BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 2964

By: Naishtat

County Affairs

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Some hospital districts are created under provisions of law that give county commissioners courts certain oversight responsibilities, primarily in appointing a number of members to the board of managers and approving the annual budget and tax rate.  Changes to those provisions of law have given additional authority to those districts, such as the ability to rename the district and to enter into service contracts without the approval of the commissioners court. C.S.H.B. 2964 seeks to allow certain hospital districts to lease any property or hospital facility without the approval of the county commissioners court and to provide for a related open meeting.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 2964 amends the Health and Safety Code to authorize the board of hospital managers of a hospital district created in a county with a population of more than 800,000 that was not included in the boundaries of a hospital district before September 1, 2003, to lease any property or hospital facility without the approval of the commissioners court of the county.  The bill authorizes the board to enter into a lease only after an open meeting in accordance with state open meetings law, including provisions relating to a closed meeting deliberation regarding real property.  The bill makes a conforming change.

EFFECTIVE DATE

On passage, or, if the bill does not receive the necessary vote, September 1, 2011.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE

C.S.H.B. 2964 differs from the original in its authorization for the board of hospital managers of a certain hospital district to enter into a lease for any property or hospital facility without the approval of the commissioners court to provide the authorization only after an open meeting in accordance with state open meetings law, including provisions relating to a closed meeting deliberation regarding real property, whereas the original, for the authorization, requires the board to post public notice of any such proposed transaction as required by state open meetings law.  The substitute differs from the original in nonsubstantive ways in a conforming change and in a grammatical construction.