NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

 

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

SPONSOR:

Miera

 

DATE TYPED:

02/25/03

 

HB

194/aHGUAC

 

SHORT TITLE:

2nd Judicial District Document Management

 

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Hayes

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

$217.7

 

 

Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Responses Received From

Second Judicial District Court

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of HGUAC Amendments

 

The House Government and Urban Affairs Committee Amendment decreases the appropriation amount in HB 194 from $558.7 to $217.7 to contract for the scanning of old court records.  (The original bill also wanted the appropriation to be used for purchasing an electronic document management system (hardware and software).  Funding for the system along with language alluding to their acquisition has been deleted by the committee.)  The second amendment states that the $217.7 is to contract for the scanning of old court records, “staff training and integration of the case management system.”

 

     Synopsis of Original Bill

 

House Bill 194 appropriates $558.7 from the general fund to the Second Judicial District Court for the purpose of purchasing equipment for a document management system and to contract services for the scanning of old files.

 

     Significant Issues

 

A.  Pursuant to the Second Judicial District Court:

 

1.      Federal and New Mexico state statutes require all district courts to keep records permanently.

 

2.      The court is seeking approval of an imaging plan as required by the New Mexico Records and Archives Department (NMRA).  Without an approved plan, the project cannot be fully implemented.

 

3.      The court appointed a team which has worked for the last year to develop a comprehensive document management system and retained a consultant to review the court’s current system, to identify pressing needs and to provide guidance and feasible solutions.

 

4.      There is a backlog of approximately 46,000,000 pages of records that must be stored, plus 15,000,000 pages of current records.  This represents approximately 300,000 files and 5,000 linear feet of storage.  The backlog grows by 3,000,000 pages per year.

 

5.      Storage is one part of the problem; retrievability is another.  Sometimes, the public must wait up to seven days for the clerks to retrieve an old case file.  The wait depends upon the location of the file.  Clerical efficiency is lost because file searches divert staff from primary duties.

 

  1. Other issues to consider:

 

    1. Other courts, including the First Judicial District Court, are able to provide or contract these services for $100.0 or less.  Why is the cost so much higher at the 2nd district?

 

    1. Since the 2nd district moved into a brand-new courthouse in 2001, why does it need to store records and boxes off-site?  Were records storage needs not considered during the planning stage?

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

*A portion of the appropriation totaling $558.7 contained in this bill is a non-recurring expense to the general fund since it is for capital equipment.  The exact amount of the equipment was not provided by the court.  Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2004 shall revert to the general fund.

 

The court anticipates that this will be a 2-year project, so additional funding totaling $700.0 will be required next fiscal year.

 

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

 

  1. What is the cost of the document scanning equipment?  Did the court request this equipment in the capital budget?

 

  1. Will other courts be able to “borrow” the equipment for their own document scanning?

 

  1. What is being done currently to address the backlog of documents needing scanning and storage?

 

CMH/njw:sb