This report focuses on Senate Finance discussion of HB 1 and SB 1013.
 
CSHB 1 – Nelson, general appropriations bill

  • Wanted to pass a “responsible budget” that met the needs of the legislature
  • $107.4  billion total for General Revenue
  • $4.5 billion in various tax relief
  • $1.3 billion in additional transportation funding to end highway funding diversions, including $1.2 billion one time dedication from motor vehicle sales tax to highway fund
  • Fully covered education enrollment growth, increased formulas by $1.2 billion by increasing basic allotment from $5,040 to $5,130 in 2016, $5,140 in 2017, $60 million dollars in math and reading training, $25 million for career counseling for students
  • Fully funded Medicaid caseload and cost growth, $260 million increase for mental health programs over last biennium ($2.8 billion total), $50 million for women’s health, $60 million for medical education
  • $811 million for border security
  • $271 million for deferred maintenance
  • $458 million increase for employee retirement system pension fund, including increasing state contribution to constitutional maximum of 10%
  • Nelson’s goal is to have the bill out on the floor probably next Tuesday and then the bill will go to conference

 
John McGeady, LBB, on HB 1

  • Introduces tables and graphs detailing substitute changes, contains percentage changes, will be available on the internet when HB 1 is voted out
  • Nelson – Mentions 3 technical adjustments; method adjustment for Foundation School Program (GR increase and property tax relief fund decrease), Art. 9 allocations of $23.6 mil in GR and $24.7 in All Funds, Art. 11 represented in HB 1 with short caption and GR and All Funds mentioned

 
Substitute voted out, 15 ayes

  • Sen. Chuy Hinojosa comments on the rarity of unanimous vote

 
SB 1013 – Bettencourt, relating to periodic zero-based budgeting for certain political subdivisions

  • Substitute sets up a zero-based budgeting cycle for counties, school districts etc. every 12 years

 
James Quintero, Texas Public Policy Foundation, for SB 1013

  • Very concerned with local public finance
  • $205 billion in local debt outstanding, interest included is $330 billion, $12,500 per capita
  • Texas is the 14th worst state in the US for property taxes

 
Dan Casey, Texas School Alliance, against SB 1013

  • Concern about SB 1013 is cost and impact, very expensive to review budgets for school districts and schools will have difficulty zeroing spending
  • Bettencourt – Could you repeat the statistics on property tax increase versus population increase
    • Quintero – Property tax levies 188% percent, population increased 40%
  • Bettencourt – What is the total property tax levy from the 18 school districts?
    • Does not know
  • Bettencourt – It’s “tens of billions of dollars,” spending is very significant and cost to review does not outweigh benefit
  • Bettencourt – Many organizations are lean already, may not be as many savings as expected
    • “Costly and time-consuming process,” zero-based budgeting is not a “huge success” at federal level and nearly impossible to zero-based budget for large organizations
  • Bettencourt – Did you say you “did not find it to be unhelpful”?
    • At times, but unsure that much money was saved
  • Bettencourt – Texas did this in 2003, and the fact that any organization does not check line items for a dozen years breeds fraud, “budget scrubbing” will lead to definite savings
    • Did not mean to give impression that process would be unhelpful

 
Patti Jones, Lubbock County Commissioner

  • Lubbock county has a 5 year plan and has cleaned the budget regularly, has received awards for the cleanliness of budget
  • Bettencourt – Lubbock seems to be “almost there” in terms of zero-based budget goal

 
Jim Allison, County Judges and Commissioners Assoc of Texas, against SB 1013

  • Support the efforts to lower taxes, but mandatory bill that would effectively create a “separate” budget would not work to do this
  • Suggestion is to review budgets through comptroller’s office and target much of the same review areas
  • Bettencourt – Do you think there is a better way of doing this?
    • There is a better way of doing this, better to have the cooperation of a county or local government and access to comptroller’s staff would be a more efficient and cost-effective route to go
    • Found it more efficient to pick certain departments rather than blanket review at a scheduled period

 
SB 1013 pending