LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
March 14, 2001
TO: Honorable Rene Oliveira, Chair, House Committee on Ways &
Means
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB20 by Corte (Relating to the application of the sales
tax to certain real property services provided by
municipalities.), As Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* HB20, As Introduced: a negative impact of $(86,909,000) through *
* the biennium ending August 31, 2003, if the effective date of the *
* bill is July 1, 2001; and a negative impact of $(76,822,000) *
* through the biennium ending August 31, 2003, if the effective date *
* of the bill is October 1, 2001. *
**************************************************************************
The following table assumes an effective date of July 1, 2001.
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
***************************************************************************
*Fiscal Probable Probable Probable Probable *
* Year Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue *
* Gain/(Loss) to Gain/(Loss) to Gain/(Loss) to Gain/(Loss) to *
* General Revenue Cities Transit Counties/SPDs *
* Fund Authorities *
* 0001 *
* 2001 $(3,269,000) $0 $0 $0 *
* 2002 (40,907,000) (7,386,000) (2,850,000) (874,000) *
* 2003 (42,733,000) (7,716,000) (2,977,000) (913,000) *
* 2004 (44,674,000) (8,066,000) (3,112,000) (954,000) *
* 2005 (46,700,000) (8,432,000) (3,254,000) (998,000) *
* 2006 (48,774,000) (8,807,000) (3,398,000) (1,042,000) *
***************************************************************************
The following table assumes an effective date of October 1, 2001.
***************************************************************************
*Fiscal Probable Probable Probable Probable *
* Year Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue *
* Gain/(Loss) to Gain/(Loss) to Gain/(Loss) to Gain/(Loss) to *
* General Revenue Cities Transit Counties/SPDs *
* Fund Authorities *
* 0001 *
* 2002 $(34,089,000) $(5,540,000) $(2,137,000) $(655,000) *
* 2003 (42,733,000) (7,716,000) (2,977,000) (913,000) *
* 2004 (44,674,000) (8,066,000) (3,112,000) (954,000) *
* 2005 (46,700,000) (8,432,000) (3,254,000) (998,000) *
* 2006 (48,774,000) (8,807,000) (3,398,000) (1,042,000) *
***************************************************************************
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would amend Chapter 151 of the Tax Code to exclude certain waste
removal services from the definition of taxable real property services,
if the service was provided directly by a municipality.
The bill would take effect July 1, 2001, assuming that it received the
requisite two-thirds majority votes in both houses of the Legislature.
Otherwise, it would take effect October 1, 2001.
Methodology
The bill would exempt the taxation of garbage, rubbish, or other solid
waste removal services, other than certain selected services such as
hazardous waste and domestic sewage.
Data on waste removal services provided by municipalities were gathered
from the U. S. Census Bureau. Estimated sales were multiplied by the
state sales tax rate, adjusted for potential effective dates of July 1,
2001 and October 1, 2001 and extrapolated through 2006. Fiscal
implications on units of local government were estimated proportionally.
Local Government Impact
Local units of government would have a corresponding fiscal impact from
sales tax revenues, as indicated in the tables above.
Source Agencies: 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff: JK, SD, SM