The opinion
AUU~N si.TEXAS
PRICE DiSRXRL
December 13, 1951
Hon. John H. Winters, Executive Director
State Department of Public Welfare
Austin, Texas
Opinion No. V-1373
Re: Legality of entering into
agreements with Water
-Control and Improveme&
Districts, Port and Navi-
gation Districts, River Au-
thorities, and City-County
Tuberculosis ControlBoards
for Social Security coverage
Dear Sir: under Article 6958, V.C.S.
In your letter requesting the opinion of this office on
the above captioned matter you state that approximately twelve or
fifteen Water Control and Improvement Districts have requested
coverage for their employees under the provisions of House Bill
603, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 1951, ch. 500, p. 1480. You also state
that you have received applications for coverage from Port and
Navigation Districts, River Authorities, and City-County Tuber-
culosis Control Bohrds, and request our opinion as to whether
“water control districts such as described herein and similar or-
ganizations [are] eligible to participate in Social Security bene-
fits under the terms of House Bill 603. ”
House Bill 603, codified as Article 69513, V.C.S., pro-
vides that the State Department of Public Welfare ‘is authorized
to enter into agreements with the governing bodies of counties and
with the governing bodies of municipalities of the State which are
eligible for Social Security coverage under Federal law when the
governing body of any of said counties or municipalities desires
to obtain coverage under the old-age and survivor’s insurance
program for their employees, . . .” Art. 6958, Sec. 4.
Section l(f) of House Bill 603 defines municipalities
as follows:
“The term ‘municipality’ means incorporated
cities, towns, and villages.”
Hon. John H. Winters, Page 2 (V-1373)
Substituting this definition, the State Department of
Public Welfare is authorized to enter into agreements only with
the governing bodies of counties and the governing bodies of in-
corporated cities, towns, and villages.
Of course, as pointed out by you, under the Federal
Act the Administrator is authorized, with certain limitations, to
enter into agreements with a state for the purpose of extending
the Federal old-age and survivors insura,nce system to services
performed by individuals as employees of any political subdivi-
sion of the state. 42 U.,S.C.A. Sec. 418 (a)(l). As originally in-
troduced, House Bill 603 provided that the State Department of
Public Welfare was authorized to enter i,nto agreements with the
Federal Social Security Administrator for the purpose of extend-
ing Federal old-age and survivors insurance coverage to all those
authorized to obtain coverage under the Federal Act, that is, to
employees of this State, employees of any of its political subdivi-
sions, and employees of any agencies jointly created by Texas
and another state or states. The Senate amendments to House
Bill 603, which were concurred in by the House May 22, 1951,
made numerous changes in the Bill, one of the principal changes
being the withdrawal of the authorization to the State Department
of Public Welfare to enter into coverage agreements extending
old-age and survivors insurance coverage to employees of any of
the State’s political subdivisions, and the substitution there= of
counties and municipalities. Likewise, the provision which al-
lowed coverage for employees of any agencies jointly created by
Texas and another state or states was omitted.
Apart from the statutory definition of municipalities,
which we have previously quoted, that term by its accepted and
generally recognized definition would not include all the political
subdivisions of a state. We quote the following excerpts from 62
C.J.S.. Municipal Corporations:
8.
. . . a municipal corporation is a legal insti-
tution formed by charter from sovereign power, erect-
ing a populous community of prescribed area into a
body politic and corporate with corporate name and
continuous succession and for the purpose, and with
the authority, of subordinate self-government and im-
provement and local administration of affairs of state.
. . .
“The foregoing definition impliedly excludes
parishes, counties, townships, and districts, which
are almost municipalities and yet are deficient in
some of the essential attributes of a municipal cor-
poration, while it expresses the complex nature of
Hon. John H. Winters. Page, 3 (V-1373) ..I? : ‘. i
then corporation; whcrcby it acts as-~aimunicipiam and
also as a local agency lor administering rnd :enfercing ,:
the laws of the state.” Sec:l,.pp.:61, 62.. .p.. : .. . . ..I ~,
“A municipal: corporation is eom&kl~ called a. j
‘municipality,’ a word formerly employed to designate
only the body of officers of-the corporation, but now
by judicial recognition and commonuse enlarged to a
synonym of the corporation in its entirtty. :. . . .~,
., . .. . ,.. ,.
‘The term ‘municipality’:is all-embracing, ana ,.
includes cities of all classes, as weU as towns and s
villages; a municipality has been saidLto be commonjy .,
called a city or a town.” Sec. l(d), p. 64. -
“Various political or public,districts or sections
of territory delimited and organized for the perform-
ance.of particular governmental functions, and various
boards or official persons established for public pur-
poses are not ‘municipal corporations’ or ‘municipal-
ities’ in the strict sense of these terms; . . .” Sec. 5b
(l), P. 75.
In Willacy County Water Control and Improvement
Dist. No. 1 v. Abendroth, 142 Tex. 320, 177 -.2d 936, 937.(1944),
the court said:
u
. . . Irrigation districts, navigation districts,
levee and improvement districts, and like political
subdivisions created under Section 59a of Article XVI
of the Constitution, and statutes enacted thereunder
carrying out the purposes of such constitutional pro-
vision, are not classed with municipal corporations,
but are held to be political subdivisions of the State,
performing governmental functions..and standing up-
onthe same footing as counties and other :political
subdivisions established by.iaw.- Harris County.Flood
,Control District v. Mann, 135 Tex. 239, 140 S.W.2d.
