Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1984 )

The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX Au:?Just 13, 1984
Attorney General
Supreme Court Buildlng Honorable John L. Hu~chison Opinion No. JM-191
P. 0. Box 12548 Banaford County Attorney
Austin, TX. 75711- 2548 P. 0. Box 506 Re: Whether a county may
512l475.2501 Spearman. Texas 7!W81 lease a building to a district
Telex QlW74.1387
Telecopier 51214750258
appraisal office for a nominal
consideration
714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dear Mr. Ziutchison:
Dallas. TX. 752024508
2141742-8944
You have requested our opinion as to whether Aansford County may
purchase land for the construction of an office building to be leased
4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 1W to the Hansford County Appraisal District. You have informed us that
El Paso, TX. 799052793 the appraisal district has proposed a contract whereby the county
91515333454 would construct an office building and lease it to the appraisal
r
district under a lcase-purchase agreement. The building would be
Jo1 Texas. suite 700
constructed with county funds at an approximate cost of $125,000, for
tkw,ton, TX. 77002-3111 the sole purpose of providing office space to the appraisal district.
713/223-W You ask whether 1:tle county is authorized to enter into such a
contract.
806 Broadway. Sulte 312
Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479
The Interlocal Cooperation Act, article 4413(32c), V.T.C.S.,
8081747-5238 permits local gwernmente to contract among themselves for
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
512mE2&47 substantive auth0rj.t.y to perform particular acts. Thus, we must look
to substantive law to determine whether the county is authorized to
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 for
5121225.4191
appraising propert]' values for the use of every taxing unit within the
appraisal district-r! boundaries , which generally coincide with county
An Equal OpportunityI lines. Although a lumber of statutes authorize a couauissioners court
Attlrmatlve Action Employer to provide office buildings for county purposes and to lease the
unneeded portions 'to private persons or to other public agencies, the
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 comp214 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 for the
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 court is not authorized to
purchase 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 for 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.
LA-/~Very truly
JIM
.
your
MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
-.
TOMGREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
p. 836
i
Bonorable John L. Rutchiroa - Page 3 ml-191)
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
p. 837