Superior Court budgeters seek tech upgrades, brace for Jamestown facility workload and align courthouse security

Superior Court officials presented their recommended 2026 budget and several targeted operational requests, saying projected revenue will be $597,837 compared with last year’s $669,756 and that proposed expenditures total about $1.61 million for the year.

Court staff told commissioners the revenue drop partly reflects reduced grant and other one‑time support and clarified that the state pays half of certain commissioners’ salaries directly. On the expenditure side the court asked for specific technology and accessibility purchases — including a $24,000 replacement for COVID‑era Polycom/video conferencing equipment, an annual electronic reader‑board license (recorded on the schedule as $1,200), and a $4,100 assisted‑listening system for jurors with hearing devices — and said the administrator’s recommended budget marks those items for approval.

The court stressed the reader‑board license and related signage costs will depend on the final number of displays and player licenses purchased and that staff will seek the lowest‑cost configuration that meets needs. Court staff also described ongoing camera and recording system maintenance and license costs tied to preserving evidence and court operations.

Judges and commissioners discussed the court’s planned transition to the Odysee case‑management system for the clerk’s office. Court leaders asked county IT to support implementation and said Odysee modules can improve service to self‑represented litigants and align county practice with other jurisdictions. Officials emphasized planning the transition to reduce disruption when the county departs from legacy systems.

Judges warned that the new Jamestown 16‑bed inpatient mental‑health facility will create recurring involuntary‑treatment‑act (ITA) work: the court expects two half‑day calendars a week to cover the facility’s initial hearings, two‑week and 90‑day reviews. That added calendar time could require reassignment of judicial calendars or use of pro tem judges if demand exceeds current staffing, the court said.

On staffing and budgets, county leadership said they will pursue an “allowable budget” approach for 2026 but reduce reliance on assumed underspend. The administrator described lowering the assumed general‑fund underspend from the 2025 assumption of $1.2 million to roughly $800,000 (moving from a 3% to 2% underspend assumption), requiring roughly $400,000 of reductions across departments — the equivalent of about three to four FTEs if realized as payroll savings. To meet that target the county will place all open positions under an “intensive review” (a hiring‑review process) with limited exemptions.

Court judges and staff asked commissioners not to cut the existing court facilitator position, describing it as a low‑cost, high‑impact service that helps pro se litigants assemble forms, book appointments and keep family‑law calendars moving; the facilitator charges a $35 appointment fee that offsets part of the cost. The court also noted a long‑vacant drug‑court assistant position (previously grant funded) that supervisors have prioritized lower than other functions; participants said the vacancy has not yet caused measurable operational failure but does limit proactive case work and data tracking.

Security and courthouse access dominated much of the later discussion. The bench and administrators described a recently issued judicial administrative order that would implement single‑point entry and clarified the county and courts must reconcile the order with county policies and statutory language (RCW provisions that list items considered weapons). Judges urged a county‑led education campaign so employees and the public understand how the order applies in practice. The county acknowledged small security improvements remaining (hinges, camera viewing, audits) and said single‑point entry is coming; commissioners asked staff to review whether policy amendments or legislative action are warranted to better align county policy with the order.

Court leaders raised concerns about the county’s private security contractor, noting differences between courtroom security and event or sporting‑event security; the court asked the county to confirm contract provisions for firearms training and ensure assigned security staff receive courtroom‑specific training and procedural guidance.

What happens next: the administrator and court staff will continue working on the Odysee transition plan with IT, finalize quotes for reader boards and hearing‑room equipment, refine the court’s budget under the reduced underspend assumption and participate in the county’s intensive hiring review. Commissioners and court leaders also agreed to work on policy language and communication plans tied to the judge’s single‑point‑entry order.