House committee adds reporting, clarifies criteria for county courthouse capital requests in draft amendment to S.109

House Corrections and Institutions members on April 22 reviewed proposed language to change how counties request state capital funds for courthouses, focusing on what information county side judges must provide to the court administrator and how the administrator should evaluate requests.

The committee considered Draft 2.1 of an amendment to the miscellaneous judiciary bill S.109. Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council told the panel the draft would add specifics to the statutory criteria the court administrator uses when recommending whether county requests appear in the judiciary’s annual capital ask. Fitzpatrick said the draft clarifies that "the term court operations does not include operating expenses," so the changes apply only to capital projects.

The discussion centered on three proposed criteria added to the statute: whether a request is consistent with a capital program developed under 24 VSA §133 (replacing an earlier cross-reference to 24 VSA §44-30), whether the project is already listed in the county’s one-year budget of capital projects under 24 VSA §133(e), and whether the county has established a capital reserve fund under 24 VSA §133(e)(3) and what annual contributions the county has made to it. The committee agreed to replace citations to 24 VSA §44-30 with 24 VSA §133 to better reflect county budgeting practice.

Joyce McKeeman, an Orange County assistant judge and president of the Vermont Association of County Judges, told the committee assistant judges have discussed the proposal and that current law already allows the court administrator to "consider any other criteria deemed appropriate" when weighing capital requests. McKeeman said counties understand that, if they have a reserve fund, "it isn't a piggy bank; it's subject to a capital plan or program," and that counties vary widely in whether they have funds or how much they contribute each year.

McKeeman gave examples county judges raised in testimony: Washington County held about $450,000 in its reserve fund before flood remediation drained the balance in 2023; Windsor County bonded $2,000,000 for a courthouse project in 2012; Franklin County’s reserve is roughly $220,000 (per information provided to the committee); Essex County has built a smaller fund (about $48,000) and budgeted a $40,000 contribution for fiscal 2025; and Grand Isle and Windham counties were reported as not having a reserve fund. Several committee members and McKeeman stressed those differences mean the court administrator needs full information when evaluating requests, but the counties also need flexibility for one-time emergencies and projects.

On implementation, the committee inserted a delayed effective date into the draft so the new requirements would not take effect immediately. The Chair said, "Let's highlight it. That becomes effective 07/01/2026," allowing the summer and fall for the court administrator, the Association of County Judges, and other stakeholders to meet and work out practical forms and processes. The draft also includes a reporting requirement: on or before Jan. 15, the Association of County Judges, in consultation with the court administrator, would report back to the committee on progress implementing the provisions and recommend any legislative changes needed to make the process workable.

Committee members directed the Office of Legislative Council to prepare a clean copy incorporating the agreed citation changes and the reporting language; Eric Fitzpatrick said he would produce a revised draft for the committee to review and proposed meeting after the Senate floor on the next day to consider that clean version. No formal committee vote on the amendment was recorded in the transcript.

The committee heard repeated requests from assistant judges and some lawmakers that the revision not be punitive: members urged the committee to avoid language that would disqualify counties from capital funding solely because they lack a reserve fund or have made limited recent contributions. Instead, committee members emphasized the goal of bringing more consistent information to the court administrator’s review so the administrator can make a documented recommendation to the administration about whether a county request should be included in the judiciary’s capital request.

Next steps recorded in the hearing: Legislative Counsel will circulate a clean draft (Draft 2.1 edits incorporated and cross-references changed to 24 VSA §133), stakeholders (the court administrator’s office and the Vermont Association of County Judges) will meet over the summer and fall to craft implementation details and a form for requests, and a report will be due to the committee by Jan. 15, 2026. The committee set an effective date of July 1, 2026 for any enacted changes to give stakeholders time to implement the new information requirements.