DAN MORALES

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

## QBffice of tty Bttornep Qheral &Mateof Qexae
November lo,1993

Mr. Ray Farebee OpinionNo. DM-272 vichMcellor8ndGenerslcounsel 05ce OfGeneralcounsel Re: Whether, under section 11.11 of the TheUnksityofTexas System Tax Code, the M.D. Anderson Cancer 201 west !kventh street Center Jesse H. Jones Rotary House Austin, Texas 78701 Jnternationaliexemptfivmrdrplorem taxation and related question (RQ-593)

Jhr Mr. Farabee:

On behalf of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas System (the

“board”), you have ssked us to determine whether the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Jesse H. Jones Rotary House International is exempt fkomcul v&rem taxation under section11.11 oftheTwCode. Weconcludethatitis. Reasoning “that cancer is causingfour thousand (4,000) deaths annually in Texas, thatmanyofthe~~soafflicted~indigentpasons,thatthaeism,rdequate provision made in this State for the study of the cause, prevention, or cure of cancer, and that there are no State institutionsdevoted thereto,” the 1egislature created the hospital that now is denominated The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (the “CancerCenter”) in 1941. See Acts 1941.47th Leg., ch. 548, at 878. Cummtly, chapter 73, a&chapter C of the Education Code provides for the Cancer Center. Seotion 73.102 of the Education Code states that the Cancer Center end its substations1“shallbe devoted tothediagno~tea&ingstudy,prevenGon,and tmatment of neoplasti~ and allied diseases.” Sections 73.110 end 73.111 of the Education Code authorize the board to accept gifts snd gmnts of money for the benefit of the Cancer Center and its substations. You state that the Jesse H. Jones Rotuy House International(the “Rotary House”), which opened in February 1993, was constructed on Jands the board owns end was built Tom .

p. 1416Mr. RayFarabee - Page 2 (DM-272)

gifls of eight million dollars from the Rotary Club of Houston and the Houston Foundation,in additionto ninemilliondollarsthat the board raisedthrough the issuanceof
revenuebonds. We understandthat the board ownsthe Rotary House.

You have included with your letter a statement from Michael J. Best, Chief Fiicial Officer of the Cancer Center, and a brochure promoting the Rotary House. Mr. Best describesthe Rotary House as a “patienthousingcenter” where a Cancer Center patient and the patient’ sfknily may stay while the patient is undergoing treatment at the Cancer Cmta. Guests of The University of Texas Systems (“The Unkmity”) also may stay at the Rotary House. Mr. Beat explains:

Promotion and marketing of the Rotary House is confined to publicizingits services to [Cancer Center] patients and their guests and to guests of the University.

. . The Rotary House does not actively seek business Sam the public at large.

. . Our experience since openingto our guests on February 13.1993[.] reflects that only patients, their hmilies[,] and University of Texas visitors have been guests at the Rotary House.

Mr. Best also states the room rates at the Rotary House are below market rates for comparable lodging. Fiiy, Mr. Best states that no rooms are leased on a long-tam baaisto employees and that no permanentresidents stay at the Rotary House.

The promotionalbrochure points out several specialfeatures ofthe Rotary House:
-The Rotary House is connected to the Cancer Center by an overheadwaUway’ andcoveredgardenwalk. TheRotaryHouse also provides wheelchair-equipped tmnspotion to the Cancer Cults.
-All rooms accommodatewheelchairsand medicalequipment. -Every room is equippedwith a refrgerator, microwave, dishes, dishwasher, iron, and ironing board. Laundry facihties are available in the building.
-The television in every room is linked to the Cancer Cent&s closedcidttelevisionchannelssothatpatimtsandfamiliescan watch patient educationalprograms in their rooms.

p. 1417Mr.RayFarabee - Page 3 (DM-272)

-The Rotary House has a PatienVFamily Learning Center, wherepatientsandfamilymanbasurnleamtoweforthanselves anddealwiththeirihness.
-The Rotary House offers patient and family education classes; itbb9avidwtapelibraryof~can~ctionaltapesthat ptiClltSMdfh&lieSUlilyVi~iIltheirroomS.
-The Rotary House offers planned social actkities, including cmfl-making clsssea, shopphlg and RcreationsJ trips, and support groups;it~~~letothepatiartsMdbrmiliesits~cand gameroom, leisureliirary, counAiq services,and chaplains.
Article VIII, section 2(a) of the Texas Constitution authorizes the legislature to,

