JIMMATTOX AttorneyGeneral
Supreme CourtBuildlng P.0. Box12548 Austin,TX. 75711-2548 512l475.2501 Telex QlW74.1387 Telecopier 51214750258

714Jackson, Suite700 Dallas. TX. 752024508 2141742-8944

4824AlbertaAve..Suite 1W ElPaso,TX. 799052793 91515333454
r Jo1Texas.suite 700 tkw,ton, TX. 77002-3111 713/223-W

806Broadway. Sulte312 Lubbock,TX. 79401.3479 8081747-5238
4309N.Tenth.Suite B McAllen,TX. 78501-1885 512mE2&47

200Main Plaza.Suite400 SanAntonio,TX. 782052797 5121225.4191

AnEqualOpportunityI Attlrmatlve Action Employer 

# TheAttorney General ofTexas
Au:?Just13, 1984

Honorable John L. Hu~chison Banaford County Attorney P. 0. Box 506 Spearman. Texas 7!W81 Opinion No. JM-191 Re: Whether a county may lease a building to a district appraisal office for anominal consideration
Dear Mr. Ziutchison: Youhave requested our opinion as to whether Aansford County may purchase land for the construction of an office building to be leased to the Hansford County Appraisal District. You have informed us that the appraisal district has proposed a contract whereby the county would construct an office building and lease it to the appraisal district under a lcase-purchase agreement. The building would be constructed with county funds at an approximate cost of $125,000, for the sole purpose of providing office space to the appraisal district. You ask whether 1:tle county is authorized to enter into such a contract. The Interlocal Cooperation Act, article 4413(32c), V.T.C.S., 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 itself does not :,nfer upon a governmental body any additional substantive auth0rj.t.y to perform particular acts. Thus, wemust look to substantive law to determine whether the county is authorized to enter into the cont,ract at issue here. Anappraisal tl:.strict is a political subdivision responsible for 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 to provide office buildings for county purposes and to lease the unneeded portions 'toprivate 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 comp<nlsatedfor the cost of construction. A commissionr:rs court is required to provide and to keep in repair "all necegic;ary public buildings." V.T.C.S. art. 2351(7). Article 1603, V.TWC.S., provides that the commissioners court shall "provide a court h,ylse andjail for the county, and offices for county

p. 835Honorable John L. Hutchison - I’age 2 (JM-191)

officers.” Appraisal district officials are not county officers and thus are not entitled to of::‘:ice space provided by the county under this statute. Article 2370, section 1. V.T.C.S., permits 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:z8 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” office buildings “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, the context of article 2370b cl’?.%rly indicates that the term “district” refers to judicial district I,ather than to a “district” of any kind whatsoever, Thus, article :!:170b does not authorize the purchase or construction of office build L:rgsfor the purpose of housing officials of an appraisal district. A commissioners court has only those powers specifically conferred by statute. Can,PLesv. 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 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. Very truly your 

# LA-/~

. JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas I *I

I

-. TOM GREEN First Assistant Attorney General

p. 836i Bonorable John L. Rutchiroa - Page 3 ml-191)

DAVIDR. RICHARDS Executive Assistant Attorney (heral Preparerby David Brooks Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE

. Rick Gilpin, Chairman David Brooks Colin Carl Susan Garrison JimMoellinger Nancy Sutton

p. 837