Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Capital Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers discuss adding county courthouse capital-reserve review language to S109 with delayed effective date
Summary
Committee members reviewed language in S 109 (section 33) that would require the court administrator to consider county capital reserve funds and annual contributions when evaluating county courthouse capital requests; sponsors proposed delaying the provision's effective date to July 1, 2026, to allow county judges time to adapt.
Senate Judiciary heard testimony proposing statutory language in S 109 that would change how county courthouse capital requests are evaluated and to delay the provision’s effective date to give county officials time to comply.
Representative Evans told the committee section 33 would require the state court administrator to evaluate capital requests from counties against criteria that include whether the project is consistent with the county’s capital program, whether the county has established a capital reserve fund, and the amount of a county’s annual contributions to that fund. The provision applies to county courthouse capital requests submitted to the court administrator for possible inclusion in the state's capital budget.
Evans and other sponsors said the change responds to testimony that county governments maintain capital reserve funds that have not previously been part of state review criteria. The bill text cited by sponsors places the language on page 32, lines 16–21 and the top of page 33 in the draft. Sponsors proposed that the provision not take effect until July 1, 2026, to give county judges and county officials time to understand and adapt to the new requirements.
Committee members said the delay was intended to avoid immediate pushback from side judges who would need to coordinate locally. Evans said the goal is to provide notice and allow counties to incorporate the reserve-fund information into their capital planning for the next round of requests.
No formal vote was taken on the language in committee. Sponsors said they had sought input from the court administrator and expected written or oral support from that office; one committee member asked whether Terry Gerson had weighed in and was told she was supportive.
