Supreme Court building funded for FY27; judiciary outlines delays and land-acquisition contingency for Hartford County courthouse

Scott Benson, the Department of Legislative Services budget analyst for the judiciary, told the Capital Budget Subcommittee that the judiciary’s five‑year capital improvement program includes four projects: a new Supreme Court of Maryland building and three district court projects in Hartford, Washington and Anne Arundel counties. He said the fiscal 2027 capital budget includes $20,300,000 for the Supreme Court building and that the total anticipated cost of the project is financed with $171,700,000 in general obligation bonds.

DLS noted the Supreme Court project experienced an eight‑month deferral to start construction because of procurement delays and that the construction contract awarded after competitive bidding reduced the construction‑phase estimate to about $158,000,000 from a prior higher estimate. “Groundbreaking officially occurred on February 26,” Benson said, adding substantial completion is expected in January 2029.

Chief Justice Matthew Fader thanked the committee for past support and said the groundbreaking went “very well.” He said the new facility should be complete in about three years and called it “a much more fitting home” for the appellate courts.

Chief Judge John Morrissey, speaking for the district court, answered committee questions about the Hartford County project and the cause of recent delays. Morrissey said the Department of General Services has acquired three of four parcels needed for the Bel Air courthouse but that negotiations over the fourth parcel stalled after the land was sold to a new owner. He said offers made in 2024–25 were complicated by a mixed ownership structure that included a fee interest, a leasehold and ground rent.

Barry Miller, a senior capital executive at DGS, described the Hartford County parcel as particularly difficult because the property previously generated $43,000 a month in lease revenue and the owner had little incentive to sell. Miller said DGS is weighing an alternative: retain and renovate the existing commercial shell (a former Walgreens) to serve as the courthouse lobby and build the new courthouse adjacent to it. “That would be our strategy,” Miller said, framing it as a cost‑saving contingency if acquisition costs exceed earlier appraisals.

The panel did not vote on any items. Chair Ruff closed the judiciary portion after members asked follow‑up questions about the generator replacements, equipment funding, and schedule changes for other district court projects.