LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
April 30, 2001
TO: Honorable Steven Wolens, Chair, House Committee on State
Affairs
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB3411 by McClendon (Relating to improving the
readability of state agency rules and publications.), As
Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* HB3411, As Introduced: negative impact of $(325,310) through the *
* biennium ending August 31, 2003. *
* *
* 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 *
* 2002 $(187,655) *
* 2003 (137,655) *
* 2004 (137,655) *
* 2005 (137,655) *
* 2006 (137,655) *
****************************************************
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
***************************************************************************
*Fiscal Probable Savings/(Cost) from Change in Number of State *
* Year General Revenue Fund Employees from FY 2001 *
* 0001 *
* 2002 $(187,655) 1.0 *
* 2003 (137,655) 1.0 *
* 2004 (137,655) 1.0 *
* 2005 (137,655) 1.0 *
* 2006 (137,655) 1.0 *
***************************************************************************
Technology Impact
This bill would have no significant effect on the Texas Education
Agency's (TEA) technology budget.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would require state agencies to study and recodify rules,
ensuring that they meet readability standards. The bill would require
each agency to recodify eight percent of its rules annually and would
require agencies to file a recodification schedule with the Secretary of
State. The schedule would have to include an assessment of the reading
level of its rules on a chapter-by-chapter basis. Agencies would have to
designate an individual to serve as the Agency's plain language liaison.
The bill would provide a procedure for calculating the readability score
of agency rules. New rules adopted would have to include a statement
concerning their readability score. Recodified rules would have to
obtain a readability score of 50 or greater. To adopt a recodified rule
with a readability score of less than 50, a state agency would have to
specify how they have attempted to reach the score, and why a readability
level of 50 could not be achieved.
Agencies would be encouraged to work with high schools and colleges to
establish user-testing programs.
The bill would establish a Plain Language Advisory Committee to act as a
resource and clearinghouse for information on communicating in plain
language for state agencies.
The bill would specifically require TEA to assist the Plain Language
Advisory Committee in correlating various grade reading levels with the
readability formula and to assist agencies in assessing the readability
of their rules and other documents.
Methodology
Several state agencies were surveyed, based on agency size, and duties
performed.
The estimate in the above table only demonstrates the costs to TEA.
Other state agencies responding to the fiscal note request have indicated
a wide range of fiscal impacts. Some agencies indicated that they would
be able to absorb the costs of implementation, while others expect costs
of anywhere from $5,000 per year to $1.8 million in the first year and
$1.4 million each year thereafter.
TEA assumed they would need contracted resources to accomplish the
chapter-by-chapter assessment within the required timeline. Because the
formula appears to deviate significantly from automated readability
assessments contained within standard office automation software, TEA
assumed the chapter-by-chapter assessment would involve a labor intensive
manual effort. It is assumed that the cost of this contract would be at
least $50,000 (2.0 contracted resources at $75 per hour, eight hours per
day for 40 working days).
TEA also advised that it would be obliged to designate and maintain a
Plain Language Liaison under the provisions of this bill.
TEA estimated that it would require one FTE at a cost of $54,155,
including benefits. Other estimated costs include $50,000 a year for
professional services for the User Testing Program, compensation of user
testing program participants at $25,000 per year, travel at a cost of
$5,000 per year, and other operating expenses at a cost of $3,500 per
year.
Local Government Impact
TEA assumed that school districts with high schools that choose to
participate in state agencies' user testing programs would receive
adequate compensation from such agencies to offset any additional costs.
Source Agencies: 809 State Preservation Board, 813 Texas
Commission on the Arts, 709 Texas A&M University
System Health Science Center, 514 Texas Optometry
Board, 582 Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, 515 Texas State Board of Pharmacy, 655
TX Dept. of Mental Health & Mental Retardation,
307 Secretary of State, 456 Texas State Board of
Plumbing Examiners, 454 Texas Department of
Insurance, 701 Texas Education Agency, 327
Employees Retirement System, 302 Office of the
Attorney General, 529 Health and Human Services
Commission, 303 General Services Commission, 304
Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff: JK, RB, SK