BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 1982 |
By: Murphy |
Economic & Small Business Development |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The Texas Enterprise Zone Act authorizes the governing body of a county with a population of one million to nominate for designation as an enterprise project a project or activity of a qualified business that is located within the jurisdiction of a municipality located in the county. Interested parties contend that this provision effectively prevents such a county from nominating a company to receive the benefit of the enterprise zone if the project is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city that is not located in the county that nominates the project. C.S.H.B. 1982 seeks to give the governing body of a county more flexibility when nominating a project or activity of a qualified business for designation as an enterprise project.
|
||||||||||||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
|
||||||||||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 1982 amends the Government Code to remove the condition that a county have a population of one million or more for the governing body of the county to be authorized to nominate for designation as an enterprise project a project or activity of a qualified business that is located within the jurisdiction of a municipality located in the county. The bill removes a provision prohibiting a county during any biennium from using in any one municipality more than three of the maximum number of designations the county is permitted. The bill requires a nominating county, before making a nomination, to enter into an interlocal agreement with the municipality that has jurisdiction of the territory in which the nominated project or activity will be located. The bill requires the interlocal agreement to specify that either the nominating county or the municipality that has jurisdiction of the territory in which the nominated project or activity will be located is the governmental body having administration authority and that both the nominating county and municipality approve the nomination. The bill authorizes a county during any biennium to use the maximum number of designations the county is permitted within the specified territory.
C.S.H.B. 1982 creates an exception to provisions of law establishing the governing body of an enterprise zone for a governing body with administration authority established under the terms of the interlocal agreement. The bill adds such an interlocal agreement to the information that a nominating body must submit to the economic development bank before nominating a project or activity of a qualified business for designation as an enterprise project.
C.S.H.B. 1982 authorizes an enterprise project designation to be split into two half designations, with a half designation using one-half of one of the enterprise project designations allowed to a nominating body and to the economic development bank. The bill caps the number of jobs that the bank is authorized to allocate to an enterprise project split into two half designations at 250. The bill establishes that a half enterprise project is eligible for a maximum refund not to exceed $125,000 in each state fiscal year and is subject to the following capital investment and job allocation requirements: · A capital investment in a project of $40,000 to $399,999 will result in a refund of up to $2,500 per job for the creation or retention of 10 jobs · A capital investment in a project of $400,000 to $999,999 will result in a refund of up to $2,500 per job for the creation or retention of 25 jobs · A capital investment in a project of $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 will result in a refund of up to $2,500 per job for the creation or retention of 125 jobs
|
||||||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
On passage, or, if the bill does not receive the necessary vote, September 1, 2013.
|
||||||||||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 1982 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and highlighted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||||||||||
|