83(R) SB 1699 - Introduced version

LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas

FISCAL NOTE, 83RD LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION


April 22, 2013

TO:	Honorable Judith Zaffirini, Chair, Senate Committee on Government Organization

FROM:	Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board

IN RE:	SB1699 by Rodríguez (Relating to the application of municipal zoning regulations to certain commercial property in which the General Land Office retains an ownership interest.), As Introduced

Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for SB1699, As Introduced: an impact of $0 through the biennium ending August 31, 2015.

The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill.

General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact:

Fiscal Year	Probable Net Positive/(Negative) Impact to General Revenue Related Funds
2014	$0
2015	$0
2016	$0
2017	$0
2018	$0

All Funds, Five-Year Impact:

Fiscal Year	Probable Revenue Gain/(Loss) from Permanent School Fund 44
2014	($1,600,000)
2015	($1,600,000)
2016	($1,600,000)
2017	($1,600,000)
2018	($1,600,000)

The bill would amend the Local Government Code to specify that a building, other structure, or land located in a county with a population of more than 800,000 that is located along an international border and contains a municipality with a population of more than 615,000 that the General Land Office (GLO) retains ownership wholly or partly is not under the control or jurisdiction of a state agency. Based on the applicability criteria, the provisions would apply only to El Paso County.

Under current law, Local Government Code, 211.103 (c), exempts building, structures, and land under the jurisdiction of state and federal agencies from General Zoning Regulations authority established in Local Government Code, Chapter 211, Subchapter A. The bill would effectively remove that exemption for GLO-owned lands in El Paso County, thereby subjecting GLO-owned lands to local zoning ordinances.

The General Land Office (GLO) reports that passage of the bill would likely result in a loss of revenue to the Permanent School Fund (PSF) No. 44 as a result of PSF lands in El Paso County no longer being exempt from local zoning ordinances. This analysis assumes that quarries on GLO-owned lands that currently operate within El Paso County would no longer be authorized to operate because of local zoning ordinances where they are located.

The GLO reports that over $1 million in revenue to the PSF was generated from current mining operations on PSF tracts in El Paso County during fiscal year 2012. This analysis assumes that these mining operations would be prohibited as a result of the bill's passage. The GLO reports that these same mining operations are expected to generate $1.6 million per fiscal year during 2014-2018. The revenue loss is indicated in the table above. The GLO also expects that the bill would prohibit mining operations from becoming operational on PSF lands in El Paso County in the future. The agency expects that these future mining operations would generate an additional $0.3 million in revenues absent the bill's passage. This additional loss from potential future operations is not included in the amounts indicated in the table above.

The Texas Education Agency indicates the bill could have fiscal implications for the Foundation School Program (FSP), although the precise impact would depend upon the level of revenue lost to the Permanent School Fund (PSF). GLO manages mineral royalties and other land-management revenues that benefit the Permanent School Fund (PSF), the interest income of which provides funding for the FSP. Because the bill could result in a loss of revenue to the PSF in the form of reduced royalties, a decreased amount of income might be available for transfer to the Available School Fund, one of the sources of funding for the FSP.

Local Government Impact

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 House/Senate as to its probable fiscal implication on units of local government.