Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation

The Senate budget Subcommitee number five on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, labor, and Transportation will come to order. Good morning, everyone.

We are holding our Committee hearing here in the state capitol, and I ask that all Members of the Subcommitee be present, which they are right here in room 112 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. Welcome back to our first of many Subcommitee hearings which we will hold this year.

As a state, we face significant uncertainties in the state revenues and in the federal funding and policy decisions. The conversations we have in this and the four other subcommittees will guide the Senate towards our final budget, which we will look forward to building along with our colleagues in the Assembly and in the Administration.

Today's hearing is on courthouse facility funding. The state manages hundreds of court buildings statewide which house thousands of employees and Members of the public every day. Many of these buildings are decades old and in need of repair or replacement. That's an understatement. Right? I added that just now.

How to Fund and prioritize the facility needs of the judicial branch will be the focus of our hearing today. We have two issues on the agenda, and we'll take public comment on both at the end of the hearing.

I'd also like to welcome our special guest, but really not a guest, a fellow colleague, Senator Ochoa Bogue, who will be joining us for the first issue on the agenda today. Colleagues, before we begin, does anyone have anything they'd like to add? Okay, with that, let's first establish a quorum. Consultant. Nora, would you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Well, we have a quorum, which is. We're off to a good start here. I just want to say, take a moment for a point of personal privilege. I've had the opportunity to go to courthouses in. In my district, and I'm quite concerned. And that's why of the hearings. This is our first one. Everything, we always need.

More money, more everything, more repairs, more maintenance. But I think if. When we talk about democracy and talk about judicial, you know, just people having their rights, it's really a shame what people are dealing with every day. Both the people who are providing the justice and. And then the people who are coming in and participating in it.

So I'm very, very excited about us being here today. With that, we're going to start with our issue one, which is our overview of our court facilities funding. Let's start with our first issue, which is an overview of the court facilities funding. Panelists, please come to the table. Please come forward.

We'll start with Drew Soderbergh from the Legislative Analyst's Office, followed by Justice Hill, Judge Moorman, and then my favorite, and I'm not ashamed to say it, Judge Tapia.

Judge Tapia, you should know not only is doing all of the judicial work that he's assigned to do, but he's also a tremendous advocate on all of the courthouses, which is really frankly why we're here today. He's educated me and helped me to understand. And so we're so happy to have all of you here today.

With that, we're going to start with Mr. Soderborg.

Drew Soderborg, Legislative Analyst's Office Today I'll be presenting from this handout, which should be in front of you. So in the handout, let me start off with a little bit of background. The state assumed responsibility for trial court facilities with the passage of the Trial Court Facilities and Act in 2002.

That act shifted responsibility from counties to the state for trial court facilities. It also required that counties provide to the state payments, known as county facility payments, in an amount equal to the amount the counties had spent historically on maintenance and operation of the facilities. Today that amounts to about $98 million annually.

The act also made the judicial branch responsible for court facility construction. The trial court construction and facility maintenance is supported by several different funds. This includes the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, which provides support for construction projects and facility modification projects. It receives about $265 million of revenue annually, primarily from fines and fees.

It has about $330 million of expenditures annually, and the difference between its revenue and expenditures is made up by the General Fund. And it's projected that the General Fund will need to be providing a backfill to this Fund between now and 203637 to maintain solvency of the Fund. In addition, there's the Immediate and Critical Needs Account.

This was an account that previously existed to support trial court facility construction, but eventually wrapped into the State Court Facilities Construction Fund when it became insolvent, which I'll talk about later today. There's also the Court Facilities Trust Fund. This Fund was made to receive primarily the county facility payments and support facility maintenance and operation.

It has the revenue from the county facility payments, but expenditures of about 200 million. And again, the difference between the expenditures and the revenue it receives is made up by the General Fund. Trial court facilities are often shared between the judicial branch and another entity, often counties.

In that case, the counties or the other entities sharing the facility have to pay for their share of the cost. As a result, reimbursements also support trial court facilities. And finally, the General Fund. As I've mentioned a couple different times, the General Fund provides backfill to some of the key facility accounts supporting trial court facilities.

But also the Legislature has decided to provide one time General Fund for specific construction and facility modification projects. So if you turn to page three of the handout, we'll talk a bit more about trial court construction.

Trial court construction projects were originally fully supported by the State Court facilities construction plan and the immediate and critical needs account until those funds became insolvent. Those funds became insolvent for a couple different reasons.

To begin with, since 2009-10 nearly $1.7 billion was transferred out of the Fund either to the General Fund or to support trial court operations. These transfers were made to help the state address its budget issues, issues that existed previously. In addition, criminal fine and fee revenue has declined substantially, which has also impacted the funds.

And these two factors together resulted in the funds becoming insolvent and the Judicial Branch construction program effectively being suspended in 2012-13, with certain projects being indefinitely delayed and others being put on hold or canceled.

However, once the state budget condition improved, the Legislature in the 2018-19 budget provided $1.3 billion of General Fund to support 10 different construction projects that had been previously delayed. This effectively backfilled the $1.4 billion that had been transferred out of the construction funds up to that point.

In addition, given the insolvency of the state court facilities construction Fund in 202122 the budget permanently shifted support for new construction programs or projects excuse me, away from the State Court facilities construction Fund and to the General Fund.

So if you turn to page four, you will see a figure that shows shows the construction projects that have been identified by the Judicial Branch to date. So the 2018-19 budget package required the Judicial Branch to reassess its facility needs by December 2019.

The branch took a look at their facility needs on a host of different factors including seismic safety risk, fire and life safety, security risk risks, and so on. The 2019 reassessment identified a need for a total of 80 construction projects.

At that point, it was estimated that $13.2 billion would be necessary to complete all of the construction projects. However, recently in April 2024, Los Angeles reassessed the pro its projects on the list, which included 17 different projects and provided new cost estimates for those projects.

Once those new costs were folded in, it brought the total to $21 billion. So new construction projects are generally initiated in the order of priority identified by the judicial branch. So as you can see in the figure, there are five different priority levels with the top two being immediate need and critical need.

So if you turn to page six of the handout, we'll have a discussion of trial court facility modification projects. So trial court facility modification projects are similar to construction projects, but they're generally smaller in scope than construction projects.

The State Court facilities construction Fund and the General Fund provide an annual amount to the judicial branch for its use for use at its discretion to support trial court facility projects. Specifically, it's $65 million from the State Court Facilities Construction Fund and 15.4 million from the General Fund.

In addition to this annual $80 million that's provided by these funds for the judicial branch, the Legislature will also provide one time funding from the General Fund for particularly large projects. A very good example we'll talk about later today is the 71 million General Fund being proposed for the Orange County Central Justice Center.

And that project had previously received 64 million on a one time basis for support of the project. Trial court facility modification projects are selected by the branch again based on a categories that they have established.

In this case, there are six different categories categories, with the highest categories being immediate or potentially critical and necessary, but not yet critical. And the Judicial Council uses these priorities to identify how it will allocate that annual funding it receives each year.

So if you turn to page six, you'll see a discussion of trial court facility operations and maintenance. So the daily operation and maintenance of trial court facilities is supported by the Court Facilities Trust Fund and the General Fund.

So the 25-26 budget is estimated to spend 100 million from the court, about 100 million from the Court Facilities Trust Fund and 94 million from the General Fund on these projects. Now, deferred maintenance essentially encapsulates all projects that are not met by facility needs or by modification and operations spending.

The Judicial Branch as of August 2025 has identified nearly 22,400 deferred maintenance projects that are valued around $5.4 billion. Now because as I mentioned earlier, these are shared facilities, not all of that would be a state cost, but about 4 billion of that amount would be a state cost.

The state periodically provides one time General Fund for the branch to address these deferred maintenance needs. For example, the 2122 budget included 188 million to be spent through 2023-24 on these projects. However, the 2023-24 budget reverted 49.5 million of that amount in order to address the state's budget problem.

That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take questions or turn it over to the next panelists

for that very comprehensive presentation. I'm going to start with Members first, and I'll. I'll go last. Any Members with questions.

Okay. Yes, we can. That's fine. We'll go ahead and continue with the rest of the panel and then pull all of our questions together. So first we have. Let me go back to my script here.

So we have, as has been previously introduced, we have Justice Brad Hill, we have Judge Ann Mormon, and then we also have my favorite, Judge Tapia. Go ahead, sir. You can begin.

Well, thank you very much. It's very nice being with you this morning. And we appreciate the opportunity to talk a little bit about not only the construction program, but also the maintenance issues that we have dealt with over the years.

I want to start by saying thank you to all of you and your fellow Members of the Legislature, to the Governor, Department of Finance and others in the Administration for your steadfast support of our Judicial Branch and the need to have safe, secure and ADA compliant courthouses.

We are very supportive and very appreciative of the governor's budget as it relates to the judicial branch.

As we realize that we are partners in this process, the practical limitations of funding really fall on us all to find a path forward that provides those basic services which while doing so within the confines of the budget, access to our courts means nothing if our courts are not safe and secure.

That has been our mantra since we took responsibility for building courthouses over 15 years ago, and it remains that today. As chair of the Committee, the very first action that we took with the court facilities Advisory Committee was to create a courthouse coordinate cost reduction Subcommitee.

Every single courthouse goes through that process, oftentimes once more, oftentimes 23 or four times. We scale back projects, we change fit and finishes. You won't see marble in our courthouses. You see very little Wood. You see a lot of laminate. And that has been the process of going through that cost reduction process.

You also see determinations that perhaps a remodel of seismic and other issues can accommodate it if it is cost effective.

We sometimes go down that path, but we do this because we feel it is extraordinarily important, because the more money we can save up front on these projects, the further down the list we can go and the faster we can get to these critical needs.

The one constant is that we want to save money and we want to save money on each and every project. We one example was we had a Las Banas courthouse and we changed the construction methodology there, which you can do on two and three story courthouses. What's called tilt up construction.

Architects who are trying to win design awards grimace whenever I mention tilt up construction because they equate that with Costcos and Targets. But we did it in Las Venus. We saved a third of the cost. And it's a beautiful courthouse, so we're trying to where we can save every penny that we can during this process.

Now, many of you remember the headlines about eight years ago in the Los Angeles Times and in newspapers really across the state talking about the earthquake risk to our state's courthouses. One quote is as follows.

A new study showed that more than 100 courthouses in the state, including many in Los Angeles county, could collapse and cause substantial loss of life. That was eight years ago. Judge Tapia is facing that reality every day. Los Angeles lost a courthouse to an earthquake back in 1933, right downtown when that courthouse had to be demolished.

And it took decades to rebuild the courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. The current Moss Courthouse is comprised of two buildings abutting one another that will, if a quake hits, cause an instability that will bring down both buildings and all of the jurors, court staff and others within those walls.

Last year, the PJ of the San Francisco Superior Court stopped sending school tours to the hall of justice courthouse as she didn't want to contemplate what would happen if a quake hit while those children were in the courthouse and those children and the tours have not returned.

In addition to those concerns, we have courthouses that have serious security issues. They're not ADA compliant, and they can't handle the need for more judges in those counties like San Bernardino and Riverside that have booming populations. Now, we're not in the business of building courthouses and new courthouses because we want shiny new buildings.

