Allegany County legislators on May 28 told staff they support a state Senate bill that would change how competency-to-stand-trial evaluations and restoration services are handled and funded, and they asked that the board’s supporting resolution request the state assume funding responsibility for mandated services.

The nut graf: Legislators and a local medical official said some defendants can be trapped in repeated competency restoration attempts that cost counties “hundreds of thousands of dollars,” and the bill discussed would (as explained by a speaker) require initial examiners to report when a person is unlikely to be restored, authorize jail-based and community-based restoration pilots, and — as summarized in the meeting — could shift funding responsibility back to the state.

Dr. Anderson (speaker) provided detail on local practice and costs, saying the county has paid for restoration efforts and that those costs can be large: “it makes it $36,000 a month per person,” and other speakers described multi‑month delays. The same speaker said the county has reduced waiting times for 730 evaluations to roughly three months in recent practice but acknowledged the system is imperfect and costly.

Board members discussed provisions that would require examiners to report if an individual is unlikely ever to be restored to competency, which participants said does not currently exist and can leave people in extended limbo. The meeting record shows support for language that would return financial responsibility for mandated restoration services to the state; the chair suggested adding that request to the board’s resolution supporting the Senate bill.

Action taken: legislators indicated support for adding the state‑funding request to the board’s resolution in support of the Senate bill; staff were directed to include that emphasis in the draft resolution and circulate it to the board. No formal roll-call vote was recorded at the meeting.

Ending: NYSAC representatives were arriving to the meeting to provide further detail; the board recessed and expected to hear the association’s clarifications and potentially finalize draft resolutions for later board action.