Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hospital District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nacogdoches council urges state to consider changes to hospital district law after fraught debate
Summary
The Nacogdoches City Council voted to ask the Texas Legislature to consider amending parts of chapter 1069 governing the Nacogdoches Hospital District, citing operating shortfalls, pension liabilities and bond debt; the resolution passed 3–1–1 after public questions and lengthy council debate.
Mayor Randy Johnson said the council would ask state lawmakers to amend parts of chapter 1069 of the Texas Special District Local Laws Code to give stakeholders a greater role in the Nacogdoches Hospital District's governance and finances.
The move followed presentations from staff outlining what they described as the district's precarious finances: roughly $3 million in indigent-care costs, about $45–47 million in bond debt and an $18 million pension shortfall. "We need the hospital to be righted," City Manager Beverly said during the discussion.
Why it matters: Council members argued that changing the statute could let the hospital access different forms of economic-development funding and open pathways for a larger operating partner — steps they said would help stabilize services and reduce pressure on the city budget.
Opponents and questions: Some council members and public commenters warned the change would replace an elected hospital board with appointees. Resident John (self-identified) asked how altering the law would affect the sales-tax structure that currently funds the hospital and whether such a change would require an election. "How can we change it without another vote?" he asked. Mayor Johnson responded that an election would be required to change a current tax but said the resolution asks only the legislature to consider statutory changes; "nothing would change" on the ground until state law and related processes allow it.
The vote and next steps: The council voted to approve the resolution urging the legislature to consider amendments; the final tally was three in favor, one against and one abstention. The mayor said the resolution is intended to prompt a legislative filing and to encourage the county and the hospital district to discuss a joint approach. If the county and hospital district adopt a matching resolution, the city said it would coordinate language for legislators and may seek a joint meeting of the three entities.
What remains uncertain: Staff and council members acknowledged the process could take multiple legislative sessions and that any statutory change would require concurrence from other stakeholders and likely iterations in committee. Council members also noted that the resolution does not itself change tax collections or board composition; it requests legislative consideration.