We are building new courthouses and as quickly as we possibly can and as the state's revenues will allow, so that we have safe and secure courthouses. We also realize that many, many communities across our state can make a compelling case for why they need a new courthouse, as the needs are great throughout the state.

And that's why we have an immediate and critical needs list that we have spent years evaluating, refining, and updating. And we appreciate over the past several decades the latitude that the Executive and legislative branches have given to us to assess the statewide needs. All of which is done in the open, in public meetings with everyone participating.

We have had 13 years of meetings on these criteria, and not one of them has been behind closed doors. The only time we go behind closed doors is when we're seeking a particular property that we wish to buy. And negotiating with landowners in public with multiple landowners doesn't work very well because prices tend to increase.

That's the only time that we go behind closed doors. Everything else is done in public. Now, another part of our work is the maintenance side, which is critical. And as was just pointed out, we have 22,000 plus deferred maintenance projects through fiscal year 26-27.

These projects are estimated to cost over $5 billion, and our share is almost 4 billion. For the judicial branch, that's a tall order, not an easy one, given the fact that delaying these repairs, as we all know, can cost much more in the long run if we don't take care of it at the front end.

And as you can see when you look at the list of repairs, it's a tall order for the Committee. And we have a dedicated Committee chaired by Judge Byrd and Judge Heiberg, who go through the list. And when you have 2000 on the list and each think, each court thinks, of course, their project is the most important.

And oftentimes they are. Because when you're dealing with an H VAC issue in the middle of summer in Riverside, it's critical. When you're dealing with a flood or a potential flood in Los Angeles because of leaky pipes, it's critical. When you have a bad roof in somewhere in Northern California right before a rainstorm, it's critical.

So we have that Committee trying to balance the best that they can. Leaky roofs, floods, elevator repairs. And when you talk about elevator repairs, it's not just convenience, it's an ADA issue.

In some of the courthouses in Northern California where the only access is by one elevator, the elevator goes down, people can't reach those floors where the courthouses are. So it's a balance, or courtrooms are. It's a balancing act that the branch does every single day.

Now, the current program maintenance budget is funded from the Court Facilities Trust Fund, as was noted, with $16.5 million in reimbursement authority, and it's in the amount of about 193 million, with an $80 million annual expenditure that we can make added stressors to the maintenance budget every year. And the funding are the material costs.

They've gone up 11%. Utility costs that have gone up dramatically, labor costs that have gone up 25%, labor costs of 11, and the materials are 25. So you deal with that on a basis where what you Fund one year becomes much less valuable, at least in terms of what we can spend the next.

And so those, again, are added stressors for our branch and for those who are trying to maintain the buildings. We know that the Governor and all of you are very concerned about this and we appreciate that.

In fact, the Governor sent a high level delegation from the Department of Finance to Los Angeles to meet with all of us there, tour the building, see where the floods have been seen, the elevators that don't work and the escalators that don't work and all of the myriad of problems.

And they understand and they have been very supportive. And so we would just want to say that we appreciate those site visits that you make so that you can see exactly what's going on. And we would appreciate in the future the support continuing that you have provided us up to this point.

And we certainly hope that if revenues in the future increase, that we can be a small part of that and take advantage of perhaps some opportunities to repair and and replace these courthouses that are in bad, critical need of being replaced and repaired. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Justice Moorman?

Yes, Good morning and thank you for having us today. I'm Judge Ann Moorman and I'm here as the Chair of the Judicial Branch Budget Committee. I'm also a Judicial Officer in Mendocino County. Many of you I've met before, thank you for having us.

First, in my role as Chair of the Judicial Branch Budget Committee, we want to express support for the Governor's proposed budget. Next is my role as a judicial officer in Mendocino county and a colleague of Judge Tapia. We're both here to discuss our projects within our respective counties.

I want to talk about the courthouse project in Ukiah, which is the county seat for Mendocino County. Our project is approximately 40% complete at this time. When it started, it was on our priority list in the late 2000s, as Mr. Soderbergh referenced, although not us particularly.

Our funding was put on hold during some budget difficulties in 2013 and 2014. However, our project did receive funding. We did a land acquisition in 2017, acquiring some undeveloped land, land from the railroad. It is in downtown Ukiah. Our project has been on the priority list because it is in the immediate needs category.

It is in that category due to this risk to the public from the seismic activity. FEMA has designated our current courthouse as a high risk courthouse. We're right on the Mayacamas fault as well as some subsidiary faults.

We also have a complete lack of compliance with ADA regulatory provisions as well as other safety provisions due to some of the materials that were used in the original construction. I would note the original construction of our Courthouse occurred at two different times.

One was in the late 19th century and again it was added onto in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm not going to go through all the problems with our existing courthouse, but I want to talk about our new courthouse and how the new courthouse solves those problems.

Problems Our new building, located very close by on an undeveloped parcel of land will Give our community 82,000 square ft housing seven courtrooms with fully accessible courtrooms for all users and visitors. That is something we do not have. Now we have seven courtrooms, only four of which are ADA accessible.

Our multilingual self help center that provides in person and remote access to distant parts of the county will be expanded. As you all know, our self help centers are exploding in terms of their users and the needs that they provide.

Our jury Assembly room, which right now is inadequate because it requires potential jurors to sit on the floor in the public hallways, sit on staircases because there's not enough chairs, there's not enough room to house them for a typical Monday or Tuesday morning. So our new jury Assembly room will be adequate in size.

We will have a safe and secure internal circulation for the public, the staff and in custody adult defendants. Our juvenile court, which right now is not in a place in the building that can maintain the privacy for juvenile proceedings, whether they be juvenile justice or dependency.

It is now housed or will be in our new courthouse situated to guarantee privacy and confidentiality. We will have dedicated law enforcement access and better external screening. Right now we have two public entrances, one of which is often closed due to inadequate screening devices or inadequate personnel.

We will have secured parking for judicial officers and 160 parking spaces for jurors and the public. Right now we have no dedicated parking. Our judicial officers park with everyone else. We have no parking for the public. It often confounds and creates difficulties for downtown Ukiah.

We have solar energy equipment and infrastructure being developed over our new parking lot that will help power the building. The building is designed to meet the highest global certifications for environmental efficiency and energy efficiency. As important as anything else is the location of our new courthouse. Like Los Angeles, although smaller in size, our courthouse is downtown.

Our current courthouse is the hub of central civic activity throughout the county. It sponsors and hosts celebrations. It hosts civic activities such as protests, speeches and educational forums. Our new courthouse will be located close by and will continue to maintain that role.

I want to note that the city of Ukiah, because of this project, has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in building new streets, building new infrastructure. They had remedial responsibility to bring the site up to a standard within which the site or the state would agree to acquire.

And they are planning on spending more money to support the infrastructure around the new courthouse. In addition, the site chosen was an undeveloped site. It was a brownfield site. It had been owned by the railroad. Due to fiscal difficulties that the railroad experienced, they had not maintained some of their responsibility concerning the environment.

We had a great deal of remediation that occurred. In total, it's a seven acre site. Our courthouse occupies four of it. Four of those acres. But I will say it has been a catalyst to develop the remaining three acres.

The city and the county are having plans to acquire those acres to develop governmental services as well as residential. Some residential development we hope and we expect that to include the district attorney, the public defender, the probation and other supportive services such as our community service and some counseling centers.

I want to talk a bit about the economic input impacts for the city of Ukiah and the county at large about this project. As I've said, our courthouse is in downtown Ukiah. The city estimates that it receives, just counting Monday through Friday activity, approximately 70,000 visitors per year.

Those 70,000 visitors, they estimate approximately 30% of those shop downtown. They eat downtown. They use the local restaurants, they visit local businesses. It is a significant hub and magnet for economic activity that brings in sales tax revenue and supports local small business development. I also really want to emphasize this project has exploded in civic pride.

Our opening ceremony. The elders of the Pinoleville nation came to bless the ceremony because the courthouse will now is now not. Is now will now be on land that was originally part of the Pinoleville nation and their Members occupied the lands.

They have blessed our project and have been deeply involved in many of the civic projects that we're planning on hosting, such as rotating art exhibits, sculpture installation and. And I will notice there are murals in our current courthouse that are approximately 60 or 70 years old. We're planning on transferring those murals.

They reflect the life of the inhabitants of Mendocino county since before the evolution of the United States of America. Our design build firm, I want to note Hensel Phelps has provided an enormous amount of volunteer energy and labor in the community. They helped rebuild the or helped remodel the food bank.

They have sponsored activities such as days for Ayes skating for residents in the county that can't afford to normally pay the small fee that's associated with Ayes skating. And they've participated in other civic activities, all on a volunteer basis.

I want to really emphasize in my closing remarks, as I said, our building is about 40% complete at this time. Its total budget is 86.7 million. We are on time. We are on budget. Our county is very proud of this project.

I could tell you more and more about it, but before I turn it over to Judge Tapia, I just really want to stress that all of our courthouse projects, in whatever community they're located on or in, they replicate the benefits that I have strived to give you examples of in a small community.

They do it in our large communities. From Los Angeles, Angeles to Inyo to Shasta counties. These projects have been not only necessary for accessibility and functionality and to provide safety, but they do inspire other activities that are adjacent to delivering justice.

And I want to say that our courthouse projects simply have far more reaching impacts than simply maximizing accessibility. And I want to thank you for your time.

Thank you. We next have Judge Tapia, both Senator Durazzo and myself being from Los Angeles. But Senator Durazzo has long followed this judge's career, and we consider him a part of our community. It was appointed to the bench in 2013.

You began your career as a legal aid lawyer and then a public defense defender, the first presiding judge of Latino heritage elected by all of the judges of the Consolidated Superior Court since trial court unification in 2000. You're a founding Member of the Court's Judicial Mentor program and have served on numerous Judicial Council committees.

Anyone who can make it in LA, it's kind of like New York. You can make it anywhere. Judge Tapia, we welcome your comments.

Thank you, Senator Richardson. Good morning, Chairwoman Richardson, and distinguished Members of the Subcommitee. My name is Sergio Tapia, and I have the privilege of serving as the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

I am honored to be here today and to join Justice Hill, Judge Moorman, and my colleagues from the Judicial Council of California to participate in this important and timely discussion. Chairwoman Richardson, I would like to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for your leadership and steadfast commitment to highlighting this critical issue for your colleagues here in Sacramento.

Through your visits to the Compton courthouse, I have witnessed firsthand your genuine dedication to the residents of Senate District 35 and to the people of the State of California. You clearly understand, as I do, the urgency and significance of this matter, and I am grateful for your efforts to bring focus and attention to it.

Each day, approximately 36,000 people walk through the doors of our 36 courthouses across Los Angeles County. For many, it is one of the most difficult days of their lives. Seeking protection through a restraining order, navigating a painful custody dispute, or fighting to keep a roof over their heads in an eviction matter.

Too often they are met not with a system that reflects the dignity of their circumstances, but with facilities in serious disrepair, elevators perpetually out of service, escalators that no longer function, clerk's offices made inaccessible due to asbestos containment after flooding from heavy rains or burst pipes, and shuttered cafeterias that leave visitors and staff without even the most basic amenities.

These conditions do not merely inconvenience the public. They present significant public safety issues and undermine confidence in the very institution charged with delivering justice at a time when the rule of law is under assault. This level of disrepair did not occur overnight. It is the predictable result of years of chronic underinvestment in courthouse maintenance.

