Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may 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 Hamilton

DATE TYPED 2/23/05

HB 476/aHJC

SHORT TITLE Magistrate Court Warrant Management Fee

SB

ANALYST McSherry

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

$0.6 Non-Recurring General Fund

$12.6 Recurring General Fund

REVENUE

Estimated Revenue

Subsequent

Years Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

$946.7

$946.7 Recurring Magistrate Warrant

Enforcement Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of HJC Amendment

The proposed amendment to House Bill 476 would clarify the local government entity which

would receive the proposed warrant management fees as the counties. The amendment also

clarifies that the purpose of the fee: “for the expense of managing and administering bench war-

rants.”

Synopsis of Original Bill

House Bill 476 proposes to amend Section 35-6-5, NMSA 1978, “Magistrate Court Warrant En-

forcement Fund — Fee — Administration — Use of Money in Fund.” The bill changes the title

to include “fees” rather than “fee.” In addition to the warrant enforcement fee ($100.0), the bill

House Bill 476 -- Page 2

adds a second fee that would be deposited in the existing Magistrate Court Warrant Enforcement

Fund, a warrant management fee ($50.0). The management fee funds collected are proposed to

be distributed by the AOC each quarter to the counties. The funds received by the counties

would be for the purposed of managing and administering bench warrants. A total of one hun-

dred fifty dollars ($150) would be assessed upon the issuance of a bench warrant against the in-

dividual whose arrest is commanded by the bench warrant. The fees collected would be depos-

ited into the magistrate court warrant enforcement fund. All balances would be appropriated to

the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and remaining balances in the magistrate court

warrant enforcement fund at the end of a fiscal year would not revert to the state general fund.

According to the AOC, the primary purpose of the existing one hundred dollar ($100) warrant

enforcement fee is to employ personnel and purchase equipment and services to aid in the collec-

tion of fines, fees or costs owed to the magistrate courts and the secondary purpose is to partially

reimbursement law enforcement agencies for the expense of servicing bench warrants issued by

the magistrate courts.

Significant Issues

The Warrant Enforcement Fund is a non-reverting fund.

According to the Supreme Court, the judiciary is generally opposed to any increase in court fees.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

AOC reports that FY 2005 is the second year that the courts are participating in performance

based budgeting and that this bill may have a significant impact on the performance based budg-

eting measures identified for fiscal year 2006, which may result in a need for additional re-

sources.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The creation of the additional fee to be deposited in the Warrant Enforcement Fund should cause

revenues into the fund to increase by 50 percent, should the same number of warrants be col-

lected upon. According to the proposed bill, all additional revenues would be designated for the

particular use of managing warrant databases. The budget for the local government agency

would increase by the revenues generated by the proposed fee.

The AOC reports that the $50 warrant management fee could generate an estimated $946,714

from only the courts, and that none of the monies collected will be used to support the additional

duties required of the courts or the AOC to properly manage the warrant management fee. $0.6

thousand dollars is estimated by the AOC to be a one time cost required to update the FACTS

system which currently tracks warrant enforcement funds and collection. The AOC also esti-

mates a recurring expense of $12.6 thousand to the general fund; this would cover wages of a

part-time coordinator FTE responsible for the additional administrative duties projected by the

agency to be necessary to implement collection and tracking of the proposed fee.

During fiscal year 2004, the magistrate courts report that approximately 23,982 warrants were

served by law enforcement agencies and that 78 percent of the warrant enforcement fees were

collected. The AOC asserts that the implementation of additional warrant management fees has

House Bill 476 -- Page 3

the potential to reduce the amount of fees collected by the courts and that the same would happen

should any fee be increased.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The AOC reports that enacting House Bill 476 would increase the administrative duties of the

agency because the bill requires the distribution of proposed fees to local governments.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

The bill is not specific regarding the manner of distributing fees to the counties. Fees could be

distributed based upon the proportion of the total fees collected, or by fees assessed, per county;

fees could also be distributed according to the determined “need” for management funds in each

county.

AOC cites that the Department of Public Safety NCIC Director has requested a report to indicate

the specific number of agencies that manage warrants.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.

If HB 476 does not pass, the Warrant Enforcement Fund will continue to be funded solely

through warrant enforcement fees of $100.

If HB 476 does not pass the counties would not receive funds from the Warrant Enforcement

Fund.

EM/lg:yr