Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas Au:?Just 13, 1984 JIM MATTOX
Attorney General Honorable John L. Hu~chison Opinion No. JM-191
Supreme Court Buildlng Banaford County Attorney P. 0. Box 12548 Re: Whether a county may Austin, TX. 75711- 2548 P. 0. Box 506 512l475.2501 lease a building to a district Spearman. Texas 7!W81 Telex QlW74.1387 appraisal for a nominal Telecopier 51214750258 consideration 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dear Mr. Ziutchison:
Dallas. TX. 752024508 2141742-8944
You have requested our opinion as to whether Aansford County may land for the construction of an office building to be leased to the Hansford County Appraisal District. You have informed us that 4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 1W the appraisal district has proposed a contract whereby the county El Paso, TX. 799052793 91515333454 would construct an office building and lease it to the appraisal under a lcase-purchase agreement. The building would be r constructed with county funds at an approximate cost of $125,000, for Jo1 Texas. suite 700 the sole purpose of providing office space to the appraisal district. tkw,ton, TX. 77002-3111 You ask whether 1:tle county is authorized to enter into such a 713/223-W contract. 806 Broadway. Sulte 312 The Interlocal Cooperation Act, article 4413(32c), V.T.C.S., Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 local gwernmente to contract among themselves 8081747-5238 governmental servic:cs "which all parties to the contract are legally authorized to perfcrm." Sec. 4(b). The Interlocal Cooperation Act in 4309 N. Tenth. Suite B itself does not :,nfer upon a governmental body any additional McAllen, TX. 78501-1885 substantive auth0rj.t.y to perform particular acts. Thus, we must look 512mE2&47 to substantive law to determine whether the county is authorized
enter into the cont,ract at issue here.
200 Main Plaza. Suite 400
San Antonio, TX. 782052797 An appraisal tl:.strict is a political subdivision responsible 5121225.4191 appraising propert]' values for the use of every taxing unit within the
appraisal district-r! boundaries , which generally coincide with county lines. Although a lumber of statutes authorize a couauissioners court An Equal OpportunityI Attlrmatlve Action Employer to provide office for county purposes and to lease
unneeded portions 'to private persons or to other public agencies, statutes do not permit a county to construct a facility for the sole use of another pol:l~:icsl subdivision , regardless of whether the county is adequately comp<nlsated for the cost of construction.
A commissionr:rs is required to provide and to keep in repair "all necegic;ary public buildings." V.T.C.S. art. 2351(7). 1603, V.TWC.S., provides that the commissioners court shall "provide a court h,ylse and jail for the county, and offices for county p. 835 *2 I *I (JM-191)
Honorable John L. Hutchison - I’age 2
I officers.” Appraisal district officials are not county officers and thus are not entitled to of::‘:ice space provided by the county under this statute. 2370, section 1. V.T.C.S., the commissioners
court to provide buildings at the county seat other than the courthouse “for carrying on such other public business as may be authorized by the Commissionc:z 8 Court .” This statute also authorizes the commissioners court to lease or rent any part of these buildings not necessary for public use. Article 2370b. V.T.C.S., authorizes the county to “purchase” or “cxlstruct” “to properly house all county and district offices and all county and district courts” whenever the commissioners court “determines that the county courthouse is not adequate” Eor that purpose. In our opinion, context of article 2370b cl’?.%rly indicates that the term “district” refers to judicial I,ather than to a “district” of any kind whatsoever, Thus, article :!:170b does not authorize the purchase or construction of office build L:rgs for the purpose of housing officials of an appraisal district.
A commissioners court has only those powers specifically conferred by statute. Can,PLes v. Laughlin, 214 S.W.2d 451 (Tex.
1948). In Attorney Gene=-Opinion O-1952 (1940), this office held that the county’s authorit:? to provide necessary public buildings under article 2351 did not, empower the county to pay construction of a building to be rented to the Texas National Guard and other non-county governmental agencies. On the basis of this decision, we conclude that E. commissioners is not authorized land and provide for: the construction of a building for the sole purpose of providing office space to an appraisal district.
Of course, if the coun::r were to purchase land and construct an office building legiti~lte “county purposes,” it could then lease unused space in that building to the appraisal district.
SUMMARY A county is not. authorized to purchase land and construct a building solely for use of an appraisal district.
Very truly your LA-/~
. JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas -.
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
i - Page 3 ml-191)
Bonorable John L. Rutchiroa
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney (heral
Preparerby David Brooks
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton