Judiciary seeks $7 million boost in FY26 budget and $2.5 million Budget Adjustment Act to cover tech shortfall and sheriffs' pay

Cherry Corsone, state court administrator, told the House appropriations committee on Feb. 12 that the Judiciary's FY26 general fund request would be about $7 million higher than last year, driven largely by personnel costs and a rising technology budget.

Corsone said the judiciary had asked the legislature for a $2.5 million Budget Adjustment Act payment to cover shortfalls that were not funded in the FY25 appropriation: roughly $2.0 million for technology expenses and about $388,000 for sheriffs' cost-of-living adjustments. "The tech fund has not been sufficient to meet the technology expenses," Corsone said, noting the special technology fund's revenues — largely traffic fees and fines — have declined from an apex of about $1,600,000 to roughly $750,000 last year while technology costs increased.

Why it matters: The judiciary said it can no longer rely on the dedicated Court Technology Fund to cover growing costs tied to electronic case management, e-filing and remote hearings. Without the BAA appropriation and a change in how technology is funded, administrators said the shortfall would push more of those costs onto the general fund.

Key details from the presentation - Fiscal year 25 baseline: Corsone opened from the FY25 general fund baseline figure presented to the committee. - Budget Adjustment Act request: $2.5 million total; about $2.0 million for technology expenses not covered in FY25 and about $388,000 for sheriffs' cost-of-living adjustments. Corsone described the BAA items as one-time payments to clear unpaid FY25 bills. - Shift in funding approach: The judiciary is asking that technology expenses be funded from the general fund going forward because fee revenue that feeds the tech fund has roughly halved while tech expenses have climbed. - Personnel and benefits: Officials said roughly 70% of judiciary expenses are salaries and benefits. The largest FY26 drivers are pay-act annualization, step increases and higher health insurance costs; the presentation identified pay-act/annualization and benefit increases as the bulk of the proposed $7 million increase. - Internal service fees: The judiciary pays fees for space to the state Buildings & General Services (BGS) for roughly half of courthouses. Greg Mosley, chief of finance and administration, told the committee the judiciary pays about $6.5 million in fee-for-space overall and estimated the recent increase might be roughly a 6% rise tied in part to changes in measured square footage and tenant moves in some courthouses. - Court technology and grants: The judiciary's IT budget is now about 4.7% of its overall budget. Federal grants and interdepartmental transfers combined total about $3.9 million (roughly 5% of the judiciary budget as presented); direct federal funding to the judiciary is about $1.5 million (the slide listed that as ~2%). Finance manager Kelly Carbo summarized two recently approved treatment-court grants: one for $1,000,000 for a Southeast regional program and another described as $2,500,000 spread over multiple years. - E-filing fees and vendors: Committee members asked about Odyssey e-filing fees and the vendor Tyler Technologies; officials confirmed that some e-filing transaction fees flow to external vendors and some filing fees are remitted to the general fund then appropriated back for court services.

What the committee heard about risks and timing Committee members asked whether the BAA requests are one-time fixes and whether the $2.5 million would be incorporated into future budgets. Corsone said the BAA items are intended to pay FY25 bills one time; the underlying technology and sheriffs' pay components are included in the FY26 request so the judiciary's FY26 baseline is higher even if the one-time BAA is approved.

Next steps Officials said the BAA request appears in the governor's recommended budget adjustment but is not final until the legislature acts. The judiciary also committed to provide additional breakouts — particularly on health care cost drivers and precise health-cost dollar amounts — to the committee by follow-up email.

Ending The committee did not make any immediate votes on the requests; members asked for supplementary figures and signaled they would examine the governor's recommendation as they prepare hearings and potential amendments.