Sources of Revenue:

General Fund,Special Fund,Other Fund All with Personal Service

Legislation creates:

Neither Program nor Fund

Fiscal Note Summary

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

    It appears that this measure will increase the costs of state government by requiring a panel of 5 hearing examiners from which 4 will be eliminated to determine the 1 hearing examiner who will hear a disputed case under the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act.
    Assuming that all current hearings examiners are fully occupied and that this measure does not intend to extend the time within which disputed matters are currently heard, this measure would appear to necessitate an increase in the number of hearings examiners currently employed.

Fiscal Note Detail

Effect of Proposal Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
(Upon Full
1. Estmated Total Cost 0 3,622,602 3,622,602
Personal Services 0 3,018,835 3,018,835
Current Expenses 0 0 0
Repairs and Alterations 0 0 0
Assets 0 0 0
Other 0 603,767 603,767
2. Estimated Total Revenues 0 0 0

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

    The above estimate assumes that the number of "hearings examiners" employed by state agencies will have to at least double (i.e., add one hearings examiner for each current hearings examiner) in order to have sufficient examiners from which to eliminate 4 for each disputed matter for which a hearing is conducted. In arriving at this estimate, we used the current personal services cost ($3,018,835) for all classified (i.e., civil service) employees in the job classifications of hearings examiner and administrative law judge (54 total employees)and added 20% for benefits.
    If 2 hearings examiners had to be added for each current hearings examiner, the cost would be $7,245,204, and so on up to $14,490,408 to add 4 hearing examiners for each current hearings examiner.


    Due to the limited time available to research this legislation, this note may not be an accurate representation of the impact of this measure. Issues which should have been considered, but were not, include: the number of hearings examiners by agency, by geographic location, by types of hearings held, etc.; the number and types of disputed matters; the length of hearings on disputed matters; whether hearings examiners are employed or contracted, etc.
    Again, this estimate is based on the assumptions that this measure would have an impact on the work of all current hearings examiners and administrative law judges in the classified service (i.e., civil service), that these hearings examiners and administrative law judges are fully occupied in conducting hearings, and that it is not the intent of the legislation to extend the period of time within which disputed matters are heard.

    Person submitting Fiscal Note: Tari McClintock Crouse for Sara P. Walker
    Email Address: