Committee weighs requiring counties' capital plans and reserve‑fund status in courthouse funding reviews

During an April meeting, the House Corrections and Institutions Committee discussed proposed language to require the state court administrator to consider a county's capital plan and the status of its capital reserve fund when evaluating requests for state capital funding for county‑owned courthouses.

The proposed change would add two criteria to the list the court administrator already uses when reviewing county requests: whether the request is consistent with the county's capital plan, and the status of the county's capital reserve fund, including whether the county has made "sufficient annual contributions" to that fund. Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Counsel summarized the change as "to add 2 more in that list." He noted the amendment could be offered as part of S.109, a miscellaneous judiciary procedures bill then pending in House Judiciary.

The committee and witnesses described the existing statutory process: a county that seeks state capital funds for a courthouse must submit a request annually on or before Oct. 1; the court administrator applies a specified list of statutory criteria, makes a recommendation to the Buildings and General Services commissioner, and advises the legislative judiciary committees of incoming requests. As Fitzpatrick described the current criteria, the court administrator already considers whether a request is tied to an emergency affecting court operations, whether a state‑owned courthouse could absorb court activities, whether the county has consistently invested in maintenance, whether a request relates to a state‑mandated function, whether it would divert other judiciary capital priorities, and whether it is consistent with the judiciary's long‑term capital needs.

Assistant judges and former court administrators told the committee the two proposed additions are reasonable as information for the court administrator but said the amendment's timing and some of its language raised concerns. Mary Frost, an assistant judge from Bennington County, cited statute when she described the counties' responsibilities: "Under, 24 VSA section 71 a, county courthouses, it provides that the the, the county shall provide and own a suitable courthouse, pay all utilities and custodial service and keep such court houses suitably furnished and equipped for use by the superior court." Frost and others urged more time for counties to review the proposal and for the Association of Assistant Judges to advise members.

Patricia (Pat) Gable, a former state court administrator and current assistant judge, said the amendment seeks to address a real tension: state judicial functions operate in some county‑owned buildings even though "the judiciary doesn't own any buildings." Gable described the multi‑step vetting process that typically occurs before a request reaches the legislature and said the proposal could be improved by ensuring county circumstances are well understood before any statutory change.

Carolyn Partridge, an assistant judge in Windham County, told the committee Windham has no capital reserve fund but "we put a hundred thousand dollars in there" this year and has handled many routine building needs through regular budgets. Partridge said she was "surprised that the court administrator was not aware of the capital reserve funds" and asked that the committee postpone action so assistant judges could discuss the amendment at judicial college in June and come back next year with input.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions. One member noted the statute uses the phrase "court operations" in places and observed that "capital dollars are not used for operations," urging care that the text not be read to permit capital funds to pay operating expenses. Kevin asked whether the bill should require a particular planning horizon; witnesses noted the statute already contemplates a five‑year capital plan for county buildings but that practice varies across counties.

There was no formal vote on a change to the statute. Committee members directed staff to schedule testimony from the current court administrator (referred to in the record as Terry) so the committee could hear how the administrator uses existing criteria and what additional information would be helpful. Witnesses from the Association of Assistant Judges asked the committee to consider postponing action until assistant judges across the state have an opportunity to review the language and offer detailed input.

The discussion underscored three recurring points: (1) the state unified many judicial operations while counties still often own courthouse buildings, creating shared responsibilities for infrastructure; (2) county practice varies — some counties maintain capital plans and reserve funds, others do not; and (3) the amendment's drafters and assistant judges agreed that additional transparency about county reserve balances and planning could help the court administrator make better‑informed recommendations, but many witnesses recommended deferring statutory changes until counties have had time to respond.

The committee left the item open. Staff will seek to schedule the court administrator for a follow‑up appearance; committee members said they may retain, modify, or postpone the language depending on that testimony and on further input from assistant judges.