Texas 2009 81st Regular

Texas Senate Bill SB497 House Committee Report / Fiscal Note

Filed 02/01/2025

Download
.pdf .doc .html
                    LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD    Austin, Texas      FISCAL NOTE, 81ST LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION            May 22, 2009      TO: Honorable Todd Hunter, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence      FROM: John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board     IN RE:SB497 by Wentworth (Relating to compensation paid to certain judges and justices.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted    No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.  The bill would amend the Government Code by making the Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department, rather than the Texas Judicial Council the entity responsible for the payment of salary supplements for district judges presiding over asbestos- or silica-related multidistrict litigation cases. Funding for the supplements are $63,250 each fiscal year. Because the bill would transfer statutory authority for paying the salary supplements from one agency to another, no fiscal implication is anticipated for this provision. The bill would also clarify that judicial longevity pay does not constitute additional salary for purposes of determining whether a judge's salary exceeds the statutory maximum.  The bill would provide that monthly longevity pay is equal to 3.1 percent of a judge's gross monthly salary, provided the judge has served 16 years rather than $20 for each year of service.  This provision is expected to increase monthly longevity payments from $320 to an estimated $322 for eligible judges, and does not represent a significant fiscal implication. Local Government Impact The bill would authorize a county commissioners court to provide longevity pay to a judge or justice who would otherwise be eligible for such pay if the service credit the judge or justice earned as a statutory county court judge was established in the retirement system. It is assumed that the bill would not have a significant fiscal implication to local government because county commissioners would only authorize longevity pay if the county had sufficient resources to absorb the costs.    Source Agencies:212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts   LBB Staff:  JOB, TB, MN, TP    

LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 81ST LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
May 22, 2009





  TO: Honorable Todd Hunter, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence      FROM: John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board     IN RE:SB497 by Wentworth (Relating to compensation paid to certain judges and justices.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted  

TO: Honorable Todd Hunter, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence
FROM: John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB497 by Wentworth (Relating to compensation paid to certain judges and justices.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted

 Honorable Todd Hunter, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 

 Honorable Todd Hunter, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 

 John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board

 John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board

SB497 by Wentworth (Relating to compensation paid to certain judges and justices.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted

SB497 by Wentworth (Relating to compensation paid to certain judges and justices.), Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted



No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.

No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.



The bill would amend the Government Code by making the Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department, rather than the Texas Judicial Council the entity responsible for the payment of salary supplements for district judges presiding over asbestos- or silica-related multidistrict litigation cases. Funding for the supplements are $63,250 each fiscal year. Because the bill would transfer statutory authority for paying the salary supplements from one agency to another, no fiscal implication is anticipated for this provision. The bill would also clarify that judicial longevity pay does not constitute additional salary for purposes of determining whether a judge's salary exceeds the statutory maximum.  The bill would provide that monthly longevity pay is equal to 3.1 percent of a judge's gross monthly salary, provided the judge has served 16 years rather than $20 for each year of service.  This provision is expected to increase monthly longevity payments from $320 to an estimated $322 for eligible judges, and does not represent a significant fiscal implication.

The bill would amend the Government Code by making the Judiciary Section, Comptroller's Department, rather than the Texas Judicial Council the entity responsible for the payment of salary supplements for district judges presiding over asbestos- or silica-related multidistrict litigation cases. Funding for the supplements are $63,250 each fiscal year. Because the bill would transfer statutory authority for paying the salary supplements from one agency to another, no fiscal implication is anticipated for this provision. The bill would also clarify that judicial longevity pay does not constitute additional salary for purposes of determining whether a judge's salary exceeds the statutory maximum.  The bill would provide that monthly longevity pay is equal to 3.1 percent of a judge's gross monthly salary, provided the judge has served 16 years rather than $20 for each year of service.  This provision is expected to increase monthly longevity payments from $320 to an estimated $322 for eligible judges, and does not represent a significant fiscal implication.

Local Government Impact

The bill would authorize a county commissioners court to provide longevity pay to a judge or justice who would otherwise be eligible for such pay if the service credit the judge or justice earned as a statutory county court judge was established in the retirement system. It is assumed that the bill would not have a significant fiscal implication to local government because county commissioners would only authorize longevity pay if the county had sufficient resources to absorb the costs.

Source Agencies: 212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts

212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts

LBB Staff: JOB, TB, MN, TP

 JOB, TB, MN, TP