Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
STATE FUND |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
Department of Natural
Resources – Various Funds |
|||
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
Expenditures |
Potential minimal increase |
Potential minimal increase |
Potential minimal increase |
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2007 is July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007.
·
Department of Natural Resources. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) advises conservancy districts
in the areas of water conservation and flood control. DNR also serves as a contact point for districts seeking
financial assistance as well as citizen information about conservancy
districts. DNR may experience increased
advisory assistance requests from conservancy districts regarding the
provisions in the bill. Any increased
costs are expected to be minimal.
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2007 |
FY 2008 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
Conservancy Districts |
||||
Revenues |
Potential loss from foregone
assessment revenue |
Potential loss from foregone assessment revenue |
Potential loss from foregone assessment revenue |
|
Expenditures |
Potential minimal increase
in administrative costs |
Potential minimal increase
|
Potential minimal increase |
|
Courts |
||||
Revenues |
Potential increase in
filing fees if imposed |
Potential increase in filing fees if imposed |
Potential increase in filing fees if imposed |
|
Expenditures |
Potential increase in
administrative costs |
Potential increase in administrative costs |
Potential increase in administrative costs |
|
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
Conservancy districts. Under the bill, conservancy districts that
currently do not levy an assessment would not be able to levy an assessment on
churches in the future. This would
result in foregone revenue that may have otherwise been received. An accurate estimate of such a loss is unknown. The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District
estimates this provision may result in $250,000 to $300,000 in foregone revenue
for its district. Further, conservancy
districts may also experience added administrative costs due to database
changes and other administrative filings/tasks related to the exemption of
churches from assessments.
·
Court costs. Conservancy
courts may experience an increase in administrative costs
to hold hearings regarding property owners objecting the incorporation of their
land into the district. Any court filing fees may help
to offset a portion of these costs.
However, the total number of cases brought forth and time involved with
each case will determine the overall administrative burden to the court. Any appeals will be heard in the district
court of appeals or the Supreme Court which may also experience added costs.
|
The bill
Generally, as it relates to
the bill's fiscal impact, the bill specifies that a conservancy district that
has not previously collected an assessment must not levy a general assessment
or maintenance assessment on church property or church camp property. However, the bill gives the right to
churches to "opt-in" and be assessed. The bill also makes adjustments to membership to the board of
directors of a conservancy district.
Finally, the bill requires a board of directors of a conservancy
district to adopt a resolution to revise the boundaries to include those lands
that are currently within the district watershed but not included within the
boundaries of the district.
Discussion on the fiscal
impact of these provisions is discussed below.
Overall, the fiscal impact largely focuses on the Muskingum Watershed
Conservancy District (MWCD).
Board
structure
This bill makes changes to the appointment of members
of the board of directors to require the appointment be made by the presidents
of the board of county commissioners rather than by the district court;
increases the number of board members; and modifies board vacancies,
appointments, and reappointments.
Further, the bill requires the presidents of the boards to divide the
district into three distinct geographic regions based on the three largest
sub-watersheds within the district.
These provisions may result in minimal administrative expenditure
increases to MWCD.
Incorporation of lands into the district
The bill provides that the
MWCD board may adopt a resolution to revise the boundaries of the district to
include those lands that are currently within the MWCD watershed but not
included within the boundaries of the district. Property owners can approve or object this action. If they object, they must file the objection
in the district conservancy court. Once
the action is filed, the conservancy court will hold a hearing on the matter
and make the final decision and either approve or deny the incorporation as
specified in the adopted resolution. Before the hearing, the clerk of the court is required
to send notice to the affected property owners regarding the hearing. Any appeals would likely be brought to the
district court of appeals and/or Supreme Court.
From
a fiscal perspective, a court, be it a conservancy court, appellate court, or
the Supreme Court, may experience an increase in administrative costs to hold
hearings regarding property owners objecting the incorporation of their land
into the district or other issues related to the bill. Court filing fees may offset the majority of these
costs. Since the number of cases that
may be brought forth is unknown as well as the associated administrative
burden, any new costs courts may incur are uncertain.
Further, the MWCD may
experience administrative costs to make the determination which properties this
would include, make the appropriate filings in the appropriate court and mail a
written notice to each property owner whose land is proposed to be incorporated
into the district. The notice is to
include a statement regarding the procedure the property owner has for
objecting to the incorporation of his or her property.
For those lands that are
approved by the conservancy court, this could result in additional properties
subject to an assessment, resulting in additional revenue to the district. An estimate of the number of properties that
currently are within the watershed but not within the MWCD is unknown. An estimate of any resulting potential
revenue gain is likewise unknown.
However, using an example to
provide perspective, since the MWCD's current plan is to levy an assessment on
500,000 parcels of property both residential and commercial, if 10% more
parcels are within the watershed but not within the district, this could result
in 50,000 more parcels being assessed.
Using the residential rate of $12 per parcel, this could generate $600,000
in additional revenue. Note that this
does not consider revenue gained from commercial properties. Overall, increasing or decreasing the
percentage of additional parcels that may be affected will affect the overall
revenue gain. For example, if 5% or 20%
more parcels were assessed an additional $300,000 or $1,200,000 may be gained.
Church exemptions
LSC surveyed several
conservancy districts throughout the state and found that approximately 7 out
of 21 conservancy districts currently do not levy an assessment. Under the bill, these seven districts would
not be able to levy assessments on churches in the future. This results in foregone revenue that may
have otherwise been received.
An accurate estimate of the
potential loss is unknown; however, the MWCD estimates its future loss to be
between $250,000 to $300,000 in foregone revenue. As for the other six conservancy districts, LSC is uncertain how
much such revenue they would forego.
Such an estimate would need to take into account the estimated amount of
annual assessment revenue collected in each of these districts. Overall, any loss is contingent on the
approval of general assessments or maintenance assessments as well as the
number of churches opting to be assessed.
Administrative expenses
Conservancy districts may
also experience added administrative costs due to database changes and other
administrative filings/tasks related to the exemption of churches from
assessments.
Similarly, since the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) advises conservancy districts on various
administrative matters, DNR may experience increased advisory assistance
requests from conservancy districts regarding the provisions in the bill. However, any increased costs are expected to
be minimal.
LSC fiscal staff: Jonathan Lee, Senior Budget Analyst