“by general laws, exempt from taxation public property used for public purposes.” See UnitedStotes v. 120,000Acres of Land, 50 F. Supp. 754,755 (N.D. Tex. 1943) (stating that azticleVIII, section 2 requires public property to be devoted to public use); C~(Y of SanAntonio v. SonAntonio In&p. Sch. Dia., 535 S.W.2d 671.675 (Tex. CN. App.-El Paso, writ refd n.r.e.), &‘d, 550 S.W.2d 262 (1976) (stathtg that article VIII, section 2 refers to ad w&rem taxes). Pumant to the authority article VlD, section 2(a) grants it,
see 21 J. HOwELL,

PROPERTY

TAXES 8 200, at 130 (1975) (stating that article VT& section 2 simply grants legislature power to exempt public property used for public purposes), the legislature has enacted section 11.11 of the Tax Code, which provides in putinent part as follows: .

(a) Except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c) of this section, property ownedby this state or a political subdivisionof this state is exempt fi-om taxation if the property is used for public PUrpo=s. (b) [patainiag to landPermanentUnkrsity Fund owns] (c) [Pert&ingtoagriculturalorgrazinglandacountyownsfor the ba& of public schools] (d) Proper& owned by the state that is not used for public purposes is taxable. Property owned by a state agency or institution is not used for publicpurposes if the proper& is rented or leased for compmsationtoa~ebusinessentaprisetokusedbyitfora purpose not related to the performanceofthe duties and tlmctions of the state agency or insdmtion or used to provide private residential housing for compensation to members of the public other than students and employees of the state agency or institution owningthe

p. 1418Mr.RayFarabee - Page 4 (Di-272)

property, unless the residential use is secondary to its use by an educfdional

institutionprimarilyfor instructionalpurposes. , . (e) It is provided, however, that property that is held or dedicatedfor the support, maintenance,or be&it of an institution of higher education as de&d in Chapter 61. Texas Education Code> but is not rented or leased for compenmtion to a private business enterprise to be used by it for a purpose not related to the pdormancc of the duties and functions of the state or institution or is not rented or leased to provide private residential housing to membersof the publicother than students and emphq%es of the state
or ktitution is not taxable. Footnote added.]

You state that the Harris County AppraisalDistrict (the “appraisaldistrict”) has cancelkd the tax exemption on the Rotary House pursuant to section 11.11(e), based on the apprakl district’ sposition that the Rotary House provides “privateresidential housing to membersof the public other than students and employeesof the state or institution.” The bard, on the other hand, believes that the Rotary House is public property “used for public purposes,” thereby quah@ng for exemption 6om (d t&rem taxes under section 11.1 l(a). We must determine, therefore, whether, to be exempt from cd wlorem taxation, property that an institution of higher education owns must satisfy the criteria articulated only in subsection (e), either in subsection(a) or (e), or in both subsections (a) and (e).r
InitiaUy, we note that an exemptionfrom taxation is to be strictly construed, and the language of the exemptionmust not be extended beyond the express requirements of the language used. Jones v. Williums,45 S.W.Zd 130, 131 (Tex. 1931); 21 J. HOWELL, pRopERn TAXES

§ 198, at 126 (1975). See gem&b G. Hartt, IIJ, Ad V&rem T&es .

p. 1419Mr.RayFarabee - Page 5 (DM-272)

ami Non-P@ HeaM-Gve Facilities, 39 Tut. B.J. 864, 865 (1976). Thus, the pason chiming an exemptionbears the burden of proving that the propaty or tmmaction falls within the ambit of the exemption. 21 J. HOWELL, srrgra. 8 198, at 126; G. Hartt, IIJ, spa, at 865.

