LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 30, 1997
TO: Honorable Bob Bullock Honorable James E. "Pete" Laney
Lieutenant Governor Speaker of the House
Senate
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB1355 ( relating
to the regulation of certain retail sellers and retail establishments;
providing an administrative penalty.) this office has detemined
the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB1355-Conference Committee Report
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 partially implement Texas Performance Review
recommendation CG3 in "Disturbing the Peace: The Challenge of
Change in Texas Government."
The bill would create the
Interagency Task Force on Texas Retail Food Store Regulation
with the office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA)
designated as the lead agency. The task force would study the
regulation of retail food stores and report to the Legislature
recommendations for improving the regulation of retail food
stores. The statutory authority for the task force would expire
June 1, 1999.
The bill would amend the Agriculture Code
to conform to current practice by transferring regulatory authority
relating to weights and measures for compounding drugs in pharmacies
from the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) to the State
Board of Pharmacy.
The bill would require the Department
of Commerce to cooperate with the Department of Agriculture
in order to disseminate information regarding business opportunities
for persons who perform weights and measures inspections.
The
bill would also require the Parks and Wildlife Department to
initiate negotiations and enter into a memorandum of agreement
with the Department of Health to consolidate the license and
permit application process for retail food stores that sell
aquatic products.
The bill would transfer the responsibility
for enforcement and administration of rules regulating motor
fuel containing ethanol or methanol from the Comptroller to
the Commissioner of Agriculture. In addition, the Commissioner
of Agriculture would be responsible for regulating and monitoring
motor fuel octane levels. The Commissioner could adopt rules
relating to the frequency of motor fuel testing and would be
required to consider the limits of funds available from fees
imposed when adopting such rules. The Comptroller would still
be responsible for collecting regulatory fees. The bill would
also increase civil penalties for violations of methanol, ethanol,
and automotive fuel rating posting requirements and provide
for administrative penalties as well as hearings.
The bill
would require that 50% of all inspections or tests of weighing
and measuring devices and automotive fuel rating be transferred
from the TDA to state licensed private inspectors by September
1, 1999. An additional 25% would be transferred by September
1, 2001. All enforcement authority would remain with the TDA.
The bill would take effect September 1, 1997.
Methodolgy
The responsibilities of the Interagency Task Force on Retail
Food Store Regulation would be accomplished with existing appropriations
for all affected agencies.
According to both the TDA and
the State Board of Pharmacy, regulatory responsibility relating
to weights and measures for compounding drugs in pharmacies
has already been transferred from the department to the State
Board of Pharmacy. Therefore, no fiscal implications are anticipated.
There
would be no fiscal impact to the Department of Commerce to implement
provisions of the bill.
There would be no significant fiscal
implications to develop a memorandum of agreement between the
Parks and Wildlife Department and the Department of Health to
regulate aquatic products.
Transfer of motor fuel testing
for alcohol content and octane testing would be revenue-neutral.
Beginning September 1, 1997, new octane testing requirements
would be in place for the TDA. According to the TDA, the implementation
of the new fuel testing program will cost $454,223 in the first
year and require 7.6 additional FTEs. These costs would be
recovered through fees collected by the Comptroller and set
by the department. By fiscal year 2000, according to the department,
$252,665 and 4.8 FTEs would be needed by the department for
oversight of the fuel testing program with the other part of
the new program privatized in fiscal year 1999. For fiscal year
2002, $176,858 would be needed to enforce the fuel testing program.
In fiscal 2001 the transfer of 75% of fuel testing and weights
and measures inspections would take place.
According to the
TDA, privatizing weights and measures testing will result in
savings to the General Revenue Fund of $642,123 and a reduction
of 15.3 FTEs by fiscal year 2000. As of fiscal year 2002, the
savings to general revenue are estimated to be $963,185 and
the FTEs will be reduced by 18.5. Also according to TDA, there
will be a loss of fee revenue by the department for weights
and measures inspections. The department estimates a revenue
loss of $642,123 by fiscal year 2000, and a loss of $963,185
by fiscal year 2002. TDA states that its weights and measures
program is completely self-supported by fees that are collected.
It is assumed that there would be an increase in revenue
from the licensing of private companies to perform weights and
measures inspections, but no projections were available. It
is also assumed that some hearings would take place at the State
Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) regarding violations
of the fuel testing requirements. SOAH estimates that hearings
costs for TDA would average $5,600 each year, but this estimate
assumes those costs would be offset by collection of administrative
penalties.
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 Probable Revenue Probable Revenue Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) Gain/(Loss) from Gain/(Loss) from of State
from General from General General Revenue General Revenue Employees from
Revenue Fund Revenue Fund Fund Fund FY 1997
0001 0001 0001 0001
1998 ($459,823) $0 $459,823 $0 7.6
1998 (258,255) 642,123 258,255 (642,123) (7.7)
2000 (258,255) 642,123 258,255 (642,123) (7.7)
2001 (182,458) 963,185 182,458 (963,185) (15.4)
2002 (182,458) 963,185 182,458 (963,185) (15.4)
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
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: 465 Department of Commerce
551 Department of Agriculture
304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
360 State Office of Administrative Hearings
LBB Staff: JK ,JD ,BB ,JH