This pattern has left us so far behind that it is now more cost effective to replace a courthouse than to fix it. At the Superior Court of Los Angeles county alone, the deferred maintenance backlog for critical repairs exceeds $1.4 billion and includes more than 6,000 individual projects.

The Compton Courthouse, located in your district, Senator, has over 200 of those deferred maintenance projects totaling approximately $88.1 million, an amount that exceeds the Judicial Council's entire $87 million allocation for facilities modifications. In the current fiscal year, Los Angeles county is projected to require roughly 34% of the judicial Council's statewide maintenance funding.

When such a substantial share of limited statewide resources must be directed to a single county, it inevitably limits the Judicial Council's ability to address urgent needs in smaller courts that are also grappling with aging, deteriorating, and unsafe facilities. Notably, our court accounts for approximately 36% of all unfunded and deferred maintenance projects identified statewide by the Judicial Council.

We fully recognize the urgency of addressing these critical needs. This year, our court made the deliberate and difficult decision to allocate $23.9 million from our operating budget to address pressing security and safety related maintenance issues. But know this.

Every dollar redirected from operations to cover maintenance shortfalls is a dollar that we cannot invest in expanding public access, improving case flow, and delivering justice more efficiently and effectively. As these projects remain unfuned, the consequences of deferred maintenance continue to compound.

For example, flooding caused by deteriorating, poorly maintained pipes has forced the closure of courthouses, including Compton and the Children's Courthouse in Monterey park, for a combined 13 court days over the past two and a half years alone. These are not abstract inconveniences. They have real and immediate consequences for the public we serve.

When elevators fail, jurors, attorneys, and litigants with mobility impairments are unable to access courtrooms, in some instances requiring the fire Department to physically assist disabled individuals downstairs. Then h VAC systems break down during periods of extreme heat. Proceedings must be relocated or postponed. When flooding from faulty pipes or leaking roofs triggers asbestos containment protocols, Case files

must be secured and remediated at a high cost to the local trial court, rendering them temporarily inaccessible. Each disruption delays hearings, confuses litigants, increases backlogs and erodes public confidence in our justice system.

Just months ago, at our flagship Stanley Moss courthouse in Senator Durazo's district, a malfunctioning drain in a chilled water system caused significant flooding in an electrical room. The resulting power outage and surge blew fuses throughout the building.

They destroyed newly purchased audio equipment essential to to maintaining sound quality for both in person and remote hearings, further illustrating how infrastructure failures directly impact our ability to administer justice. This building failure resulted in the closure of 60 yes, 60 courtrooms for two days. The rescheduling of approximately 1,380 hearings impacting over 2,760 litigants.

Senator Richardson, when you and your staff visited the Compton courthouse In December of 2025, you saw firsthand the lasting consequences of two major floods that struck in January of 2024, both less than 30 days apart.

Both incidents were caused by deteriorating, poorly maintained pipes and resulted in significant damage to courtrooms, clerk's offices, the self help center, the cafeteria, and even elevator shafts. The courthouse was forced to close for 11 days that month. Proceedings were disrupted and dispersed to available courtrooms throughout the county.

Self help services were relocated to the lobby and a triage operation was established to manage calendars. Non emergency matters were continued while time sensitive cases were transferred to other courthouses. In total, approximately 10,000 cases impacting more than 20,000 litigants were disrupted over those 11 days. The effects are still being felt today.

The cafeteria remains closed, depriving staff, judges, jurors and litigants of on site food services. Families, including those with young children, often have no reliable access to meals. During lengthy court proceedings, litigants routinely wait more than 20 minutes for a functioning elevator to reach their courtroom.

Self represented litigants seeking assistance are now crowded into a makeshift self help center in the cafeteria space, a stark reminder that the consequences of deferred maintenance do not end when the water recedes.

The third example occurred in January of 2018 at the largest criminal courthouse in the nation, the Clara Shortridge Fultz Criminal justice center located in Center Durazo's district. A valve in the heating system ruptured, releasing approximately 150,000 gallons of water and asbestos across multiple floors.

Nearly 30% of the building sustained damage, forcing the closure of numerous courtrooms for months and requiring the relocation of staff, judges and entire caseloads. Thousands of criminal case files were damaged, rendering them inaccessible for months, delaying hearings and complicating evidentiary hearings.

Before many of these proceedings could resume, the affected files had to be remediated, restored and scanned, an extraordinarily time sensitive and costly process. It took two years to fully resolve the incident, which ultimately affected the 476,000 litigants, court staff and judicial officers. These events are not isolated anomalies.

They are foreseeable consequences of prolonged underinvestment in aging infrastructure risks that compound when necessary maintenance is deferred year after year. And I want to emphasize that each of these incidents directly impacts your constituent's ability to access justice.

When emergencies such as flooding occur, the Judicial Council classifies them as, quote, priority one, the highest designation reserved for threats to court operations. A maintenance vendor is dispatched immediately to contain the damage and implement temporary repairs and emergency costs are funded through the Judicial Council statewide facilities maintenance budget.

Yet in many cases, the underlying cause of the emergency is a preventable maintenance issue that if addressed proactively, would never have escalated into a crisis. Investing in preventive maintenance is not simply a matter of safety. It is sound fiscal policy.

It aligns with the Legislative Analyst Office recommendation to prioritize facilities modifications that preserve the functionality and safety of existing courthouses. Every dollar spent proactively helps avoid far more costly emergency repairs, operational disruptions and delays that multiply expenses and hinder access to justice.

One of our court's central priorities is to build and sustain public trust and confidence in the institution entrusted with making consequential, life altering decisions. While the examples I have shared are drawn from Los Angeles county, the underlying challenges are not unique to our jurisdiction across the state.

Safe and functional courthouses are essential to the fair Administration of justice. Without them, access to justice is compromised and public trust and confidence erode. In closing, I welcome Members of the Legislature to visit our courthouses and see firsthand the gravity of these conditions.

I respectfully urge your support for adequate, sustained infrastructure funding that protects the public, ensures that our courts remain open, and preserves confidence in California's judicial system. Thank you for having me. I welcome any questions.

Thank you very much, all of you, for very excellent testimony that you provided today. We're going to start with colleagues. Do you have any questions for this panel?

Okay, Mr. Seyarto, we'll start with you, then we'll go to Mr. Durazo and then we'll go to Ms. Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you very much. And first, the good news. You do not have to convince us that we need help in this area. We are aware, we've been aware.

I've been on this Subcommitee for the last three years and even prior to that the discussion has come up and every year we talk about the need to invest some of the billions and billions of dollars that we take in into a system that is absolutely critical for our public safety systems to work.

So I have a couple of questions regarding the facilities, but also kind of the planning part of this, you know, and I appreciate your thanks for the crumbs that we give you, but we all, we really need to know, you know, what it's going to take, what it's going to take to bring our facilities up to snuff.

And some of these I recognize are, you know, when they have asbestos and they have old pipes and they kind of need to be scraped, use them until we get the new one built, just like we did here.

We built a building across the street, moved all our offices over there, scraped the old building, and now they're building the adjacent building for our offices. And that kind of process needs to happen when we have an issue of this magnitude, an infrastructure issue of this magnitude. But I'm going to focus a little bit on Riverside County.

Not to diminish the needs of everyone because everyone needs judgeships, but this kind of goes to the 2019 assessment versus where we're at today. And also in light of, and I'll ask that question later.

But you know, when you guys did your latest needs assessment for Jed Ships, we had, you know, 52 of the 98 are in Riverside County. There's a reason for that. It's because it's the fastest growing region. That's the only place you can build houses on a mass scale. And so that's where the growth is being pushed out.

And so is there a long term plan for that region to add? Because we just, we had the Menifee courthouse got built and it's gorgeous and it is, you know, just what we need.

But unfortunately, I think in order to meet the needs out there, when you talk about access and stuff, it's such a vast region that we need a few more like that and smaller ones like that in order to serve the public properly out there. So is there a plan for that region?

We do have a plan for the region. And it goes back. And you're absolutely right in terms of judgeship, I chaired a judgeship needs group that had a report back in 1999 and number one and number two on the list, Riverside, San Bernardino, nothing has changed. It's been critical then and critical now.

It did take about 22 years to get all of those judges funded. So it's a little bit hard from our particular vantage point to plan on courthouses. And if the new Judges take the 22 years, it's a difficult thing to kind of square in terms of budgeting. But we do have that plan.

We have one courthouse probably just a couple down the prioritization list. And we're also looking at the existing courthouses to see if we can add courtrooms to those. And we have plans specifically for those as well.

And then I think given the population and given the judgeships, and if they start coming, we're going to have to reassess and put yet another courthouse in that region. And we're prepared to do so.

And then my follow up question on not just that, but all of the entire regions in California, all the regions in California is, you know, along the way we've added resentment guidelines, we've added to the court's load.

And when we were doing the initial assessment of what we need and when we need it by, have we taken that into account because those require more judgeships and those require more facilities. And if we did that after the reassessment or the assessment was done, when are we going to reassess and include that in?

And that is a good point as well. Other parts of the branch are assessing that need. And you're absolutely right, that is increasing courtroom time on each case and it is increasing the number of judges that we need.

So once we get that information, then we start factoring and we'll start factoring that in to what we need for the future. We try to do it in real time to do an overall assessment. It does cost millions of dollars and we have to find the money for that. So we don't do that every two years.

We do it when we're given the money for that reassessment. But we try every year to keep current.

And part of that is figuring out what we need in terms of judgeships, balanced with the seismic needs, the security needs and the ada, because we have a lot of competing concerns, because we have some courts that might not need more judges, but they say we're in a courthouse that is not secure, that we've been told is an accident.

Waiting to happen or a mass shooting waiting to happen. And so we're trying to balance all of those factors.

Right? All of those things kind of evolve over time. And that's why I think it's really important for us to ensure that we're having reassessments of our needs. Our needs assessments are done in a more compact window so that we can pivot with the rest of the world.

And what you're talking about as far as earthquakes and things like that, as these buildings age, I think of the Englewood courthouse, it's the same age as the fire station I was in. And we can see the crumbling infrastructure inside the fire station. And you can imagine that is going on in the courts, too. So there isn't.

I don't think there's a question about we need to do it. It's a matter of, okay, so how are we going to do that? And will the state. Will we prioritize this within our budget?

I've often said that A lot of times in our world, it seems like we do the house payment last and do all the fun stuff first. And by the time we get down the house payment, we don't have any money for the house payment, so we borrow money to pay it.

That's a recipe for personal finance disaster, and I think public finance disaster as well. Another question I have, you know, we have a backlog of. It seems we're doing like four projects a year, and we got a backlog of 80 projects. So in 25 years, we'll have maybe completed those first 80, but we'll probably have 80 more.

How do we accelerate that? What's the plan to. What can we do to accelerate that? Because I know there's more to it than just throwing money in there. It's like, how much money and how much projects can we get done? How many projects can we get done? If we do something different than we're doing now?

That's a tad bit above my pay grade because it involves a lot of money, and we need to look to you and the governor's office for that. But we also realize that we're just part of the process, and we have a number of needs in the state that are competing with courthouses and the judiciary and everyone else.

So we need to be good partners, and we will be. But if the revenues are such that you're able to accelerate the program at some point, we will be able to meet that need and that challenge. But we obviously need the state revenues to be such that you can afford it. There Finance people.

Do we have a Department of Finance here? Can we ask them a question, or are they coming up next?

They're available for questions, yes.

Okay, that'd be great.

Next one, right?

Yeah. Has there been any indication from the Administration that this is the kind of priorities we need to start looking at so that we can start. You know, I don't like making. You know, we come from the Committee. We hear this, we know it needs to be a priority.

Has the Administration indicated that this is a priority for them as well?

We're doing the best we can with the resources that are available. The priority order has been the 2019 reassessment plan, and so we're trying to hit the immediate needs first. Capital outlay does take a lot longer than normal projects because there are several different phases that design, well, usually acquisition and then design and construction.

So it typically takes for an easy project, I would say, at least six to eight years.

Yeah, it's looking like nine to ten from start to finish. Who's the person they asked about the acquisition process? Because I've been looking at these acquisitions. They take five years, four to five years just to find a site. I'm wondering what we can do to fix that so that it's a little quicker than that.

And I understand, because Santa Clarita is all up in arms right now because of the site that got picked there. I don't know how long it took them to pick that site, but I think they forgot to ask the neighbors because the neighbors are not happy over there.

I can address that issue. Yeah, that'd be great. Santa Clarita, you know, it was a long process, but the process is really dictated by funding. We get funded in phases, and Tamara will be able to fill in the details. But the reality is that the judicial council was very proactive in engaging with the city.

However, you have turnover within the City Council. They worked hand in hand with the City Council to try to identify sites. Came down to three. One of them fell through again because of the timeline for funding.

So we had to go to our second option, which the city was well aware of far in advance of choosing that site. But so much of what happens and your concerns over delay are based on the schedules that we do not get to control as a judicial branch.

As I often tell the public, we don't control the purse. We don't get to enforce the laws. We simply get to interpret them. Our only currency is the trust and confidence from the public.

So we are more than willing as a branch to work with the Legislature, the Department of Finance, and the Governor's office to, to really think creatively and strategically about how we Fund these projects. Because I will give you one example, a stark example of the problem.

In LA County, we have 36 courthouses under the current scheme where the state funds three projects a year. It will take 160 years by the time we replace our newest courthouse, which is the Long Beach courthouse, which is now 13 years old.

That, I think is a perfect example of the problem with the model that we currently have. But I will also share this with you.

We are trying to be as judge, and I appreciate Justice Hill's leadership because we are thinking more creatively about these projects and we do not believe in LA that we are just going to replace the facility because it is dated and old.

We are looking strategically, using data, using case filings, to say, you know what, maybe we don't need that courthouse. Maybe we can consolidate that operation into one larger courthouse and eliminate four courthouses because we want to be fiscally responsible with tax dollars.

So we, as a branch and under Justice Hill's leadership, he heads up the Court Facilities Advisory Committee, constantly discussing strategies to try to do our best with the limited dollars that we have and thinking strategically as we move forward to ensure that we are good partners in this process.

Right. And I believe, yeah, everything you're talking about doesn't land on you. The part that I wanted to drill down a little bit on is you're saying the site selection part of this is taking too long because of funding. And is that because we're not funding the site selection process, because that's one of the least expensive parts.

But if it takes five years, it becomes a really expensive part because every year delay adds another million and a half or $2 million to a project. Given your 25% or your 11% labor costs that are increasing, all of those things create delays.

And so if there is a funding issue related to that part and we can shorten that up by putting more funding in there, to me, that seems like a critical area where we need to look at and say, you know what, this has to be a priority to get this through the process.

So it doesn't take 10 years to get to the, or eight years to get to the part where we start actually building a facility. Because that's, you know, to me, that's a real key last question I will ask, and I'll let others ask their questions so that hopefully we cover every part of this Department of Finance.

Again, I'm sorry, could you also Introduce

yourself, tell us who you are. Corrine Von Robinhorst, Department of Finance okay,

so we use lease revenue bonds a lot. And then the payment for the lease revenue bonds comes out of the existing funds that are depleted.

They all come from General Fund.

Now, we changed, okay, so that's part of our gazillion dollar deficits. I mean, not deficit, but bond deficits. I mean, I'm using deficit wrong. So the funds that we have are kind of there in name only almost. And should we be. Should we be funding from the General plan into those funds based on what the needs are?

Because I trust.

I feel like we're trying to plan their world and they're the ones that know this world and they know what is needed to bring this judicial system up to what it needs to be for us to give people the justice that they need, no matter what part of it is how, you know, how are we going to get there if we have empty funds and we have to keep shuffling money and we keep taking money to borrow to take care of fiscal problems, fiscal emergencies, this has to be dedicated.

And I feel like the state needs to get more into the funding part and not into the planning part. And then I had one more question about why the state took this over from the counties. What was the purpose of that? What was the intent of that?

If anybody knows that answer, but I'll have her answer that first question, maybe

taking a step back and looking at the funding. We typically Fund acquisition and design from cash, which as of late has been General Fund and then construction as long as we can. Bond finance, it depends on a.

We have to make sure that they're tax exempt, that we could sell bonds that would be tax exempt for the most part. And that would. That's typically construction for bigger projects that we know that we have the title on.

Okay, great.

And trying to think if there's any. Was there another question you had asked? I apologize.

It was going to be for these folks. You can pounce on that.

The overall statewide Administration, justice. It used to be that the counties ran the courts, they gave the budget for the courts, they built the courthouses. But it became impossible financially over time to really properly Fund the courts. And you had some courts that were well funded and others that were woefully funded.

And there were counties that simply could never afford a courthouse if left to their own.

It was a matter of being able to take care of the whole state and make sure we had the same judicial system throughout the state. And that does make sense.

What doesn't real estate apparatus. Yeah. Because it's, because it's statewide, it's far more efficient. This is, I should say, our Director of facilities. Mr.

Okay. So it's painfully obvious to me that we need to do much more investments into this and especially at the critical parts of it because the system as we currently have it is costing us more and more and more money and we're becoming less and less efficient in the process part and that process part of people.

And we need to fix that. So I thank you so much for coming today and giving us the opportunity to delve into this a little bit harder and try to get our priorities straight so we can get that part of the system straightened out. Thanks.

If I could add one more piece to answer your question. If you look in the five year plan, judicial branch is at 2.7 billion over the next five years and they are the second largest program in the state, just behind transportation.

So that is quite a bit of resources that are being dedicated towards trying to chip away at the responsibilities.

Right. And I get that. It's just if we need 5 and we're only giving 2.7, that means we're coming up short. And that's what we, that's, and that other 2.7, that delta between the 5 and the 2.7 gets eaten up in the amount of time it takes for us to get these through the process.

So I think, you know, there's a cost savings actually to dedicating the right amount of money as opposed to trying to only, you know, put in what we can and then, or what we think we can as opposed to what we need to, especially with this, with this particular set of,

you know, with the judicial branch, it's too important to not Fund. So. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. I'm gonna, I need to get to Senator Durazo. However, it doesn't make sense for us to hold your responses and then come back. So if you can, as best as you can, tighten the answers to the question questions that were asked and then we'll go on to Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Senator Richardson Zlatko Theodorovic from the Judicial Council. There was a time when the funding structure was such that the branch had control of its resources based on available revenues coming in. And as Mr. Soderborg did a nice job of explaining the history and the sort of the decline of those revenues.

But we are part of the entire budget and we do understand and the chief has been very clear about being part of the overall budget. So we, we know those needs well in excess of what we've been receiving.

However, we are part of a budget and we need to be part of that, both from the growth perspective and from the solution perspective. And so we are. These are important conversations, but we do want to be committed to the statement of the chief that the budget is supported by her and us.

And again, we appreciate the conversation and look forward to the future discussions.

Yeah, and I appreciate that approach, but I just want you guys to focus on your judicial needs and then we can figure out how we prioritize it. Thanks.

Thank you, sir. Did you have something to add?

Thank you. Tamara Ahmed, the Director of Facility Services. Just to answer the question for the Senator, when it comes to acquisitions, it takes a willing seller and a buyer to do it. That's why it has taken a little bit longer for us.

Some of the markets, especially Santa Clarita and others are very expanding and it's, you know, easier for developers to sell or, you know, to sell the properties to non government agencies for housing than actually to sell to state agencies in general, especially that we do CEQA and we have to follow CEQA laws.

So it was difficult or it is difficult in some situations to, you know, find available land. And that has taken a little bit longer than expected.

Thank you.

Process.

Doing a lot of CEQA exemptions for a lot of things or modifying CEQA for a lot of different types of projects in California. And certainly if we can do it for all those projects, maybe we should be looking at it so that we don't unnecessarily delay and make it cost more for these two.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto, and also all Members of the Committee. It's my intention that after we have these hearings that we're going to talk about a plan of what we would recommend to the leadership, to the governor's office, in terms of a budget perspective. So we'll certainly be capturing all of this.

I commit that to you, Senator Durazo.

Thank you. You all did a great job of explaining what is going on and what's needed. I visited the Edelman Children's Courthouse a couple of years ago and everyone was sitting on the floor.

How could the lawyers actually have private conversations with the children, with their clients, when literally everybody was like, just all next to each other, closely next to each other. So I could picture that as you were describing other, probably worse conditions.

So my question is, given the documentation of all these issues, infrastructure, seismic elevators, just to take Los Angeles, how are those conditions? Judge Tapia, how are those conditions reflected in the statewide. As we prioritize statewide, how do those conditions get taken into consideration in making decisions about priorities?

Well, thank you for the question, Senator, and it's wonderful to see you. So whenever we have an issue in LA County with respect to broken escalators, elevators that are not functioning, or other facility issue, the Judicial Council will step in to remediate the problem.

However, as this Committee well knows, the budget that exists for those projects doesn't meet the need. So the Judicial Council, being responsible, goes through the process to try to meet the most critical problems in the moment. As I explained earlier, there's a process in place.

I explained how the Judicial Council will prioritize certain emergencies, like a flood, which is critical. They will immediately respond. The issue, however, at the end of the day, becomes the budget that they have for these projects.

It's limited, which is why our court, and I know other courts across the state have to use their operating dollars, assuming they have them available, to fix some of these problems. And these are not easy to fix. And I'll give you the escalator example. The escalator problem as an example.

We're talking about escalators that are more than 60 years old. They do not make the parts for these escalators. So what happens? They have to take the part and get it remanufactured, which can take weeks, if not months. We have the same issue with elevators.

The solution would be, well, let's put in new escalators or let's put in new elevators. The funding for that type of an investment simply doesn't exist.

And do we want to invest that kind of money in an aging facility that is in line to get replaced, let's say within the next five years, like the Moss courthouse, or at least to start the process of replacing it. So I do have to commend the Judicial Council because they are working with very limited dollars.

I believe it's approximately $80 million a year that we get for these projects. But as I noted in my testimony, the need for our court alone is $1.4 billion for these maintenance projects.

So the two courts that you mentioned, the Clara and the mosque, and they're on the Judicial Council, critical list, innovations, and they're tier one. Yes, but they're not included in this year's proposed budget. So how do you reconcile that?

I think Tamer would be in the best position to answer that question.

Yeah, when the prioritization plan took place in 2019, we took all those factors in place, including seismic largesses, Phil said seismic security, Ada, and we gave different factors. And based on the list, they came in a little bit low.

I mean, they're still on immediate need, facilities replacement, but they came lower than the ones that are ahead of them. So we're trying to take care of the ones that are ahead of them first so we can get to them.

I believe the mosque, you know, is probably 234 years down the road before it starts, you know, the acquisition phase, and then following that will be the falls project.

Okay. I guess if it's tier one.

Subject to funding, of course.

Yeah. If it's tier one, how does that live up to where it should be in the order?

Well, there's just a form of clarify. There's differences between facility maintenance and its priorities and the new construction priority. And so the council, which. And the Committee that reviews and spends the facility modification money is comprised of courts. One of the chairs is from Los Angeles. So there's a clarity in the need.

But we're talking about maintenance versus new construction. So Mr. Ahmed is addressing the construction plan. But we're well aware that, you know, that sort of balance between new construction and maintenance, as Mr. Soderborg's analysis identifies, that if we don't replace quickly, you must continue to maintain with a limited budget.

But it's all Subject to the available resources that this state has, it's not within our control to do more than we have the resources to spend.

And just to talk a little bit about the construction, the new construction, if you will, the tier one or the immediate needs are. There are 20 projects, 21 projects on that list so far. We've, you know, started 12 of them.

We've completed one and there are 11 that are currently in the process or in between acquisition, design and then construction. So down little bit later down the list on the immediate is mosque and false.

Okay, that's my question.

Thank you. Senator Durazo, Senator Ochoa Bogh, did you have any questions? This.

Sure. Read a statement out and I do just have one general couple, just 22 General questions on there. If I may. Madam Chair, good morning and thank you, Chair Richardson, for the opportunity to join today's hearing. I am really, really grateful.

I know you've been an advocate to ensure that we have just as many folks at the at the table as possible. And I appreciate your leadership in that and in that space. While I'm concerned about the underfunding of courthouses throughout the state, I'm most concerned about those in the Inland Empire and other rural areas.

As expressed by my colleague from Temecula. Every county in California except San Francisco has rural populations that have different needs than their urban counterparts. But the underfunding of courthouses in rural California has led to significant challenges for the justice system.

The closure of more than 50 courthouses means that rural residents often drive long distances to access legal services. This is exasperated by the unreal ability of Internet services in these areas, making it difficult for residents to participate in remote proceedings.

Our judicial officers in San Bernardino county handle an average of 2,800 filings annually, a caseload 18% higher than the state average. The San Bernardino Superior Court has consistently been the most underjudged court in the state, with an unmet judicial need ranging from 57 in 2014 to 30 in 2022 and now 27 in 2025.

High desert courthouses face daily overcrowding, as mentioned by my colleague, and also highlighted the ones in LA, so forcing tough operational decisions due to the Lack of in custody cell space. Inmates already transported on crowded buses are held in jury boxes prior to their hearing or turned away due to the Lack of holding space.

In some instances, inmates may not be transported for hearings. Hallways are congested, raising safety concerns among visitors and jurors. And many a times the inmates are literally in the same hallway being held where the judges are also walking through as they head out to their courts. This is obviously unacceptable. It's unsafe.

The Inland Empire is the fastest growing region in California, yet it continues to be seriously underfunded when it comes to courthouses. While the court will continue to make difficult adjustments when sure cases are heard, the demand far exceeds available resources and facility space, underscoring the critical need for solutions to ensure access does not continue to be denied.

This is not just about a building or buildings for our communities across the state. This is about denying due process to Californians and justice delayed is justice denied. So we must address this issue so rural residents have equal access to the criminal justice system.

And I stand with our judicial branch in increasing their funding statewide and is why I'm here today. And I'm really grateful for our chair for allowing me to be here today to express, to make those comments on that end. I'm just kind of curious as we look as to the allocation of funding I read here.

Thank you very much for the information that was actually shared by the legislative analyst office today. I'm kind of curious. I sit on budget one, educational funding. And in that space we know that we allocate almost about 60% of our budget towards education.

When it comes to the allocation of funding for our judicial system in our state, is there a percentage that goes into funding every space that is needed within that judicial needs and branches, or is it just an amount that just is deliberated upon and allocated for these needs?

Because I think that's where at the root of all problem lies is the fact that I personally do not, do not know if there is a percentage of the budget that goes towards the space or is it just a, a money, a. An amount that is just kind of deliberated upon.

If I may. Yeah. Senator Troj, there is not a formula to Fund the judicial branch. We are, we participate like most other funding entities in that we request budget adjustments through the normal budget process and they're considered against available resources. But there is no specific formula.

We've been approximately 1.4%, but that varies of the General Fund, but that varies based on budget conditions. But we are not formulaic like education, as you would say.

And the reason I ask is that obviously we've been underfunding the judicial branch for decades. Right. And I do want to highlight that, you know, just in the Calmatters article, we, we talk about priorities and funding. California has had an increase of about 60% in revenues since 2007 budgets ago.

And so it's about priorities and whether or not, you know, the Legislature and our Governor actually prioritizes as a top, top priority. And I think that's why I'm so grateful for this hearing, because we're really highlighting the extreme need in our judicial system as of right now.

And if we're funding about, you know, 1.4%, approximately, you know, on the average of the budget going towards this, towards the space, realistically speaking, and I'm not sure if this is a question for the Department of Finance or the Department or the Legislative Analyst Office, but what would be something reasonable?

Because we just had an oversight or a hearing on what the state needs to do in order to allocate more funding to Fund our reserves to meet the needs in case a downturn occurs. Do we need to look at what that is going to look like, for instance, in this particular space?

Who decides and how can we decide what would be an appropriate amount so that we're not falling exponentially behind as we have? Because. As we have. Because what we have been funding, obviously, has been incredibly inappropriate.

Theo, did you want to address that again?

I think I would.

Kind of blending our two panels. Yeah, no problem.

As I mentioned, you know, we participated in the normal budget process. It is available resources. I mean, I think in terms of strategic, you know, any change in budget policy, you know, we'd be looking to partnership with you and the Department of Finance. But again, it's a matter of available resources.

And this chief has been committed to being, you know, a part of the budget, and we have many needs beyond facilities. That's also one of the challenges is that you'll hear at a subsequent, you know, hearing about the operational needs of the branch. And so there's a lot of needs beyond just construction.

And we engage in, you know, these types of deliberations with all of the partners and other, you know, our sister branches in what we do. So I would say we work as best we can to justify the needs and work with the budget constraints that everybody has.

I'm not sure that that quite is what I'm looking for as far as how we approach future funding needs for. For this particular space. I understand there's a lot of partners in there, which is why I'm asking right now, we're allocating approximately 1.4%.

We had a hearing to discuss what it would look like to have the proper reserves, what the state would need to invest to have the proper reserves for our state. Do we? And who has a discussion about what does it look like appropriately funding this space moving forward? Because 1.4% is not enough.

So who has the conversation as to what this appropriate funding looks like moving Forward? Is it 3%, is it 4%? 5% of our budget should be going there so that we're not literally exasperating the need and exponentially creating more need in this, in our judicial space.

I think this is a good opportunity for me to chime in. One of the larger pieces of where that happens is right here. That's why we're here. And I want to commend our pro tem that this year she has put a very large focus on the subcommittees and that she's expanding that the subcommittees.

A lot of the work is going to be done here. Where we're going to, we are going to identify where we believe those priorities should be. And then the pro tem will obviously work with the Administration and with the Assembly to make that fight.

But to build on what I'm hearing all of us talk about, which I planned on saying as well, is what we'd like to ask for, is your. What I'm hearing them all say and I agree. We need a 5 and 10 year plan from you that addresses we need for you not to be so polite. They're doing.

You're doing your job, which is you're not supposed to. When I was in Congress, we had this all the time. We'd say, how much do you need? And they're like, well, you know, because you're not supposed to. They're not supposed to tell us that.

They're supposed to stick within the realms of their Department and what the Administration based upon everything of what we can do. They're not supposed to tell us that. So we have to ask you, we need for you to give us a 5 and a 10 year plan that would address the maintenance, that would address the.

Let me see our LAO, he gave us so perfectly the three categories. Let me see, it's maybe help me. It's preventative maintenance, deferred maintenance and. What's the second one? Say it louder. It's okay. Facility modifications and capital outlay. Okay, so we need those three categories.

A five and a ten year plan of what's needed and, and tell us how much money would be needed each year to get us there. So it's going to be a big number. We know it's going to be a big number. That's what we do. But we need for you to tell us what would that number be?

Is it 500 million per year? Is it 1 billion? What is it that would take us to get through these three categories that have been provided to us to get us caught up.

And then once we know that number, it's up to us to then say, okay, based upon the amount of money that we have, what's the fight that we can make, and urge our colleagues to say that this has to be a higher priority, that 1.4% of the budget is not going to be sufficient.

We're going to need whatever that number is going to be, and then it's up to us here to make that case with our colleagues, both not only in the Senate, but in the Assembly, and then to work with the Administration to hopefully concur and work with us to share with the Governor that where we're at is not sufficient.

So thank you, Senator. You're absolutely right. We have to know what is that number? They need to tell us what is that number. You can't be it's time out for being shy. I know that's what we do. That's the appropriate thing.

But shyness will get you it's going to take us 160 years to get there, and you won't be here and neither will we. So we need the real stuff. And we're we're putting you it's not your fault, it's our fault. We're asking you to give us the numbers. And yes, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I think just I just want to highlight really quick that when we had the hearing on the reserves a week ago, the Legislative Analyst Office actually offered some suggestions on how to how does the state build that funding.

So this is why I was addressing the question actually to either the Legislative Analyst Office or the Department of Finance to get give us an idea of what that will look like in order to literally meet the needs, because I am keenly aware.

I met with the judicial branch last week as well, and they educated me on the fact that, you know, they're not supposed to ask for funding.

I've learned quite a bit this past year, meeting with everybody in my district and with these gentlemen in my office, which is why I actually addressed the question to the Legislative on US Analyst Office, just as you folks gave suggestions based on the reserves and what the state needed to invest in that area.

Right. Drew Soderoerg, Legislative Analyst Office so we'll talk a bit about this more in the next panel. But what our recommendation is is that the Legislature try to identify an amount that it is comfortable with.

And the reason why the onus is really on the Legislature to identify the amount it's comfortable with is because because of the significant fiscal difficulties facing the state. So currently in the budget year, expenditures are expected to exceed revenues by about $20 billion. And this is at a time when our revenues are near historic highs.

And the Governor is projecting that the budget is roughly balanced. But the only reason it's roughly balanced is because we had a large entering Fund balance and like I mentioned, had. We were also drawing down budget reserves and have historically high revenues.

Now once we get past this year, we're going to be facing multi year deficits that could be in the 20 to 30 billion dollars range. Even if the historically high revenues we've been enjoying persist, however, there are worrying indications that those revenues might not persist.

That's a long way of saying that any new General Fund commitment that the Legislature makes really comes at the cost of existing General Fund commitments. And it's totally appropriate for the Legislature to consider that it may want to re prioritize money to some of these high priority needs.

But it's important that the Legislature realize that to the extent it does, that it will have to find ways to reduce the amount of funding going to other priorities in the budget just given the situation facing the state.

And that's why it's really critical for the Legislature to decide what its appetite is, because it's really gonna come at the cost of other legislative priorities.

Mr. Soderbergh, we appreciate that and we've been hearing a whole lot about what you just said. But again, I'm gonna come back to. We can't determine what a reasonable number is until we know what the overall number is. And that's what we're lacking.

I can't say, do I have an appetite for 1 billion a year if I don't know whether the needs are 500 million over. Excuse me. Yeah. Are the needs an additional 500 million per year for 10 years, would that get us there? We can't decide that appetite until we actually really know what's next needed.

And then we can say, okay, we know you need that. We can't give you all of that, but we can certainly give you more than what we've been giving you. But we can't get there until we get the basic information and that's what we're trying to get.

But we, we fully understand your point and it's been well said and well stated. Appreciate. Okay, Senator Durazo, and then I have a few questions and then we'll go on to the second panel.

Thank you for. You're always welcome. Thank you.

Just in terms of this year's budget, maybe you could refer to that is you just mentioned there's the out years where the the deficit is expected to be much more serious. But this year there is the potential to have more money coming in, more revenue this year, not necessarily every year for the next several years.

So in that context, I think we ought to figure out what our plan would be, considering that. So maybe we don't have the next two years the same amount of money allocated, but this year ask for more because more is available for one year only. Does that mean makes sense?

Yeah. DREW soderborg, Legislative Analyst Office I mean, that is an approach that the Legislature could consider taking, but it is an alternative approach that the Legislature would also want to consider is whether it makes sense to essentially put that money into reserves so that it's available to address those serious deficits that are possible in the future.

So any money we spend now means it won't be available in future years to lessen the impact of the deficit. But again, it's up to legislative priorities, just as long as the Legislature is going into it with open eyes, understanding that this might necessitate larger cuts elsewhere, that's something that's that the Legislature could do.

Thank you. All right, I have a few questions. My first question is we're told that the county makes a contribution. Has that contribution escalated based upon inflation and the age of the facilities and so on. Do they continue to give us the same amount every year or is there any other adjustments that are made?

Yes, Senator Richardson, this is Latko Theodorovich again from the Judicial Council. It is a fixed amount that is not adjusted for inflation. So any growth and the cost of funding court facilities relies on the General Fund.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Legislative Analyst Office and just to add on to that, so the amount was set in the Trial Court Facilities act, the process of establishing the court facility payments, which are at $98 million, and the counties were aware that the facilities were going to be transferred to the state.

And so that $98 million is calculated on the amount that they were spending on maintenance and operation at the time. And because they knew the facilities were going to become a state obligation, in some cases, it suggested that the county sort of pulled back.

So the 98 million really is arguably quite a bit less than what is necessary. And that's reflected in the fact that we are allocating quite a bit more on General Fund on top of that amount.

We have some instances where it's 25 cents a square footage and cost would be 23 and 4 dollars to adequately maintain a building.

Okay. So my second request is going to be, in addition to giving us the real numbers of potentially five and 10 years, how much money would be needed to get us at least within some reasonable range of dealing with the needs of the courthouses.

My second question is going to be, is not going to be, is what would be the appropriate amount that the county should be or could be contributing in light of inflation and additional populations and so on? Not saying we'll get that, but it's very important to know what that number actually is. Okay.

My second question is, Justice Hill. How does the number of court users and filings impact the prioritization of facility funding? I did not see that in your categories of how you evaluate the needs. For example, Los Angeles handles over 1 million filings a year, about a quarter of the filings statewide.

How is this taken into account when you're considering facility projects, if at all?

It does, and it does from the fact that we look at the judicial needs analysis and what number of judges and just for planning purposes and for the, you know, the way that we have to balance, though, when we look at that, we have to look at the seismic security ada, but we do look at caseloads and the like when we evaluate those courtrooms and the number of courtrooms that are needed in any particular facility.

So when I was reading your actual how you rank, though, it doesn't seem to reflect that.

You know, that is one of the things really, when we look at the population, that is a factor that we talk about in the Committee, we were looking at some of the critical needs and the critical needs related more to to seismic security and other issues with the physical, with whether the building was going to survive another 10 or 20 years.

But we do look at those factors when we look at how we adjust the number of courtrooms in a facility.

Okay, sir, you don't know me yet, so don't take this the wrong way, but my job is my job. I don't think we're speaking the same language here. What I'm saying to you, I understand that you're judging the facilities based upon seismic needs, you know, all that kind of stuff.

What I'm saying to you and what I don't see in what you provide or what was provided to us of how you evaluate, you know, all of the needs that you have. I don't see that you have a bullet that says, okay, in addition to seismic needs, in addition to all those things you just said.

My question is, I don't see where you also include the traffic, the volume that's happening in each of these facilities.

Because what happens is from 2019 to now 2026, which is seven years later, if one courthouse has triple the amount of traffic than another courthouse has, although they may seem like this in 2019, now, suddenly, by 2026, the number may change slightly.

Now, I'm going to be fair, I'm going to fight for the money for all of our areas, for Inland Empire, for Riverside, everybody. I believe in that. But by golly, if I fight to get you more money, we need to have that reflected.

Because if 25% of your activity is happening in one county, and I looked at your list of courthouses needing assistance, and I only saw one in Los Angeles county out of over 20, the math doesn't add up.

So what I'm going to respectfully ask is, is we need to make sure somewhere in your rating system that you're incorporating the actual number of filings or number of people or some way to reflect also the size and the magnitude of who's coming in these buildings as well.

That's a good point. I'll ask Slotko to handle part of that. But from your standpoint, and I agree with, we look at the traffic when we look at the potential judgeships, and that's down the road.

The problem that we have is when we do the judgeship analysis, which we did in 1999 to start, it took 22 years to get the last judgeship filled.

And so when we come to the Governor and the Department of Finance and say we need a courthouse for this number of judges because of the traffic going through the courthouses, they say, well, where are those judges and when will they be funded by the Legislature?

So it's a little bit difficult for us to ask for courthouses that might have an additional 22 courtrooms based on a needs analysis before we actually have those appropriated by the Legislature and funded by the government.

So it's just a difficulty that we have when we say it's a need, but it could take 22 years to come to fruition.

I can add to that Tamara Ahmed, the Director of facility services for Judicial branch.

The existing 2019 took into consideration the cost for court user so dependent on a population, dependent on the traffic going into courthouse, dependent on authorized judicial positions and the needs it did take into consideration as far as the factor into the formula that, you know, listed the priorities of the new construction, if you will.

Now, things have changed or may have changed since 2019 until now, and for us to take into consideration the new populations and what have you, we would probably need to do a reassessment, which we need resources in order to do that. And also lessons learned from the first prioritization that had taken place.

That would go into the factoring into the revised formula, if you will, doing new condition assessments of the existing building, see how they have deteriorated since the last prioritization, and that would factor into possibly a different list. We do not know. We would have to go through that exercise in order to really find out.

Okay. And if I might just add the. The list and method of our prioritization was dictated by Trailer Bill Language that was adopted back then, which was a. A reflection of all of our input on what should be included. So there is a population factor, as Mr. Ahmed said.

Okay.

It's one of the multiple five categories of assessments.

Okay. So what I'm going to ask nor our consultant is if you could give us what the original trailer language was that was put in so we might potentially add some additional categories to reflect the actual usage and need in the courthouses.

The reference I was making was page four, and there's one out of 19 facilities that's listed for projects of immediate need. And I just find that very hard to believe. Justice Hill, have you ever been to the Compton courthouse within the last year?

I have not been to Compton. I've been down to Los Angeles and had a couple of great tours by Judge Tapia of Fultz and Mosque and the Juvenile Court, but I haven't been to Compton.

Okay. Have you been to Inglewood? No. Okay. Sir. One of the things that I was actually talking to staff about yesterday and I'll share it with the Committee now. My hope is is probably during maybe our fall recess that we'll do a field hearing and we're going to go to maybe some places you haven't been.

So you will come and see with us what we see. And also a part of the field hearing, not during main to this discussion, but certainly want to provide notice. We want to talk about the care courts, you know, when people conservatorship and all that kind of stuff.

So we'll certainly be reaching out to you for appropriate times. But we want to make sure we're going to have a field hearing this year in the fall where we actually come out and we have further of these discussions. Let me go on with the rest of my question. Did anyone. We were good. Okay. Question number two.

How. How? So there's a State Fund, the SCF CF. How Are those funds accumulated? So is. Maybe you could help either one of you with that?

I could take. Take that if you'd like. Okay, sure. Go ahead. It's a combination of General Fund civil filing fees and criminal penalties. And so it's, it's a. It's a. So part of the revenue is again a variable revenue.

But the state has adopted a backfill policy to ensure that that fund, while not intended to fund more projects, is sustained at a level that funds current levels of service. So civil filing fees, you know, our first paper filing fees, and obviously criminal.

They're a mix of revenues, but the backfill comes from the General Fund to ensure its solvency.

Okay. So if you could share with us over the last 10 years how those have either grown or not. Okay. My next question has to do with a lot of our discussions we've been having with LAO and looking generally at the budget is talking. The buzzwords are structural deficit.

And it seems quite clear to me that we have a structural deficit in terms of what we're putting in to be able to cover what's missing in this report.

If I'm reading this correctly, the state took 49.5 million out of the, the funding that was supposed to be in your area to address our state budget problem, is that correct?

Yes, there was an augmentation in 2122 that was partially reduced due to budget constraints.

Okay. So for the record, I'm going to be asking that that be noted because we hear a lot of talk about we need for these additional funding dollars, Prop 98, to be backfilled, but I haven't heard anyone talk about that. We have not backfilled this 49.5 million.

So I'll be asking someone to remind me that we need to make sure that that also gets on the list because that's money owed. And if I'm not mistaken, I read somewhere that I guess the request of the Judicial Council last year was for, for an additional 100 million. Is that correct? Did I read that right somewhere?

We'll have to go back and see what my notes, the council's priorities were for 25-26.

Okay. Was that on top of the annual dollars that normally come in?

Do you know these. What, what we would have been would have been the, the incremental change to the existing budget.

Okay. So if you could confirm for me, as I said, it's somewhere here in my notes. I believe it. I, I read it was 100 million. If you could confirm. But we really need the real number. So we know what we need to do. Okay. I think. Let me double check if that was all of my questions.

So there have not been any assessments done since 2019. And in order to do further assessments, you would need more money to do that assessment. How much does that cost typically to update your assessment?

We're estimating it would take about $14 million to do so, and that would take both staff and the actual study

boy you can hire me to. I'd be willing to get paid $14 million to do. I have an MBA, so I could help. Okay, gotcha. The cost would be about 14 million. Okay. And the same thing I also noticed in the governor's proposal where it was listing the additional projects again, they.

Although they're worthy and I support them being done, I am concerned that we're missing the mark of not adding into your evaluations numbers of filings and actual traffic in the courthouses. So we can get to a number that's, you know, dealing with all of our courthouses.

I got to figure out how we deal with the 1.4 billion that's needed for LA. And I'm sure the number, the total number is 4. 4 billion. So we got to figure out how we get to that number. Okay. Does anyone else have any other questions? Any Members? Nope.

Okay, so we're going to thank you for your participation. Please know that we are going to have additional questions. I'm sure that will come out of this. I would like to respectfully request of those who testified, if you would give us your testimony in writing, if you want to review your notes and, you know, put it together.

But what you talked about is what we're going to need to be able to go to our colleagues to make the case of why more money is needed. So I'm going to respectfully ask for you to provide to the Committee your notes. Okay. Thank you for being here. We'll now move on to our second issue. Issue.