The legislature added subsection (e) to section 11.11 of the Tax Code in 1983. See Acts 1983,68th Leg., ch. 1007,§ 1, at 5419. As introducedin the House, House Bill 2156 did not propose to add a subsection (e) to section 11.l 1 of the Tax Code; rather, it proposed to amend section 11.1 l(a), (d) as follows: (a) Except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c) of this section, property owned by this state. [ef] a political subdivision of thisstate.p2:~~d~~ns~inscction 61.003f7) nf t& &~8 M (&& is exempt from taxation if thepropatyisusedforpublicplrpoeespy~~~~~~ lslppQ&maint~Qt~QfminstihrtionQf~education. (d) Property owned by the state that is not used for public Purpo~NW9Idedicatedh2tb8~-maintenance.pC nf8g jnstitutionefb&gJ r;ducationis taxable. m 8Jgf& w ownedbythestate.p~~nf~~[ageaey]or ~institutionPfhjOhP&&28~~gg@fQL~~ dfpt&&&&QQ(&[:-]ifthe g&&8 ef &g property is rented or leased for compensation to a private business enterpriseto be used by it for a purpose not related to the performanceof the duties and fimctionsof the state. p g~I&8! g&division’ Qf~ 8t8& [eganay]or g8 instiMion g&g&&r 8dwxtion
or used to provide private residential housing for compensation to members of the public other than students and employees of the state.8~8&&yi&8pf~~or~institutionpf~ education owning the property, unless the residential use is secondary to its use by an education institution primarily for instructionalpurposes. Any notice requiredby Section 25.19 of this code shallbe sentto the agency or in&ution that owns the property, ~ditshallllppearinbehalfofthestateinanyprotestorappcal related to taxation ofthe property. Accordingto the bii analymsprepared for House Bii 2156. as introduced, the bii proposedtoamendsection11.11 oftheTaxCodeto”incM~theconceptthatproperty owned by an institution of higher education is exempt if used for a public purpose or is held or dedicated to the support, maintenance, or benefit of an insthmion of higher education and that property owned by ag insthution of higher education and not used for [either a public purpose or for the support, maintenance,or benefit of the institution] is

p. 1420Mr.RayFarabee - Page 6 (DM-272)

not exempt.” House Comm. on Ways and Means, Bii Analysis, H.B. 2156, 68th Leg. (1983); Senate Comm. on Fii, Bii Analysis, H.B. 2156. 68th Leg. (1983). Representative Turner, the author of the bii stated on the floor of the House that the purpose ofthe billwas to dispel some existingcontusionregarding certain university lands bystatingthat~v~~landistaxableiftheuniversityrmtsorleasestheland;ifthe university does not rent or lease the land, and the university holds the land for a public purpose, the land is exempt tkom taxation. 6 Debate on H.B. 2156 on the Floor of the House, 68th Leg. (May 30, 1983) (statement of Representative Turner) (tape available kom House Committee ServicesOSice).

While the Senate Committee on Finance discus4 the bii a senate committee member stated that the proposed amendmentsto subsection (a) would have the effect of exemptingfrom taxation productive, incom~producingproperty belongingto a university. Id. Senate committee memberstherefore asked Senator Harris, the senate sponsor of the big, to prepare an amendmentto the bill that would exempt 6om taxation only nonprofit property, thereby effectively limitingthe class of productive, income-producingproperty of an institution of higher educationthat is exemptfrom taxation. Hearing on H.B. 2156 Before the Senate Comm. on Fii, 68th Leg. (May 28, 1983) (statement of unidentiiiedspeaka) (tape availablefrom Senate StatTServices).
Consequently, Senator Harris introduced on the floor of the senate an amendment to the bii that proposed to amend section 11.11of the Tax Code by adding subsection(e) (using languageidenticalto the languagecurrently found in section I 1.1l(e)) instead of by revising subsections (a) and (d). Debate on H.B. 2156 on the Floor of the Senate, 68th Leg. (May 30, 1983) (statement of Senator Harris) (tape available from Senate StatT senices). The senate adopted the amendment. Subsequentto its adoption in the senate, Representative Turna explained the intent of the senate amendment on the floor of the house, indicatingthat the amendmentonly chnitiedthe “originalintent of the bii in a little bit betta form”; it did not substantivelymodify the proposed bill. Debate on H.B. 2156
on the Floor of the House, 68th Leg. (May 30, 1983) (statement of Representative Tuma) (tape availablefrom House CommitteeServicesOflice).

Based upon our review ofthe legisiativehistory, we concludethat section 11.11 of the Tax Code by its terms exempts from od dorem taxation property that an institution of higha education owns if the property either saves a public purpose, see Tax Code

p. 1421Mr,RayFarabee - Page 7 (DM-272)

~Il.ll(a),orisheldforthe~upport,maintmana,orbeneMoftheinstiturig~eid. 5 11 .l l(e). However, since articleVfII, section 2(a) of the Texas Constitution authorizes the legislatureto exempt from taxation publicproperty only if the property is used for a publicpurpose, publicproperty that is exemptpursuant to subsection(e) because it is held for the support, maintenance, or benefit of an institution of higha education is exempt onlyto the extent that the property is used for a publicpurpose.
Subsections (d) and (e) of section 11.11 explicitly stipulate particular uses of public property that do not serve a public purpose. Subsection (d) specificallyprovides that state-owned property does not serve a public purpose “ifthe properly is.

