LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 17, 1997
TO: Honorable J.E. "Buster" Brown, Chair IN RE: House Bill No. 1759, As Engrossed
Committee on Natural Resources By: Hirschi
Senate
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on HB1759 ( Relating
to the pesticide use and application program.) this office has
detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by HB1759-As Engrossed
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a
net positive impact of $387,613 to General Revenue Related Funds
through the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal
basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions
of the bill.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would amend provisions relating to who must apply for
an original or renewal noncommercial pesticide applicator license.
Current law exempts noncommercial pesticide applicators employed
by governmental entities from paying license and renewal fees.
This bill would remove that exemption and allow regulatory
agencies to set fees in amounts necessary to defray the administrative
costs for pesticide applicator certification programs.
Methodolgy
The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) currently licenses
most noncommercial pesticide applicators. The department estimates
that 2,000 noncommercial applicators, who are currently exempt
from license fees, would become subject to them. TDA estimates
that new licenses would generate $200,000 per year in additional
revenue for the General Revenue Fund. Costs to the department
were estimated to be $6,871 the first year and $5,576 each year
thereafter.
TDA also estimates that many of the new licensees
are employed by the State of Texas and revenue collected from
those new licenses may be paid from other state funds. This
estimate assumes no additional cost to state agencies.
The
Health Department (TDH) would be authorized to license and examine
noncommercial pesticide applicators, particularly those involved
with mosquito control. TDH assumes that first-year expansion
of duties and staff will be phased in as current licenses expire
on the last day of February, 1998. Additional duties imposed
by the bill are estimated at $108,015 in fiscal 1998 and $149,046
annually beginning in fiscal year 1999. Four new FTEs would
also be required. The bill would allow cost recovery through
fees, and TDH assumes fees will be set in amounts sufficient
to defray administrative costs.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Five Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable Probable Revenue Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) Gain/(Loss) from of State
from General General Revenue Employees from
Revenue Fund Fund FY 1997
0001 0001
1998 ($114,826) $308,015 4.2
1998 (154,622) 349,046 4.2
2000 (154,622) 349,046 4.2
2001 (154,622) 349,046 4.2
2002 (154,622) 349,046 4.2
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 $193,189
1999 194,424
2000 194,424
2001 194,424
2002 194,424
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
The Health Department estimates that 85% of the noncommercial
pesticide applicator licensees under its jurisdiction will be
employees of local governments. Should local governments choose
to pay license, exam, and/or renewal fees, the estimated fiscal
impact to local governments would be $49,375 in fiscal year
1998, and $63,750 each year thereafter.
Source: Agencies: 551 Department of Agriculture
501 Department of Health
582 Natural Resources Conservation Commission
304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,JH