LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session
March 1, 1999
TO: Honorable Rodney Ellis, Chair, Senate Committee on
Jurisprudence
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB229 by Ellis, Rodney (Relating to the collection of
certain fines, court costs, and restitution in criminal
cases.), As Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* SB229, As Introduced: positive impact of $5,955,499 through the *
* biennium ending August 31, 2001. *
**************************************************************************
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact:
****************************************************
* Fiscal Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) *
* Impact to General Revenue Related *
* Funds *
* 2000 $1,582,023 *
* 2001 4,373,476 *
* 2002 4,437,976 *
* 2003 4,437,976 *
* 2004 4,437,976 *
****************************************************
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
*****************************************************
* Fiscal Year Probable Revenue Gain/(Loss) from *
* General Revenue Fund *
* 0001 *
* 2000 $1,582,023 *
* 2001 4,373,476 *
* 2002 4,437,976 *
* 2003 4,437,976 *
* 2004 4,437,976 *
*****************************************************
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would make the time payment fee, established by SB 1417, 75th
Legislature, applicable when any part of a court-assessed fine, cost, or
restitution is not paid within 30 days of the date ordered. Currently,
the fee applies when someone doesn't pay "immediately" which was defined
by the Attorney General in DM-464 as "in a lump sum and within a
reasonable amount of time as directed by the court."
The bill would make the fee apply to all cases in which the court has
deferred final disposition until a later date. Currently, the fee only
applies when there is a conviction and payment is not made in a lump sum
and within a reasonable time as directed by the court.
Cities and counties would be required to remit the state share of the
fees (50%) to the Comptroller of Public Accounts quarterly rather than
monthly as is presently required.
The Office of Court Administration would be required to develop
guidelines for the expenditure of the fees (10%) retained locally that
are to be used for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the
administration of justice in the city or county.
The bill would take effect September 1, 1999 and would apply only to
offenses committed on or after that date.
Methodology
* In state fiscal year 1997 there were 591,730 deferred disposition and
deferred adjudication cases reported. Assuming a 60% collection rate and
reducing first year revenues by 50% due to a phase-in period, the state
would expect to receive $2,218,988. During FY 2001 and each year
thereafter, the state would expect to receive $4,437,976.
* The state would lose one month of revenue as a result of changing the
remittance schedule from a monthly to a quarterly remittance basis.
Using December 1998 figures, this would cost $562,465 during FY 2000.
* The Office of Court Administration would have to develop and distribute
guidelines to the affected counties and cities. This would cost the
state $74,500 in FY 2000 and $64,500 in FY 2001. Thereafter, there would
be no significant cost as the guidelines could be distributed
electronically by means of posting on the internet or on an "as needed"
basis.
* Information on the number of deferred cases and the expected collection
rate was provided by the Office of Court Administration. Information on
the revenue generated by the time payment fee was provided by the
Comptroller of Public Accounts.
Local Government Impact
Local governments would have a revenue gain of $2,218,918 during state FY
2000 and $4,437,976 during state FY 2001 and each year thereafter.
Source Agencies:
LBB Staff: JK, PE, BP, DG