. . used to povid priwte resi&ntial houdng for compensationto members of thepublic other lhrm stuhts cad empfqveesof the state agency or ktitution owning the property, unless the residential use is secondary to its use by an educational institution primarily for instructionalpqoses.” (Emphasisadded.) Similarly,subsection (e) specificallyprovides that propaty of an institutionof higha education does not qualifyfor the exemption (and thus is not used for a publicpurpose) ifthe property is “rented or leased for common to a private business enterprise to be used by it for a purpose not related to the puformancc of the duties and timctionsofthe state or institution or is

. rented or leased toprovia??

priwte resiakntiol housing to members of thepublic other than stuhts ami emplwes of the state or institution”7 (Emphasis added.) No one disputes that the Rotary House is publicly owned; ultimately, we must determine. thaefore, whether the Rotary House serves a publicpurpose. The central issue in our determination is whether the Rotay House is used toprod& private residential housing to members of thepublic other than stuoknt.9or employees of The University. If it is not so used, we must determinewhether the property serves a publicpurpose.
The Tax Code does not d&e “privateresidentialhousing,” and we are unaware of any other statutory provision that defines the phrase. Furthermore, the legislative history of section 11.11

(e) of the Tax Code does not indicatehow the legislature intended to use the phrase. Howeva, the legislativehistory of subsection (d), which also uses the phrase “private residential housing,” provides some guidance as to the meaning the legislatureintendedto attach to the phrase.

The legislature added subsection (d) to section 11.11 of the Tax Code by the enactment of House Bill 30 two years prior to the enactment of subsection (e). See Acts 1981. 67th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 13. § 30, at 127. House Bii 30 of the S&y-Seventh

p. 1422Mr. RayFaabee - Page 8 (DM-272)

Legislature, 6rst called session, was, essmtidy, a reintroduction of House Bii 1465, which the legi&ture tabled during the regular session of the Sixty-Seventh Legislature. The house wmmittee substitute for House Bill 1465proposed to add section 11.1 l(d) to provide in perknt part as follows:

Property owned by the Texas State Technical InstiMe or the Texas Department of Corrections is not used for public purposes if the properly is used to provide housing for employees or their familiesor~manbasofthepublicothartbanstudentsofthe Texas State Technical hitiMe or inmates of the Texas Department ofcomxuons. [Emphasisadded.] Rep- Peveto, the author of House Bii 1465,informeda subcommitteeof the House Committee on Ways andMeans that he was introducingthis amendmentto the originalbii specificallyfor the Huntsville area. Format Meeting on H.B. 1465 Before a Subconunittw of the House Comm. on Ways and Means, 67th Leg. (Apr. 21, 1981) (tape available from House Committee Services O&e). He explained that both the Texas Department of Corrections and the Texas State TechnicalInstitute (“TSTI”) owned some homes that they rented out to their employees or to members of the general public. Id. He stated that some membersof the House Ways and Means Committee &it that such a rental of a home was not serving a publicpurpose; ratha, the rental served as a “revenue generator” for the govemmentalbody owningthe homes. Id. Furthermore, according to Representative Peveto, the people who live in the rental homes send their children to school in the local school district, and they use city and county services; consequently, they shouldbe payingproperty taxes on the homesthey rent. Id.
Representative Peveto’ s comments indicate that the legislature was concerned primarily with the provision of housing to persons who plan to reside at the leased property long enough to take advantage of the local schools and city and county services. We note that the SiiSeventh Legkkre, during its 6rst called session, moditied the proposed section 11.1

I(d) to apply not only to the property that TSTI and the Texas Depatment of Corrections own that is “used to provide housing for employees or their fkmiks or for membersof the public other than students.

