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
SPONSOR: |
Lujan |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
297 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Additional Santa Fe Magistrate Judge |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Hayes |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
$278.3 |
|
|
Recurring* |
General
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates to SB143
LFC files
No
Responses Received From
Administrative
Office of the Courts (
Public
Defender Department (PDD)
District
Attorney’s Office
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 297 amends
Section 34-1-29 NMSA 1978 to increase the number of magistrate judges in the
The magistrate would
be filled by appointment by the governor to begin serving on
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
The effective date of
the provisions of HB230 is
Significant
Issues
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $278.3
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
Here is a table
delineating the appropriation amount to each agency noted in the bill:
AGENY: |
Appropriation to Court |
Appropriation to District Attorney |
Appropriation to Public Defender |
TOTAL |
AMOUNT: |
$99,380 |
$75,925 |
$103,000 |
$278,305 |
RELATIONSHIP
Senate Bill 143, the
“judgeship bill,” provides for one additional magistrate judge at the
$99,380, the same
amount as HB297. There are also
appropriations in SB143 in each of the respective offices for the district
attorneys and public defenders affected by the proposed magistrate.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Besides clarification
of recurring vs. non-recurring amounts, references to “additional staff” or
“support staff” in the bill should be clarified by indicating the number of FTE
specifically being funded.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS