LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
74th Regular Session
April 20, 1995
TO: Honorable Warren Chisum, Chair IN RE: Senate BillNo. 178,
Committee on Environmental Regulation as engrossed
House of Representatives By: Whitmire
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on Senate Bill No.
178 (relating to delay of the vehicle emissions inspection and
maintenance program) this office has determined the following:
The bill would suspend implementation of the state's motor
vehicle emission inspection and maintenance (I/M) program until
January 2, 1997.
The I/M program is intended to help achieve required emission
reductions in the state's four nonattainment areas pursuant to
the federal Clean Air Act and Section 382.037, Texas Health and
Safety Code. Consequently, suspension of the I/M program could
result in the state's failure to comply with requirements of the
federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) . Failure to meet FCAA requirements
could result in federal sanctions and federal funding losses.
Suspension of the I/M program will eliminate fee revenues
appropriated to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC) for program implementation for fiscal year
1996 and the first four months of fiscal year 1997. TNRCC would
also experience a reduction in cost associated with delayed
implementation of the program.
Suspension of the I/M program will result in some cost savings to
the Texas Department of Transportation (TDOT) for fiscal year
1996. However, these savings will be partially offset by program
reactivation costs beginning in fiscal year 1996 and continuing
into fiscal year 1997.
Local governments in nonattainment areas could realize some
losses in revenue from sales tax, property tax and enforcement
penalties on noncompliant vehicles due to suspension of the I/M
program. These losses could be mitigated by savings due to the
deferral of inspection costs of government-owned vehicles. If
federal sanctions are imposed due to the state's failure to meet
FCAA requirements, the loss of local transportation funds to
local governments could be significant and would exceed any
savings.
Suspension of the I/M program could result in claims against the
state for damages and other compensation by I/M program
contractors. The potential cost liability to the state cannot be
determined.
The probable fiscal implication of implementing the provisions of
the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Probable Revenue Probable Savings Probable Cost Out
Year Loss from Clean to Clean Air of State Highway
Air Account 151 Account 151 Fund 006
1996 $8,254,152 $7,556,655 $52,052
1997 2,723,870 2,493,696 21,072
1998 0 0 0
1999 0 0 0
2000 0 0 0
Fiscal Probable Savings Change in
Year to State Highway Number of State
Fund 006 Employees from
FY 1995
1996 $168,000 (56.5)
1997 0 (18.0)
1998 0 .0
1999 0 .0
2000 0 .0
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as the
provisions of the bill are in effect.
The fiscal implication to units of local government cannot be
determined.
Source: Department of Public Safety, Natural Resource
Conservation Commission,
Department of Transportation
LBB Staff: JK, JB, DF