Can a North Carolina district health department charge fares for a public transit service it operates as part of its health care mission, without first creating a separate transportation authority under § 160-496?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ask about yours and see what current North Carolina law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
North Carolina's public transportation director asked whether the Pasquotank-Perquimans-Camden-Chowan District Health Department could operate fare-paying public transit without establishing a transportation authority. The Attorney General answered yes for transportation provided as part of that district department's health care work.
The opinion says G.S. 62-260(a)(1) exempts political subdivisions from North Carolina Utilities Commission regulation. It identifies the district health department as authorized by the legislature under former G.S. 130-14, now G.S. 130A-36, and says G.S. 130A-39 allows it to provide “a for-fee transportation service to reach individuals within the district as a part of its health care effort.”
The answer has a limit: a for-hire service that does not operate in conjunction with the department's health care responsibilities would exceed its authority. The opinion cites State v. Curtis for the rule that a district board of health has only the powers the legislature gives it. It does not prescribe a different legal route for unrelated transit or decide whether a single-county health department has the same exemption.
Currency note
This opinion applies the statutes as understood in 1986 to the named district health department. Check current law before operating a transit service today.
Background and statutory framework
The question specifically asked whether this district health department could operate fare-paying transit without establishing a transportation authority under N.C.G.S. 160-496. The opinion answers yes because the department's health-care-related service is within its statutory work and it is exempt from Utilities Commission regulation as a political subdivision.
The opinion does not describe the size of a permissible fare, identify specific routes or patients, or evaluate unrelated community transit. Its negative conclusion is limited to for-hire transportation that does not operate in conjunction with the department's health care responsibilities.
Common questions
Could the named district health department charge a fare for health-care-related transit?
Yes. The opinion says it may provide a for-fee transportation service to reach people in the district as part of its health care effort.
Would the Utilities Commission regulate that service?
The opinion says no. It applies the political-subdivision exemption in G.S. 62-260(a)(1) to this district health department.
What if the district department ran a for-hire service unrelated to health care?
The opinion says that would be beyond the department's authority. It does not identify another route for operating such a service.
Does the opinion decide whether a single-county health department is also exempt?
No. It addresses the Pasquotank-Perquimans-Camden-Chowan district health department and does not analyze single-county departments.
Source
Citations
- G.S. § 130A-36 (district health department authority)
- G.S. § 130A-39 (district health department functions)
- G.S. § 62-260 and § 62-260(a)(1) (political-subdivision exemption from Utilities Commission)
- G.S. § 159-7
- G.S. § 160-496 (transportation authority statute)
- State v. Curtis, 230 N.C. 169, 52 S.E.2d 364 (1949)
Original opinion text
Requested By:
David D. King, Director of Division of Public Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation
Question:
May the Pasquotank-Perquimans-Camden-Chowan District Health Department Operate Public Transit on a fare paying basis, without establishment of a Transportation Authority pursuant to N.C.G.S. 160-496?
Conclusion:
Yes. G.S. 62-260(a)(1) specifically exempts political subdivisions of the State of North Carolina from regulation by the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
The Pasquotank-Perquimans-Camden-Chowan District Health Department is a product of the legislature, authorized under the former G.S. 130-14 (now G.S. 130A-36). The District Health Department may provide a for-fee transportation service to reach individuals within the district as a part of its health care effort. G.S. 130A-39. The department is exempt from regulation by the Utilities Commission. G.S. 62-260, G.S. 159-7.
The establishment by the District Health Department of a for-hire transportation service which does not operate in conjunction with the Department's health care responsibilities would be beyond the department's authority. The Supreme Court had stated that a district board of health is a creature of the legislature and has only such powers and authorities as are given it by the legislature. State v. Curtis, 230 N.C. 169, 52 S.E.2d. 364 (1949).
Lacy H. Thornburg
Attorney General
Thomas H. Davis, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
What does North Carolina law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1986. Ezel checks the current North Carolina statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace