FISCAL NOTE
Date Requested: February 13, 2018
Time Requested: 01:18 PM |
| Agency: |
Supreme Court of Appeals |
|---|
| CBD Number: |
Version: |
Bill Number: |
Resolution Number: |
| 2530 |
Introduced |
HB4588 |
|
|---|
| CBD Subject: |
Courts |
|---|
|
FUND(S):
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 proposed intermediate appellate court will impose substantial costs upon the taxpayers. We estimate that a fully functioning intermediate appellate court as described in this bill would cost approximately $8.1 million the first year and approximately $7.4 million each year thereafter (in 2018 dollars).
Fiscal Note Detail
| Effect of Proposal |
Fiscal Year |
2018
Increase/Decrease
(use"-") |
2019
Increase/Decrease
(use"-") |
Fiscal Year
(Upon Full
Implementation) |
| 1. Estmated Total Cost |
8,096,350 |
7,473,350 |
7,473,350 |
| Personal Services |
6,265,350 |
6,265,350 |
6,265,350 |
| Current Expenses |
1,831,000 |
1,208,000 |
1,208,000 |
| 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):
As mentioned above, the projected cost of the bill is $8.1 million the first year and $7.4 million each year thereafter.
The personal services cost includes 70 additional personnel (including 24 law clerks; 18 Clerk's Office employees; 20 staff members in Chief Counsel's office to screen and prepare cases; and 8 employees in the Administrative Office to support these employees and the court).
This note excludes the costs of setting up any physical courtrooms and excludes travel costs, although there would likely be some costs of travel (mileage and per diem) for the circuit judges traveling to neighboring circuits to sit on the panels contemplated by the bill.
Recurrent annual costs of the court include office space for the additional personnel, appropriate storage space for court records and equipment, general office supplies and equipment, educational travel and training, software licensing fees, legal research costs, and guardian ad litem fees.
These estimates leave out certain additional costs. For example, habeas corpus cases are civil in nature and would presumably be required to go through the intermediate court, imposing additional costs to the State in the form of Attorney General representation and appointed counsel for the prosecuting petitioners.
The abolition of the workers’ compensation appeal board as an available layer of review will reduce costs to the State overall. However, that board is not a judicial branch agency, and we are unaware as to the annual costs of operating the board.
Memorandum
The costs described herein are only those borne by the State. Substantial additional costs upon lawyers and litigants in the form of additional delay, additional lawyer fees, and additional fees and costs will be imposed by adding an additional layer of appeal. Given that the Supreme Court of Appeals now offers an appeal to all who request it and provides a written decision in every case, and does so with minimal delay, it would seem that the benefits of the bill are outweighed by its substantial costs.
Person submitting Fiscal Note: Gary L. Johnson
Email Address: gary.johnson@courtswv.gov