LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 83RD LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION May 14, 2013 TO: Honorable John Davis, Chair, House Committee on Economic & Small Business Development FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:SB507 by Watson (Relating to public and private facilities and infrastructure.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for SB507, Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted: a negative impact of ($95,000) 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.
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 83RD LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
May 14, 2013
TO: Honorable John Davis, Chair, House Committee on Economic & Small Business Development FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:SB507 by Watson (Relating to public and private facilities and infrastructure.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted
TO: Honorable John Davis, Chair, House Committee on Economic & Small Business Development
FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB507 by Watson (Relating to public and private facilities and infrastructure.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted
Honorable John Davis, Chair, House Committee on Economic & Small Business Development
Honorable John Davis, Chair, House Committee on Economic & Small Business Development
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
SB507 by Watson (Relating to public and private facilities and infrastructure.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted
SB507 by Watson (Relating to public and private facilities and infrastructure.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for SB507, Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted: a negative impact of ($95,000) 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.
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for SB507, Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted: a negative impact of ($95,000) 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 ($57,500) 2015 ($37,500) 2016 ($45,000) 2017 ($45,000) 2018 ($45,000)
2014 ($57,500)
2015 ($37,500)
2016 ($45,000)
2017 ($45,000)
2018 ($45,000)
All Funds, Five-Year Impact: Fiscal Year Probable Savings/(Cost) fromGeneral Revenue Fund1 2014 ($57,500) 2015 ($37,500) 2016 ($45,000) 2017 ($45,000) 2018 ($45,000)
Fiscal Year Probable Savings/(Cost) fromGeneral Revenue Fund1 2014 ($57,500) 2015 ($37,500) 2016 ($45,000) 2017 ($45,000) 2018 ($45,000)
2014 ($57,500)
2015 ($37,500)
2016 ($45,000)
2017 ($45,000)
2018 ($45,000)
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would amend the Government Code, Chapters 2166, 2267 and 2268, to add requirementsrelating to the public and private facility and infrastructure projects including application of municipal zoning regulations, conflicts of interest, and the hiring of former or retired employees of the government entity for projects and public hearings for related projects.The bill would exempt projects located in the Capitol Complex from municipal zoning and require that any Capitol Complex project meet design standards as part of the complex master plan. The bill would create a Special Board of Review for an appeal process for state owned land projects not approved by their municipalities. The bill would modify the composition of the Partnership Advisory Commission and would require that the State Preservation Board provide administrative staffing to the commission.The bill would take effect September 1, 2013.
Methodology
The State Preservation Board (SPB) estimates the total cost to comply with the provisions of the bill would be $57,500 in General Revenue in fiscal year 2014; $37,500 in General Revenue in fiscal year 2015; and $45,000 in subsequent fiscal years.Under the provisions of the bill, the SPB would be required to provide administrative staff to the Partnership Advisory Commission, which is the body that oversees public private partnership projects for the state and to review project proposals within the Capitol Complex for compliance with design standards of the complex master plan. To meet these requirements, the SPB anticipates that it would hire a consultant to review proposed projects at a cost of $15,000 for each project. The agency assumes five projects would be reviewed during the 2014-15 biennium and three projects per year in subsequent years. In addition, the agency anticipates the selected consultant would cost an additional $20,000 in the first year to study the program requirements.The Texas Facilities Commission (TFC) indicates that implementation of the provisions of the bill would require certain project reviews, analyses, approvals, and other related evaluations that could potentially result in significant costs and staff resources. The Office of the Attorney General and the General Land Office anticipate any additional work resulting from the passage of the bill could be reasonably absorbed within current resources.
The State Preservation Board (SPB) estimates the total cost to comply with the provisions of the bill would be $57,500 in General Revenue in fiscal year 2014; $37,500 in General Revenue in fiscal year 2015; and $45,000 in subsequent fiscal years.Under the provisions of the bill, the SPB would be required to provide administrative staff to the Partnership Advisory Commission, which is the body that oversees public private partnership projects for the state and to review project proposals within the Capitol Complex for compliance with design standards of the complex master plan. To meet these requirements, the SPB anticipates that it would hire a consultant to review proposed projects at a cost of $15,000 for each project. The agency assumes five projects would be reviewed during the 2014-15 biennium and three projects per year in subsequent years. In addition, the agency anticipates the selected consultant would cost an additional $20,000 in the first year to study the program requirements.The Texas Facilities Commission (TFC) indicates that implementation of the provisions of the bill would require certain project reviews, analyses, approvals, and other related evaluations that could potentially result in significant costs and staff resources.
The Office of the Attorney General and the General Land Office anticipate any additional work resulting from the passage of the bill could be reasonably absorbed within current resources.
Local Government Impact
Some local entities would be required to serve on the board of review established by the bill. The bill also mandates other actions required by local governments regarding qualifying projects; however, any increased workload for local governments is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact.
Some local entities would be required to serve on the board of review established by the bill. The bill also mandates other actions required by local governments regarding qualifying projects; however, any increased workload for local governments is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact.
Source Agencies: 305 General Land Office and Veterans' Land Board, 460 Board of Professional Engineers, 473 Public Utility Commission of Texas, 720 The University of Texas System Administration, 302 Office of the Attorney General, 303 Facilities Commission, 809 Preservation Board
305 General Land Office and Veterans' Land Board, 460 Board of Professional Engineers, 473 Public Utility Commission of Texas, 720 The University of Texas System Administration, 302 Office of the Attorney General, 303 Facilities Commission, 809 Preservation Board
LBB Staff: UP, RB, JI, JJO, CK, KKR, SD, LCO, TL, EP
UP, RB, JI, JJO, CK, KKR, SD, LCO, TL, EP