Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 24 7 Program Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary hears proposal to prevent judges from waiving 24/7 sobriety program fees after counties report financial strain
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 2,365, which would bar judges from waiving participant fees for the 24/7 sobriety program after sheriffs said fee waivers shifted substantial vendor and administrative costs to county budgets.
The House Judiciary Committee took testimony on Senate Bill 2,365, which would clarify that district court judges may not waive fees charged to participants in the 24/7 sobriety program (called "24/7" in testimony), a program intended to be funded primarily by participant fees and administered at the local level.
Senator Ryan Brownberger (District 10) said the bill arose after a Cass County district judge began waiving program fees for some participants, shifting costs to county sheriffs’ budgets. "The program is supposed to be self sufficient," proponents told the committee; they argued that unpredictable fee waivers can create an unfunded county obligation and could force jurisdictions to reduce or end participation.
Sheriff testimony described per‑participant costs and local budget impacts. A Cass County sheriff told the committee that with roughly 225 participants the fees and vendor charges can accumulate into tens of thousands of dollars: examples included SCRAM transdermal alcohol monitoring charges of roughly $42 per week; remote breath testing startup and activation fees; and drug‑patch costs around $60 per patch (14‑day duration). Burleigh County officials said the county collected $369,134 in program fees in 2023, remitted approximately $209,136 to the Attorney General’s Office for vendor costs, refunded $4,382 and retained $155,616 to operate the program; the county reported internal program expenses of about $52,000 per year and staffing of two full‑time employees to administer the program.
Supporters argued the statute should not permit judges to shift program costs to sheriffs and local budgets without appropriations; opponents raised concerns about indigent participants, judges’ discretion at sentencing and the potential fiscal tradeoffs of forcing participation costs onto county budgets. Committee members pressed witnesses on whether a mechanism to assist indigent participants—an exemption, a state reimbursement fund or a county hardship policy—would address the problem without removing judicial discretion entirely.
The committee recessed and planned to continue the hearing later in the day; no committee vote occurred during the session.
