Relating to the consolidated municipal court security and technology fund in certain municipalities.
Summary
HB 1950 revises how certain court-cost revenues are handled for municipal court security and technology purposes, with a special structure for smaller municipalities. Under current law, municipal court building security and municipal court technology funds are generally separate funds in the municipal treasury. This bill keeps those separate-fund rules in place for municipalities with populations of 100,000 or more, but excludes municipalities under 100,000 from those provisions.
For municipalities with fewer than 100,000 residents, the bill creates a new consolidated municipal court building security and technology fund. That fund is placed in the municipal court treasury and may be used only for the same purposes already authorized for municipal court building security and technology funds. The governing body of the municipality administers the fund. The bill also updates the court-cost allocation formula in the Local Government Code so that, where applicable, revenues are distributed among courthouse or municipal court security, local youth diversion, court technology, and jury funds, including the new consolidated fund for smaller municipalities.
Impact
The bill amends Article 102.017 and Article 102.0172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 134.103 of the Local Government Code to create a population-based exception for municipalities under 100,000. It changes the way conviction fees are allocated and allows smaller municipalities to combine building security and technology revenues into one consolidated fund, while preserving the authorized uses of those monies. The changes apply only to fees collected on or after the effective date, and the bill took effect immediately upon passage.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House overwhelmingly, with only one no vote and one present-not-voting member, and it passed the Senate unanimously. The lack of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials also suggests there was little public or legislative opposition to the measure.
Contention
No significant contention is reflected in the available record. The main policy choice is administrative: whether smaller municipalities should be allowed to consolidate municipal court security and technology funds rather than maintain separate accounts. Any potential concern would likely center on local control, accounting simplicity, and ensuring that court-cost revenues remain restricted to their intended security and technology purposes, but no specific opposition is shown in the votes or transcripts provided.
In general provisions relating to area government and intergovernmental cooperation, providing for Municipal Police Enhancement and Consolidation Grant Program and establishing the Municipal Police Enhancement and Consolidation Grant Program Fund.
House Substitute for SB 51 by Committee on Legislative Modernization - Authorizing the chief information security officer to receive audit reports, updating statutes related to services provided by the chief information technology officer and authorizing the office of information technology services to provide certain services to political subdivisions and hospitals.