On May 29, 2025, Governor Abbott signed House Bill 1950, introducing a new funding structure for municipal courts in cities under 100,000 in population. The bill went into effect immediately and creates the Municipal Court Building Security and Technology Fund, a consolidated account that simplifies how two key portions of the $14 Local Consolidated Fee (LCF) are managed.
What Changed?
Previously, the $14 LCF was divided among four different funds, two of which were:
Municipal Court Building Security Fund
Municipal Court Technology Fund
HB 1950 consolidates these two into a single fund for eligible cities. The consolidated fund can be used for the same purposes as the separate accounts: enhancing court security and upgrading court technology.
This gives local governments greater flexibility in managing limited resources while maintaining statutory intent.
What Hasn’t Changed?
The Juvenile Case Manager and Court Efficiency fund allocations under the $14 LCF are not affected by HB 1950.
A Practical Challenge: The Three-Fund Problem
While future LCF revenue will flow into the new consolidated fund, cities still must manage existing balances in the original security and technology funds under the prior legal restrictions.
This means that, at least for now, cities under 100,000 will need to maintain three separate accounts:
Security Fund (for pre-HB 1950 revenue)
Technology Fund (for pre-HB 1950 revenue)
Consolidated Security & Technology Fund (for post-HB 1950 revenue)
Money collected on or after May 29, 2025 must be deposited into the new Consolidated Security and Technology Fund. Money collected May 28, 2025 or earlier must be deposited into the pre-HB 1950 funds (#1 and #2 above) and are subject to the previous usage rules.
This transitional period may require updates to local financial policies, audit tracking, and fund expenditure practices.
Why It Matters
HB 1950 gives small and mid-sized cities the flexibility to use LCF funds where they’re most needed—security or technology—without the rigidity of two separate accounts. But until older funds are exhausted, cities will need to carefully manage multiple accounts to stay compliant.
Mark Goodner sat down with Madison Mondragon to discuss her recent arrival at TMCEC.
MG: Madison, welcome to the TMCEC team! You’ve now been with us for three weeks or so. What’s it been like getting started, and what have you been focusing on during your first days here?
MM: It has been a great time diving headfirst into work and learning all things municipal courts. Everyone on the team at TMCEC has graciously answered my questions and made me feel at home. Even in my short time at TMCEC, I have seen how the fundamental rights of citizens are implicated each day in municipal court. As I learn about the municipal courts, I appreciate how the system weighs efficiency, fairness, and meeting those interacting with the court where they are.
MG: You bring a great mix of legal experience and energy to our team. Tell us a little about your background—what kind of legal work have you done before coming to TMCEC?
MM: Before joining TMCEC I practiced family law here in Austin. It is a refreshing change of pace to work with our constituents as a resource rather than just while engaging in such tense litigation.
MG: You’re jumping in quickly! You’ll be presenting on Morning Coffee and at the Court Administrators and Prosecutors Seminar in just your first few weeks. What are you most excited to work on in your early time here?
MM: Before I began working at TMCEC, I did not appreciate how wide ranging the implications of municipal courts were. My first day at work, I opened a desk drawer and saw a pocket-sized Constitution of the United States. I thought to myself, ‘I won’t be looking at that but nice to have it around.’ It turns out that I was wrong, the next day we were reviewing the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth amendments. This week I have been tracking legislation in Texas. Each day I hear the legal calls from across the state and the ensuing office discussion analyzing issues from each angle. Getting to learn something new each day that helps serve our constituents has been exciting and I can’t wait to see what the future brings!
MG: We always love learning what makes our team tick beyond the resume. What would you like TMCEC’s constituents to know about you—whether professionally, personally, or both?
MM: I’m a seventh generation Texas with roots back to the Republic of Texas, but I have a deep connection to New Orleans, Louisiana where I attended law school. I’m a member of the Krewe of Cleopatra and this past year I took my six-month old son to his first Mardi Gras!
MG: Thanks for taking the time to chat with me for the blog. I’m sure our readers will look forward to meeting you in person at one of our upcoming programs!
Municipal courts in Texas are tasked with ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all defendants, particularly those unable to pay fines and court costs due to indigence. With the implementation of Chapter 45A of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedural safeguards for indigent defendants have been reorganized. This blog highlights some key protections in Chapter 45A and explains the legal distinction between waiving fines and waiving court costs.
Key Protections and Procedural Safeguards in Chapter 45A
Assessment of Indigence Under Art. 45A.252, when a defendant enters a plea in open court, courts must evaluate the defendant’s financial situation to determine their ability to pay fines and court costs. This step allows for a meaningful sentence that is tailored to the individual case.
