Appropriations panel reviews judicial branch budget, hears requests for new positions and IT upgrades

The Appropriations - Education and Environment Division on Jan. 21 heard an overview of the judicial branch budget and discussed staffing, pay adjustments and a suite of one-time technology requests as committee members prepared to prioritize funding.

Committee staff walked members through long sheet “Judicial Branch Budget, number 180,” noting that “the only change between the 2 budgets was in the salary increase,” and presenting the Armstrong-centered figures the committee reviewed. The staff presentation showed a base-level general fund budget of about $128,256,098 and identified total proposed changes of roughly $36,300,000 above that base — approximately $27,139,000 in ongoing general fund increases and $9,161,000 in one-time spending, yielding a recommended general-fund total near $164,560,000 (other funds of about $1.4 million, roughly $850,000 of which is federal, were also listed).

Why it matters: the budget request would restore and add dozens of staff positions statewide, increase operating and interpreter funding, expand problem-solving courts and create a new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship. Committee members said they wanted to separate legally required items and contract obligations from discretionary requests when setting priorities.

Key figures and requests presented - Net difference between the Burgum and Armstrong budgets attributed to a change in the salary plan: a reduction of approximately $961,997 (about $950,000 general fund and $67,100 other funds). - Ongoing changes: roughly $27,139,000 general fund (includes salary and health-insurance increases, salary-equity requests, restored new-and-vacant FTE funding, accrued leave payouts and program increases). - One-time requests: about $9,161,000 (includes IT equipment and storage, courtroom audio/video upgrades, clerk filing software, digital evidence management, furniture and workstation replacement, and several workload studies). - Recommended budget totals listed on the long sheet: approximately $164,560,000 general fund and $1,400,000 other funds (with about $850,000 federal).

Staff outlined new positions and program increases included in the request: 4.5 juvenile court positions (~$830,000), a district court administrative assistant (~$170,000), a district court deputy court administrator (~$272,000), two district court grama analyst positions (~$421,000), two district court network analyst positions (~$421,000), a district court technology coordinator (~$196,000), district and Supreme Court staff attorney positions (~$293,625 each), a Supreme Court deputy clerk (~$170,000), a 0.5 FTE increase to convert a part-time Supreme Court administrator assistant (~$65,000), five FTEs and nearly $1.5 million for the Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, one court navigator FTE (~$310,000), one allied legal professional FTE (~$364,574), three new treatment/problem-solving courts (~$373,476), & increases in family mediation and guardian ad litem funding (family mediation increase ~$138,200 to reach a total just over $1.5 million; guardian ad litem increase ~$935,768 to reach $2,350,000).

Committee discussion and prioritization Committee members asked clarifying questions about which items were legally required or contractually obligated, and which were discretionary. State Court Administrator Sally (listed in the record as “Sally, State Court Administrator”) told the panel the court had grouped requests into four priority buckets: (1) items necessary to continue normal court operations (examples she listed included IT lease payments, hosting subscriptions for case management, court records public-access hosting, courtroom audio/video and library subscriptions); (2) items necessary because they are legally mandated or covered by contract (examples: an older judges’ retirement line with two remaining recipients, interpreter fee increases, county clerk contract adjustments, rural attorney recruitment); (3) judge/referee pay adjustments and the pay-plan market-equity request; and (4) new FTEs and expansions (family mediation expansion, guardian ad litem increase, allied legal program, court navigator, workload studies, and treatment court expansions).

Sally emphasized that the Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship was being treated separately because it is a new program and may require dedicated consideration by policy committees; she noted the program’s status was still pending another subcommittee process.

On conversion of part-time to full-time positions, Sally explained the added cost stems from full-time benefits and that some part-time positions historically had irregular hours and significant turnover; she said the program contracts through a vendor (YouthWorks) and that part-time staff “do get health insurance, but maybe not retirement,” which contributed to turnover and the rationale for consolidation into full-time roles.

Members also questioned a rise in projected credit-card processing fees handled through the judiciary’s case-management vendor; Sally confirmed the vendor was changing its processing model and that the fees flow through the case-management provider.

Next steps and committee action Committee members did not take a vote on the budget during the hearing. The panel requested a written, prioritized list capturing the court’s “needs versus wants,” and Sally agreed to provide a priority sheet. Senator Thomas was identified as lead for this budget on the committee. Committee members scheduled additional committee work and asked staff and court leaders to provide the requested written prioritization ahead of subsequent meetings.

Ending The division paused committee work on the judicial budget to reconvene at a later date for deeper review. Members asked staff to circulate the priority sheet and the court’s detailed materials so the committee could begin targeted funding decisions at the next meeting.