And for that, the second issue is court facilities proposals in the governor's budget. We're going to start. And excuse my familiarity, but I'd rather be familiar and call you Theo than butcher your name. And so we're going to start with Theo here and also Tamir Ahmad, which I believe you're here present.

And then in addition to that, we have Lao Department of Finance, who's also here. So we're first going to start with you, Theo,

And I have Mr. Ahmed here to go into more detail about it. But the budget reflects a number of important investments given the fiscal condition of the state we're appreciating. Appreciative of what has been submitted includes, you know, critical backfill continuing into our SCFCF.

As we mentioned, a number of projects that had been halted as a result of the most recent budget downturn that were initiated when the new judgeships were approved by the Legislature a handful of years ago and some important investments in some significant facility modifications that I know Mr. Soderborg will be addressing later.

But if we have again, Mr. Ahmed to go in a little bit more detail for you and available answer questions.

And after Mr. Ahmed is completed, we have Ms. Kate Beaker here from the County Ventura who's also the zchair of our court Executive Advisory Committee to discuss a little bit more about the benefit of the investments in and the benefits to the courts of these investments.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you Chairwoman Richardson and Members of the Subcommitee. Again, my name is Tamara Ahmed. I'm the Director of Facility Services for the Judicial Council. Just want to share with you that the core principle embedded in enabling legislation of the Judicial Branches Facility Program is equity across the state.

The program's mission, which dates back to the inception of the program in 2002 and remains unchanged today, is to provide uniformly safe, secure and well maintained facilities. Reflecting this commitment of equity. Since assuming the responsibility of the California Trial Court Acts, the Judicial Council has overseen the construction of 35 new courthouses in 31 counties across the state.

Four new courthouses will be open to the public in 2026, including the Tunney Cantel Sekawi courthouse here in Sacramento, which will be open in April, really after following after that almost in the same month.

The new Sonoma Santa Rosa courthouse will be open around the same time the Stanislas Modesto Courthouse and the Riverside Indu Courthouse will complete later on this year. The facilities program completes approximately 1,500 facility modification projects and 100,000 maintenance service work orders annually in over 430 facilities in the portfolio.

The 26-27 capital projects request include design build phase for the new St. Louis Obispo courthouse, performance criteria phase for the Nevada Courthouse, performance criteria phase for the Plumas courthouse in Quincy, construction phase of three new judgeships and Kings San Joaquin and Sutter reappropriation of performance criteria for the new Solano hall of justice and reappropriation of the performance criteria for the new Fresno Courthouse.

Funding is also requested to relocate 23 courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building in Los Angeles as the Federal Government plans to divest from the building as well as funding to complete the Fire Life Safety project at the Central Justice Center, Orange.

The Facilities Program is poised to continue providing asset management, operations, maintenance, real estate planning and other facilities services to the courts in the coming fiscal year within the current funding levels. Your continued support for the Judicial Council's Facilities Program is appreciated, and after Kate, I'm more than happy to answer any questions.

Do we have any comments from the LAO?

This is Rob. So we'd have Miss Beaker speak?

No. Okay. I'm sorry.

My fault. Sorry.

No, no, no problem. Please go ahead.

Super. Thank you, Senator. My name is Kate Beaker and I am the current Chair of the Court Executive Advisory Committee and I'm also the CEO at the Ventura Superior Court. I'm honored and appreciative to be speaking here today on the funding for courthouse construction and facilities maintenance.

When we're discussing access to justice, that very first step is into a courthouse. And a courthouse is more than just steel and bricks, but a building that can be life altering in some circumstances. A courthouse is a place that must represent public trust and public service.

However, with the current state of several courthouses, this cannot be the case. Situations include roof leaks, elevator breakdowns, air system failures and more. I have seen my fair share of caution tapes and cringe every time, especially when I see them inside of a courtroom.

When citizens, jurors, litigants and attorneys walk into a clean, organized, properly functioning, ADA compliant building, they feel confident in the institution and the people it represents. This then leads me to our most valued asset, which is our court employees.

They work hard every day and deserve safe, functioning, professional work environments, which is essential for delivering a high quality of service to the public. And just their overall morale. When employees walk into a reliable workspace, they feel valued and just to wrap.

I feel an immense honor each day when I walk into my courthouse and I want to make sure that I am representing the justice system in the best way possible. And I know my fellow CEOs feel the same way.

Your consideration of funding for the new courthouses and maintenance allows us to do our job, which is ensuring access, fairness and integrity into the justice system. And I appreciate you having these conversations today. It's very inspiring and I'm honored to be here. Thank you.

We just heard from Kate Becker, Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court of Ventura County. You're also chair, but which we appreciate you representing Chair of the Court of Executives and the Advisory Committee. So thank you for being here.

So we also have here as a part of the panel, Mr. Soderborg with the LAO, we have Corrine Van Ravenhorst, Principal Program Budget Analyst with the Department of Finance.

We have Amanda Garcia, Staff Finance Budget Analyst with the Department of Finance, Mark Jimenez, Principal Program Budget Analysis with Department of Finance, and Henry Ning, staff of Finance Budget Analysis. So with that, I'll start with the lao.

Drew Soderborg, Legislative Analyst's Office. To begin with, we have no concerns with the proposed projects. They meet the high bar that our office has identified as necessary to justify new general funds spending. Much of what I'm about to say will sound somewhat familiar based on what the conversation that we had earlier.

We recommend that the Legislature consider how much new funding it's willing to dedicate to Judicial Branch facility needs each year. As we were discussing, the magnitude of the needs are such that they can't be addressed all at once immediately.

And so what we're recommending is that the Legislature determine the amount that it's willing to provide annually a stable funding source, and that this would provide some certainty that the Legislature, the Judicial branch and the Governor would be able to plan around.

We're also recommending that the Judicial Branch provide a long term plan for its facilities based on the amount identified by the Legislature.

Specifically, we're recommending that the Judicial Branch provide a report by January 2028 that would include an assessment of how whatever amount the Legislature deems appropriate should be divided between new construction and facility modification projects in order to maximize the amount of time that existing facilities could be used safely.

This plan could also could include plans about innovative ways to use funding to finance new construction or facility modification projects. We also note that the Legislature could consider whether it should provide funding to the Judicial Branch to reassess the total estimated needs it has for new construction.

As was mentioned earlier, the list that we currently have was from 2019. However, we would note that 17 of the LA projects were reassessed in 2024, and so we'd recommend that the direction be to reassess the remaining facilities that are on the list.

As was indicated, the Judicial Branch estimates that this could cost $14 million, though that would depend on the specific parameters that the Legislature put in place.

For example, the Legislature could direct the branch to consider whether operational changes could affect the amount of funding needed, such as greater use of remote hearings in order to reduce the total amount needed. We're also recommending that the Legislature consider whether additional oversight of facility modification projects that are receiving large one time funding augmentations is necessary.

So, as we talked about a bit earlier, the Orange Central justice center is one of the projects that's coming before you. Originally, it was expected that that project would cost about $70 million.

However, once the project commenced, new issues were identified that were previously unidentified and now we're finding that an additional $70 million will be necessary to complete the project, which is the request. However, the project's only 25% complete, so it's possible that there could be further augmentations in the future that are needed.

And this just highlights the need of greater assurance for the Legislature so that when projects come before it, they have a better assurance that the amount of funding that's being requested is what they can expect will ultimately be necessary. This oversight could take different forms.

So, for example, the Legislature, in a more informal way, could direct Department of Finance to ensure that these facility modification projects are reviewed by its cap outlay experts, because they're not considered cap outlay projects currently.

Or the Legislature, in a more formal way, could direct that these large facility modification projects be reclassified as cap outlay projects and therefore subject the greater oversight that's put in place for those projects, including oversight by the state Public Works Board. And this greater.

This could be more necessary going forward to the extent that the Legislature does determine that there needs to be additional funding for facility modification projects. With that, I'm happy to take any questions.

All those recommendations in our document, I remember two of them when I didn't recall reading.

Yeah. Yes. Overviews are in the agenda.

All right, next we have any comments from the Department of Finance. Yes, sir.

Henry Ng, Department of Finance. This is in response to LAO's suggestion about possible increasing oversight for these topics projects. We do have some concerns that it could be duplicative of existing efforts or result in increasing costs or additional delays for some of these projects.

However, we recognize that there has been delays in these facility modification projects and project costs have increased. So we can certainly take their proposal back to Finance for consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Did you what did you think about, more specifically, what the LAO recommended for the Department of Finance? Did you find them to be reasonable? And

so. Henry Ng, Department of Finance so, and correct me if I misspeak, misspoke, but. So I believe LAO's recommendations is speaking broadly about potential options for additional oversight. And while oversight could help streamline some of the processes for these projects, we would like to see these options fleshed out before we can offer recommendation.

But again, we just have some broad concerns about this being duplicative of ongoing efforts and maybe impacting some of these projects and causing additional delays. But again, we're more than happy to take your proposals back to you by the further considerations.

Okay. I would just ask if, you know, I don't know23 weeks is reasonable, if you could get back to the Committee if you have any concerns with any of the directions, because we are planning on putting a document together that will have recommendations. So we want to make sure, hopefully we're in sync.

Yes, I would just say.

Amanda Garcia, Department of Finance so just to address the oversight, I will say we do work very closely with our support colleagues. I'm on the capital outlay side and the criteria that determines a capital outlay project versus a support project is currently outlined in our state administrative manuals.

So there are very clear criteria that determines whether it's capital outlay or support, and there are reasons for that criteria. Some of these support projects, we do want support to be able to move very nimbly and be able to take care of them very quickly.

And we do want to ensure that capital Atlanta has the the oversight of the state public work board on these larger projects.

Additionally, just in the larger amounts of money being committed to on a regular basis, we do want to make sure that we are encouraging that we continue to approve projects on a project by project basis just to ensure that we have that oversight per project rather than a larger amount that could be split between projects.

We want to ensure that the state public work boards continues to provide that oversight so that projects are being completed in a timely manner.

So what if I the last piece of what you just said, what I heard you say, is that let's say if we were to provide additional funding, you would recommend that we notice not only just provide the additional funding, but we would probably need an updated list of their priorities to make sure that then we could properly track and provide oversight versus just giving $500 million, whatever the number is, without a clear understanding of what the focus would be on.

Is that what I'm hearing you say?

Essentially, if the Legislature is recommending an increase in funding, then those funding, that funding should be tied to specific projects. And the projects that we are currently identifying and proposing are in need of those that were proposed in the 2019 funding reassessment.

We want to make sure that we are working through projects in a reasonable manner, but that funding is tied to specific projects. So that it isn't just X amount for judicial projects, but we need to prioritize this phase of this courtroom at this amount to ensure that oversight okay, just a minute.

So then what I would ask, and I was going to say this in the summary when I asked for the 5 and 10 year of what it would take to get us to preventing preventative maintenance facility modifications and capital outlay projects.

I think she makes an excellent point that we would need to make sure we see, you know, your at least rough list of how we would get there. And if you could make sure. That the updated 2024 LA report is included in your overall assessment list that I believe. You have the 2024 assessment? Yes. Yes.

You have that? Yes. Okay. Yes, sir.

