Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary asks to shift $3.5 million in IT costs from tech fund to general fund in FY26 request
Summary
Judiciary officials told the committee their technology fund no longer covers rising IT costs tied to e-filing, case management and cybersecurity and asked that roughly $3.5 million be funded from the general fund; they also detailed courthouse rewiring proposals, security contract costs and a pass-through for sheriff pay adjustments.
Judiciary representatives told the committee on Oct. 12 that the state’s longstanding court technology fund no longer covers rising IT costs and asked that about $3.5 million in technology expenses be covered from the general fund in the fiscal 2026 budget request.
The request, presenters said, also includes pass-through funding for sheriff cost-of-living adjustments that historically have been routed through the judiciary’s budget. Judiciary presenters said they are not seeking new positions in the FY26 request and that the bulk of their budget is salaries and benefits.
The ask matters because the judiciary’s technology needs have grown — electronic filing, statewide case-management systems, remote hearings and cybersecurity — while revenues that once supplied the court technology fund have fallen. “Our big request for the budget this year is that tech expense be covered from the general fund,” said Greg Mewsley, chief of finance and administration for the judiciary.
Presenters said the original tech fund was sustained in part by receipts tied to traffic fines and once held about $1.5 million, but those special-fund revenues have declined and no longer cover current costs. The presentation listed IT as roughly 4.7% of the judiciary’s overall spending, with salaries and benefits accounting for about 71%.
Committee members pressed presenters for details. Officials said the $3.5 million figure represents a multi-year shortfall that has grown over several years; they also said year-over-year IT spending from the current fiscal year to the next is expected to rise by about $500,000. Because some items were included in the governor’s recommendation and some were tied to the Budget Adjustment Act, presenters cautioned that a portion of the figures could change depending on action on that legislation.
Presenters described the judiciary’s revenue mix as heavily general-fund dependent — roughly 91–92% of total funding — with interdepartmental transfers (including a Title IV-D child-support transfer) and federal grants making up small shares. Federal grants were characterized as roughly 2% of the judiciary’s budget; presenters said they had not been notified of specific federal cuts affecting those grants.
On capital and facilities work, the judiciary proposed using leftover funds from an earlier HVAC appropriation to rewire county courthouses and upgrade data cabling. Presenters said the prior HVAC program left small remaining balances that could be repurposed for rewiring, and that wiring would replace old Category 3 cable with modern standards.
On courthouse security, presenters described the current mix of sheriff-provided security and private contract guards. Committee members asked about cost differences: presenters said sheriff costs run about $53 per hour while private security typically runs in the low $40s per hour. Presenters noted private contractors do not have arrest powers beyond courthouse grounds and cannot exercise law-enforcement jurisdiction outside courthouse property.
Committee members also asked about transport deputies and whether the judiciary was seeking additional funds for those services. Presenters said transports are provided by the sheriff’s office and that the judiciary was not requesting additional transport deputies in the FY26 ask.
Presenters said they will draft a letter of support for the request and expected to prioritize and itemize the asks once committee parameters for session spending become available. "We'll be drafting up a letter of support," a presenter said, adding staff would follow up if committee members wanted additional data.
Absent any formal committee vote recorded in the transcript, presenters solicited questions and committed to provide more detailed spreadsheets and follow-up data on costs and funding sources.
The committee’s next procedural steps — including whether it will transmit a formal recommendation or take a vote on the judiciary ask — were not specified during the presentation.
