Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cole County adjusts court services budget as county adds a sixth judge, hears jury‑trial cost concerns
Summary
Court staff and commissioners discussed budget changes tied to a newly added judge — including a court reporter, an extra marshal, training increases, and jury mileage and sequestration cost concerns not included in the proposed budget.
County court services staff told the commission they used last year’s budget as the base for the proposed 2026 court budget but adjusted line items to reflect one additional judge — moving from five to six judges — and the staff that judge requires, including a court reporter and an additional marshal.
Court staff said those personnel additions were significant in cost‑sensitive line items and that they also boosted training dollars for marshals and judges because they have newer staff in both ranks. Staff identified the head marshal as Holly Butler and said that the head marshal is a state‑paid position; county payroll covers court security marshals and pretrial staff.
Commissioners and court staff flagged two large potential expenses that are not part of the baseline budget: a recent statute change on jury mileage that could increase jury pay and an anticipated multi‑week sequestered trial transferred from Platte County that would require substantial sequestration costs if it occurs in the next several years. Court staff said the sequestered trial is not reflected in the current proposed budget.
Why it matters: personnel and training additions linked to a new judge raise recurring costs; unexpected or statutory changes (jury mileage) and rare but large expenses (long, sequestered trials) can create material year‑to‑year volatility.
Other budget items discussed included pretrial services’ request for pay adjustments tied to state changes and the county‑wide salary study; commissioners discussed whether to adopt targeted salary adjustments now or delay decisions until the county salary study concludes. County staff reminded commissioners of legal restrictions on changing court budgets after statutory deadlines (the staff noted a September 1 deadline for certain changes), though commissioners also discussed historically applied exceptions such as approving final COLA adjustments later in the year.
The commission approved the proposed court budget as presented except for salaries; members added a footnote that the salary totals must be adopted on or before Sept. 1 and agreed to revisit salary adjustments separately. Commissioners emphasized they want consistent treatment across county departments and a completed salary study before adopting non‑COLA adjustments for courts and court‑related staff.
Provenance: the court budget presentation and subsequent commissioner discussion and motion were recorded in the meeting packet and the commission's August 19 public session.