. or inmates,” but to property that any state agency or institution owns that is “used to provide private residential housing for compensation to member of the public other than students and employees.” Compure C.S.H.B. 1465,67th Leg., 8 23 (1981) wir% Acts 1981,67th Leg.. 1st C.S., ch. 13,s 30, at 127. Despite the modiScations,we believethe legislatureremainedconcerned about the kct that, at that time, members of the public who reap the be&its normally accorded to taxpayers. such as the use of the local schools, city services, and county savices, could rent homes on tax-exemptproperty ownedby state agencies or institutions. We therefore construe “private residential housing” in both subsections (d) and (e) to
mean housingin which certainmemberaofthe publiclive longer than temporarily.

p. 1423Mr.RayFanbee - Page 9 (DM-272)

In determining whether property is being used to provide “private residential lmsing” withinthe context of section 11.1 l(d), (e) of the Tax Code, we believe that we must apply an anslysis similarto that used to determinewhetha property is a “residence” for purposes of other statutes. Admittedly, “[t]he term ‘residence’ de&s easy definition.” Attorney General Opiion J&5-611(1986)at 2. The Texas Supreme Court has, howeva, provided some direction:

The meaning that must be given to [the term “residence”]depends upon the kxmstances surroundingthe person involved and largely depends upon the present intention of the individual. Volition, intention and action are all elementsto be cotidered in determhdng whereapersonresidesandsuchekmentsareeqwllypertinentin denotingthe pamanent residenceor domicile.

Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d636,637 (Tex. 1964);Attorney General Opiion JM-611 at 2 (quotingMills. 377 S.W.2dat 637); see ako BLACK ’ S LAWDICTIONARY

1176 (5thcd. 1979) (detining “residence”as “persona)presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period, not infrequently,but not neces&ly combii with design to stay permanently”); WBBSTBR ’ S

NINTHNEWCOLLBGIATB DICTIONARY

1003(1990) (detlning “residence”as

“the place where one actually lives as distinguished from.. a place of temporary sojounP); cf. Attorney General Gpiions JM-1223 (1990) at 4-5 (quoting, as example of proper construction of “residence,” Election Code section 1.015, which de&s

“residence”

for purposes of ElectionCodeto mean “domicile, that is, one’ shome and fixed place of habitation to which he intends to return atta any temporary absence”);TM-367 (1985) at 3 (quotingPews & N.T. I@. Co. v. lhmpson, 167 S.W. 801,803 (Tex. 1914)) (equating “residence” for purposes of Education Code with “domicile,” which means

“livingin [a particular locality] with the intent to make it a t&d and permanent home”). In general, the determination of one’ sresidence depends upon factual circumstances and individualintention; it is thacfore suitable forjudicial detemnnation. Mih, 377 S.W.2d at 636.
Thus, for purposes of section 11.1 l(d), (e) of the Tax Code, the determktion of whether certain proper&yis used as “private residential housing” “depends upon the circumstances surrounding the person involved and largely depends upon the present intention of the individual.” Id. at 637. While such a detemktion generally requires an exanktion of factual circumstancesand individualintention,we believe that we may say as a matter of law that the legislature did not intend “privateresidential housing”to refa to a place, such as the Rotary House, whichprovides only temporary accommodationsfor patients at the Cancer Cmta and their fiuniliesand for guests of the unkersity. We conclude that the Rotary House is not “usedto provide private residentialhousing”in the context of section 11.1

l(d), (e) of the Tax Code. Next, we will consida whetha the Rotary House serves a publicpurpose. :’

p. 1424Mr. Bay Fanbee - Psge 10 (Dll-272)

To determine whether public property is used for a public purpose, the Texss Supreme Court hss applied a test: whetha the property is used primarily for the health, comfort, and welfare of the public. A. &M. Consol. In&p. Sch. Dist. v. Ci@of Bryan, 184 S.W.2d 914,915 (Tex. 1945); Attorney General OpinionJM405 (1985) at 3. The proper& need not be used for govanmemal purposes;the property only must be such that all of the public hss a right to use it onda proper regulations. A. &MYCd. Indep. sch. Dist., 184 S.W.Zd at 915. Furthermore, the tkt thst the governmen tal owna &ages or receives compensation for the use of the property does not mean thst the properly loses its exemption &rn ad t&rem taxation, provided that the chages sre iacidcntaltotheuseofthepropatyllndtheproceedsreceivedfortheuseofthepropcrty inure to the be&t of the gownmatsl owna. Id. at 915-16, see al.w Attorney Genersl Opiion JM-405 st 3 (citingLower Cdo. River A&. v. ChemicaIBank & Tv.s? Co., 190 S.W.Zd48, SO(Tex. 1945);A. &M. cansal. Zdep.Sch. Dia., 184 S.W2dst915-16).

