Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement

123 rd General Assembly of Ohio

Ohio Legislative Budget Office: a nonpartisan agency providing fiscal research for the Ohio General Assembly

77 South High Street, 8th Floor, Columbus, OH 43266-0347 ² Phone: (614) 466-8734

E-mail: BudgetOffice@LBO.STATE.OH.US ² Internet Web Site:http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/

BILL:

Sub. H.B. 617

DATE:

May 24, 2000

STATUS:

As Reported by Senate Energy Natural Resources & Environment

SPONSOR:

Rep. Mottley

LOCAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED:

No —

Offsetting savings

 


CONTENTS:

Revises Conservancy District Laws

 

State Fiscal Highlights

 

 

STATE GOVERNMENT

FY 2001

FY 2002

FUTURE YEARS

General Revenue Fund

     Revenues

Potential decrease

Potential decrease

Potential decrease

     Expenditures

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

Note: The state fiscal year is July 1 through June 30. For example, FY 2001 is July 1, 2000 – June 30, 2001.

 

 

·        The bill eliminates compensation of the Treasurer of State’s office for services related to registering and paying bonds and interest.  This could minimally decrease revenues for the office.

Local Fiscal Highlights

 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

FY 2000

FY 2001

FUTURE YEARS

Conservancy Districts

     Revenues

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

     Expenditures

Potential decrease

Potential decrease

Potential decrease

Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.

 

·        The bill’s provisions that update requirements for selling bonds would save the conservancy districts a considerable amount of money, perhaps aggregately for the state several thousands of dollars.

·        Changes in the requirements for the deposit of moneys would follow provisions already in effect in the Uniform Depository Act (ORC 135), and, therefore, should not have a fiscal impact.

·        The public notice requirements are loosened, which could save individual conservancy districts thousands of dollars over the course of a year.

·        Other administrative changes, such as authorizing electronic storage and establishing a minimum assessment to cover administrative costs, are also expected to save the conservancy districts moneys.


 


 

 

Detailed Fiscal Analysis

 

This bill makes changes in the issuance of bonds, the deposit of moneys, assessments, and the administration of conservancy districts. The provisions update laws to conform to newer regulations for securities and streamline administrative steps. The Treasurer of State’s office could experience a decrease in revenues with the elimination of compensation for registering and paying bonds and interest. However, this bill would probably save the conservancy districts considerable moneys in administrative costs.

 

Role of Conservancy Districts

 

Conservancy districts are political subdivisions formed by local citizens to solve local water management problems, such as flood control, and many serve as local sponsors for federal flood projects.  Other activities undertaken by the conservancy districts include conserving and developing water supply, improving drainage, collecting and disposing of waste, providing for irrigation, and mitigating shoreline erosion. Ohio has 22 conservancy districts, located primarily in the western part of the state and in the eastern Appalachian counties.  The largest conservancy district is the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, covering part or all of more than 20 counties that surround the Muskingum, Mohican, Walhonding, and Tuscarawas rivers.

 

Changes in the Issuance of Bonds

 

                The bill loosens requirements by removing language that specifies the manner in which bonds are issued.  Included in these requirements are the denominations of bonds, the time intervals of maturity of the bonds, and mandating that interest rates follow rates in current law.

 

            Other provisions require the boards of directors of conservancy districts to adopt note and bonding resolutions to further modernize the conservancy district laws.  The note resolution provides the districts greater flexibility in issuing bonds, whereas the bonding resolution specifies the rate of interest and maturity of the bonds.

 

            The bill authorizes boards of conservancy districts to issue anticipatory notes or bonds to fund or refund previously issued notes or bonds.  These anticipatory notes or bonds would be placed in an escrow fund of which leftover escrow moneys are to be used for the bond retirement fund.  The bill also makes other changes to administering bonds and anticipatory notes.  The rules for bidding on the bonds are also changed to allow for bids at 97% of the principal amount of the anticipatory notes or bonds, as opposed to the current 100% of the amount. 

 

The provisions that affect the issuance of bonds would save the conservancy districts considerable amount of moneys in administrative costs.

 

 

 

 

Deposit of District Moneys

 

The bill eliminates several provisions related to depositing district moneys, updating the Conservancy District laws to comply with the existing Uniform Depository law (ORC 135). These provisions include requiring selecting banks that offer the highest interest rates for bonds, the acknowledgement of bonds, allowing the amount of pledged securities to be reduced as the amount on deposit is reduced. The bill also removes the requirement that all moneys of a conservancy that are for payment of bonds and interest be deposited in the same manner as state moneys are deposited. These provisions have no fiscal impact because they update the Conservancy District laws to comply with existing laws.

 

Changes to Assessment and Tax Policies

 

The bill removes references to taxes to distinguish assessments, from taxes. The annual maintenance assessments are used by the conservancy for district expenses and are assessed to parcels of land within the district. The bill reduces the interval for readjusting benefits from eight to six years.  Also, it sets a minimum assessment of $2 although this language is unclear.  According to a conservancy district spokesperson, the minimum assessment fee would probably allow conservancy districts to cover more of their operating costs, thus saving moneys for the districts.

 

Current law allows conservancy districts to levy taxes of all taxable property of the district in order to pay for capital improvements.  This bill removes this authorization, leaving conservancy districts the other existing option to levy special assessments on public corporations having lands within the district. According to a conservancy district spokesperson, conservancy districts do not opt to levy taxes on all taxable property and, therefore, would not experience a direct fiscal effect from this provision.  However, future potential revenues could be forfeited with this provision.

 

Compensation of Conservancy District Board of Directors

 

                Changes are made to remove the maximum limit on the daily compensation of the Board of Directors. That daily compensation limit is currently $50.  This could cause a substantial cost for conservancy districts, especially those that meet more frequently and for smaller conservancy districts.

 

Changes to Public Notice Requirements and Other Changes

 

Public notice requirements are loosened to reduce the number of times notices must be published. Other changes loosen requirements of listing the names of affected persons that must appear in the notice.  The reduction in the number of times the public notice must be published could save the conservancy districts thousands of dollars.

 

The requirement that all contracts for capital projects that cost over $15,000 be publicly advertised is loosened to require only capital projects that cost more than $25,000. This change could also save administrative costs for the conservancy districts.

 

The bill also clarifies that provisions that provide liability to conservancy districts should not be construed as expressly imposing liability upon a conservancy district.  This provision has no direct fiscal effect.

 

 

q LBO staff:  Sybil Haney, Budget/Policy Analyst

 

\\Budget_office\isis_vol1.lbo\FN123\HB0617SR.doc