Community Service as an Alternative Courts may permit defendants with insufficient resources or income to discharge fines and court costs through community service under Art. 45A.254.
Waiver of Fines and Costs Courts have the authority to waive fines and court costs for defendants under specific conditions:
Fines: Waiving fines requires a finding that the defendant is indigent and that other alternatives, such as community service, would impose an undue hardship (Art. 45A.257(a)).
Court Costs: Waiving court costs does not require a finding of undue hardship. Courts may waive court costs based solely on indigence (or if the defendant was a child at the time of the offense) (Art. 45A.257(c)).
Prohibition Against Incarceration for Nonpayment Under Art. 45A.261, a court cannot confine a defendant in jail after failure to pay fines or costs unless, after notice and hearing, it determines a defendant is not indigent and also failed to make a good faith effort to discharge the sentence. Indigent defendants can only be confined if they fail to make a good faith effort to discharge through community service AND the court finds that they could have done so without experiencing any undue hardship. This follow the principle of Bearden v. Georgia that the nonpayment (or failure to discharge) must be willful before incarceration is a possibility.
Special Provisions for Juveniles Under Art. 45A.459, courts may provide additional flexibility for juveniles, such as educational programs or community service to discharge fines and costs, instead of monetary penalties.
Join TMCEC’s Virtual Clinic: Fines, Fees, and Costs Revisited
To learn more about these protections and how to apply them in practice, register for TMCEC’s 4-Hour Virtual Clinic: Fines, Fees, and Costs Revisited, taking place on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.
This clinic will cover the foundational principles from the 2017 Special Topic Session and explore key updates from SB 1913 and HB 351, which transformed how courts address indigence and alternative sentencing.
How to Register: Visit register.tmcec.com, log in, and select the virtual clinic under “Live Courses.” Seats are limited, so sign up today!
Let TMCEC help you navigate the evolving landscape of fines, fees, and costs. We look forward to seeing you online!
January 1, 2025 will be here before we know it. By that date, a youth diversion plan must be adopted by each municipal court in Texas. It must be a written plan that describes the types of strategies that will be used to implement youth diversion, and it must be maintained on file for public inspection. It should be noted that the plan is NOT a limitation on what can be a part of a diversion agreement.
Municipal court personnel should check out TMCEC Youth Diversion page. There, you will find many valuable resources including a checklist, a flowchart, sample forms, and multiple sample diversion plans.
Each court is different. The diversion plan for your court should be tailored to your specific needs, resources, and capabilities. Article 45.306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays out the general requirements of a diversion plan. You might consider some of the elements listed below for inclusion in your plan.
(1) Purpose and Goals
Clear statement of the purpose of the plan (e.g., reducing recidivism, improving youth outcomes)
Measurable objectives that align with community safety and youth accountability
(2) Eligibility Criteria
Eligible child definition
Eligible offenses
Exclusions
(3) Diversion Strategies
List of available strategies (e.g., counseling, community service, educational programs)
Flexibility to customize strategies based on individual cases and needs
Guidelines for implementing both intermediate and judicial diversion
(4) Role of the Youth Diversion Coordinator
Designation of coordinator(s) responsible for managing the diversion program
Duties (e.g., eligibility checks, monitoring compliance, liaising with parents/guardians)
(5) Consent and Agreement Protocols
Process for obtaining consent from the child and parent/guardian
Other required steps (e.g., notification of rights)
(6) Confidentiality Measures
Protocols for handling sensitive information and ensuring records remain confidential
Procedures for expunging records when the child turns 18
(7) Collaboration and Partnerships
Potential partnerships with schools, local mental health agencies, and other community resources
Provisions for entering into Interlocal Agreements to share resources and expand diversion options
(8) Funding and Resources
Identification of funding sources (e.g., Local Youth Diversion Fund, administrative fees)
Plan for resource allocation to support diversion activities (e.g., staff training, service providers)
(9) Evaluation and Monitoring
Metrics for tracking success (e.g., compliance rates, recidivism)
Periodic review process to assess program effectiveness and make adjustments
Download the word document below for a full resource of elements and sample language for each one.
The Texas Municipal Courts Education Center (TMCEC) is proud to celebrate a major milestone in our continued effort to support and elevate the standard of municipal prosecution across Texas. In 2024, we recognize 17 members of the inaugural class of the TMCEC Prosecutor Professionalism Program—a group of dedicated professionals who have demonstrated a commitment to excellence in their field.
