LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE 75th Regular Session April 5, 1997 TO: Honorable Kenneth Armbrister, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 841 Committee on State Affairs By: Cain Senate Austin, Texas FROM: John Keel, Director In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB841 ( Relating to ad valorem taxation.) this office has detemined the following: Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB841-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. The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill. Fiscal Analysis The bill would amend Title 1 of the Tax Code to allow appraisal district board members to be elected from county commissioner precincts, with one at-large member elected from the county. Appraisal district directors are currently selected by vote of the county, cities, school districts, and in some instances, conservation and reclamation districts participating in the appraisal districts. The taxing units cast votes in proportion to their tax levies within the appraisal districts. The annual increase in valuation of a residence homestead in the preceding year would be limited to the lesser of the market value of the property or 105 percent of the appraised value of the property for the preceding year, plus the market value of new improvements. The Legislature has determined, with some exceptions, that all taxable property would be appraised at its market value as of January 1 of the tax year. Chief Appraisers would be required to follow generally accepted appraisal methods and techniques recognized by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The bill would require chief appraisers to follow specific statutory standards when applying any of the three approaches to determining market value (market, cost, and income). Section 23.01(b) of the Tax Code only requires chief appraisers to determine market value by application of generally accepted appraisal techniques, with consideration given to each property's individual characteristics affecting market value. The bill would expand the current 65-and over tax limitation on school taxes to include city and county taxes. Article VIII, Section 1-b(d) of the Texas Constitution and Section 11.26 of the Tax Code currently provide that once a person receives a 65-and over homestead exemption, the person would receive a tax ceiling for that home on total school taxes. The school taxes on that home cannot increase as long as the person owns and lives in that home. Under current law, property owners lose their 65-and over school tax freeze if they move to a different home. This bill would allow an owner to continue to pay the frozen amount of taxes on a subsequent homestead. The bill would impose an additional delinquent tax penalty on persons who are delinquent because they have multiple homestead exemptions or receive 65-and over or 55-and over surviving spouse homestead exemptions and failed to meet the statutory age requirements. The penalty would be 50 percent of the amount of tax. The chief appraiser would be required to deliver with a property owner's notice of appraised value a detailed explanation of the time and procedure for protesting the owner's value. Section 25.19 of the Tax Code requires the chief appraiser to provide only a brief explanation of time and procedures. This bill would take effect September 1, 1997. Methodolgy Sections 14 and 15 would require chief appraisers to follow the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and meet new statutory appraisal requirements in determining market value by each of the three methods of appraisal (market, cost, and income). Current law only requires that a chief appraiser determine market value by applying generally accepted appraisal techniques. The additional appraisal requirements proposed in this bill could increase appraisal costs to appraisal districts and local governments. The Harris County Appraisal District has estimated that this provision would result in an increase in annual district administrative costs of $296 million. These costs would be passed on to local taxing units, including school districts. The bill would also impose a penalty on persons who have multiple homestead exemptions or who receive 65-and over or 55-and over surviving spouse homestead exemptions and failed to meet the statutory age requirements. Passage of the bill and imposition of the proposed penalty could increase revenues to local governments. The potential revenue would depend on the incidence of the penalty and the amount of tax due. The requirement that chief appraisers provide property owners with a detailed explanation of the time and procedure for protesting before an Appraisal Review Board (ARB) could result in additional printing and distribution costs to the Comptroller. The Comptroller might have to print and distribute additional copies of the publication "Taxpayers' Rights, Remedies and Responsibilities" to appraisal districts. The proposal could also increase printing, mailing and distribution costs to appraisal districts. The requirement that chief appraisers cap appraised value increases at 105 percent of the prior year's appraised value would generate costs to the state and local governments. The amount of property value that would be excluded from the tax rolls was estimated by analyzing property category value increases from 1995 to 1996 in each school district. The first-year estimate was trended up to account for growth in the state's property tax base. An overall property category value increase of 5 percent means that about one half of the properties are increasing by more than 5 percent and one half by less than 5 percent. The proportion of property increasing by more than 5 percent was adjusted upward or downward for overall property category value increases of more or less than 5 percent. Property value increases of more than 5 percent are lost for levy purposes. The school funding formula would reimburse school districts after a one-year lag, resulting in a state cost and a corresponding reduction in the cost to school districts. The bill would allow persons 65 years of age or older who move from one homestead to another to continue a tax freeze that they would otherwise lose under current law, creating a cost to local governments and to the state. A mobility factor was estimated by dividing the national number of 65-and over homesteads moving within their states by the total US number of 65-and over homesteads. The mobility factor times the number of 65-and over homesteads in Texas equals the number of Texas 65-and over homesteads moving. The number of Texas 65-and over homesteads moving times the average freeze value loss times the 1996 average tax rate equals the yearly levy loss from movers. The levy loss was trended over the projection period. Each year's levy loss, net of 65-and over deaths, is cumulative. The school funding formula would reimburse school districts after a one-year lag, resulting in a state cost and a corresponding reduction in the cost to school districts. The bill's extension of tax ceilings on homesteads of the elderly (65-and over tax freeze) to cities and counties would create a cost for counties and cities. To estimate this cost, the value of eligible property and the tax rates applicable to the property were trended over the projection period. Average city and county tax rates were applied to the eligible property values and incremental property tax levies were calculated from a base year (fiscal 1998). The incremental levies would be lost to the taxing units and would be cumulative over the projection period. Deaths and out-migration were assumed to equal new 65-and over taxpayers and in-migration of 65-and over taxpayers. 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 Revenue Probable Revenue Probable Revenue Probable Revenue Gain/(Loss) from Gain/(Loss) from Gain/(Loss) from Gain/(Loss) from General Revenue School Districts Cities Counties Fund 0001 LCL-SCHOOL LCL-CITY LCL-COUNTY 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 1998 0 (49,500,000) (31,500,000) (27,500,000) 2000 (49,500,000) (14,400,000) (47,700,000) (39,300,000) 2001 (63,900,000) (13,800,000) (63,200,000) (50,500,000) 2002 (77,700,000) (12,700,000) (79,200,000) (62,200,000) 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 (49,500,000) 2001 (63,900,000) 2002 (77,700,000) Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as the provisions of the bill are in effect. Source: Agencies: 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts LBB Staff: JK ,JD ,BR