You state that members of the medical profession often prescribe outpatient trmtmmt for persons d&nosed with aeopkstic dkeases, thereby reducing the costs to both the patient snd the hospital. A patient in a private hospital room at the Cancer Cmta pays $385 per day for the room, as opposed to S65-$85per day for a room in the Rotary House.’ Additionslly,the Cancer Centa spent less to const~ct the Rotary House than it would have spent to ccmstruct additional hospii rooms; overbead expenw incured in operating the Cancer Centa slso are mch greata than overhead expenses incumd in operatingthe Rotary House.

We believethst the Rotary House aidsthe CancerCenta in the sccomplishmentof its purpose-the “diagnosis,teaching, study, prevention, end treatment of neoplastic snd died disases.” See Educ. Code 8 73.102. Additionally,you inform us that the Cancer Centa uses all incame derivedfrom the Rotary House to hd its operations. In our

p. 1425Mr. RayFarabee - Page 11 (DM-272)

opinion,therefore, the Rotary House is used prhnarhy for the health, comfort, and welt& of the public,and satistiesthe Texas Supremecourt’ s test fix determkg whetha public propaty is used for a publicpurpose. SeeA. &M. Cansol. It&p. Sch. Dist.. 184 S.W.2d at 915. Because we have found that the Rotary House is not used to provide private residential housing and servea a public purpose, we cot&de that it is exempt from taxationprsuanttosc&n 11.11oftheTaxCode.

The chiefappraiser of the appraisal district has asked us to determine whetha, if
we concludethat the Rotary House is exempt from all ad w&rem taxation unda section ll.lloftheTaxCode,theMarriott’ sinterestintheRotaryHouseistaxabletothelessee pumant to section 25.07 of the Tax Code. While the chief appraiser’ s question is premised on his contentionthat the MawiottManagement Stices Corporation leases the Rotary House from the board, documents you have submitted indicate that the Marriott ManagementServicesCorporationprovidesdaily managementof the Rotary House, but it doesnot lease the facility. Whetherthe Marriott ManagementServices Corporation has a leasehold intaest in the Rotary House or simply provides management services is a question of fhct that we cannot resolve in the opinion process. See Attorney General Opinion DM-98 (1992) at 3. Furthermore, this office does not construe contracts, Attorney General OpinionDM-192 (1992) at 10; consequently, we cannot examine the agreement between the Marriott Management Saviccs Corporation and the board to determinethe Marriott’ sinterest in the Rotary House. But see Tax Code 8 25.07; Ci@of Beaumont v. Fertitta, 415 S.W.2d902,911 (Tex. 1967);Mmttn v. Ci@ofMesquite. 590 S.W.2d 793, 798 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1979, writ refd n.r.e.) (discussing V.T.C.S. articles 7173 and 7174, predecessorsto Tax Code section 25.07, among otba sections of Tax Code); Attorney GeneralOpiion M-3 19 (1968) at 5.

SUMMARY

Pursuant to section 11.11 of the Tax Code, property that an institution of higha education owns is exempt from taxation if the property either serves a public purpose, or is held or dedicated for the support, maintenanw, or benelit of the i&t&ion. To the extent that property that is held or dedicated for the support, maintenance,
or benefit ofthe institutionis not used for a publicpurpose, howeva, it is not exempt from taxation. Furthermore, section 11.11 specities that public property is not used for a public purpose if the property is, among otha things, used to provide “privateresidentialhousing” for members of the public other than employees or students of the ktitution.

The determination of ,-whetha specitk property is used to provide “privateresidentialhousing”dependsupon the circumstancesMr. Ray Farabee - Purge 12 (DM-272)

sumding the person involved and bqely depends upon the present intention of the individual. Because the Jesse H. Jones Rotary House International provides only temporary accommodations for patients at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and their families~foTBuest8ofTheU~~ofTausSystans,hisnot used to provide private residential housiq for purposes of section 11.1 l(d), (e) of the Tax Code. Additionally,the Rotary House is used primarilyfor the health, comfort. and we’re of the public;it is thaefore used for a public purpose. Consequently, the Rotary Houseisexrmptfromrdvalorenrtlucation~to~on 11.11 of the Tax Code.

DAN MORALES Attomey Genaal of Texas

WILL. PRYOR Fii AssistantAttomeyGenaal

MARYKELLER Deputy Attorney Generalfor Litigation

RENEAHICKS State Solicitor

MADELEINEB. JOHNSON Chair, opinion Committee &pared by Kymberly K. OltrogSe AssistantAttorney Genaal

p. 1427