DAN MORALES

.ATT”RNEY GENERAL 

## QBfficeof tfy !Zlttornep @eneral &ate of lEeme December 8,1992

Honorable Thomas E. White Hamilton County Attorney P. 0. Box 831 Hamilton, Texas 76531 Opinion No. DM-186 Re: Whether the boundaries of the Hamilton Hospital District, described in the district% authorizing legislation as coextensive with certain. commissioners precincts of Hamilton County, change in accordance with the county’s subsequent redistricting of those commissioners precincts (RQ-395)
Dear Mr. White:
You ask about the boundaries ofthe Hamilton County Hospital District (the

“district”). The bill authorizing the district’s creation was adopted in 1987. Acts 1987,7OthLeg., 2d C.S.,ch.42, P 1.03,at 131. Ini989, the 1987enabling legislation was amended to provide that the district boundaries are to be “coextensivewith the boundaries of commissioners precincts 1,2, and 4 ofHamilton County.” Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 591, 5 1, at 1960. The 1989 bill further specifies that one district director “shall be elected from each commissioner precinct included in the district and two directors shall be elected from the district at large.” Id. at 1961.
You advise that since the above-mentioned 1989 amendments, Hamilton County has redrawn its commissioners precinct lines. You ask whether the district’s boundaries change in accordance with Hamilton County’s redrawing of its commissioners precinct lines or whether they remain coextensive with the boundaries of the county’s commissioners precincts 1,2, and 4 as the latter existed at the time ofthe 1989amendments, which referred to such commissioners precinct boundaries for purposes of describing the territory of the district. In our opinion, the district’s boundaries - both externally, and internally for purposes of director elections-remain coextensive with those of Hamilton County’s commissioners precincts 1,2, and 4 as the latter existed at the time ofthe 1989legislation.

p. 976Honorable Thomas E. White - Page 2 (IN-186)

We note first that, although wefind no Texas cases on point, it has been held elsewhere that “under ordinary rules of construction,” a delineation of a political subdivision’sboundary byreference to that of another political subdivision refers to the boundary as it existed at the time of such delineation. Boca Ckgu Sanitary Df.rz. v. State, 161 So.2d 529 (Pla 1964). We think such rules of construction should be applied in this instance. Presumably the legislature’s provision for the boundaries ofthe district in the 1989 legislation resulted from a legislative determination as to what specific geographic portion ofHamilton County wasin need of a hospital district. We think itunlikely, therefore, that the legislature would have intended that the occasions of the redrawings of internal commissioners precinct lines by a discreet political entity, Hamilton County, would have the effect of periodically relocating the district’s boundaries.1 County commissioners courts, under article V, section 18(a) of the Texas Constitution have broad powers to alter county commissioners precinct lines

“fromtune to time, for the convenience ofthe people.” See, eg., Attorney General Opinion 06091 (1945). If the legislature had intended that the county’s redistricting of its commissioners precinct would effect corresponding changes in the district’s boundaries, potentially of considerable magnitude, we think it would have specifically provided for such.2

‘The Hamilton County Hospital Diict is a political entity discreet from Hamilton County. It has its own elected directors, and may impose taxes, issue bonds, make contracts, and exercise powers of eminent domain. See Acts l987,7Otb Leg., 2d CS., cb. 42, arts.4,5,7,8. Tbcre are no provisions in the district’s legislation, however, for alteration of the disk& boundarieJ.

we do not think It *wessaly in this wntext to reach the questioa whether the 1egisLatwc could constitionaUy have created an arrangement whereby the district’s boumlaries cbangcd in accordance with county redistsictiog. The possiilc consequences of such an arrangement-that persons who had voted for the district and its taxiag authority and paid tzrcs would suddenly End themselvw no longer in the district, and persons who had not previously been induded in the district would End themselves within it and presumably liable for taxes they had not voted for - might raise wastihuiod Issues. Also, please note that we do not understand you to ask about, and M consequently do not address here, problems tbc districl may encounter with respect to constitutional one-person-one-vote requirements, given Its continued use of commissioners precinct lines which Hamilton County has found it advisable, probably, at least in part, out of one-pcrson-onc-vote coosideratioas, to redraw. See, q., Awy Y.Midland Gwty, 3% U.S. 474 (1968).

p. 977Honorable Thomas E. White - Page 3 (DM-186)

SUMMARY The boundaries of the Hamilton County Hospital District, which are delineated in the district’s enabling legislation, as amended, by reference to the boundaries of Hamilton County’s commissioners precincts numbers 1.2, and 4, are not changed as a result ofthe county’ssubsequent redistricting of said precincts, but remain coextensive with the boundaries of commissioners precincts 1, 2. and 4, as they existed at the time of the legislature’s designation ofthe district’sboundaries.

DAN MORALES Attorney General ofTexas
WILL PRYOR First Assistant Attorney General
MARY KELLER Deputy Assistant Attorney General
RENEAHrcKs Special Assistant Attorney General MADELEINE B.JOHNSON Chair, Opinion Committee Prepared by William Walker Assistant Attorney General

p. 978