About the Program
Launched as an initiative to enhance the proficiency and professionalism of municipal prosecutors, the TMCEC Prosecutor Professionalism Program acknowledges those current municipal prosecutors who invested in their professional growth by completing 20 hours of TMCEC specialized education within an academic year, including 16 hours at a Prosecutors Seminar and an additional 4 hours through TMCEC webinars or in-person or virtual training.
Prosecutors that met these requirements will be recognized in TMCEC publications (Full Court Press and The Recorder) and be presented with a certificate acknowledging their accomplishments. This public recognition is well-earned and symbolizes the prosecutor’s dedication to ethical and informed practice in service to their communities.
The Inaugural 2024 Class: Leading the Way
These trailblazing prosecutors have set the bar high for their peers and demonstrated a strong commitment to ongoing education and the pursuit of excellence in municipal prosecution. Their dedication ensures that justice in municipal courts is not only upheld but delivered with the highest level of competence and ethics. This achievement marks an important step for each member and represents their leadership in municipal prosecution. Members of the inaugural class include:
Name
City
Floyd M. Akers
Hearne
Carlos L. Armendariz
El Paso
Gary F. Beauchamp
Panorama Village
Andrew W. Hagen
Big Spring
Donald Kubicek
Portland
Pamela Liston
Decatur
Craig A. Magnuson
Lake Worth
William M. Mason
Odessa
Tracy A. Middleton
Meadows Place
David Overcash
Anna, Fate
Eric A. Robicheaux
Odessa
William L. Tatsch
Kerrville
Amar Thakrar
Grand Prairie
Tiffany L. Thomas
Bryan
Timothy Wells
Grand Prairie
Adam L. West
Victoria
Ashley P. Yates
Longview
Adapting for Broader Participation: Updated Requirements for 2025 and Beyond
In response to feedback from various cities that expressed challenges in allowing all their prosecutors to attend a seminar annually due to scheduling and budget constraints, TMCEC has made adjustments to the program requirements. Starting with the 2025 class, membership in the Prosecutor Professionalism Program will require municipal prosecutors to complete a total of 20 hours of education from TMCEC within two consecutive academic years, which must include a full 16-hour Prosecutors Seminar.
These changes are designed to make the program more accessible to prosecutors throughout Texas. We believe this adjustment will allow a greater number of municipal prosecutors to participate, ensuring that the benefits of advanced training and recognition are available to everyone that is interested.
Continuing Excellence: The 2024 Class and Beyond
With this change, we are thrilled to announce that every member of the 2024 inaugural class will also be included in the 2025 class. Their continued commitment exemplifies the essence of the program: fostering a culture of professionalism, continuous learning, and leadership.
TMCEC is committed to supporting municipal prosecutors in their pursuit of excellence and is excited to see the positive impact this program will continue to have on the quality of justice in Texas municipal courts. The success of the inaugural class and new increased access to the program signifies TMCEC’s dedication to growth, adaptability, and excellence in public service.
Congratulations to the 2024 inaugural class! Your hard work, dedication, and leadership are a testament to the vital role prosecutors play in our justice system. We look forward to welcoming more municipal prosecutors into the Program and the continued evolution of this impactful program.
A dozen years ago, TMCEC presented a class on the “Silver Tsunami,” a term describing the growing wave of older adults in our population. The wave continues to grow and the implications for public safety, especially driving safety, are becoming more evident. This demographic shift is raising important questions for municipal courts across the state. With the majority of the Baby Boomer generation now squarely in their retirement years, the way we address traffic violations, accidents, and driver competency among aging drivers will need thoughtful consideration and tailored approaches.
Understanding the Silver Tsunami in Texas
The Silver Tsunami refers to the rapid increase in the senior population, with Baby Boomers—those born between 1946 and 1964—reaching ages where driving can become more challenging due to age-related changes in vision, reaction time, and cognitive function. According to the Texas Demographic Center, the percentage of Texans aged 65 and older is expected to nearly double by 2050. This presents multiple issues related to infrastructure, healthcare, and, crucially, road safety.
Municipal courts often serve on the frontlines of handling traffic violations and accidents, which makes them uniquely positioned to address the safety concerns associated with aging drivers.
How Aging Affects Driving Abilities
As people age, physical and cognitive changes can affect their driving skills, including:
Slower Reaction Times: Older adults may take longer to react to sudden changes on the road, such as a pedestrian crossing or a vehicle stopping abruptly.
Vision Decline: Night vision, peripheral vision, and depth perception tend to decline with age, making it harder for older drivers to navigate complex traffic situations.
