COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.: 2594-02
Bill No.: SB 716
Subject: Engineers, Environmental Protection, Water Resources & Water Districts, Sewer and Sewer Districts
Type: Original
Date: January 12, 2004
FISCAL SUMMARY
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| General Revenue | $0 | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on General Revenue Fund |
$0 | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on Other State Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses.
This fiscal note contains 5 pages.
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Federal Funds | $0 | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| Local Government | $0 | $0 | $0 |
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Office of Secretary of State assume this proposal requires the safe drinking water commission to determine a "per capita average cost" and then reward engineers that design and construct water and sewer facilities that operate lower than the "per capita average cost." The proposal will result in the safe drinking water commission promulgating new rules. These rules would be published in the Missouri Register and the Code of State Regulations. Based on experience with other divisions, the rules, regulations and forms issued by the safe drinking water commission requires as many as thirty-two (32) pages in the Code of State Regulations. For any givenrule roughly half again as many pages are published in the Missouri Register as in the Code because cost statements, fiscal notes and the like are not repeated in Code. These costs are estimated. The estimated cost of a page in the Missouri Register is $23. The estimated cost of a page in the Code is $27. The actual cost could be more or less than the numbers given. [(64x$27) + (96x$23) = $3,936]
Oversight assumes the SOS could absorb the costs of printing and distributing regulations
ASSUMPTION (continued)
related to this proposal. Oversight assumes at least part of the cost of printing and distributing rules relating to this proposal could be recovered through sales of the regulations. If multiple bills pass which require the printing and distribution of regulations at substantial costs, the SOS could request funding through the appropriate process. Any decisions to raise fees to defray costs would likely be made in subsequent fiscal years.
Officials from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) currently, have an inventory system that utilizes the national standard categories to track the public water supplies. The proposal would require the department to maintain the same information under the classifications outlined in the proposal. The department assumes this can be done with existing resources.
The proposal states that any project which receives state or federal funds shall use the formula established in this proposal to determine the payment for costs incurred in the planning and design of the projects. The CWC is to develop the criteria to determine the "per capita average cost" for construction and operation of a wastewater or drinking water facility and the criteria to compensate the engineer for design and construction of wastewater or drinking water facilities which are lower in cost than the per capita cost. The criteria must be based on assessments of the records and financial cost for similar projects or facilities in this state within the previous seven years. The department currently does not require the systems to provide some of the information necessary for the "per capita average cost" calculation.
The department would need to request additional resources to acquire this data and keep it updated so the per capita average cost could be calculated. However, since the universe of the amount of data the department would have to evaluate is unknown, the department is unable to determine the fiscal impact.
In addition, the proposal modifies the rural water and wastewater grant amount limits on projects that have a certified design and operation plan to the amount determined by the formula outlined in the bill. This provision would not impact the department, however, if the modified grant caps are higher than those currently used, fewer projects would be funded.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2005
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| GENERAL REVENUE | |||
| Cost - Department of Natural Resources
Primacy Fees and EPA Funds |
$0 |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
| TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
GENERAL REVENUE |
$0 |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
|
FISCAL IMPACT - Federal Government |
FY 2005
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2006 | FY 20076 |
| Loss - Federal Funds
Primacy Fees and EPA Funds |
$0 |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
| TOTAL ESTIMATED LOSS FEDERAL FUNDS |
$0 |
(Unknown) |
(Unknown) |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2005
(10 Mo.) |
FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
| $0 | $0 | $0 |
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
Any small business that obtains a drinking water permit or receives grant money for drinking water would be affected.
DESCRIPTION
This act establishes a system by which the Clean Water Commission determines a per capita cost average for all safe water remediation projects in the state to encourage the subsequent designer firms or engineers to prepare engineering plans which have an average cost less than the per capita average by offering bonuses for the below cost design.
DESCRIPTION (continued)
The Commission establishes the per capita average cost by dividing up the state into six classes by population. This act would apply to any state or federally funded project.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Secretary of State
Mickey Wilson, CPA
Director
January 12, 2004