LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session
Revision 1
May 5, 1999
TO: Honorable Kim Brimer, Chair, House Committee on Business
& Industry
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB537 by Danburg (relating to telephone solicitation;
providing penalties), Committee Report 1st House,
Substituted
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* HB537, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted: impact of $0 *
* through the biennium ending August 31, 2001. *
* *
* The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal *
* basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of *
* the bill. *
**************************************************************************
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact:
****************************************************
* Fiscal Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) *
* Impact to General Revenue Related *
* Funds *
* 2000 $0 *
* 2001 0 *
* 2002 0 *
* 2003 0 *
* 2004 0 *
****************************************************
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
**************************************************************************
*Fiscal Probable Probable Revenue Change in Number of *
* Year Savings/(Cost) from Gain/(Loss) from State Employees from *
* General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund FY 1999 *
* 0001 0001 *
* 2000 $(327,710) $327,710 5.0 *
* 2001 (274,501) 274,501 5.0 *
* 2002 (274,501) 274,501 5.0 *
* 2003 (274,501) 274,501 5.0 *
* 2004 (274,501) 274,501 5.0 *
**************************************************************************
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would impose new requirements on telephone solicitors for the
proper execution of solicited transactions, and would provide consumers
with additional protections relating to those transactions.
The bill would require the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to maintain a
"no-call" list for Texas residents requesting inclusion on the list, and
to conduct an educational campaign to make consumers aware of the list.
The PUC would be required to develop a form for consumers to request
inclusion on the list, and to mail the form to any consumer requesting
it. The PUC would also be required to maintain a toll-free number for
consumers to call to request such a form.
The PUC would also have enforcement responsibility for the no-call list.
Any administrative penalties charged by the PUC for solicitors'
violations of the no-call list would be dedicated for administering the
provisions of the bill. Additionally, the PUC would have the authority
to charge a fee, not to exceed $200, for providing copies of the list to
non-registered telephone solicitors. Revenue from this fee could only be
used to defray enforcement expenses in excess of the amount available
through the administrative penalties.
The bill would also reduce the current $200 telephone solicitor
registration fee to $75, and dedicate the revenue from that fee for the
activities of the Secretary of State and the PUC in registering
telephone solicitors and administering the no-call list.
Methodology
It is assumed that the PUC would incur costs for the educational,
enforcement, and administrative tasks required by the bill. It is
estimated that four additional employees could perform the work required
by the bill. In addition, the Secretary of State would incur costs for
registering additional telephone solicitors; it is estimated that one FTE
would be able to handle the additional registrations.
According to the Secretary of State, only 26 entities are currently
registered as telephone solicitors. Consequently, the registration fee
reduction is not expected to result in significant revenue reductions.
Revenue would be available from three sources to offset the cost of
implementing the bill. First, it is expected that administrative
penalties would increase in conjunction with enforcement efforts.
Secondly, non-registered solicitors could be charged up to $200 for
copies of the no-call list. Finally, it is expected that the
enforcement activities would result in an increase in the number of
entities paying the fee to register with the Secretary of State.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated.
Source Agencies: 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts, 475 Office of
Public Utility Counsel, 473 Public Utility
Commission of Texas
LBB Staff: JK, TH, RT, CB