LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 82ND LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION Revision 1 April 11, 2011 TO: Honorable Sid Miller, Chair, House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety FROM: John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB1536 by Eiland (Relating to the creation of DNA records for the DNA database system.), As Introduced Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB1536, As Introduced: an impact of $0 through the biennium ending August 31, 2013. The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill.
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 82ND LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
Revision 1
April 11, 2011
Revision 1
Revision 1
TO: Honorable Sid Miller, Chair, House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety FROM: John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB1536 by Eiland (Relating to the creation of DNA records for the DNA database system.), As Introduced
TO: Honorable Sid Miller, Chair, House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety
FROM: John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB1536 by Eiland (Relating to the creation of DNA records for the DNA database system.), As Introduced
Honorable Sid Miller, Chair, House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety
Honorable Sid Miller, Chair, House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety
John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
HB1536 by Eiland (Relating to the creation of DNA records for the DNA database system.), As Introduced
HB1536 by Eiland (Relating to the creation of DNA records for the DNA database system.), As Introduced
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB1536, As Introduced: an impact of $0 through the biennium ending August 31, 2013. The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill.
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB1536, As Introduced: an impact of $0 through the biennium ending August 31, 2013.
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 2012 $0 2013 $0 2014 $0 2015 $0 2016 $0
2012 $0
2013 $0
2014 $0
2015 $0
2016 $0
All Funds, Five-Year Impact: Fiscal Year Probable (Cost) fromState Highway Fund6 2012 ($31,402,709) 2013 ($23,897,628) 2014 ($23,957,628) 2015 ($23,912,511) 2016 ($23,897,628)
Fiscal Year Probable (Cost) fromState Highway Fund6 2012 ($31,402,709) 2013 ($23,897,628) 2014 ($23,957,628) 2015 ($23,912,511) 2016 ($23,897,628)
2012 ($31,402,709)
2013 ($23,897,628)
2014 ($23,957,628)
2015 ($23,912,511)
2016 ($23,897,628)
Fiscal Year Change in Number of State Employees from FY 2011 2012 102.4 2013 102.4 2014 102.4 2015 102.4 2016 102.4 Fiscal Analysis The bill would amend the Government Code to expand the list of applicable defendants required to provide a DNA sample from the current requirement of certain felony offenses, to all offenses classified as Class B Misdemeanors or higher and offenders receiving deferred adjudication for certain crimes. The bill would take effect September 1, 2011. Methodology In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) processed 68,370 DNA samples. In fiscal year 2010, there were 671,633 adult arrests for Class B Misdemeanor offenses or higher. The bill would require DPS to process approximately 600,000 additional DNA samples per year. DPS indicates their current staff has the ability to process approximately 100,000 DNA samples per year, so the bill would increase the workload related to DNA sample processing six-fold. This would require additional FTEs and a one-time purchase of additional equipment necessary to process the additional DNA samples. Assuming an approximate six-fold increase in workload related to processing DNA samples, DPS would require a total of 102.4 additional FTEs with associated costs, including 51 Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) analysts, 21 Crime Laboratory Specialist Is, 2 Forensic Scientist IVs, 5 Program Specialist Is, 1 Administrative Assistant I, 11 Fingerprint Technician IIs, and 11.4 Accountant Vs. The bill would also require a one-time purchase of additional equipment used to process the DNA samples, estimated at $6,951,820. Additionally, the processing of each DNA sample costs $26.96 for consumable supplies such as disposable items and chemicals. This will require an additional $16,176,000 ($26.96*600,000 = $16,176,000) each year. Technology DPS would require a one-time purchase of additional equipment used to process DNA samples, estimated at $6,951,000. Local Government Impact The bill would require local law enforcement to obtain specimens from certain defendants to create a DNA record. Texas Association of Counties (TAC) reported that several local law enforcement entities reported the provisions of the bill would not result in a significant fiscal impact. However, larger counties would likely see more costs associated with collecting and delivering the DNA sample to the state given the large increase in the number of individuals from whom samples would be required. Source Agencies:405 Department of Public Safety LBB Staff: JOB, ESi, GG, KKR
Fiscal Year Change in Number of State Employees from FY 2011 2012 102.4 2013 102.4 2014 102.4 2015 102.4 2016 102.4
2012 102.4
2013 102.4
2014 102.4
2015 102.4
2016 102.4
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would amend the Government Code to expand the list of applicable defendants required to provide a DNA sample from the current requirement of certain felony offenses, to all offenses classified as Class B Misdemeanors or higher and offenders receiving deferred adjudication for certain crimes. The bill would take effect September 1, 2011.
Methodology
In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) processed 68,370 DNA samples. In fiscal year 2010, there were 671,633 adult arrests for Class B Misdemeanor offenses or higher. The bill would require DPS to process approximately 600,000 additional DNA samples per year. DPS indicates their current staff has the ability to process approximately 100,000 DNA samples per year, so the bill would increase the workload related to DNA sample processing six-fold. This would require additional FTEs and a one-time purchase of additional equipment necessary to process the additional DNA samples. Assuming an approximate six-fold increase in workload related to processing DNA samples, DPS would require a total of 102.4 additional FTEs with associated costs, including 51 Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) analysts, 21 Crime Laboratory Specialist Is, 2 Forensic Scientist IVs, 5 Program Specialist Is, 1 Administrative Assistant I, 11 Fingerprint Technician IIs, and 11.4 Accountant Vs. The bill would also require a one-time purchase of additional equipment used to process the DNA samples, estimated at $6,951,820. Additionally, the processing of each DNA sample costs $26.96 for consumable supplies such as disposable items and chemicals. This will require an additional $16,176,000 ($26.96*600,000 = $16,176,000) each year.
Technology
DPS would require a one-time purchase of additional equipment used to process DNA samples, estimated at $6,951,000.
Local Government Impact
The bill would require local law enforcement to obtain specimens from certain defendants to create a DNA record. Texas Association of Counties (TAC) reported that several local law enforcement entities reported the provisions of the bill would not result in a significant fiscal impact. However, larger counties would likely see more costs associated with collecting and delivering the DNA sample to the state given the large increase in the number of individuals from whom samples would be required.
The bill would require local law enforcement to obtain specimens from certain defendants to create a DNA record.
Texas Association of Counties (TAC) reported that several local law enforcement entities reported the provisions of the bill would not result in a significant fiscal impact. However, larger counties would likely see more costs associated with collecting and delivering the DNA sample to the state given the large increase in the number of individuals from whom samples would be required.
Source Agencies: 405 Department of Public Safety
405 Department of Public Safety
LBB Staff: JOB, ESi, GG, KKR
JOB, ESi, GG, KKR