LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE 74th Regular Session May 18, 1995 TO: Honorable Don Henderson, Chair IN RE: Committee Substitute Committee on Jurisprudence for Senate House Bill Austin, Texas No. 3235 By: Turner FROM: John Keel, Director In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on House Bill No. 3235 (relating to the creation of certain judicial districts and to the offices of district attorney of certain judicial districts) this office has determined the following: The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill. The bill would create the 378th Judicial District in Ellis County, the 379th Judicial District in Fort Bend County, the 380th Judicial District in Collin County, the 381st Judicial District in Starr County, the 382nd Judicial District in Rockwall County, the 383rd and 384th Judicial Districts in El Paso County, the 400th, 401st, 402nd, 403rd, and 404th Judicial Districts in Bexar County, the 407th Judicial District in El Paso County, the 408th and 409th Judicial Districts in Travis County and renames the 2nd 9th Judicial District as the 410th Judicial District for Montgomery County, removing Polk, San Jacinto and Trinity Counties from the Judicial District. Polk and San Jacinto Counties are removed from the 9th Judicial District. The 411th Judicial District is created for Polk, San Jacinto and Trinity Counties. The 380th Judicial District is created September 1, 1996, the remaining courts are created January 1, 1997. The bill would create a district attorney for the 278th Judicial District. The district attorney is created within the professional prosecutor's law. The bill would also create the office of county attorney for Grimes County. The bill would require that the 93rd, 107th, 138th and 275th Judicial Districts give preference to cases and proceedings arising under Title 3 of the Family Code. The 206th Judicial District shall give preference to all criminal cases. The fiscal implications to the counties are expected to be approximately $4 million annually. The probable fiscal implication of implementing the provisions of the bill during each of the first five years following passage is estimated as follows: Fiscal Probable Cost Out Year of General Revenue Fund 001 1996 $229,559 1997 1,323,439 1998 1,862,215 1999 1,862,215 2000 1,862,215 Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as the provisions of the bill are in effect. Source: LBB Staff: JK, DC, RR