Hearing Loss: Many older adults experience some degree of hearing loss, which can prevent them from hearing horns, sirens, or other important traffic signals.
Cognitive Decline: Mild cognitive impairment, dementia, or early-stage Alzheimer’s disease may affect an older driver’s judgment, memory, and ability to concentrate, increasing the likelihood of errors behind the wheel.
Physical Limitations: Conditions like arthritis can make it difficult to turn the wheel, press pedals, or look over one’s shoulder when changing lanes.
Impact on Driving Safety in Texas
With the increase in older drivers on the road, Texas is likely to see more cases involving elderly drivers who may not be able to operate vehicles safely. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), older drivers are statistically more likely to be involved in accidents at intersections, in left-hand turns, or during merging—situations that require fast decision-making and coordination.
Preparing for the Silver Tsunami
The Silver Tsunami is already here, and Texas municipal courts will play a vital role in ensuring that our roads remain safe while respecting the dignity and independence of aging drivers. For Texas municipal court personnel, staying informed about the unique needs of aging drivers, working closely with local law enforcement and social services, and implementing proactive strategies will be key to navigating this demographic shift. The wave may be inevitable, but how we respond will make all the difference.
Attend the Silver and Safe Webinar on November 7, 2024
Presented by Cindy Kovar, Program Manager of Texas A&M’s AgriLife Extension’s Silver Drivers Safe Texas, Silver and Safe will provide general information that municipal judges and other personnel need to know related to keeping older drivers as safe as possible. Topics covered will include failure to control speed, seatbelt use, distracted and impaired driving, technology, and vehicle safety features. The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Mature Driver Program’s existing partnership with numerous municipal courts will also be covered. This partnership includes a course for defendants aged 55+ charged with traffic offenses.
By the end of this webinar, participants will be able to:
1) Describe the traffic safety concerns for drivers aged 55 and over;
2) Discuss how municipal courts can help address these concerns; and
3) Explain how partnerships between the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Mature Driver Program and municipal courts operate.
TMCEC recently changed our Learning Management System for our Online Learning Center (OLC). Our new provider, Top Class, communicates directly with our database, so users will see credits on their transcripts quickly and reliably.
If you haven’t attended a webinar yet on the new system, it may be a little different than you’re used to. We’d like to make it as easy as possible. We’ve created three new resources. They all live on our website here.
See the Live Webinar walk-through if you like watching webinars live on Thursday mornings.
If you prefer to watch webinars at a time of your choosing, you’ll want to see the on demand walk-through.
Finally, if you’d rather read the instructions, you can download and print the instructions below!
Before reading on, take five minutes to watch CBS Texas’s 2023 news story, The Ongoing Fight Against Ghost Cars in Texas, embedded below.
A valid registration and license plate shows that a motor vehicle is in compliance: it has undergone any required safety inspections and is covered by automobile insurance. This helps ensure other road users’ personal (as well as financial) safety. A “ghost car” is a motor vehicle with a counterfeit license plate designed to deceive other motorists and law enforcement into believing that the vehicle is in compliance. The reason ghost cars are particularly prevalent in Texas is that, as of today, Texas still permits temporary paper license plates (or “tags”) in certain situations, such as immediately following a car’s sale. Other states, such as New York, have even alerted local authorities to be on the lookout for fake Texas plates on their roads. Creating a fake temporary paper license plate is not complicated. They can be easily generated at home with nothing more than a black-and-white computer printer. What are Texas lawmakers doing to stop this alarming trend?
In 2021, in an attempt to prevent the use of legitimately created but unlawfully used temporary license plates, Texas limited the number of temporary plates vehicle dealers and converters could issue each year (H.B. 3927). But this did not address the use of counterfeit temporary plates. In 2023, Texas outlawed temporary paper license plates beginning July 1, 2025 (H.B. 718). This legislative act projects to result in a sharp decline in the number of ghost cars in Texas. It will be drastically more difficult to create a fake plate that appears legitimate to the naked eye. With fewer ghost cars, there should also be fewer complaints alleging a violation of Section 503.067 of the Transportation Code (“Unauthorized Reproduction, Purchase, Use, or Sale of Temporary Tags”) being filed in municipal court.
After an arrest involving family violence or for trafficking of persons, sexual assault, indecent assault, aggravated sexual assault, or stalking, Texas magistrates may enter a Magistrate’s Order of Emergency Protection (MOEP) under Article 17.292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. MOEPs are designed to protect the victims of such crimes.
