Could a Texas county buy land and build an office solely for its county appraisal district under a lease-purchase agreement?

Texas AG Opinion JM-191: County Building for Appraisal District

Plain-English summary

JM-191 concluded that a county could not purchase land and construct a building solely to provide office space for an appraisal district.

"A county is not authorized to purchase land and construct a building solely for use of an appraisal district."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

The opinion said the statutes permitted counties to provide buildings for county functions and to lease unused portions, but did not authorize construction of a facility solely for another political subdivision.

"The statutes do not permit a county to construct a facility for the sole use of another political subdivision, regardless of whether the county is adequately compensated for the cost of construction."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

A county that constructed an office building for a legitimate county purpose could lease unused space in that building to the appraisal district.

"If the county were to purchase land and construct an office building for legitimate 'county purposes,' it could then lease unused space in that building to the appraisal district."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the Interlocal Cooperation Act itself authorize the project?

No. The act allowed local governments to contract for services that every party was already legally authorized to perform; it did not create new substantive power.

"The Interlocal Cooperation Act in itself does not confer upon a governmental body any additional substantive authority to perform particular acts."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

Why was an appraisal district not entitled to county office space?

The statute requiring offices for county officers did not apply because appraisal-district officials were not county officers.

"Appraisal district officials are not county officers and thus are not entitled to office space provided by the county under this statute."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

Did the statute authorizing buildings for district offices include appraisal districts?

No. JM-191 read "district" in that context as referring to judicial districts.

"The context of article 2370b clearly indicates that the term 'district' refers to judicial districts rather than to a 'district' of any kind whatsoever."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

Would full repayment by the appraisal district cure the problem?

No. The opinion said authority was absent regardless of whether the county recovered the construction cost.

"The statutes do not permit a county to construct a facility for the sole use of another political subdivision, regardless of whether the county is adequately compensated for the cost of construction."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

Could the county lease genuinely unused space?

Yes, when the building had been acquired or constructed for legitimate county purposes and the appraisal district occupied only the unused portion.

"It could then lease unused space in that building to the appraisal district."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Hansford County was considering buying land, constructing an office building with county funds at an approximate cost of $125,000, and leasing it to the appraisal district through a lease-purchase arrangement.

"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."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

An appraisal district was a political subdivision responsible for valuing property for taxing units within its boundaries.

"An appraisal district is a political subdivision responsible for appraising property values for the use of every taxing unit within the appraisal district's boundaries."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

JM-191 applied the limit that a commissioners court possessed only powers specifically conferred by statute.

"A commissioners court has only those powers specifically conferred by statute."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

Citations and references

• The Interlocal Cooperation Act permitted local-government contracts only for services every party was legally authorized to perform.

"The Interlocal Cooperation Act ... permits local governments to contract among themselves for governmental services 'which all parties to the contract are legally authorized to perform.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

• Articles 2351, 1603, 2370, and 2370b supplied the county public-building authorities discussed by the opinion.

"A commissioners court is required to provide and to keep in repair 'all necessary public buildings.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0191
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0191.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

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 comp<nlsated for 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 and jail for the county, and offices for county I *I
Honorable John L. Hutchison - I’age 2 (JM-191)

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.

   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: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”
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: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 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
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