Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courthouse Capital Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee to tighten courthouse capital requests with capital‑plan and reserve‑fund checks
Summary
The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on April 16 discussed amendments to S.109 that would add checks on counties’ five‑year capital programs and the status of capital reserve funds before recommending state courthouse capital funds.
The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on April 16 discussed amendments to language tied to S.109 that would require review of counties’ capital programs and capital reserve funds before state courthouse capital requests are recommended for funding.
Committee members said the change aims to give the court administrator and the Legislature better information about whether counties are planning and saving for courthouse projects and to prevent requests where counties have not shown regular contributions to a reserve fund.
The proposal under consideration would add two criteria to the list used to evaluate county courthouse requests: whether a funding request is consistent with the county’s five‑year capital program (statutorily described in Title 24) and the status of the county’s capital reserve fund, including the amount of recent annual contributions. Terry Corazon, State Court Administrator, told the committee she had reviewed the language and the related statutory provisions and urged consistency with existing Title 24 terminology. Corazon said she was not positioned to make technical determinations about whether a county’s contributions are “sufficient” and recommended the wording be revised so the administrator reviews and reports the status and availability of reserve funds rather than making a unilateral adequacy judgment.
The discussion centered on two technical fixes: (1) use the statutory term “capital program” (Title 24) rather than “capital plan” where the statute does so, and (2) cite the relevant Title 24 sections in the amendment so side judges and county officials know which statutory definitions the committee intends to reference. Committee members noted Title 24 §133(E)(3) and Title 24 §44‑30(a) describe the capital program and the five‑year planning horizon the amendment would reference.
Committee members described a range of county practices. Some counties maintain a rolling five‑year capital program and a reserve fund; others budget for projects annually instead of retaining a separate reserve. Members said those differences are a reason to avoid language that would force the court administrator to make complex budgetary judgments without additional data. As one member put it, counties “have to have skin in the game” when they seek state dollars; members said requiring documentation of planning and recent contributions would give the Legislature better context for awarding limited capital funds.
Committee staff (Eric Fitzpatrick) was directed to work with the State Court Administrator’s office and the Assistant Judge Association to draft clarified language that: (a) cites the pertinent Title 24 sections, (b) asks the court administrator to report the status of any county capital reserve fund and the amount of recent annual contributions (phrased so the administrator is reporting facts rather than judging sufficiency), and (c) preserves an administrative catch‑all criterion that allows consideration of other appropriate factors. The committee agreed the amendment could be added to S.109 (a judiciary bill) and that, if adopted, the change would be effective July 1, 2026, giving counties and side judges time to adjust and to meet with the court administrator.
Members reviewed past state capital support and county uses of reserve funds as context. Committee staff summarized prior appropriations and grants to courthouses (for example, ADA and life‑safety projects), and members cited sample county reserve figures and recent small projects to illustrate how a county reserve is used in practice: one county’s FY 2024–25 capital reserve balance was posted as $378,465, from which routine items such as roof repair ($14,000) and a ventilation project ($9,000) were drawn; that same county requested $190,000 for a generator for which the committee was told that amount represented about 47% of the project cost.
Next steps: staff and counsel will redraft the proposed criteria with statutory citations and circulate the draft to the State Court Administrator and the Assistant Judge Association for comment. The committee also discussed sending a letter of intent clarifying expectations while the new language is being developed and agreed to revisit the language in the next legislative biennium if further changes are needed.
