NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

 

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Griego

 

DATE TYPED:

02/25/03

 

HB

 

 

SHORT TITLE:

Increase Santa Fe Magistrate Court

 

SB

783

 

 

ANALYST:

Hayes

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

269.5

 

 

Recurring*

General Fund

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

Relates to HB 297 and SB 143

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

LFC files

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

Senate Bill 783 amends Section 35-1-29 NMSA 1978 to increase the number of magistrate judges in the Santa Fe magistrate court district from three to four.  The bill appropriates $193,540 to the Administrative Office of the Courts for salaries and benefits, furniture, supplies and equipment for the additional magistrate judge plus two judicial specialists (clerks).  The other appropriation outlined in SB 783 totaling $75,925 provides for additional resources for the district attorney’s office in the Santa Fe magistrate district.

 

The office of the magistrate division 4 would be filled by appointment by the governor to begin serving on July 1, 2003.  The appointed magistrate will serve until succeeded by the magistrate elected at the general election in 2004 to fill the unexpired term ending December 31, 2006. 

 

The first full term of office will be filled by election at the general election held in 2006 and that term of office will begin on January 1, 2007.

 

The effective date of the provisions of SB 783 is July 1, 2003.

 

     Significant Issues

 

  1. In 1998, the AOC completed an updated and expanded study to provide the Legislature with a methodology for determining the needs for additional judgeships, the Weighted Caseload Study.  The study assigns a weight for each type of case.  The weight, expressed in minutes, represents the average amount of judge’s time necessary to process a case of that type.  Each weight is then multiplied by the number of new cases filed per category.  Although some judges question this methodology, it is the accepted formula of the Chief Judges Council in determining judgeship needs.

 

  1. The Chief Judges Council reviewed the Weighted Caseload Study and voted to support the one additional magistrate judge requested for the Santa Fe magistrate court district as highlighted in the Judiciary Unified Budget and only 1.0 court clerk FTE.

 

  1. The district attorney’s office was notified of the new magistrate requested so that they had an opportunity to assess and report their respective impacts.

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The appropriation of $269.5 contained in this bill is a recurring* expense to the general fund.  Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2004 shall revert to the general fund.

 

*Part of the appropriations to the Santa Fe magistrate court and district attorney is specifically for furniture and equipment.  These are considered capital items (defined by DFA as purchases over $1,500) and are a one-time expense.  Therefore, a portion of this appropriation must be designated as non-recurring.

 

Here is a table delineating the appropriation amount to each agency noted in the bill:

 

 

SANTA FE MAGISTRATE DISTRICT APPROPRIATIONS

 

AGENY:

Appropriation to        Court

Appropriation to District Attorney

Appropriation to Public Defender

TOTAL

AMOUNT:

$193,540

$75,925

$0

$269,465

 

 

RELATIONSHIP

 

Senate Bill 143, the “judgeship bill,” provides for one additional magistrate judge at the Santa Fe magistrate court and appropriates $99,380 for the judge, supplies, furniture and equipment.  No support staff is included.

 

House Bill 297 is similar to SB 783, requesting for an additional judgeship in Santa Fe’s magistrate court district, except for two differences: (1) there are no support staff positions requested; therefore, the appropriation amount is less; and (2) HB 297 requests funding for the public defender’s office along with the court and district attorney whereas SB 783 does not.


POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

 

  1. Why is a separate bill being presented for a new magistrate in the Santa Fe magistrate district?  Typically, all new judges are requested together in the « judgeship bill » pursuant to the Judiciary Unified Budget.

 

  1. What is the current caseload per judge at the Santa Fe magistrate court?  Is caseload increasing, decreasing or flat in this district ?  In what areas of law do you see the greatest growth in caseload?

 

  1. Why is no funding provided to the Public Defender’s Office in this bill?  Doesn’t their office caseload parallel that of the court’s ?

 

CMH/njw