LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 24, 1997
TO: Honorable Bob Bullock IN RE: Senate Bill No. 310, As Passed 2nd House
Lieutenant Governor Brown
Senate
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB310 ( Relating
to certain judicial salaries.) this office has detemined the
following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB310-As Passed 2nd House
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
negative impact of $(14,979,332) to General Revenue Related
Funds through the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
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 provide for a justice of the
Supreme Court to receive an annual salary from the state that
is at least $102,463. The bill would set the annual salary of
a chief justice of a court of appeals at $2,500 above the salary
of other justices of the court of appeals. The bill also provides
that the combined salary of a district judge from state and
county sources may not exceed $6,000 less than the salary provided
for a justice of the Supreme Court. The bill would also provide
that visiting judges would receive a salary that was the greater
of the regular judge's salary from the state on August 31, 1997
or 85 percent of the regular judge's salary from the state.
The bill would fund a salary increase of $5,000 for local administrative
judges in a county with more than six district courts and would
provide a $5,000 state supplement to certain county judges.
The
bill would take effect September 1, 1997.
Fiscal Analysis
The salary provisions of the bill would provide for salary increases
for the judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals,
fourteen Courts of Appeals and the state district courts Section
659.012 of the Government Code. Salaries of the district attorneys
would also be increased pursuant to Section 46.003 and Section
41.013 of the Government Code. The salaries of retired and
former judges serving as visiting judges would be capped at
85% of the sitting judge's salary, or the salary from the state
on August 31, 1997, whichever was greater.
The proposed salary
changes would impact the Employees Retirement System (ERS) since
benefits for members of the elected class are based on the salary
of a district judge. The bill would increase the liabilities
and the normal cost of the ERS slightly as a result of the increase
in benefits. However, the fund has a large actuarial surplus
and could absorb these increases. An increase in state contributions
to the program would not be necessary.
The costs for the
state's contributions to the Judicial Retirement System Plan
Two (JRS-2) would increase as a result of the increase in total
judicial payroll. Additionally, the liabilities of the JRS-2
would increase, along with the amortization period. However,
the amortization period would still be below the 30 year period
required by statute; therefore, an increase in the contribution
rate would not be necessary. At the current state contribution
rate of 16.54%, the increase in state contributions resulting
from the increased payroll would be $450,000 in FY1998, $487,930
in FY1999, $490,246 in FY2000, $512,740 in FY2001, and $514,394
in FY2002.
The increase in salaries would also impact the
state's expenditures for the Judicial Retirement System Plan
One (JRS-1) because the benefits of retired judges in the system
are based on current judicial salaries. Since this program
is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, an increase in pension benefits
results in a direct increase in state expenditures. The increase
in benefits expenditures resulting from this bill would be $1.5
million in FY1998, $1.6 million in FY1999, $1.7 million in FY2000,
$1.8 million in FY2001, and $2.0 million in FY2002.
The bill
would also increase the state cost for the salary of a Chief
Justice of a court of appeals by $2,000 for each Chief Justice
and would require that Supreme Court justices be paid at least
$6,000 more annually than state district court judges. It would
increase the salary of district judges serving as local administrative
district judges in counties with more than six district courts,
and provide a state salary supplement for county judges who
spend 40% or more of their time on judicial functions.
Methodolgy
Using the calculations, provided in the bill for salary adjustments,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Presiding Judge
of the Court of Criminal Appeals would receive $105,247, the
justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals
would receive $102,463, the Chief Justice of a Court of Appeals
would receive $99,870 and a justice of the Court of Appeals
would receive $97,340 annually. District court judges would
receive an increase to $92,217 annually, as would prosecutors
within the professional prosecutors act. Prosecutors with general
felony jurisdiction, not within the professional prosecutors
act, would receive $73,774 annually. The salary apportionment
for the county attorney performing the duties of a district
attorney in Oldham County would increase to $22,132 annually.
This would be a total increase of $4,535,701 annually.
The
Office of Court Administration Annual Report indicates there
would be 9 state district judges who serve as local administrative
district judges in a county with more than six district courts,
who would be eligible for the $5,000 annual salary increase.
The increased costs to the state would be $45,000.
It
is estimated that there are 178 county judges who would be entitled
to an annual salary supplement from the state of $5,000 under
the provisions of the bill. This would be a cost to the general
revenue fund of $890,000.
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 Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) of State
from General Employees from
Revenue Fund FY 1997
0001
1998 ($7,420,701) 0.0
1998 (7,558,631) 0.0
2000 (7,660,947) 0.0
2001 (7,783,441) 0.0
2002 (7,985,095) 0.0
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 ($7,420,701)
1999 (7,558,631)
2000 (7,660,947)
2001 (7,783,441)
2002 (7,985,095)
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government
is anticipated.
Source: Agencies:
LBB Staff: JK ,PE ,DC