AUSTIN - Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion yesterday finding that a hospital district located within a county where a taxpayer resides is “of no legal consequence” when it comes to spending property tax revenue.
Nichole Mock, auditor for Wheeler County, sent an opinion request to the Office of the Attorney General on Aug. 18, 2022, records show.
The request asked multiple questions, with the first one as follows: “Can Wheeler County, as a taxing entity, use county tax revenue to pay a supplement to the two hospital districts located within the county regardless of the hospital district residency of the taxpayers who fund this supplement?”
According to the request, Wheeler County has the unique situation of having two legislatively created hospital districts located within its boundaries, with all property owners residing in either hospital districts and, therefore, assessed hospital district taxes by one of the hospital districts.
Local taxpayers also elect a board of directors for each hospital district, and a taxpayer may only vote for board members in the hospital district in which the taxpayer resides. Over the years, both hospital districts have requested the county provide monetary assistance to each hospital district in the operation of their respective EMS departments.
The request asked whether there were any statutes prohibiting “sending taxpayer funds to another taxing entity for which the taxpayer has no representation/vote as to the board members elected to make fiscal decisions regarding the use of the funds provided by the County to each hospital district?”
The OAG opinion found that the use of county funds to fulfill a statutory function of the county generally serves a public purpose of the county, concluding that when it comes to spending tax revenue, the hospital district in which the taxpayer resides is of no legal concern.
“The hospital district in which a county taxpayer resides and votes is of no legal consequence when it comes to the expenditure of county property tax revenue,” the opinion states.
Opinion No. KP-0435