or federal
offices such as the Highway Patrol and/or
the Social Security Administration to
occupy space in the county courthouse free
of charge?"
In our Opinion No . 55-1978, we stated:
"With respect to that part of your
question which pertains to the use of
county equipment or courthouse property
by a private firm, we note that we have
The Honorable George Pickett
issued several opinions which are rele-
vant to your question .
That is, in our
Opinion No. 150, dated April 28, 1971
to Gilchrist, this office concluded that
a farmers mutual insurance company is a
private commercial enterprise and may
not be permitted to occupy office space
in the county courthouse for the conduct
of its business.
In our Opinion No. 15,
dated February 23, 1955 to Carr, this
office concluded that a county court may
not lawfully permit the usage of public
property in the form of office space in a
county courthouse for the conduct of a
private commercial enterprise.
In our
Opinion No. 42, dated December 20, 1954,
to Hosmer, this office concluded that a
county court did not have the authority
to rent space in the courthouse to private
persons for private use.
In our Opinion
No. 20, dated February 13, 1951 to Curry,
this office concluded that the county
courts do not have authority to lease or
permit the use of space in the county court-
house for private purposes.
In our Opinion
No. 63, dated February 16, 1954, to Moody,
this office concluded that a township has
no authority to use township machinery to do
work for private individuals for hire.
In our
Opinion No. 5, dated January 12, 1970, this
office concluded that there were exceptions
to the prohibition against the county leasing
public property in general so that ·leases
may be permissible in space other than
courthouse space where the lease of the
county property to private individuals
was not an interference with the public
use of the county property by the county,
the county had no immediate need for the
facilities for county purposes and the
lease was to the financial betterment of
the county.
In our Opinion No. 4, dated
December 9, 1966 to Evans, this office
concluded that publicly owned equipment
could not be used to render nonpublic
service."
-2-
The Honorable George Pickett
In answer to your first two questions, it is our view that
the license fee agent is clearly an independent contractor and
not an employee of the State of Missouri although he is appointed
by the Director of Revenue to collect motor vehicle license
fees and taxes pursuant to Section 136.055, RSMo.
Although
he acts as a private individual, he nevertheless performs a
quasi-governmental function.
Such agent receives a fee pre-
scribed by statute, and the county court is not authorized to
furnish such agent gratuities .
Although the county court has
the authority to manage all county business as prescribed by
law under Section 7 of Article VI of the Constitution and has
the statutory authority to control and manage the real and
personal property belonging to the county under Section 49.270,
RSMo, we do not believe that the county court has authority to
provide free space for such licensing agent. It is, however,
our view that since the license agent performs a quasi-govern-
mental function, he may be given the opportunity to rent space
for that function in the courthouse for a proper monetary· con-
sideration so long as the use of such space by such agent does
not interfere with the use of the courthouse for county purposes.
You also ask whether the county court has authority to
allow Social Security Administration representatives to occupy
space in the courthouse.
We assume you refer to the permanent
allocation of space to such representatives as opposed to the
casual use of such space for such purposes.
While such a federal
agency clearly performs a governmental function, it is our view
that such function is not sufficiently related to the function
performed by the county government to support the furnishing of
free permanent space for the use of such agency.
We are of the
view that such space may be furnished by the county court to
that agency for a proper monetary consideration so long as the
furnishing of such space to such agency does not interfere with
the use of the courthouse for county functions.
Your last question asks whether the county court of a third
class county has the right to permit the Highway Patrol to occupy
space in a county courthouse free of charge.
It is our understanding that it has been a practice of long
standing for the Highway Patrol to make use of available space
in such courthouses.
We have been informed that there are approxi-
mately ten Highway Patrol zone offices (local enforcement groups)
and forty-three locations where the Highway Patrol is presently
administering Missouri drivers' examinations through the use of
courthouse space.
We are also advised that the individual zone
-3-
The Honorable George Pickett
offices are being used for the preparation of arrest and
accident reports, contacts with other county offices such
as the sheriff, judicial officials, and the like.
The
courthouses are also used by the Highway Patrol as opera-
tional sites for drivers' examinations on a periodic basis
for the purpose of complying with Section 302.173, RSMo,
which specifies that the examination will be made available
in each county.
Without burdening this opinion further with a discus-
sion of the many duties performed by the Highway Patrol,
we point out that such duties are interwoven with many of
the functions and objectives of county government.
We view
the functions of the Highway Patrol as being sufficiently
related to county government and to the benefit of the county
to support the use of at least limited free space by the
Highway Patrol on an available basis at the discretion of
the county court so long as the furnishing of such space
does not interfere with the use of the courthouse for county
functions.
CONCLUSION
It is the op~n~on of this office that the county court
of a third class county may, under certain circumstances,
lease space in the county courthouse for a proper charge to
an auto license fee agent or to the Social Security Administra-
tion and may provide free space to the State Highway Patrol.
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was pre-
pared by my Assistant, John C. Klaffenbach.
Very truly yours,
~~
JOHN ASHCROFT
Attorney General
-4-