NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.
Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
| SPONSOR: | Whitaker | DATE TYPED: | 02/13/01 | HB | 223 | ||
| SHORT TITLE: | Liquid Hauling Tank Vehicle Permits | SB | |||||
| ANALYST: | Williams | ||||||
| Subsequent
Years Impact |
Recurring
or Non-Rec |
Fund
Affected | ||
| FY01 | FY02 | |||
| $ 54.0 | See Narrative | Recurring | State Road Fund | |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Taxation and Revenue Department
No Response
State Highway and Transportation Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
Endorsed by the Revenue Stabilization and Tax Policy Review Committee. The bill authorizes permitting for an increase of up to 25 percent in axle weight for liquid hauling tanks, when those vehicles haul less than a full tank. The permits would be issued at $35 for a single-trip and $120 for an annual permit. The permit revenue is dedicated to the state road fund. The bill would repeal the existing statute regarding permits for excessive weight.
The current statute has similar provisions to those included in this bill. However, current statute regarding liquid hauling tanks expired July 1, 1999. As a result, there is no authorizing law for haulers falling under these definitions.
The bill carries an emergency clause.
Significant Issues
Current statute which is repealed in this bill indicates "Effective between July 1, 1997 and June 30, 2000, the increased axle weight of three-axle solid waste collection vehicles shall not exceed 10 percent of the authorized maximum weight for the vehicle." Solid waste collection vehicles are not addressed in this bill. The current statute also contains language regarding federal sanctions which are not included in this bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Because revenue forecasts assume current law and current law authorizing these permits has expired, then the state road fund forecast should not include any revenue from this source. Thus, this bill would effectively increase state road fund revenues. However, there is a distinction between single trip and annual permits authorized. TRD notes a number of liquid hauler applied for an annual permit at the $120 fee.
In 1991, the original fiscal impact analysis estimated potential revenue of $54.0 from this program. TRD does not have data on actual collections compared to this forecast. Therefore, there is probably no definitive reason why the $54.0 revenue increase is not justifiable.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
TRD notes these permits are issued at the ports of entry by the Oversize/Overweight Permit Bureau of the Motor Transportation Division of the Department of Public Safety.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
TRD notes several technical issues, including the suit brought by the American Trucking Association that the state's unapportioned $5 tax qualification fee and the unapportioned hazardous materials fee are an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The TRD analysis is attached.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1. What impact would this fee have on the current settlement negotiations between the state and the American Trucking Association?
AW/ar/njw
Attachment