1098; Wharton County Drainage District No.l et al.
v. Higbee et al., Tex. Civ. App.. 149 S.W. 381, writ
refused; Bexar,-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Imp-
provement District.No. 1 v. State, Tex. Civ. ~App., 21
S.W.2d 747, writ refused; Engleman Land Co. et ,al.
v. Donna Irrigation District.No. 1 et al.. T~ex. Civ.
App., 209 SIW. 428, writ refused; Arneson v.~S.hary .’
et al., Tex. Civ.‘App., 32 S.W.2d 907, appeal dismissed,
Arne8on.v. United Irr. Go.,.284 U.S. 5.92, 52 .S.Ct. 202,
76 L.Ed. 510; Harris County Drainage District No. 12
v. City of Houston, Tex. Corn. App.. 35 S.W.Zd 118, 120;
44 Tex. Jur., p. 262. 8 176.”
Hon. rohn W. Winters, Page 4 ‘(V-1373).
We, therefore. think it clear that Water Control and
Improvement Districts, Port ,and Navigation Districts, River Au-
thorities, and other similar political subdivisions ~of the State
cannot be included in the word ‘municipalities” as used in House
Bill 603 and are not covered by its provisions.
We pass ~to a consideration of the applications which
you haves received from City-County Tuberculosis Control Boards.
Article 4437a, Section 6A, V.C.S., provides for the creation of
City-County Tuberculosis Control Boards in the event that the
governing bodies of the county and of the city or cities within the
county adopt the provisions of Section 6A for the purpose of con-
ducting a joint program of tuberculosis control within the city or
cities and the county.
Both an annual county and an annual city tax are au-
thorized to be levied to carry out the purposes of Section 6A pro-
vided that the tax be submitted to and approved by a majority vote
of the qualified taxpaying voters of the city or cities and the coun-
ty.
In the event the city or cities and the county engage in
such program and vote such special taxes, such city or cities and
the county have the power to create a City-County Tuberculosis
Control Board composed of five members who are appointed as
provided in Section PA.
Section 6A(e) reads as :follows:
,-The Board shall have~power to carr,y out the
terms of this section in orde,r to alleviate, suppress
and prevent the spread of tuberculosis within the coun-
ty, as a public health function, subject to the provisions
hereof. The funds derived from the special taxes here-
in authorized shall be combined together by joint action
of the county and city or cities and be expended by or
under the direction of such Board subject to the limita-
tions herein; provided that such funds shall be expend-
ed to provide necessary economic aid to indigent per-
sons suffering from tuberculosis and dependent mem-
bers of their immediate family, upon certification in
each case to the Board by the city or county health of-
ficer, to the effect that the persons receiving such aid
are indigents, and that they are bona fide residents of
the county and have been for more than six months;
and such funds may also be expended to provide for ad-
ministration expenses hereunder, including case inves-
tigation and necessary equipment and services, but for
no other purposes.”
..
, . . s
Hon. John H. Winters, Page 5 (V-1373)
It is well settled that the protection of the public health
is one of the first duties of government. 39 C.J.S. 811, Health, II 2.
The employees of City-County Tuberculosis Control Boards are
engaged in performing services in connection with a governmental
function. If either the city or the county were discharging this
same function alone, their employees engaged in rendering serv-
ices in connection with its discharge would clearly come within
the provisions of House Bill 603. We think that employees engaged
in rendering services in connection with the joint action of the city
and county for effectuating the same purpose through these Boards
are likewise eligible for coverage under House Bill 603. However,
in this connection we call to your attention the numerous provi-
sions of House Bill 603 which require the respective governing
bodies of the various counties or municipalities which enter into
agreements with the Department of Public Welfare to give assur-
ances of financial responsibility for the participating counties’ or
cities’ share in the program. Of necessity, such guarantees could
be made only by the County Commissioners’ Court and the govern-
ing body of the city or cities creating the particular City-County
Tuberculosis Control Board. We suggest that applichtions for cov-
erage should therefore be made by such authorities rather than by
the individual City-County Tuberculosis Control Boards.
SUMMARY
House Bill 603 of the 52nd Legislature, as amend-
ed in the Senate and now codified as Article 6958, V.C.
S., does not authorize the State Department of Public
Welfare to enter into agreements for Social Security
coverage of the employees of Water Control and Im-
provement Districts, Port and Navigation Districts,
and River Authorities, since such political subdivisions
do not come within the term .“municipslity” as used in
the Act. The Department is authorized to enter into
coverage agreements with the governing bodies of the
respective counties and cities which have established
City-County Tuberculosis Control Boards pursuant to
the provisions of Article 44378, Section 6A, for cover-
age of the Boards’ employees.
Yours very truly,
APPROVED:
PRICE DANIEL
W. V. Geppert Attorney General
Taxation Division
./
Charles D. Mathews B y4?ih&h& ,h 4.4
First Assistant Mrs. MariettaMcGr
9 gor Creel
Assistant
MMC/mwb