HB2313

The introduced bill used the broader Section 351.152(14) category without the additional population threshold; the introduced fiscal note identified both Lubbock and Amarillo. The House committee substitute added more than 250,000, narrowing the expansion to Lubbock in the fiscal analysis. This was a committee-substitute change, not a floor amendment. Introduced text; House committee text; introduced fiscal note.

The index lists two floor amendments, both offered by Tepper and adopted in the House on May 13:

• Amendment 1: added a category that the fiscal note identified as Frisco, excluded primarily performing-arts facilities from that category’s venues and required its project to commence within three years rather than five. Those provisions appeared in the engrossed House bill but were removed in the Senate committee substitute and are not in the final law. “Adopted in the House” does not mean enacted.
• Amendment 2: added the alternative contiguous-zone boundary option for the eligible coastal city. It appeared in the engrossed bill, Senate substitute and final law and therefore survived.

Amendment index and dispositions; Amendment 1; Amendment 2; engrossed text; Senate substitute; final law.

The House concurred in the Senate changes on May 28. No additional floor-amendment texts are indexed; the Senate committee substitute, rather than a separately indexed floor amendment, made the substantive removal. History; text versions.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

The affected cities gain access to, or a more flexible boundary for, tax-supported project financing. Qualified projects and nearby tourism businesses may benefit from infrastructure investment, but the act does not guarantee construction, jobs or additional tourism. The state gives up revenue it would otherwise retain to the extent the transferred taxes would have been collected anyway. A larger local tax entitlement is not the same as a net statewide economic benefit or a reduction in residents’ tax bills. Final law; final fiscal note.

The May 27, 2025 final-stage fiscal note estimates a $2.2 million loss to state General Revenue-related funds in fiscal 2026–27, then $5.4 million in 2028–29. Annual estimated losses are $800,000, $1.4 million, $2.3 million, $3.1 million and $3.9 million in fiscal 2026–30. For Corpus Christi, the estimated 30-year entitlement rises from $94.1 million under its existing zone to $177.5 million under the proposed boundary—an additional $83.4 million through fiscal 2054. Lubbock’s estimated foregone state revenue totals $121.7 million through fiscal 2055. The Corpus Christi number is an increase over an existing entitlement; the Lubbock number describes the new zone, and their end years differ. These are estimates, not appropriated lump-sum grants. Final fiscal note.

The estimates use Corpus Christi’s proposed boundaries and existing hotels, retain its 2024 base year with an updated hotel list, and assume Lubbock designates in 2025 with deposits beginning in 2026. They assume annual revenue growth of 4% for Corpus Christi and 6.5% for Lubbock. They exclude additional effects from hotel market-share shifts or new out-of-state visitors; the note says taxes from genuinely additional visitors would not be revenue the state otherwise would have collected. Actual boundaries, timing, receipts and project performance can change the result. Earlier House estimates including Frisco are not the fiscal estimate for the enacted law. Final fiscal note; superseded engrossed fiscal note.