By Ender Reed
TAC Legislative Staff
A provision in SB 1 by Sen. Robert Duncan, which passed during the special session, requires a county that wants the option to tax goods-in-transit to take official action by Dec. 31, 2011, in order to preserve this authority. Even counties that have previously opted to tax goods-in-transit must take action or the ability to tax those goods will be lost, which may result in a significant loss of personal property tax revenue.
If a county would like the authority to tax goods-in-transit after Jan. 1, 2012, then it must a) hold a public hearing and b) take official action imposing the tax on or after Oct. 1, 2011, and before Jan. 1 of the year for which the tax is to be in effect.
“Goods-in-transit” are tangible personal properties acquired in or imported into Texas to be forwarded to another location in Texas or outside of Texas not later than 175 days after the date of acquisition in or importation into Texas.
By Nanette Forbes
TAC Legislative Staff
The minimum jury service fee that counties must pay jurors and the state reimbursements to the counties for those payments will soon be lowered. Currently, a county must pay a person who reports for jury service at least $6 for the first day the person attends court and at least $40 for each day thereafter. The state reimburses a county $34 of that $40.
During the recent special legislative session, the Legislature shifted to the state comptroller the responsibility for determining the jury service reimbursement amount and required counties to pay at least that amount to jurors. The new law authorizes the comptroller to recalculate the reimbursement amount on a quarterly basis.
On Aug. 24, the comptroller established an initial reimbursement rate of $28 to begin on Sept. 28, 2011. The reimbursement amount will continue to be reassessed every quarter, and it may vary depending upon available state funding. The state will not reimburse counties an amount in excess of the rate prescribed by the comptroller.
Counties are encouraged to file their claims for reimbursement in a timely manner. If not, the comptroller may apportion the payment of the balance owed the county. The comptroller’s letter may be viewed on the TAC website.
For additional information, contact Leonard Higgins, Comptroller’s Judiciary Section, at (800) 531-5441, extension 6-6100 or e-mail leonard.higgins@cpa.state.tx.us.
By Ender Reed
TAC Legislative Staff
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is considering making changes to its permitting requirements regarding “small municipal separate storm sewer systems” (MS4s). These changes, if implemented, could result in extremely prescriptive permit conditions, such as requiring frequent catch basin cleaning. These changes define the type of street sweepers that must be used, the purchase of which could be very costly for local governments.
Currently, the state requires in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) that operators of MS4s apply for a permit in order to ensure that they are properly managing the discharge of storm water into the state surface water. Under the current permit structure, MS4s are allowed to select best management practices and measurable goals and define their own programs to implement six pollutant reduction programs.
However, TCEQ is considering adding provisions to the current permit structure in an effort to conform to recommendations from a recent publication, the MS4 Permit Improvement Guide, produced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the MS4 Permit Improvement Guide, according to the purpose section of the document, is “to facilitate the creation of MS4 permits which are clear, consistent with applicable regulations, and enforceable.” The document goes on to say that the guide “was created by reviewing numerous MS4 permits and fact sheets from around the country,” or “in instances where existing language that meets the purpose of this document was not available, EPA has crafted new language.”
As the guide itself suggests, the recommendations within were cobbled together from a variety of jurisdictions or drawn up in the halls of the EPA. The guide was not created with Congressional input, nor was it issued in conformance with the Administrative Procedures Act. As a result, the guide’s recommendations do not include enough public input from those who must comply with its recommendations.
Counties have expressed concern that the recommendations in the guide are overly prescriptive and will be costly for counties to implement. Given the current economic climate and the budgetary demands being placed on counties by the state, any potential changes should be given thorough consideration before being mandated. Counties are also concerned that the new permit process will harm flexibility to manage storm water issues at the local level.
TAC legislative staff will continue to monitor this issue and notify readers of any significant developments.
By Ender Reed
TAC Legislative Staff
HB 1517 by Rep. Jason Isaac authorizes a county with a population of less than 5,000 to use a fine collected for a violation of a highway law as the county determines appropriate if the commissioners court, by resolution, elects to spend the revenue in a manner other than as provided in current law (i.e., to construct and maintain roads and bridges, enforce laws regulating the use of highways, and defray the expense of county traffic officers).
To use these fines for another purpose may only retain from certain fines and special expenses collected an amount equal to 30 percent of the county’s revenue for the preceding fiscal year from all sources, other than federal funds and bond proceeds, as shown by a specified audit.
After a county has retained 30 percent, the county must send to the comptroller any portion of a highway fine or a special expense collected that exceeds $1 more than that initial 30 percent. Highway fines under this legislation are defined as any fine collected under Title 7 of the Transportation Code and are not exclusive to fines given specifically on a “highway;” all roads are included in the definition.
Special expenses defined under Article 45.051, Code of Criminal Procedure, are fines arising from misdemeanor cases where under a no contest or guilty plea the judge assesses a “special expense” in lieu of fine as punishment for the offense.
The bill also prescribes certain reporting requirements when the amount retained from fines and special expenses meets a specified threshold. The comptroller will prescribe a form which counties must use to report this matter.
The law became effective Sept. 1, 2011.
By Paul Emerson
TAC State Financial Analyst
Sept. 1, 2011 began the fiscal year for the new 2012-13 state budget.
More than 50 percent of the state budget relating to general revenue comes from state sales tax collected on a monthly basis. The motor vehicles tax, motor fuel tax, franchise tax and insurance tax also contribute significantly to the state’s general revenue coffer. Together, all five of these state revenue sources are projected to tally more than $60 billion, or 90 percent, of the anticipated general revenue-related tax collections for the 2012-13 biennuim.1
Last month, the Comptroller’s Office reported that the July 2011 state sales tax revenue was $1.86 billion, up 10.3 percent compared to July 2010. In addition, July 2011 marked the “16th consecutive month of increased state sales tax,” according to Comptroller Susan Combs.
During the next few editions of County Issues, a more detailed analysis of the state sales tax will be provided by reviewing sales tax collections from the past three years. The analysis will also review local sales tax collections from the same time period.
For more information on this article, please contact Paul Emerson, TAC State Financial Analyst, at (800) 456-5974.
1 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Biennial Revenue Estimate, 2012-13 Biennium – 82nd Texas Legislature, January 2011.
By Laura Garcia
Deputy Director
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is accepting public comment on proposed revisions to federal regulations which will eliminate, extend or otherwise revise certain compliance dates relating to the replacement of traffic signs. Current regulations require state and local highway agencies to comply with certain changes in national standards for traffic control devices per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways by specific deadlines.
Altogether, the FHWA proposes to eliminate the compliance dates for 46 traffic control items, including the elimination of the compliance deadline relating to minimum retroreflectivity standards for certain street name signs, as well as the deadline requiring larger lettering on those signs.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, the proposed revisions are intended to reduce the costs and impacts of compliance dates on state and local highway agencies and streamline and simplify the information. In many cases, under the proposed revisions, noncompliant traffic control devices can be replaced by local governments in the ordinary course of routine maintenance or when they have worn out, rather than by a specified deadline. However, a few deadlines for sign upgrades that are deemed critical to public safety will remain.
The entire proposed rule revisions, as well as details on how to submit public comments, can be accessed here.
Deadline to submit public comments is Oct. 31, 2011.
The 2011 Legislative Analysis Report on the 82nd Regular Session and First Called Session of the Texas Legislature is now available online. The report, prepared by TAC legislative staff, summarizes significant county-related bills that passed.