Mason County courts seek staff overlaps, interpreter and A/V funding as budgets tighten

Court leaders on Tuesday pressed Mason County commissioners for several budget additions centered on court operations, saying aging equipment, rising interpreter costs and unfilled positions are straining service delivery. Court staff asked for a temporary overlap for a family law facilitator’s replacement, additional interpreter funding, a modest increase for guardian ad litem pay, overtime to support a statewide case‑management conversion and a planned cycle to replace courtroom audio/visual systems.

Court representative: “I did already put the increase into the sheriff’s office budget. I was told it was 5 percent, but I saw it was 3.9, actually,” said Jen, a county budget staffer, when summarizing how jail meal contract increases were being reflected in maintenance lines. The meals contract increase for jail meals is being carried in the sheriff’s maintenance budget and staff told commissioners they will provide the precise contract language and cost breakdown to ensure the courts’ maintenance request reflects any pass‑through costs.

Why it matters: Judges and court staff say interpreter costs for trials have jumped sharply — especially for uncommon languages and for interpreters who must travel or provide overnight coverage. Court staff estimate recent specialized interpreters have charged as much as $800 a day or more; commissioners were told the court has already spent the bulk of its interpreter budget and is requesting a roughly $10,000–$18,000 increase to avoid disrupting trials.

The courts’ list of budget asks included: - Family law facilitator overlap: Court staff requested a three‑month overlap so the new hire can train with a long‑time facilitator before the incumbent’s March 31 retirement. Staff said this overlap is important because the facilitator role is a public‑facing position that requires substantial institutional knowledge. - Protection‑order facilitator and software: Staff described the growing complexity of protection‑order paperwork and suggested two options: hire a facilitator to help unrepresented petitioners or evaluate a commercial “forms‑based” product (a comp‑law interview system used elsewhere) to generate more complete petitions. The vendor discussed was described as a Seattle‑based company with regional users. - Interpreter funding: Court staff said use of interpreters in trials, including rare dialects, has driven budget pressure. “We’re on track to overspend that budget this year,” the judge’s office told commissioners; staff proposed increasing interpreter funding from the current level to $70,000 for 2026 and said they would return with final numbers. - Guardian ad litem pay: To remain competitive with neighboring jurisdictions, staff proposed raising hourly pay for guardian ad litem (GAL) attorneys; neighboring counties pay $75–$85 per hour for similar services. The court asked the board to approve $75 per hour to align with local comparators. - Courtroom A/V replacement: The main courtroom audio/visual system is over a decade old. Staff proposed establishing a multi‑year replacement cycle rather than waiting for equipment failures; a single‑court replacement was estimated in the tens of thousands (staff cited ~$75,000 as a ballpark for a full main‑court overhaul) and commissioners asked staff to investigate financing or reoccurring replacement funding.

Other operational requests: Staff asked for a small overtime allocation to support mandatory weekend work tied to the state’s transition to a new case management system, with extra weekend support needed during the switchover window. The court also requested a $15,000 increase to pro‑tem judge funding to cover recusals or affidavits of prejudice that require outside judicial coverage.

What commissioners said: Commissioners did not oppose the requests but asked staff to provide more precise cost breakdowns and to explore options to phase large purchases. Commissioner Randy Lewis said he could justify some interpreter increases and recommended tracking overtime and pro‑tem usage in real time. Commissioners also directed staff to provide a detailed memorandum about the meals contract passthrough costs and to return with options for a courtroom equipment replacement cycle.

Next steps: Court staff will provide line‑item cost updates for interpreters, pro‑tem judges and courtroom A/V options and bring those figures back for the board’s budget deliberations.