Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

JOEN I.. nlxaz A- 0-m Augurt 5. ,1974 The Honorable Edna Cisneros Opinion No. H- 367 County & District Attorney Willacy County Re: Use of a county’s federal Raymondville, Texas 78580 revenue sharing funds to provide medical care when the county is coterminous Dear Ms. Cisneros: with a hospital district. You have asked our opinion on two questiors:dliich are: 1. Can Willacy County~legally grant a portion of its Federal Revenue Sharing Funds to Su Clinica Familiar, a non-profit clinic, to subsidize a maternity project which includes pre-natal, intra partum and postpartum care for low income r.eaidents throughout the county? 2. Can Willacy County legally grant a portion of its Federal Revenue Sharing Funds to the Willacy County Hospital District? In 1971 the Legislature established the Willacy County Hospital District under the authority of Article 9. Sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution. That Article ‘provides in pbrt: . . . that any district so created shall assume full responsibility for providing medical and hospital care for its needy inhabitants . . . [and] that after its creation no other municipality or political subdivision shall have the power to levy taxes or issue bonds or other obligations for ‘hospital~purposes or for providing medical care within the boundaries of the district e . . . p. 1717 The Honorable Edna Cisneror, page 2 (H-367) Section 18 of Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., ch. 323, p. 1270, the Act creating the Willacy County Hospital District, provides: Sec. 18. After creation of the hospital district, no municipality or political subdivision within the boundaries of the district shall have the power to’ levy taxes or issue bonds or other obligations for hospital purposes or for providing medical care. The said hospital shall assume full responsibility for providing hospital care for the indigents re- siding within the district; subject to other provisions ,of this Act. This offi.ce has held that a county may use revenue sharing funds to c0ntrac.t with a priirate corporation to provide i service or function which the county might have performed itrelf. Attorney General Opinion H-127 (1973). However, a county may exercise only those powers which are specifically conferred on it ‘by the Constitution land statutes. Canales v. Laughlin, 214 S. W. 2d 451 (Tex. 1948); Clark v. Finley, 54 S. W. 343 (Tex. 1899); Article 5. Sec. 18, Texas Constitution. While counties have a general duty to provide support for paupers, Article 2351, V. TC.S., the Constitution and statutes have given a hospital district “full respon- sibility for providing medical and hospital care” for the needy inhabitants of Willacy County. Where, as here, a county add a hospital district have identical boundaries, we believe thir grant of authority to the hospital district coupled with the prohibition of any use of county tax or bond revenues for hospit@ or medical care purposes operates to wtthdraw the county@ gene,ral n+e#al, care pqvers. Attorney General Opinion M-870 (1971). ‘~ A use of revenue sharing unds for the support of the clinic t.echnically would not fall within the prohibition of use of county tax or bond money, but if a county has no power to provide these rervices it may not spend any money it might have, from whatever source obtained, for ~thatpurpose. Although we have no doubt that the clinic provides a beneficial and needed service it ir our conclusion that the Cinstitution and statutes of our State;deny tile county the authority to we revenue sharing funds for support of thb clinic. I;or the same reasons we conclude that it may not grant a portian of its revenue sharing funds to the Willacy County Hospital District. p, 1718 The Honorable Edna Cisneros, page 3 (H-367) SUMMARY Where Willacy County and the Willacy County Hospital District have identical boundaries, and where both the Constitution in Article 9. Sec. 9, and the Act creating the district provide that no political subdivi- sion within its boundaries shall have, the power to levy taxes, etc., for hospital purposes or for pro- viding medical care, the county may not use federal revenue sharing funds to support the projects referred toin your questiotis. ., Very truly yours, APPROVED: DAVID M. KENDALL. Chairman Opinion Committee ‘p. 1719