LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
                                   Austin, Texas
         
                                   FISCAL NOTE
                               75th Regular Session
         
                                  March 13, 1997
         
         
      TO: Honorable Kenneth Armbrister, Chair            IN RE:  Senate Bill No. 944
          Committee on State Affairs                              By: Whitmire
          Senate
          Austin, Texas
         
         
         
         
         FROM:  John Keel, Director    
         
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB944 ( Relating 
to the financing of sports venues and related infrastructure; 
authorizing the imposition of certain local taxes and the issuance 
of local bonds; providing civil penalties.) this office has 
detemined the following:
         
         Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB944-As Introduced
         
Implementing the provisions of the bill could result in negative 
fiscal impacts under the various possible scenarios.
         

         
 
The bill would amend the Local Government Code by adding an 
additional chapter for sports venue authorities.  The new chapter 
would authorize a city and a county, jointly, to build sports 
venues, levy certain taxes, and issue bonds to finance the stadiums.

A 
"sports venue" would be defined as an arena, coliseum, stadium, 
or other type of facility that is primarily used (or planned 
to be used) for one or more professional or amateur athletic 
events; that is used for  rodeo, agricultural, or livestock 
events, exhibitions, and fairs; and for which a fee for admission 
would be charged, or planned to be charged.  The use of a sports 
venue for events not related to athletics, however, would not 
be prohibited.

The bill would only apply to a municipality 
with a population of more than 1.2 million and a county with 
a population of more than 2.2 million.

A "sports venue project" 
would be defined as a sports venue and the related infrastructure 
that was planned, acquired, established, developed, constructed, 
or renovated under the provisions of the bill.  Related infrastructure 
would include any store, restaurant, concession, automobile 
parking facility, area transportation facility, road, street, 
water or sewer, or other improvement, either on-site or off-site--that 
related to and enhanced the use, value, or appeal of a sports 
venue, and any other expenditure that was reasonably necessary 
to construct, improve, renovate, or expand a sports venue.  
An authority could use the provisions of this bill for a sports 
venue project constructed under other law, including Section 
4B of the Development Corporation Act of 1979 or Subchapter 
E, Chapter 451 of the Transportation Code.

An authority would 
be required to establish, by resolution, a Sports Venue Project 
Fund.  Into the fund would be deposited the proceeds from any 
taxes levied under the provisions of this bill and any other 
monies required by law to be deposited into the fund.  In addition, 
the deposit of proceeds from the sale of luxury boxes, seat 
licenses, stadium rental payments, or concessions or parking 
would be allowed.  An authority would not be able to levy an 
ad valorem tax.  

Bonds could be issued by an authority to 
pay the costs of a sports venue project.  Proceeds from the 
sale of bonds would be deposited in accordance to the documents 
accompanying the issuance of the bonds.  Bonds would have to 
be payable from monies in the sports venue project fund and 
would mature in not more than 30 years.  The bill would state 
that the a sports venue project would be owned, used, and held 
for public purposes by the authority.  While a facility would 
be owned by an authority it would not be subject to property 
taxation.

Several local option taxes would be authorized 
under the provisions of this bill:

A short-term motor vehicle 
rental tax.  Authorities would be authorized to levy a tax on 
the rental, of 30 days or less, of motor vehicles.  The tax 
would be imposed in increments of one-eighth of one percent, 
not to exceed 5 percent.

A hotel occupancy tax.  An authority 
would be authorized to impose a hotel occupancy tax at a rate 
not to exceed 2 percent.

An admissions tax and a parking 
tax.  A tax on each person admitted to an event at a sport venue 
project could be levied at a rate not to exceed $2 per person. 
 A tax on each motor vehicle parked in a facility of a sport 
venue project could be levied at an amount not to exceed $1 
per vehicle.

A sports venue authority would be eligible to 
receive a refund of state and local sales taxes related to the 
incremental increase in state and local sales taxes paid by 
or collected at a sports venue project.  These refunds would 
be made if the Comptroller of Public Accounts, in response to 
a written request for refund from an authority, determined that 
such a refund would not have a negative fiscal impact on state 
revenue.  

The bill would specify that all acts and proceedings 
authorized or undertaken by a municipality, county, or authority 
undertaken before the effective date of this bill would be validated 
and confirmed in all respects. 

This bill would become effective 
immediately upon enactment, assuming that it received the requisite 
two-thirds majority votes in both houses of the Legislature. 
 Otherwise, it would become effective 90 days after adjournment.

Methodology

The 
fiscal impact on the state and on local governments would vary 
depending on which cities and counties would form authorities 
and, of those, what taxes the authorities would choose to enact 
under the provisions of this bill.  

At the current time, 
it appears as though only the City of Houston and Harris County 
would be eligible to form an authority under this bill.

The 
provision authorizing a refund of state (and local) sales taxes 
is not anticipated to have any fiscal impact on the state, as 
such a refund of taxes would not have a negative effect on state 
revenue.

The fiscal impact on the state and on local governments 
in reduced property tax revenue would vary depending on which 
cities enacted the provisions of the bill and converted taxable 
property to exempt "public-use property."  Article 5190.6, Development 
Corporation Act, Section 4B. (k) provides a property tax exemption 
for all approved projects owned, used and held by an eligible 
municipality.  The exemption is based on a provision that defines 
all such projects as "public-use property" which is exempt from 
ad valorem taxes.
 
Section 403.302, Government Code, requires 
the Comptroller to conduct a property value study to determine 
the total taxable value for each school district.  Total taxable 
value is an element in the state's school funding formula.  
Passage of the bill could cause a reduction in a school district's 
taxable values reported to the Commissioner of Education by 
the Comptroller.

When calculating state aid for public education, 
the state must recognize the loss in local property value due 
to exemptions granted to qualified organizations within the 
school district.  Depending on a school district's wealth per 
student, this could result in an increased cost to state-funded 
public education.

The fiscal impact on the state would depend 
on the number and amount of local taxable property removed from 
the local tax rolls due to being converted to public-use property, 
but it is possible to provide a hypothetical example of such 
an impact.  In a hypothetical school district that qualifies 
for both tier-one and tier-two state aid for public education, 
it would cost the state one dollar for each dollar of local 
school district property tax revenue loss due to the provisions 
of the bill.  In such a hypothetical school district in which, 
for example, $100 million of taxable property would be converted 
to public-use property, the probable cost to General Revenue-related 
funds during each fiscal year that the property remained off 
the local tax rolls would be $1.5 million, based on a tax rate 
of $1.50 per $100 of valuation.

Fiscal Impact

The fiscal 
impact on the state and on local governments would vary depending 
on which cities and counties enacted taxes under the provisions 
of the bill.

The bill would likely have negative fiscal impacts 
on the state under the various possible scenarios.

Similar 
annual fiscal implications would continue as long as the provisions 
of the bill are in effect.
          
Because the bill would not have statewide impact on units of 
local government of the same type or class, no comment from 
this office is required by the rules of the Senate as to its 
probable fiscal implication on units of local government.
          
   Source:            Agencies:   304   Comptroller of Public Accounts
                                         
                      LBB Staff:   JK ,JD ,SM