Date Requested:February 15, 2013
Time Requested:08:55 AM
Agency: Transportation, Department of
CBD Number: Version: Bill Number: Resolution Number:
2013R1868 Introduced SB107
CBD Subject: HEARING EXAMINER SELECTION
FUND(S)
STATE ROAD FUND
Sources of Revenue
Special Fund
Legislation creates:
Neither Program nor Fund

Fiscal Note Summary

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

    While the costs cannot be accurately quantified, it is felt that the legislation would have a large financial impact on the agency.
    
    SEE MEMORANDUM

Fiscal Note Detail
Over-all effect
Effect of Proposal Fiscal Year
2013
Increase/Decrease
(use"-")
2014
Increase/Decrease
(use"-")
Fiscal Year
(Upon Full
Implementation)
1. Estmated Total Cost 0 0 0
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
3. Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):
    
    Costs are unknown; see Memorandum


Memorandum
Person submitting Fiscal Note:
Kathy J Holtsclaw
Email Address:
Kathy.J.Holtsclaw@wv.gov
    The proposed legislation would create a high cost to the agency while greatly reducing the agency’s ability to keep pace with the amount of hearings it is required to conduct. It is impossible to make an accurate or even ‘ball park” estimate of the amount of increased cost that would be encountered due to the current employment structure that exists at OAH in relation to its hearing examiners. Currently, OAH has 12 hearing examiners dispersed regionally throughout the state. These hearing examiners conduct hearings in the regions to which they are assigned. Further, the hearing examiners reside in the regions for which they are responsible.
    
     If the agency was required to follow the model as contained in the legislative proposal, the process would bog down relative to the number of hearings that could be conducted and essentially would be unworkable. If five of the twelve OAH hearing examiners were put on a list to be struck in each and every case that comes before the agency, obviously, there is no way to know which hearing examiner would be chosen until the process unfolded; therefore, there is no way to predict with any accuracy the extent of additional cost, other than such cost would be exceedingly significant and time-consuming to the agency. Costs would be associated with travel from the region in which the hearing examiner resided to the location of the hearing. This would involve per diem, lodging and travel-related costs that OAH currently does not have to bear. Such a scheme, as proposed, would simply be unworkable within reasonable fiscal limits.
    
    OAH hears a continuum of mostly DUI cases involving the revocation of drivers’ licenses. These cases are heard each and every week and continually occur. While the proposal would likely work within a different framework, such as having contract hearing examiners rather than hearing examiners that are regular employees that enjoy civil service protection, within the OAH structure, it would not work.