LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 81ST LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION April 28, 2009 TO: Honorable Garnet Coleman, Chair, House Committee on County Affairs FROM: John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB2743 by Paxton (Relating to the availability of certain county financial information on certain counties' Internet websites.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated. The bill would amend the Local Government Code to require the county treasurer in a county with a population of 250,000 or more to maintain the transaction register for the county's checking account in a searchable electronic spreadsheet format in which the register would be readily available for viewing, downloading, and data sharing with any interested person. The bill specifies what should and what should not be included in the posting and provides required dates for when each type of information is required to be added. A county would not be allowed to charge to view or download the register. A county that maintained a registry on or before August 1, 2010 would be exempt from the provisions of the bill. The county treasurer would be authorized to consult with the Comptroller of Public Accounts in developing an electronic checking account transaction register. Local Government Impact The fiscal impact would vary by county depending on existing electronic capabilities and systems that are in place. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 15 counties that have a population of 250,000 or more. The two largest counties, Dallas and Harris, submitted estimates of the fiscal impact to the county. Dallas County estimates the county would incur costs for 0.5 FTE and 120 hours of programming in fiscal year 2011, followed by 20 hours per month of ongoing maintainence of the information in subsequent fiscal years, but did not list the dollar amount for those costs. Harris County reports that the county treasurer already maintains an electronic checking account on the county's website; therefore, the county would experience no fiscal impact. Source Agencies:304 Comptroller of Public Accounts LBB Staff: JOB, DB, KJG, TP
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 81ST LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
April 28, 2009
TO: Honorable Garnet Coleman, Chair, House Committee on County Affairs FROM: John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB2743 by Paxton (Relating to the availability of certain county financial information on certain counties' Internet websites.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
TO: Honorable Garnet Coleman, Chair, House Committee on County Affairs
FROM: John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB2743 by Paxton (Relating to the availability of certain county financial information on certain counties' Internet websites.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
Honorable Garnet Coleman, Chair, House Committee on County Affairs
Honorable Garnet Coleman, Chair, House Committee on County Affairs
John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
HB2743 by Paxton (Relating to the availability of certain county financial information on certain counties' Internet websites.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
HB2743 by Paxton (Relating to the availability of certain county financial information on certain counties' Internet websites.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
The bill would amend the Local Government Code to require the county treasurer in a county with a population of 250,000 or more to maintain the transaction register for the county's checking account in a searchable electronic spreadsheet format in which the register would be readily available for viewing, downloading, and data sharing with any interested person. The bill specifies what should and what should not be included in the posting and provides required dates for when each type of information is required to be added. A county would not be allowed to charge to view or download the register. A county that maintained a registry on or before August 1, 2010 would be exempt from the provisions of the bill. The county treasurer would be authorized to consult with the Comptroller of Public Accounts in developing an electronic checking account transaction register.
The bill would amend the Local Government Code to require the county treasurer in a county with a population of 250,000 or more to maintain the transaction register for the county's checking account in a searchable electronic spreadsheet format in which the register would be readily available for viewing, downloading, and data sharing with any interested person. The bill specifies what should and what should not be included in the posting and provides required dates for when each type of information is required to be added. A county would not be allowed to charge to view or download the register. A county that maintained a registry on or before August 1, 2010 would be exempt from the provisions of the bill.
The county treasurer would be authorized to consult with the Comptroller of Public Accounts in developing an electronic checking account transaction register.
Local Government Impact
The fiscal impact would vary by county depending on existing electronic capabilities and systems that are in place. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 15 counties that have a population of 250,000 or more. The two largest counties, Dallas and Harris, submitted estimates of the fiscal impact to the county. Dallas County estimates the county would incur costs for 0.5 FTE and 120 hours of programming in fiscal year 2011, followed by 20 hours per month of ongoing maintainence of the information in subsequent fiscal years, but did not list the dollar amount for those costs. Harris County reports that the county treasurer already maintains an electronic checking account on the county's website; therefore, the county would experience no fiscal impact.
The fiscal impact would vary by county depending on existing electronic capabilities and systems that are in place.
Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 15 counties that have a population of 250,000 or more. The two largest counties, Dallas and Harris, submitted estimates of the fiscal impact to the county. Dallas County estimates the county would incur costs for 0.5 FTE and 120 hours of programming in fiscal year 2011, followed by 20 hours per month of ongoing maintainence of the information in subsequent fiscal years, but did not list the dollar amount for those costs. Harris County reports that the county treasurer already maintains an electronic checking account on the county's website; therefore, the county would experience no fiscal impact.
Source Agencies: 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff: JOB, DB, KJG, TP
JOB, DB, KJG, TP