LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 83RD LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION February 18, 2013 TO: Honorable Royce West, Chair, Senate Committee on Jurisprudence FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:SB389 by West (Relating to the imposition of court costs in certain criminal proceedings.), As Introduced No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated. The bill would amend the Government Code, Chapter 51 to require that the court cost assessed to a person convicted of a crime be based on the amount in effect at the time of conviction. The Office of Court Administration (OCA) indicates it could absorb the costs associated with the bill within its current resources. The Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA) does not anticipate a revenue gain to the state as a result of the bill. Local Government Impact According to information gathered by CPA, the counties of Dallas, Potter, and Swisher reported no significant impact associated with the bill. CPA reported that the cities of Amarillo, Georgetown and Stafford would face costs associated with redesigning and reprogramming their court software systems. Costs associated with implementing the provisions of the bill may be significant but could not be estimated due to the complexity of the dual problems of outstanding warrants and inaccurate court costs. These cities also reported that the time required to plan, change, test, and install these changes could be extensive and might delay the implementation date beyond September 1, 2013. According to information gathered by OCA, the city of Houston reported that expenses associated with reprogramming software would be significant, but also could not provide a precise estimate. Source Agencies:212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts LBB Staff: UP, CL, ZS, JJO, KKR
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 83RD LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
February 18, 2013
TO: Honorable Royce West, Chair, Senate Committee on Jurisprudence FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:SB389 by West (Relating to the imposition of court costs in certain criminal proceedings.), As Introduced
TO: Honorable Royce West, Chair, Senate Committee on Jurisprudence
FROM: Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB389 by West (Relating to the imposition of court costs in certain criminal proceedings.), As Introduced
Honorable Royce West, Chair, Senate Committee on Jurisprudence
Honorable Royce West, Chair, Senate Committee on Jurisprudence
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
Ursula Parks, Director, Legislative Budget Board
SB389 by West (Relating to the imposition of court costs in certain criminal proceedings.), As Introduced
SB389 by West (Relating to the imposition of court costs in certain criminal proceedings.), As Introduced
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, Chapter 51 to require that the court cost assessed to a person convicted of a crime be based on the amount in effect at the time of conviction. The Office of Court Administration (OCA) indicates it could absorb the costs associated with the bill within its current resources. The Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA) does not anticipate a revenue gain to the state as a result of the bill.
Local Government Impact
According to information gathered by CPA, the counties of Dallas, Potter, and Swisher reported no significant impact associated with the bill. CPA reported that the cities of Amarillo, Georgetown and Stafford would face costs associated with redesigning and reprogramming their court software systems. Costs associated with implementing the provisions of the bill may be significant but could not be estimated due to the complexity of the dual problems of outstanding warrants and inaccurate court costs. These cities also reported that the time required to plan, change, test, and install these changes could be extensive and might delay the implementation date beyond September 1, 2013. According to information gathered by OCA, the city of Houston reported that expenses associated with reprogramming software would be significant, but also could not provide a precise estimate.
According to information gathered by CPA, the counties of Dallas, Potter, and Swisher reported no significant impact associated with the bill.
CPA reported that the cities of Amarillo, Georgetown and Stafford would face costs associated with redesigning and reprogramming their court software systems. Costs associated with implementing the provisions of the bill may be significant but could not be estimated due to the complexity of the dual problems of outstanding warrants and inaccurate court costs. These cities also reported that the time required to plan, change, test, and install these changes could be extensive and might delay the implementation date beyond September 1, 2013.
According to information gathered by OCA, the city of Houston reported that expenses associated with reprogramming software would be significant, but also could not provide a precise estimate.
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: UP, CL, ZS, JJO, KKR
UP, CL, ZS, JJO, KKR