LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
April 21, 1997
TO: Honorable Bill Ratliff, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 310, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
Committee on Finance By: 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-Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
negative impact of $(13,053,332) 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 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
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 as
provided in 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.
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 $97,870 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.
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 ($6,457,701)
1998 (6,595,631)
2000 (6,697,947)
2001 (6,820,441)
2002 (7,022,095)
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 ($6,457,701)
1999 (6,595,631)
2000 (6,697,947)
2001 (6,820,441)
2002 (7,022,095)
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: RR ,SC ,DC