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