Yeah. I just wanted to provide a little bit more clarity about our recommendation about the Legislature determining the amount of funding that it's willing to provide to facilit judicial branch facility needs. We're not envisioning a scenario where the Legislature would say, okay, we're going to dedicate 100 million and then leave it entirely to the judicial branch.

It's really more of a commitment to say that we're willing to provide up to $100 million a year, and then the judicial branch would still come forward with specific projects, and this would allow the judicial branch to be able to plan farther into the future.

So, for example, if there was a situation where they knew a large courthouse was coming up for construction, they might not come forward with specific requests for a couple years to sort of bank the money that the Legislature would set aside so that when the time comes for the large project, they could come forward and ask for that.

It's really more about planning as opposed to the Legislature just giving complete discretion to the Judicial Branch to spend as they want.

Understood. Definitely understood. But again, we're asking for, just to be clear, the five and ten year plan of these three categories so we can hopefully identify these bigger projects. Because we don't want to do the banking. We want to, you know, we want to give you what you need and get there, but I get it.

I get it. Okay. You okay, Theo? All right. I'm getting there. I'm getting there. Okay. Any further comments from the Department of Finance? Okay, colleagues, I think we're going to make all of our flights. We're doing really well this time. I'm going to go to Senator Durazo first and then to Mr. Seyarto, and then I'll go last.

Thank you all.

Thank you all for being here. How does the judicial council determine the balance between funding a new hub, new courthouse construction, and investing on maintenance or modifications?

Those are two different funding plans. And so it's not necessarily from the judicial council. This is Zlatko Theodorovic from the judicial council. They're two different funding sources, and so they're not prioritized against each other. The facilities construction has its own process as required by statute, and then the facility maintenance has its own process and different budgets.

So it's not pot of funding goes to cover both, but rather there are different processes between. There are, though, some analysis that happens to determine, you know, what level of investment is needed to maintain and support a building and whether or not it should be refurbished or replaced. So there's some connection, but they are budgetarily separated.

And if there's anything Mr. Ahmed would like to add.

Yeah, we look at the history of the buildings and the maintenance and the facility modifications that have been done in it and what have you. And it's part of the formula that defined what that made up the list of the buildings that need to be replaced or majorly renovated, if you will.

So depending on the deterioration of the building, the electrical and mechanical plumbing issues that we have in the building, that was a factor that told us that this building needs to be replaced with a new construction. And therefore, it follows in the capital outlay lane, if you will, versus a facility modification.

Okay, and just one more question. Are there any examples of where modifications or repairs delayed or eliminated the need for a full courthouse replacement? You know, looking for the cost savings.

Once we've divided the projects into, you know, you know, we'll focus on these ones to be replaced. And we made the list of the 80 projects we put our efforts into the handling the urgent and emergencies for the 80 that were defined, but also the other ones that were not defined, the rest of the 430 will.

So depending on how much money we get, we're spending money on those, all of them.

But we also take into consideration if a building is going to be replaced, you know, in 2, 3, 4, 5 years, we will just do the very bare minimum, if you will, and focus more on the ones that are going to stay in a portfolio for a longer period of time.

Right. And I guess what I was trying to get to in the first question is they may have separate paths. Right. And separate buckets of money, but you're looking at, you're looking at each holistically.

Yeah, we're looking at it holistically and seeing where to spend the limited amounts of money to take care of the most urgent needs, if you will. So when we talk about facility modification, it doesn't only, you know, it is supposed not to just take care of just the urgent needs.

It is supposed to take care of some other needs, such as ADA upgrades, you know, security and other needs as well. But because we don't have enough money, we just focus on the most urgent needs, you know, the plumbing issues that Judge Tapia talked about and what have you.

But facility modifications are supposed to take care of, you know, existing building needs in order to fit the operations of the facility.

So If I need to change something within the facility to, you know, you know, make a minor modification in order to have, you know, the building more accessible, let's say that could be handled through facility modification.

Kind of reminds me of the discussions we had in past years over the prisons, the repairs and maintenance in the prisons. At the same time, you know, you were going to, if it needed a new prison altogether, when do you make that choice?

And you're looking for savings, you're looking for how do we do the maintenance that's needed, the repairs that are needed. But are you going to do that, spend your money there and not in a brand new facility? So that kind of discussion results in cost savings or not. And we do that.

Yeah, we do that. We do that.

Just a couple of comments. Because the numbers are the numbers and we know what the facility needs are and all of that. You know, in 2019, our budget was $146 billion. And then the next year because we had that big surplus, it went to $214 billion.

And then because we overestimated the surplus somehow by 50, $47 billion it went down to the next budget was $209 billion. And then last year we were at 200 and 28 I think we landed at. And this year it's 200 and fifty.

So I keep hearing this, zero my God, we're in such a budget crunch. We're talking about billions and billions of dollars and that's per year.

And I just don't understand when we're talking about millions of dollars, if we added 22 judgeships, you're talking about $25 million because you have staff and all the other stuff that goes with it and the facilities that need to go with it.

And yet what happened and how did we wind up having a budget crunch when we have that many more billions and billions of dollars than we had just three or four years ago? And this isn't your guys problem.

This is a, this is us guys problem because we are spending money on stuff now that we never spent on and yet now it's huge priority. But you know what's not a priority is this stuff, our crumbling infrastructure. And that's. I'm hoping, I'm hoping that we finally realize that and we are going to start working on that.

And I appreciate the chair's commitment to working on some of these deep infrastructure issues that we are having because if we don't fix them now, they're just going to pile up. It's kind of like not fixing your car when the light comes on.

Eventually you can be broken down on the side of the road with nothing to bail you out. And so we have to be a lot smarter about how we're doing, how we're going about spending money.

And this is just a symptom of what happens when you don't prioritize correctly and you ignore the things just because they're not right there in front of your face or they're not. The most. I don't know, the most popular things, they don't come to people's mind. You ask people out there, they don't know.

They wouldn't say, oh, yeah, the judicial system, that's our top priority. Well, it kind of should be. And that's what our job is. And so hopefully we'll start doing that a little bit better in. I appreciate the chair's commitment to doing that. Thank you.

Let me start off with the Department of Finance. I believe not. I believe. I understand we're having a discussion about courthouses, but there's some prison things going on, and I'm wondering how some money spent in one area could have been spent in this area.

So, Department of Finance, could you assist us with getting the full numbers of the cost of all of these San Quentin enhancements that have been made that have been quite significant, and if we have an anticipated date of when that's supposed to open with these new enhancements?

Yes, ma'am.

Amanda Garcia, Department of Finance. I do believe the original number was over 3,300 million, but the number for the San Quentin educational facility was reduced to 239 million. And the ribbon cutting for that happened last Friday. There's also an additional construction project that was also limited. It was 20 million. I believe it went down to 10 million.

I'll. I'll confirm that and get that back to you, but. And that is expected to be completed this year.

So if you could give us in writing all of what the cost have been to the improvements or enhancements or additions, whatever, at San Quentin. My second question is there's a federal prison in my district, San Pedro Terminal Island Prison, which was recently closed. If you could provide us a little information on.

It's pretty old and all that, but I'm just wondering if there's some way maybe we can.

I know the Federal Government is kicking us out of the property in La, and I'm just wondering, you know, sometimes two heads need to be talking to each other, so if we could get a little information about what happened there at the San Pedro Terminal isLand, what they project using it for just in case we need to find some space and things like that to see what might be avaiLable.

Third, I already mentioned about the upcoming, what we hope to be of a field hearing, probably in the fall. It'll be after, of course, the May revise. So we'll be incorporating information. Lastly, just a few questions. Two of the proposals involved reapportions, reappropriations due to the delayed of site acquisitions.

Can the Administration comment on the reasons for these delays?

Amanda Garcia, Department of Finance I can provide a general statement that acquisitions can take quite a bit longer. They are individual per county and a lot of the delay has to do with community involvement. We want to make sure that the community is involved and I think Mr. Ahmad could talk further to that.

But yes, if you could provide that to us in writing. And I think it gets to the comments of Mr. Seyarto and then also the comments I mentioned about the Orange County facility. Now that has doubled in its price. So we need to get our hands on.

It's one thing to say, you know, yes, we have to be responsible. Yes, we can only allocate so much money. But if we're only allocating a limited amount that's going to end up costing us two times the amount because we didn't allocate it right the first time. That also needs to be understood.

So if you could assist us with what's happening because we may need to really revisit how we're doing this because if it ends up costing us more, it doesn't really make sense, especially when you're talking about double, you know, this is a lot of money.

My next question is when does the Administration anticipate resuming new courthouse construction and how many projects will be initiated per year? Do we have any idea?

Amanda Garcia, Department of Finance Right now we are appropriating approximately one project, one new project per year. And this year we are completing shelled courtrooms. We're providing funding for the shelled courtrooms for Sutter Kings and and San Okay, thank you.

And my last question, how has the Administration approached the balance of funding for new construction versus renovations and repairs of existing courthouses? To be stated you Are you with me?

Henry Ng, Department of Finance I can speak to the judicial branch's facility modification budget. So we recognize that the digital branch has an extensive portfolio and we recognize the importance of upkeep and maintenance of these facilities. But just given the current state of the General Fund, we be mindful of the investments we put in to these facilities.

So striking the balance in terms of the maintenance repairs, while we're not offering it, while we're not proposing an augmentation to their facility modification budget, we're also not reducing it. We're Instead maintaining the 80 million ongoing for facility modifications which they can use for maintenance and repairs.

And so although we're not augmenting that budget, we have also included one time investments for these projects for their facility needs, such as the 30 million for fire safety systems at the East County Regional Center, 64 million for the Central Justice Center, and 40 million for maintenance renewals and to modernize the San Diego hall of Justice.

So we are in communications with Digital Council. And so while we can't afford to Fund everything and make them whole, we are being good partners in supporting them.

So thank you for that information. But I'm really building on what Senator Durazo was asking you. And the question is, at what point are the two people talking, two departments talking of are we doing the right balance of deciding when something is going to fall under capital outlay and new construction and when do we keep repairing to.

Wait, I heard you sir. You mentioned, well, you know, we only do the minimal if we're planning on redoing the whole thing in five years. The only problem with that theory is what happens if you don't redo it in five years.

And so then these repairs keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and we ended up paying more had we not just done what we needed to do on the front end.

So what would be really helpful is for us to maybe you guys talk and we have a subsequent follow up of really we need your help to make the right decisions. And in order to make the right decisions decisions, we need to really understand what's happening there and what makes sense.

You know, our recommendation may be, hey, we need to do a bond so we can better fund some things and you know, pay it in a different way.

I don't know what the end answer is going to be, but the way we're doing, what we do know is the way that we're doing it now is not working and we're basically putting band aids on things and we still have dilapidated, crumbling infrastructure. So with that, I thank all of you for your participation.

We appreciate the frankness and the feedback. We know we have to be responsible, but we also know we have to, we have to fix this. So we look forward to you providing us with the information that's been requested. I anticipate we, we probably will have a follow up in this area.

We have our schedule for all of our Committee hearings, but we have two spots that we might be able to fill. And I think, given the interests of the Committee, the needs and all of that, this will probably be one that we'll be coming back to.

So thank you for what you've done so far, but I anticipate we'll be seeing you more on this specific subject. Seeing no further questions or comments. Oh, public comment. I think they all left. Okay. Seeing no further comments. Thank you, everyone and colleagues, for your excellent preparation. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

I was supposed to read something about. They can submit.