Committee approves Office of Administrative Hearings budget after review of funding model and staffing

The Committee on General Government Budget voted to approve the Legislative Budget Committee’s recommendations for the Office of Administrative Hearings’ (OAH) budgets for fiscal years 2025 and 2026 after hearing an agency overview and questions from members.

The vote followed a presentation by Molly Pratt, fiscal analyst with the Legislative Research Department, and testimony from Lawrence Snell, acting executive director of the Office of Administrative Hearings. Representative Mike Amex moved to approve the LBC recommendations and Representative Bill Riley seconded; Chairwoman Walsinger then called the voice vote and said the motion passed unanimously.

The committee heard that the OAH operates “off budget”: the office’s funds come from fees charged to state agencies that use its hearing services rather than from the State General Fund. Molly Pratt told the committee the agency’s fee allocation is based on a three‑year average of usage and that six agencies — including the Department for Children and Families and the Department of Health and Environment — account for the largest shares. Pratt said FY2024 agency fee payments ranged roughly from $445,000 for the Civil Service Board to just under $850,000 for the Department for Children and Families, and that the OAH also bills other agencies at an hourly rate (current range $100–$115) plus direct hearing costs.

Snell described the OAH’s caseload and role, saying the office conducts impartial hearings for constituents contesting state agency actions and also handles licensing discipline hearings for professionals such as nurses and pharmacists. “What matters to me is that we’re actually achieving what we’re, what our mission is and our vision for the office,” Snell told the committee as he summarized recent steps the agency has taken to increase transparency and retain staff.

Members pressed on staffing, pay and continuity. Snell said the office has focused on raising salaries in recent years to reduce turnover — noting prior salary gaps that led judges to seek other positions — and reported that since the 2023–24 pay changes the office has not lost judges to district court positions. He described one upcoming retirement and some administrative turnover but said most judges have been long‑tenured.

The committee’s budget analysis, presented by Pratt, shows OAH requested no supplemental or enhancement funding for either year and included modest decreases from the FY2025 approved amount for permanent salaries (about $55,000) and fringe benefits (about $24,000) tied to vacancies and employer contribution adjustments. The FY2026 request reflected similar, smaller reductions and minor categorical shifts in contractual and equipment spending; Pratt said overall changes mostly offset each other.

Representative Adam Turck asked about why Snell remained in the acting director role; Snell declined to discuss the personnel process on the record. Other members asked for more granular salary and wage history data; Representative Bill Riley recommended including 10‑year salary breakdowns in future detail packets so committees could better track trends.

After discussion, Representative Amex moved to approve the LBC recommendations for the OAH budgets for FY2025 and FY2026; Representative Riley seconded. Chairwoman Walsinger called the voice vote and announced the motion passed unanimously.

The committee then moved on to other budget hearings scheduled for the day.