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