Colorado Legislative Council Staff



(Replaces Fiscal Note dated January 3, 1998)

TABOR Refund Impact

No General Fund Impact

State Cash Fund Expenditure Impact

Local Expenditure Impact

Drafting Number:

Prime Sponsor(s):

LLS 98-195

Rep. Schauer

Sen. Mutzebaugh


Bill Status:

Fiscal Analyst:

January 30, 1998

House Third Reading

Scott Nachtrieb (866-4752)



Summary of Legislation

            The bill, as amended on second reading January 30, 1998, states that certain provisions in the Air Quality State Implementation Plan are more stringent than federal requirements and are in violation of state law. The permits issued pursuant to these provisions contain terms or conditions that are more stringent than required by federal law. When the Air Quality Control Commission revises any element of the state implementation plan, the commission would be required to determine if the provisions are more stringent than federal law. Any provision found to be more stringent would have to be removed. The amendment added a requirement that whenever the Air Pollution Control Division reviews a source’s application permit, the division would be required to examine the terms and conditions of the permit to determine if they are more stringent than the federal law and can be enforced only by the state. The division would have to ensure that the terms and conditions could not be federally enforced. The bill also states that the state has complied with the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and the general savings clause provisions of the federal "Clean Air Act". The bill would become effective upon the Governor’s signature.


FY 1998/99

FY 1999/2000

State Revenues

General Fund

Stationary Sources Control Cash Fund



State Expenditures

Stationary Sources Control Cash Fund



FTE Position Change

2.3 FTE

2.3 FTE

Local Government ImpactSee Local Government Impact

State Revenues

            This bill would encourage operation and construction source permit holders to have their permits reviewed. It is assumed that 43 of the operating permitted sources would ask for permit reviews. Each source has approximately 15 permits for a total review of 645 permits. It is assumed that 15 percent of the construction permit holders or 750 (0.15 X 5,000) would have their permit reviewed in FY 1998-99 and 1999-00. The total number of permits that would be reviewed under this bill has been estimated at 1,395 and each review would take 3 hours for a total of 4,185 hours. The Air Quality Control Division charges $50 an hour for permit review. This fee would generate $209,250 in cash funds to the Stationary Sources Control Fund in FY 1998-99 and 1999-00. After FY 1999-00, it is assumed that few if any permitted sources would be asking for changes to their permits.

TABOR Refund Impact

            Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution, limits the maximum annual percentage increase in state fiscal year spending. Once total state revenue from all sources that are not specifically excluded from fiscal year spending exceeds these limits for the fiscal year, the state constitution requires that the excess shall be refunded in the next fiscal year unless voters approve a revenue change as an offset. Based on the current Legislative Council economic forecast, it is projected that the state will be in a TABOR refund position during each of the next five fiscal years. Any increase or decrease in state revenue from changes in fees, fines, licenses, or other revenue sources will affect the amount of the state revenue to be refunded.

State Expenditures

            The Department of Public Health and Environment (DPHE) would have an increased workload as a result of the amended bill. The amendments require the department during the normal review of any of the elements of the state implementation plan and the terms and conditions of any operating permit to review the elements and terms and conditions for provisions that may be more stringent than under federal law.

            The amendment added language that would require the division to review operating and construction permits to verify if any terms or conditions exceeded federal standards. It is estimated that 2.3 FTE and $127,476 in cash funds would be required. Approximately 2.3 FTE Environmental Protection Specialist II and $116,436 CF would be required to prepare for hearings and assist in negotiations with interested persons and develop/modify the models used to demonstrate compliance with federal requirements. Capital outlay costs are estimated to be $4,140 CF, computers are estimated to be $5,750, and operating costs are estimated to be $1,150 CF.

Expenditures Not Included

            Pursuant to the Joint Budget Committee’s budget policies, the following expenditures have not been included in this fiscal note:


               health and life insurance costs; $5,086

               short-term disability costs; $216

               inflationary cost factors;

               leased space; and

               indirect costs.

Local Government Impact

            Local governments would have to expend personal service resources to attend meetings, hearings, and discussions concerning the review of any rule or regulation impacting that entity. This could require significant personal services depending on the number of rules that may be found more stringent than federal requirements.

Spending Authority

            The amendment contains a no appropriations clause. It is assumed that the division would adjust priorities and workloads to accommodate the additional workload within existing resources.

Departments Contacted

Health and Environment         Law