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.