BILL ANALYSIS



H.B. 2673
By: Thompson
C.S.H.B. 2673
By: Hartnett
4-11-95
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

     For many years the statutory county courts have been used to
lessen the backlog of cases in district courts created by the
State's unwillingness and inability in some areas to create
additional district courts.  Many counties in the past several
sessions have created statutory county courts or increased the
jurisdiction of existing courts in response.  In the 72nd
Legislature, House Bill 66 was passed which established a system to
help fund statutory county courts throughout the state through the
collection of fees and costs under Sections 51.701 and 51.702,
Government Code, to help fund the state work being done by these
county courts.  Under the system created by House Bill 66 and later
House Bill 36, 73rd Regular Session, counties opt into the funding
system by agreeing to set certain salaries, collect certain fees
and costs, and other conditions.  In return the county is supposed
to receive at least $25,000 per court.  In the original
projections, the collection of these fees would generate at least
$25,000 per court.  The appropriations bill passed the last two
sessions have contained provisions that limited outlays under this
system to the amount of fees actually collected.  The fees
collected have never fully funded this funding mechanism and the
counties have received prorated portions of the $25,000.  Many
counties have increased the salaries of their judges to levels
higher than the amount of funds they have received from the state. 
Because of these shortfalls many counties are considering opting
out of this system.


PURPOSE

     The purpose of this bill is to increase the credit counties
receive under Section 25.0016(c), Government Code for cases heard
in statutory county courts and the fees counties collect under
Section 51.702(a), Government Code, to $30 and increase the court
costs in Section 51.702(b) to $15.


RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

     It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not
expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state
officer, department, agency or institution.


SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

     SECTION 1. Amends Section 25.0016(c), Government Code, to
increase the credit counties receive for funds collected under
Section 51.701 for cases handled by a statutory county court to
$30.

     SECTION 2. Amends Section 51.702(a) and (b), Government Code,
to increase the fee collected under this section in subsection (a)
to $30 and the court cost under subsection (b) to $15.

     SECTION 3. Application of the act.

     SECTION 4. Emergency clause.


COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

     In Sections 1 and 2, the substitute increases the credit
counties receive under Section 25.0016(c), Government Code, for
cases heard in statutory county courts and the fees counties
collect under Section 51.702(a), Government Code, to $30 instead of
$25 as in the original, and increases the court costs in Section
51.702(b) to $15, which was not in the original bill.
     Section 3, application of the act, is more detailed in the
substitute than in the original.
     Section 4 is the same in both versions.


SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

     Pursuant to a public notice posted on April 6, 1995, the
Committee on Judicial Affairs met in a public hearing on April 11,
1995, to consider H.B. 2673.  The Chair, Rep. Hartnett, laid out
H.B. 2673 and recognized Rep. Goodman to explain.  The Chair
offered and laid out a complete committee substitute to H.B. 2673. 
Brete Anderson, Legislative Aide to Rep. Thompson, testified
neutrally on H.B. 2673 & C.S.H.B. 2673.  The following witnesses
testified for the bill:
      Judge Thomas Bacus, County Court-at-Law #3, Wichita County,
representing himself; 
      Bob Wessels, representing County Courts-at-Law in Harris
County; and,
      Judge Don Windle, representing the Texas Association of
County Courts-at-Law.
Rep. Solis moved adoption of the substitute.  There were no
objections.  Rep. Goodman moved that H.B. 2673, as substituted, be
reported favorably back to the full House with the recommendation
that it do pass, be printed and sent to the Local & Consent
Calendars Committee.  The motion prevailed by the following record
vote:  6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 PNV and 3 absent.