The Vermont Judiciary told the House Appropriations Committee on Jan. 15 that it is requesting roughly $2,500,000 in a budget adjustment act to cover several priorities, saying about 80% of the request is to shore up IT maintenance and operations.

The request matters because the judiciary’s dedicated technology fund — funded largely by civil-violation and traffic-ticket fees — has seen revenue decline while the judiciary’s IT costs have risen, driven by pandemic-era remote-hearing investments, a new case-management rollout and an expanded digital evidence footprint. “The first graph shows the tech fund revenue. As, as Greg mentioned, that has been declining. So it’s almost half, of what it was at its peak,” said Marsha Shells, chief technology innovation officer for the judiciary.

Judiciary Chief of Finance Administration Greg Mosley told the committee the submission includes a small set of reversions and re-appropriations and one recurring contractual cost. Mosley described two project reversions initially allocated for courthouse projects and asked that one reversion — a roughly $800,000 balance remaining from county courthouse renovation appropriations — be redesignated for wiring and security (badge access) work in county courthouses. He said the request would be net neutral to the state general fund because it uses unspent project balances and that the governor’s recommended reversion list already shows “judiciary 1 for 800,000 and 1 for 50,000.”

Mosley also described a recurring $388,000 request to cover a cost-of-living adjustment for sheriffs who provide court security. “We had to sign contracts that had an increase in it. It works out to a 3.7% increase,” Mosley said, and noted those sheriff costs are contractually separate from the state employee pay act and therefore recur in the judiciary budget.

The largest portion of the request addresses an IT shortfall. Shells and Mosley outlined that new systems implemented over the last several years — including Tyler Technologies’ Enterprise Justice (formerly Odyssey), electronic filing and a digital evidence management system — have substantially increased the judiciary’s recurring maintenance and cybersecurity costs. A one-time contingency bond of $750,000 included in last year’s legislation partially offset FY25 needs, but the judiciary said the ongoing “steady state” maintenance now runs in the multi‑million-dollar range and cannot be supported by the shrinking tech fund alone.

Committee members pressed on the consequences of not backfilling the fund. “I think the IT work is essential to the operation part,” Shells said, adding the judiciary would need to talk with the Agency of Administration about running a deficit in the special fund if no supplemental funding were approved.

Committee discussion also covered administrative detail and transparency: staff pointed members to the governor’s reversion lists in the BAA language (pages cited by staff) where the judiciary reversions appear, and members asked for clarification about which prior capital items (for example, a proposed connector or ADA bathroom at the Essex courthouse site) are affected.

No formal committee action was taken during the appearance; the judiciary staff said they would provide follow-up materials and that the items are included in the governor’s BAA record. The presentation concluded with the judiciary answering technical questions about the size and components of the IT portfolio and the committee signaling follow-up through staff as needed.

For reporters: the judiciary said the request is mostly IT maintenance and cybersecurity; it includes (a) reallocation authority for unspent county courthouse project funds (an $800,000 reversion cited in the governor’s record), (b) a $388,000 sheriff security COLA, and (c) a larger, ongoing gap in the tech fund revenue that previously funded IT work and is now insufficient.