LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 31, 1997
TO: Honorable Bob Bullock Honorable James E. "Pete" Laney
Lieutenant Governor Speaker of the House
Senate
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on HB2697 ( relating
to the salary from the state of a district judge who serves
as a local administrative district judge.) this office has detemined
the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by HB2697-Conference Committee Report
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a
net negative impact of $(107,524) to General Revenue Related
Funds through the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would provide a salary supplement of $5,000 for local
administrative district judges in counties with more than five
district courts. Seven counties--Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Tarrant,
El Paso, Travis, and Hidalgo--have more than five district courts.
Methodolgy
The cost to the state for providing a $5,000 supplement to ten
local administrative district judges would be $50,000 annually.
Judges
would be required to make retirement contributions on the additional
salary. For Judicial Retirement System Plan One (JRS-1) judges,
the employee contribution of 6.0% of salary is deposited into
the state's General Revenue Fund. For the estimated four JRS-1
members, the additional revenue to the state would be $1,200
annually.
For members of the Judicial Retirement System Plan
Two (JRS-2), the state is required to contribute 16.54% of salary
into the plan's trust fund. The cost for the estimated six
JRS-2 members would be $4,962 from the General Revenue Fund
annually.
The amount of a judicial member's annuity under
either system is based on the State salary of a judge of a court
of the same classification on which the retiree last served
before retirement. Under this bill, the additional salary paid
to local administrative judges would not be considered when
calculating retirement benefits because the base salary for
a district court judge does not change. As a result, members
would have to make additional retirement contributions, but
would not receive any additional retirement benefit.
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
Savings/(Cost)
from General
Revenue Fund
0001
1998 ($53,762)
1998 (53,762)
2000 (53,762)
2001 (53,762)
2002 (53,762)
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 ($53,762)
1999 (53,762)
2000 (53,762)
2001 (53,762)
2002 (53,762)
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: 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,PE ,DC ,SC