LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
                                   Austin, Texas
         
                                   FISCAL NOTE
                               75th Regular Session
         
                                  April 2, 1997
         
         
      TO: Honorable Fred M. Bosse, Chair            IN RE:  House Bill No. 1794
          Committee on Land and Resource Management                              By: Krusee
          House
          Austin, Texas
         
         
         
         
         FROM:  John Keel, Director    
         
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on HB1794 ( Relating 
to assessment of damages in a condemnation proceeding.) this 
office has detemined the following:
         
         Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by HB1794-As Introduced
         

Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a 
net impact of $0 to General Revenue Related Funds through the 
biennium ending August 31, 1999.
         

         
 
Fiscal Analysis
 
The bill would allow a property owner to establish the value 
of an entire tract or parcel of real property that has been 
condemned as of a date not earlier than the date of the first 
offer made by the condemnor to acquire a tract or parcel of 
real property for the same project. Currently, the damage to 
the property is the local value of the property at the time 
of the special commissioner's court hearing.
 
Methodolgy
 
In the City of Austin v. Westgate case, the Supreme Court of 
Texas held that an owner may not receive compensation for damages 
caused by the public intent of the condemnor to take the property 
absent some direct restriction on use of the property. The Court 
also found that the landowner was entitled to an additional 
$633,000 based on a decrease in the landowner's property value 
from the date of a newspaper article referencing the highway 
project (public intent), until the date of the Special Commissioner's 
hearing.  

TxDot assumes that the expression of public intent 
is equivalent to the first offer for the first parcel in the 
project to be acquired. The $633,000 figure in the Westgate 
case represents a 25% increase due to project influence and 
other non-compensable factors. The cost of all right of way 
purchased by the department for fiscal year 1995, as provided 
by the department, was approximately $98.0 million.  Of that, 
the department estimates that approximately $38.0 million was 
used for the purchase of property acquired through eminent domain. 
The $38.0 million amount reflects only the cost of the property 
and not the attorney fees, or associated right of way costs. 
The department estimate also assumes that only one-half of owners 
elect to establish an earlier date of valuation as provided 
by the proposed legislation, and based on Westgate type percentage 
increases, the department estimates increase in right of way 
costs $4.75 million annually. 

In addition, since the owner 
could choose to change the date of the valuation to the date 
of the first offer for the first parcel in the project, the 
TxDOT estimates it would obtain appraisals on each parcel within 
the project prior to the first offer being made.  The department 
stated that the average cost of an appraisal for fiscal year 
1995 was $2,200 and estimated that approximately 1,000 parcels 
were acquired in fiscal year 1995.  The TxDOT estimates assume 
at least one additional appraisal would be necessary on all 
parcels, and possibly two additional updated appraisals for 
the parcels being condemned.  The cost for the additional appraisals 
would be approximately $2,200,000 per year. TxDot estimates 
that updated appraisals cost, on average, $600;  assuming 20% 
are condemned, the costs of updates would be increased by $240,000 
per year.  Therefore, TxDot estimates the additional costs of 
appraisals is $2,440,000 per year.

TxDot estimates the total 
increase in right-of-way expenditures for each fiscal year following 
enactment to be $7.19 million.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions 
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage 
is estimated as follows:
 
Five Year Impact:
 
Fiscal Year Probable           
            Savings/(Cost)                                                                                
            from State                                                                                    
            Highway Fund                                                                                  
            0006                                                                                           
       1998      ($7,190,000)                                                                        
       1998       (7,190,000)                                                                        
       2000       (7,190,000)                                                                        
       2001       (7,190,000)                                                                        
       2002       (7,190,000)                                                                        
 


 
         Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
 
The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds 
during each of the first five years is estimated as follows:
 
              Fiscal Year      Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
                               General Revenue Related Funds
                                             Funds
               1998                   $0
               1999                    0
               2000                    0
               2001                    0
               2002                    0
 
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as 
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
          
The implications of the bill would apply to local governments 
and would have a similar direct fiscal impact on local governments.
          
   Source:            Agencies:   601   Department of Transportation
                                         302   Office of the Attorney General
                                         
                      LBB Staff:   JK ,BB ,ML