LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
February 17, 1997
TO: Honorable Ron Wilson, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 218, Engrossed
Committee on Licensing & Administrative Procedures By: Ratliff
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB218 ( Relating
to fees for licensure as an architect.) this office has detemined
the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB218-Engrossed
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
impact of $0 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 remove the upper limit, currently $300, on the
examination fee for architects. It would allow the Texas Board
of Architectural Examiners to charge the fee in an amount that
would cover administrative costs, as those costs change.
Methodolgy
The architectural examination fee consists of an administrative
fee of $40 and an exam fee of $485. The total current fee is
$525, the maximum allowed under Rider 3, p. VIII-8, of the 1995
General Appropriations Act (GAA). The only manufacturer of
the national exam raised the examination cost to $980 because
the exam is now administered by computer. Because of the cost
increase, the board is unable to administer the exam.
Removing
the $300 maximum allowed by statute and the $525 maximum allowed
in the GAA would enable the board to administer the exam and
recover the actual examination costs. The $40 administrative
fee has not changed.
The number of examination candidates
estimated by the board and multiplied by the new, higher fee
of $1,020 ($980 plus $40) was used to estimate the expected
revenue and cost from the exam fee increase. In the table below,
FY1997 reflects a partial year of exams at the higher rate.
For years after FY 1997, the table reflects the entire fee
revenue and cost, rather than the incremental increase, because
the exam would not be administered without the increase
The
probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Six Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable Revenue Probable
Gain/(Loss) from Savings/(Cost)
General Revenue from General
Fund Revenue Fund
0001 0001
1997 $217,307 ($217,307)
1997 731,598 (731,598)
1999 738,914 (738,914)
2000 746,302 (746,302)
2001 753,765 (753,765)
2002 761,303 (761,303)
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds
during each of the first five years is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1997 $0
1998 0
1999 0
2000 0
2001 0
2002 0
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
No fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.
Source: Agencies:
LBB Staff: JK ,TH