LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session
March 22, 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.), As Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* HB537, As Introduced: positive impact of $2,911,838 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 $1,404,307 *
* 2001 1,507,531 *
* 2002 1,550,353 *
* 2003 1,585,353 *
* 2004 1,615,353 *
****************************************************
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 $(169,093) $1,573,400 4.0 *
* 2001 (160,869) 1,668,400 4.0 *
* 2002 (148,047) 1,698,400 4.0 *
* 2003 (148,047) 1,733,400 4.0 *
* 2004 (148,047) 1,763,400 4.0 *
**************************************************************************
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. The
PUC would be charged with administering and enforcing the list. Any
administrative penalties charged by the Commission for solicitors'
violations of the no-call list could only be used 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
telephone solicitors. Revenue from this fee could only be used to defray
enforcement expenses in excess of the amount available though the
administrative penalties.
The bill would also dedicate the current $200 telephone solicitor
registration fee for the activities of the Secretary of State and the
PUC in registering telephone solicitors and administering the no-call
list. In addition, the bill would reduce the total number of exemptions
to the solicitor registration process and associated fee.
Methodology
It is estimated that there will be additional administrative penalties
levied against companies which violate the no-call list. The PUC
estimates that these penalties would exceed associated administration
and enforcement costs for the no-call list. It is also estimated that
there would be additional revenue as more companies registered as
telephone solicitors with the Secretary of State's Office. It is
anticipated that the additional revenue would exceed the Secretary of
State's cost in administering the registration program.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated.
Source Agencies: 473 Public Utility Commission of Texas
LBB Staff: JK, TH, CB