## THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUWNN. TBEXAEI 787lI

November 29, 1974 The Honorable Howard Freemyer CountyAttorney Kent County Jayton, Texas 79528 Opinion No. H- 462 Re: Whether county owes taxes onproperty located in another county. Dear Mr. Freemyer:

You state that Kent County owns approximately three sections of land in Hudspeth County for which it has received no rent or lease money. The Kent County Commissioners Court has declared thatthe land is used for a public purpose. You wish to know “[wlhether or not a county owes County-State and school taxes onproperty in another county. ”

The Constitution of Texas, in article 11, section 9provides:

The property of counties, cities and towns, owned andheld only for public purposes, such as public buildings andthe sites therefor, fire engines and the furniture thereof, and all property used, or intended for extinguishing fires, public grounds andall other property devoted exclusively tothe use andbenefit ofthe public shall be exempt from forced sale and from taxation, provided, nothing herein shall prevent the enforcement ofthe vendors lien, the mechanics or builders lien, or other liens now existing. Again, in article 8, section 2(a), it is provided, in part:

All occupation taxes shall be equal anduniform uponthe same class of subjects within the limits

ps 2118The Honorable Howard Freemyer page 2 (H-462)

of the authority levying the tax: butthelegislature may, by general laws, exempt from taxation public property used for public purposes: . . . . Pursuant to this provision, the Legislature has included as one of the exemptions expressed in article 7150, V. T. C.S., the following: All property,. whether real or personal, belonging exclusively to this State, or anypolitical subdivision thereof, or the United States,
. . . . Sec. 4 Ithas been suggested that the exemption declared in article 7150 exceeds thepower of the Legislature. City ofAbilene v. State, 113S.W. 2d 631 (Tax. Civ. App. --Eastland 1937, writ dism). The most authoritative discussion ofwhat property is devoted to public purposes and is therefore exempt may be found in A. &M. Consolidated IndependentSchool District v. City ofBryan, 184 S.W. 2d 914 (Tex. Sup. 1945).

However, you neither asked nor have you given us sufficient facts to determine whether the property would be exempt from taxation if located inKent County. Your question assumes thatit would be exempt andasks whether the exemption is affected by thelocation of the property in Hudspeth County.

‘There is ample authority thatan exemption ofthe property ofa political subdivision is not defeated because theproperty is located outside the geographic limits of the subdivision. Sees., A. & M. Consolidated I.&D. v. Citv of Bryan, supra (city owz electric lines located outside city andwithin school district); City ofAbilene v. State, supra (property purchased by city for use as reservoir outside its limits);% of Dallas v.State, 28 S.W. 2d 937 (Tex. Civ. App. --Fort Worth, 1930, writ ref’d) (city owned reservoir site located outside county).

Itis our opinion, therefore, thatcountyownedproperty which is tax exempt under article 9, section 11ofthe Constitution of Texas or under a statute adopted pursuant to article 8, section 2 of the Constitution, does notlose its exemption because suchproperty is located in another county.

p. 2119The Honorable Howard Freemyer page 3 (H-462)

SUMMARY The fact thatcounty owned property may be located inanother county does notaffect its tax exempt status if, in fact, it would otherwise be tax exempt. Very truly yours,

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee lg

p. 2120