LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 12, 1997
TO: Honorable Senfronia Thompson, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 1417, Committee Report 2nd House, as amended
Committee on Judicial Affairs By: Ellis
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB1417 ( Relating
to judicial efficiency.) this office has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB1417-Committee Report 2nd House, as amended
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
positive impact of $7,515,728 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 establish a Time Payment Fee
of $25 which would be assessed by clerks of district, county
and justice courts on persons who sought to pay a court fine
or court costs or restitution over a period of time. The county
would send 50% of the fees collected to the comptroller to deposit
in the General Revenue Fund. The custodian of the county treasury
could retain 40% of the fees collected in the general revenue
account of the county. The remaining 10% of the fees collected
shall be deposited into an account under the control of the
officer collecting the fees as reimbursement for the expense
of making collections.
The bill would also create a recruitment
program at the Office of Court Administration to recruit individuals
for judicial law clerks and staff attorneys.
The bill would
create the Judicial Law Clerk Student Loan Fund as an account
in the General Revenue Fund to assist judicial law clerks to
repay law school debts. The fund would be administered by the
Texas Judicial Council.
The bill would direct the Office
of Court Administration (OCA) to establish a program to assist
courts in employing judicial law clerks, requires the agency
to publish a report regarding the demographic profile of the
judicial law clerks and attorneys employed by the courts of
the state, directs the agency to adopt rules and forms for collecting
performance information, and gives the agency additional responsibilities.
The
Judicial Committee on Information Technology would be established,
and the bill provides that members may receive reimbursement
for travel expenses. The bill also would create the Judicial
Technology Account in the Judicial Fund and would authorize
the Supreme Court to impose a charge for access to information
that exists on the computerized electronic judicial information
system. The bill provides that money in the judicial technology
account may be supplemented by local or federal money and public
or private grants.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill creates the Judicial Law Clerk Student Fund and the
Judicial Technology Account within the Judicial Fund. No source
of revenue is provided, the Judicial Law Clerk Student Fund
and the Judicial Technology Account would receive funds by appropriation
from the Legislature.
Methodolgy
It is estimated that there will be 816,190 eligible cases at
$25 a case or $20,404,738 in time payment fees annually. Fifty
percent of the fees, $10,202,369, would go to the general revenue
fund. Forty percent, or $8.2 million, remains at the county
level in the general revenue account of the county or municipality.
The remaining 10 percent or $2,040.474, would be deposited
into an account under the control of the officer who collected
the fees as reimbursement for the expense of making the collections.
Costs to the Office of Court Administration would be: $71,860
in FY 98, and $61,160 in FY 99 for Judicial law clerk and staff
attorney recruitment; $614,139 in FY 98 and $614,139 in FY 99
for the Judicial Law Clerk Student Loan Fund, $5,000 in each
year for the demographic census, $70,200 in FY 98 and $60,500
in FY 99 for court performance standards, $5,451,306 in FY 98
and $5,436,756 in FY 99 for the Judicial Committee on Information
Technology and $232,000 in FY 98 and $212,000 in FY 99 for court
efficiency requirements.
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 Probable Change in Number
Gain/(Loss) from Savings/(Cost) of State
General Revenue from General Employees from
Fund Revenue Fund FY 1997
0001 0001
1998 $10,202,369 ($6,444,505) 40.0
1998 10,202,369 (6,444,505) 40.0
2000 10,202,369 (6,444,505) 40.0
2001 10,202,369 (6,444,505) 40.0
2002 10,202,369 (6,444,505) 40.0
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 $3,757,864
1999 3,757,864
2000 3,757,864
2001 3,757,864
2002 3,757,864
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
Local governments could receive increased revenues of approximately
$10,202,369 annually.
Source: Agencies:
LBB Staff: JK ,PE ,DC