House committee probes county courthouse ownership, capital funding process

At an April 1 meeting of the House Committee on Corrections & Institutions, Terry Corson, state code administrator, and Greg Moseley, chief of the Finance and Administration Division, briefed the committee on how ownership and funding responsibilities for Vermont courthouses are split between counties and the state.

Corson told the committee that “each county shall provide and own a suitable courthouse, pay all utility and custodial services, and keep such courthouses suitably furnished and equipped for use by the Superior Court,” citing the statute he referenced during the meeting. He described two exceptions in which state-owned courthouses have subsumed county courthouses in some counties and therefore relieved counties of the maintenance obligation.

The background matters because Vermont’s 2010 unification of the judiciary moved many court functions under a statewide superior court while the physical buildings in which those functions take place often remain owned and maintained by counties. Corson and Moseley outlined how that split creates a recurring set of capital‑request questions for this committee and for Buildings and General Services (BGS): who pays for accessibility upgrades, generators, HVAC or additions and whether a state capital request should absorb a county proposal.

Corson described how state funds have been used at times for county courthouse work. He said the state provided monies in 2012 to make courthouses ADA‑compliant, noting, “I think dollars 800,000, or 400,000, that was given.” He also cited a substantial renovation in 2015 and discussed statutory language adopted around that time requiring counties that seek state capital funds for courthouse work to first submit requests through the court administrator and BGS so the projects can be considered as part of the judiciary’s capital budget request.

Committee members pressed on how requests are evaluated. Corson summarized the criteria he said are used when reviewing county capital requests: whether the need is an emergency affecting court operations; whether a state‑owned courthouse in the county could absorb court activities; whether the county has consistently invested in major maintenance; whether the request relates to a state‑mandated function; and whether the request is consistent with the judiciary’s long‑term capital plan. He said BGS and the judiciary make recommendations to the legislature based on those criteria.

Several committee members described recurring patterns: smaller counties lack tax capacity to fund major projects, isolated requests sometimes surface late in a session, and projects in one county often trigger demands for comparable work elsewhere. Greg Hulsey, chief of finance and administration, and other members urged collection of longer‑range capital planning so the committee can anticipate requests instead of reacting to individual appeals late in the session.

Speakers also described recent state investments during the pandemic to bring county courthouses into compliance with HVAC and air‑quality standards, and the judiciary’s role in wiring county courthouses for remote hearing capability. Corson said the state pays a space fee for state‑owned courthouses but does not pay rent for county‑owned courthouses; counties remain responsible for maintenance and utilities unless a statute or an earlier transaction changed that responsibility in a particular county.

Committee members asked whether the state should consider longer‑term structural options—either moving to stronger county governments that would take over ownership and budget authority, or transferring building ownership to the state—rather than continuing the current hybrid arrangement. The committee did not adopt a position at the meeting but several members asked staff to draft language or a letter to open that discussion with local legislators and with BGS.

The discussion ended with committee members asking the court administrator’s office to provide more detailed, multi‑year lists of anticipated projects and to involve county and legislative stakeholders earlier in the process.