LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
April 7, 1997
TO: Honorable Allen Place, Chair IN RE: House Bill No. 2272
Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence By: Thompson
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on HB2272 ( Relating
to certain court costs a person convicted of certain offenses
is required to pay.) this office has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by HB2272-As Introduced
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
positive impact of $9,000,000 to General Revenue Related Funds
through the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would amend two state court fees and replace seven
others with a uniform court fee schedule by type of offense.
These current court fees would be replaced by a single state
court fee of $125 for felonies and similar convictions, $75
for Class A and B misdemeanors and similar convictions, and
$32 for certain offenses punishable by fine only. The bill
would lay out the mechanism for collection of the court fees
and allocate a specific percentage of collections to each account
that currently receives revenue from the affected court fees.
Local governments would continue to be allowed to retain 10
percent of the court fees as service fees for collection.
The
bill would not affect current court costs for judicial and court
personnel training, juvenile probation diversion, arrest fees,
and traffic law failure to appear.
The bill would allow counties
and municipalities that maintain a certified breath alcohol
testing program without the assistance of a Department of Public
Safety certified technical supervisor to continue to retain
$22.50 of each of the court costs for intoxication convictions
under Chapter 49 of the Penal Code and Chapter 522 of the Transportation
Code.
The bill would take effect January 1, 1998 and would
apply to court costs imposed on convictions for offenses that
had been committed on or after that date.
Methodolgy
The Comptroller of Public Accounts analysis applied the new
fees that would imposed by the bill to the number of cases with
convictions in fiscal year 1996 and determined that the amount
of assessed court costs would be similar to the amount assessed
under the current fee structure. About 75.9 percent of costs
currently assessed are actually collected under the current
fee structure. Assuming a similar collection rate, there would
be no loss to state revenue under this bill.
According to
the Comptroller, the accounts involved and the percentages for
distribution are the same as under current collections, except
that collections for judicial and court personnel training,
juvenile probation diversion, and arrest fees are excluded.
Applying the percentages to the estimated revenue from the
new court costs would have no significant effect on those accounts.
The unspecified percentage for distribution, 10.62 percent,
would be deposited to the General Revenue Fund. The General
Revenue Fund currently receives about 7 percent of total collections
for court costs. The Comptroller found that there would be
a gain to the General Revenue Fund.
The estimated fiscal
impact assumes that the number of convictions would remain equivalent
in future years.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Five Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable Revenue
Gain/(Loss) from
General Revenue
Fund
0001
1998 $4,500,000
1998 4,500,000
2000 4,500,000
2001 4,500,000
2002 4,500,000
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds
during each of the first five years is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 $4,500,000
1999 4,500,000
2000 4,500,000
2001 4,500,000
2002 4,500,000
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government
is anticipated.
Source: Agencies: 753 Sam Houston State University
405 Department of Public Safety
301 Office of the Governor
407 Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
212 Office of Court Administration
304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
302 Office of the Attorney General
LBB Staff: JK ,CB ,RN