Date Requested: January 19, 2018
Time Requested: 11:44 AM
Agency: Supreme Court of Appeals
CBD Number: Version: Bill Number: Resolution Number:
1850 Introduced HB4202
CBD Subject: Uniform Laws


General Revenue Fund

Sources of Revenue:

General Fund

Legislation creates:

Increases Existing Expenses

Fiscal Note Summary

Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.

     The bill could impose a substantial additional cost upon the state judiciary. The Supreme Court of Appeals ran a pilot program of mental health/veterans' court in the northern panhandle, serving two circuits for several years. That program imposed the following approximate costs in 2015 and 2016:
     2015 2016
     Salaries $172,040.50 $171,348.00
     Drug Testing $33,510.47 $30,755.22
     Psychological Evals $7,920.00 $8,100.00
     Total: $215,485.97 $212,219.22
     The pilot program did not pay for any mental health treatment or other medical treatment. The pilot program did not collect any fees from participants to defray the cost of the program.
    This bill does not, in contrast with SB107, make it mandatory that the court system implement veterans treatment courts throughout the state. Instead, the bill uses the permissive language "may administer" such courts. Consequently, the costs of the bill are difficult to determine and could range from zero (should no court with criminal jurisdiction choose to administer such a court) to a very substantial sum (should all courts with criminal jurisdiction choose to administer such a court). For the purposes of this fiscal note, we will assume the following:
    1. That all circuit and magistrate courts in the state would participate;
    2. That the veterans treatment courts would be multicircuit in nature, as the pilot program was;
    3. That the veterans treatment courts would not pay mental health treatment or medical costs, again like the pilot program;
    4. That ten multicircuit courts would adequately serve the entire state; and
    5. That the program would require support and administration from the Administrative Office, including a director for the program at an annual salary and benefit cost of $60,000.
     Extrapolating from the pilot program in accord with these assumptions, we estimate the bill would cost the judiciary $2,221,000 per year.
     Given the financial circumstances of the state and its citizens, and given the fact that many likely participants would be indigent, we do not expect that fee revenue from the courts would be sufficient to offset these costs in a meaningful way.

Fiscal Note Detail

Effect of Proposal Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
(Upon Full
1. Estmated Total Cost 2,221,000 2,221,000 2,221,000
Personal Services 0 0 0
Current Expenses 0 0 0
Repairs and Alterations 0 0 0
Assets 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
2. Estimated Total Revenues 0 0 0

Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):




    Person submitting Fiscal Note: Christopher S. Morris
    Email Address: