LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 20, 1997
TO: Honorable Edmund Kuempel, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 1124, Committee Report 2nd House, as amended
Committee on State Recreational Resources By: Brown
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB1124 ( Relating
to the regulation of aquaculture.) this office has detemined
the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB1124-Committee Report 2nd House, as amended
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a
net negative impact of $(328,378) 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 transfer authority to license aquaculture facilities
from the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) to the Animal
Health Commission (AHC). The bill also would require the AHC,
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to enter into
a Memorandum of Agreement to coordinate aquaculture regulatory
activities. In addition, the three agencies would be required
to conduct a study on wastewater discharges from aquaculture
facilities.
Methodolgy
The TDA used historical data to estimate an annual loss of license
fee revenue of $13,000 and annual savings in program costs of
$6,500. The aquaculture licensing program is relatively small
in relation to the TDA's other licensing activity; therefore,
the department estimates no reduction in FTEs. The AHC would
receive the annual license fee revenue of $13,000. The AHC
estimates that the licensing function would require three additional
FTEs and attendant equipment and supplies, at a cost of $177,039
in fiscal year 1998 and $164,339 in fiscal year 1999 and beyond.
The
Memorandum of Agreement would not have a fiscal impact. The
study of wastewater discharges from aquaculture facilities would
be paid for by the industry.
The TNRCC and TPWD indicate
that they will incur costs to conduct the study and establish
criteria for facilities in coastal counties, however, those
costs are expected to be insignificant.
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 Revenue Probable Revenue Probable Probable Change in Number
Gain/(Loss) from Gain/(Loss) from Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) of State
General Revenue New - from New - from General Employees from
Fund Other
Aquaculture Other
Aquaculture Revenue Fund FY 1997
Fund Fund
0001 NEW-OTH NEW-OTH 0001
1998 ($13,000) $13,000 ($13,000) ($164,039) 3.0
1998 (13,000) 13,000 (13,000) (151,339) 3.0
2000 (13,000) 13,000 (13,000) (151,339) 3.0
2001 (13,000) 13,000 (13,000) (151,339) 3.0
2002 (13,000) 13,000 (13,000) (151,339) 3.0
Fiscal Year Probable
Savings/(Cost)
from General
Revenue Fund
0001
1998
1999 6,500
2000 6,500
2001 6,500
2002 6,500
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 ($170,539)
1999 (157,839)
2000 (157,839)
2001 (157,839)
2002 (157,839)
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: 554 Animal Health Commission
551 Department of Agriculture
582 Natural Resources Conservation Commission
802 Parks and Wildlife Department
LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,DM