Beginning with MOEPs entered on or after June 1, 2024, all magistrates in Texas are required to use the new MOEP form available on the Office of Court Administration’s (OCA) Standardized Protective Order Forms webpage. This requirement is in Article 17.292(d-1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was enacted in 2023 through S.B. 48. While the new form is required, a magistrate’s failure to use it does not affect the validity or enforceability of an issued MOEP. Along with the new standard MOEP, OCA has also created a new Motion to Modify MOEP and Order on Motion to Modify MOEP, which are available on the page linked above. There is no change to how MOEPs are transmitted, filed, and enforced following execution.
The new standard forms may be filled out digitally or printed and filled out by hand. In line with Article 17.292(d-1), the forms should not be altered by courts. Any questions, suggestions, or issues related to the new forms should be directed to OCA. Should adjustments or improvements be necessary, OCA has indicated that they will revise the forms accordingly.
Given these changes, TMCEC has removed its MOEP as well as orders related to MOEP modification from the Forms Book. During a TMCEC webinar presented by OCA’s Kimberly Piechowiak on June 6, 2024, titled The New Magistrate’s Order for Emergency Protection (available on-demand on TMCEC’s Online Learning Center), one participant pointed out that the new MOEP provides “The Magistrate’s Record of Service is attached to this Order.” OCA has not, at this time, developed a standard Record of Service. Therefore, the Magistrate’s Record of Service of Order of Emergency Protection is still available in the Forms Book. The Clerk’s Letter: Copy of Service of Order of Emergency Protection is also still available in the Forms Book.
New Texas Rule of Judicial Administration Rule 7.1 requires all courts to adopt a policy governing court confidentiality no later than May 1, 2024. The Supreme Court order, including the text of the rule, as well as the Supreme Court’s Confidentiality Policy and agreement is provided below.
The policy must: (1) define who it applies to, (2) define confidential information, (3) impose a duty of confidentiality on all court staff that continues after employment at the court ends, (4) address when, if ever, the disclosure of confidential information is authorized, (5) provide the language of relevant laws, (6) address negligent or accidental disclosure of confidential information, (7) warn of potential penalties for improper disclosure, and (8) require all court staff to acknowledge receipt of the policy in writing. The policy must be provided to all new court staff members and training on it must be given prior to the new staff member beginning any substantive work for the court. Furthermore, all existing court staff members must be provided with the policy biannually.
Where to Start
If you are scrambling to create and adopt this new policy, please know that you have a good starting point. The Texas Supreme Court has provided its Confidentiality Policy that can be used as a sample (see file above). Because this is The Supreme Court’s policy, it does not mention the municipal-court-specific confidentiality provisions contained in Articles 45.0217/45A.462, 45.0218/45A.055, and 45.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. TMCEC has created an adapted municipal-court-specific sample (provided below as a downloadable word document), which includes, among other things, these statutes. Arguably, these added provisions are not required in the policy, but it would create a more complete definition of “confidential information” as required under the rule.
Does the confidentiality policy have to be submitted to the State?
The rule itself does not require that it be submitted to the State. The order from the Supreme Court of Texas requires the clerk of that court to file it with the Secretary of State, send it to members of the state bar and legislators, and publish in the Texas Register. Those directions are for the clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas to send the Supreme Court’s order—not a municipal court clerk to send their city’s individual policy.
How do we adopt it? Does the city council have to adopt it?
This rule must be adopted by every court. There is no requirement that city officials adopt a rule. Generally, a reference to a court is a reference to the judge of that court. Once a policy is created, adoption can be as simple as a signed and stamped order from the judge (or presiding judge) that the court adopts the policy as attached.
How often do we have to provide a copy of the policy to staff?
There has been some discussion about this. The rule requires that the policy be provided to court staff at least biannually. In the dictionary, biannually means twice a year (versus biennially which means every other year). There may be some instances where biannually is used to mean every other year, but the safe route is to follow the common definition and provide it to staff twice a year.
What does the training have to look like?
This will be up to each court. There are no specifics as to what the training must consist of. The rule requires that all new court staff members be provided with the policy and be trained on it prior to beginning any substantive work for the court.
Does this apply to volunteers or third-party workers that might work with the court?
The model rule mentions “employees of this court.” It gives no clues beyond that. Each court, within its rule, is to define who it applies to—so there is some room for flexibility here. The model rule includes this sentence:
This policy applies to all Court staff, including interns.
This sentence could be modified to specify who it applies to in your specific court. If you want to include volunteers, independent contractors, etc., this would be where to include them.
Full Court Press 