Commission discusses new litigation taxes, mediation fee and archives fee to shore up court services

Hamilton County commissioners spent a prolonged portion of the meeting debating a set of proposals to adjust litigation privilege taxes and establish an archives and records management fee intended to cover court operations and program costs.

Judge Alex McVay and county staff explained the proposals (resolutions 125‑15, 125‑16, 125‑17 and 125‑18) as user fees authorized by state statute that can be added to court costs to fund specific services. “Every case, whether it's criminal or civil, has court costs associated with them,” Judge McVay said, adding that these charges are allowed by the legislature and are routed to programs related to the courts. He described victim‑offender mediation and community mediation centers as programs the fees could help sustain.

What the county described and commissioners asked: - Use and governance: County staff said the fees and litigation taxes are authorized by state law (referred to in the meeting as the litigation privilege tax) and that revenues would flow into the county general fund and be used to cover court‑related expenditures. Lee (county staff) said, “All of these fees will go into the general fund…each of the expenses…are being made currently being made through the general fund.” - Revenue scale: Commissioners were given collection estimates. One commissioner summarized that the litigation taxes would bring in about $2.07 million and the archives/records fee another roughly $600,000 — about $2.7 million total — though staff cautioned that billed amounts exceed collections because some court costs are never paid. - Victim‑offender mediation: Judge McVay and other speakers said the $2 maximum the state authorizes could fund a community mediation center operated outside county government (typically a nonprofit). Commissioners asked whether the bar association would be involved; presenters said discussions were ongoing and a bar association announcement was anticipated. - Timing and implementation: County staff said that if approved the effective date in the packet would be updated; the clerks and staff expect an April 1, 2025 effective date rather than the February 1 date printed in the packet.

Commissioner reaction split along policy and transparency lines. Some commissioners supported the measures as shifting the cost of court services to users rather than general taxpayers. Others pushed for more specific identification of new spending, noting the county has pending budget pressures and some debt service obligations. One commissioner said the proposals “give me pause when we're asking taxpayers for more money, but can't say why specifically.” Another said the change effectively moves costs from the general property tax base to people who use the court system.

Outcome and next steps: The resolutions were discussed at length, and staff indicated they would return with the cleaned effective date and implementation details. No final vote was recorded in the transcript excerpt.