Nevada Supreme Court seeks $197 million; asks lawmakers to convert ARPA contractors, fund IT and statewide training

CARSON CITY — The Nevada Supreme Court told the joint Committee on Finance and Ways and Means on March 15 that it is seeking approximately $197 million in funding for the coming biennium and asked lawmakers to convert seven ARPA-funded contract positions to full-time roles, restore suspended merit increases and provide additional one‑time and ongoing funds for information technology and statewide training.

Chief Justice Douglas Herndon told the committee the total funding request "as currently constructed is 197,000,000," and that about $14.7 million of that is proposed as one‑time ("one‑shot") funding to complete technology and infrastructure projects.

The request matters because several of the court’s proposed projects — statewide e‑filing expansion, a new appellate case management system (C‑Track), a guardianship portal with bank-reporting integration and a planned statewide trial‑court migration to Courtview 3 — are intended to standardize case processing, reduce duplicative work at individual courts and improve access to justice for both urban and rural communities across Nevada.

Herndon and his executive team told the committee the court has been building its budget under the personnel model authorized by SB 58, reporting all personnel changes quarterly to the interim finance committee and providing position data to Legislative Counsel Bureau staff. Justice Lydia Stiglich, who described the SB 58 framework for the judicial branch, said the court used its existing appropriation to create eight positions during the current biennium (seven IT roles and one additional attorney) and reported those hires to IFC.

Todd Myler, the court’s chief financial officer, outlined the court’s priorities in four broad areas: staffing and personnel, training and judicial education, information technology modernization and inflationary adjustments for travel and operations. The staffing request includes converting seven ARPA‑funded contractor roles (six IT and one criminal justice liaison) into permanent full‑time positions, adding ten new positions in the enhancement request overall (including two marshals and one statewide specialty‑court administrative position) and restoring merit increases that the court suspended to gauge available appropriation.

The court described several IT projects in flight or near completion: - E‑filing: deployed in 10 pilot courts and recording more than 12,000 filings; the court requested one‑time funds to finish statewide deployment and complete integration with local case management systems. - C‑Track (appellate case management): cloud‑based system requested to replace the appellate legacy system and finish the buildout with one‑time funds. - Courtview 3 migration: the statewide trial court management system; the court seeks one‑time funding to assist additional trial courts with data migration. - Guardianship portal: a portal intended to accept integrated financial reporting from banks and produce automated red‑flag alerts for potential misuses of guardianship accounts; the court said the portal is ahead of most states and would require ongoing licensing and maintenance funding. - MAGIGIS (multi‑county interjurisdictional information system): the court asked for funds to make the system evergreen so the judiciary can apply internal upgrades without repeated contractor work.

Paul Embley, the court’s IT lead, described the workforce balance between supporting legacy systems and completing modernization. The court is requesting contract IT staff (decision unit E285) to maintain legacy systems while in‑house staff focus on deploying the new systems.

On training and workforce development, the court described a new Supreme Court Training Center built with the prior appropriation (roughly $1.4 million) and a continuous learning plan that proposes a mix of in‑person northern and southern trainings, live online sessions and on‑demand modules. The court estimated each in‑person continuous learning event would serve about 80–85 attendees and requested approximately $71,000 per year for those activities, plus smaller requests to send appellate attorneys to the National Association of Appellate Court Attorneys conference (about $12,000 per year to send four attorneys, depending on location).

Myler and Katherine Stocks outlined inflationary adjustments and travel increases. The court seeks an inflationary increase (M110) of about 25% to offset rising airfare, hotel, resort fees and other costs, and separate increases for specialty court conferences and other travel budgets. The court also sought modest increases for operating supplies, postage, membership dues and law‑library publications.

Chief Justice Herndon and IT staff said the judiciary is weighing potential separation from the state Office of Cybersecurity and Information (OCIO) because of national shifts in federal support from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The court asked to meet with committee staff following the hearing to share fresh information and to avoid an abrupt move that might reduce protections. The court estimated initial additional operating costs for separation at about $1.1 million over the biennium but said a net additional cost to the state would be roughly $245,000 once reductions to OCIO‑provided services are counted; the court also said it was prepared to remain with OCIO for the moment pending further discussions.

On other items, the court asked to withdraw a previously requested $330,000 enhancement (E292) for a Carson City courthouse surveillance upgrade after identifying funding in the current fiscal year to complete that work. The court also asked for restoration and modest increases to the appellate settlement program (used to divert civil appeals into settlement processes), saying the program resolves about 40% of referred appeals before they require full appellate briefing.

Committee members pressed for more line‑item detail on several inflationary amounts, facilitator fees for conferences and how the continuous learning plan will be delivered to locally funded trial‑court staff. John McCormick, the court’s chief people officer, said the continuous learning plan intentionally targets locally funded clerk and court staff to professionalize operations statewide.

The court closed by reiterating its stated priorities: complete the modernization and e‑filing projects, maintain cybersecurity, expand training to support rural courts and professionalize court staff while complying with SB 58 reporting and legislative guardrails.

The judiciary’s leadership said staff would follow up with fiscal staff and committee members to provide more granular cost breakout and to discuss OCIO separation options.