LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session
April 12, 1999
TO: Honorable Florence Shapiro, Chair, Senate Committee on
State Affairs
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB1313 by Armbrister (Relating to the disposition and
sale of certain surplus and salvage property by the
state.), As Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* SB1313, As Introduced: positive 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 Probable Probable Change in *
* Year Savings/ Revenue Savings/ Revenue Number of *
* (Cost) from Gain/(Loss) (Cost) from Gain/(Loss) State *
* Other- from Other Interagency from Employees *
* Appropriat- - Contracts Interagency from FY 1999 *
* ed ReceiptsAppropriat- Contracts *
* ed Receipts *
* 2000 $(187,705) $187,705 $(185,000) $185,000 7.0 *
* 2001 (187,705) 187,705 (185,000) 185,000 7.0 *
* 2002 (187,705) 187,705 (185,000) 185,000 7.0 *
* 2003 (187,705) 187,705 (185,000) 185,000 7.0 *
* 2004 (187,705) 187,705 (185,000) 185,000 7.0 *
***********************************************************************
Technology Impact
Personal computers and related equipment are needed for operations of a
new warehouse facility. However, this equipment will be provided using
existing surplus property.
Fiscal Analysis
The General Services Commission estimates that seven additional positions
and related costs would be required to administer, receive, warehouse
and dispose of surplus property for state agencies. In addition, a
facility to serve as the central surplus warehouse would also be needed
to house the surplus property and market it for reuse or sale. All
operating costs would be recovered through service fees charged to
eligible participants, including state agencies and local governments.
Methodology
Operating costs for similar-sized warehouse operations for the Federal
Surplus Property Program were used to develop cost estimates and project
staffing needs.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated. Any costs incurred by local governments in acquiring state
surplus property should be offset by cost savings related to the amount
of state surplus property they acquire for reuse.
Source Agencies: 303 General Services Commission
LBB Staff: JK, SD, ZS