House approves higher court filing fees to fund planned court complex after debate

House members debated First Substitute SB 48 on Feb. 15, 1995, before approving the measure that raises court filing fees to help finance a new court complex.

Representative Kathleen Fox explained the bill’s background: an earlier fee increase produced less revenue than anticipated due to drafting and computer errors, creating about a $2 million shortfall for the project. The judiciary and governor’s staff reviewed records and assured sponsors the new estimates were more accurate (background and sponsor explanation: SEG 1671–1690; revenue shortfall: SEG 1727–1736).

Lawmakers asked whether the courts could scale back plans, whether the state could absorb the difference, and whether fee increases are the best means of funding. Supporters, including committee members and attorneys in the House, argued the fee structure distributes costs to users and is the most practical way to honor an existing contract for construction; opponents said the approach functions as a tax on users and suggested alternatives such as redesign or relocation (questions and responses: SEG 1740–1760; objections and defense: SEG 1796–1828; scaling-back discussion: SEG 1856–1904).

The substitute bill was amended in committee to adjust some fees and address small-business concerns, according to sponsors. After lengthy floor discussion, the House adopted previous question and passed the substitute SB 48 by roll call, 48–24. Sponsors said the approach preserves the contract and funds the project through those who will use the facility; critics warned about redistributional effects and the fairness of burdening users rather than general revenues.

Next steps: The bill passes this chamber and will proceed as required by legislative procedure; implementation depends on the Judiciary and Administrative Offices' revenue collection.