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

And greater barriers for the people who depend on them. Funding new judgeships and the facilities needed to support them is a critical investment in ensuring that all Californians have equitable and timely access to justice. I look forward to today's discussion on how we can ensure these resources are allocated equitably across counties, including rural and historically underserved communities and directed to the areas with the greatest need.

The work of our judicial officers is invaluable, and I look forward to hearing from our Judges, Judicial Counsel, Legislative Analyst Office, and other experts on how we can continue addressing California statewide judicial needs and strengthening access to justice for all. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Inaudible]

Start with our first panel and that is the judicial need and allocation of new judgeships. Lets start with our first issue, and we will start with Drew Soderborg from the Legislative Analyst Office, followed by Jake Chatters, Leah Rose Goodwin, Judge Jackson, Mister Z, and those of us who are here know who that is. [inaudible] I'm gonna get his name perfect before I finish my 23rd. If all of you could please come for me.

With that, we will begin with Mister Soderborg.

Drew Soderborg, Legislative Analyst's Office. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Senator. Today, I will be presenting from this handout, which you should have in front of you today. If you turn to page one of that handout, you'll find our discussion of the new judgeships.

As was mentioned earlier, the 2026-2027 budget included $100,000,000 from the general fund and 2026-2027 and $44,000,000 ongoing beginning in 2027-2028 to support the establishment of 13 new judgeships. These judgeships will be rolled out in the last quarter of each fiscal year 3 being added each year from 2026 to 2029- '30. And then in 2030-'31, the final judgeship will be established in the last quarter of that fiscal year.

The funding for these judgeships not only supports the Judges, but also a complement of trial court staff such as clerks and interpreters, the cost of Court security provided by bailiffs supplied by the County Sheriff as well as funding for courtroom facility projects to accommodate the new judges. If you turn to page 2 of the handout, you'll see a figure showing how the new judgeships will be allocated.

These judgeships will be allocated based on the judicial needs assessment study, which is regularly carried out by the Judicial Council and uses information about court workload to estimate the number of additional judgeships needed.

The recently updated study estimates that statewide, a 159 additional judges are needed across 18 different counties. Based on this assessment, the 13 new judgeships will be allocated as shown in the figure below. That concludes my remarks about the judgeships. I'm happy to take questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Jake, our Court Executive Officer for Placer County.

Thank you, Senator.

For the Placer Court.

I'm sorry. Excuse me.

So, I'm Jake Chatters. I'm the Chair of the Data Analytics Advisory Committee to the Judicial Council and the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court of Placer County. California's trial courts need additional judicial resources to provide equal access to justice in our state.

These needs are focused in 18 of our counties and courts, which have a combined need for 159 additional judgeships based on, as you just heard, on the judicial needs assessment completed this month. This need is concentrated in the Inland Empire and Central Valley and with small to medium sized courts in Northern California, which is consistent with our prior assessments.

The 2026 Budget Act took a step in addressing these needs by funding 13 additional judgeships. Judgeships of the Judicial Council allocated last Friday to 9 trial courts. While those courts, of which mine is one, thank you, deeply appreciate the increase in judicial time those positions will provide, the gap in judgeships and judge time remains severe with an additional one additional 146 judgeships still needed.

Judicial need in California is calculated using a weighted caseload model. Weighted caseload allows us to reflect the difference in judicial time on average to take different types of cases from start to their final conclusion. For example, many individuals opt to attend traffic school rather than request a court hearing when they receive a traffic citation. In these instances, there is no judicial time spent on their case.

By contrast, families that are interacting with our dependency courts have a multiple hearing process with appointed legal counsel at their side where the judicial officer spends substantial time evaluating the best interest of the child.

A weighted caseload model means we count the single traffic infraction and the single dependency action not as equal workload, but in a way that reflects the greater need for judicial time in varying case types. The need for 146 additional judgeships, thanks to the reduction of the 13 in the Budget Act, is based on a brand new set of case weights.

The updated case weights were approved this past Friday and are the result of the most comprehensive study of judicial workload in California Judicial Branch history. More than 1,200 judicial officers from 18 courts participated which represented over 60% of California Judicial Officers. Their participation rate is a very astounding 98%.

This process included time studies, focus groups and extensive data review by the National Center for State Courts, Judicial Council staff and the Data Analytics Advisory Committee to the Judicial Council.

The study revealed that most, although not all case types take more judicial time today on average than they did in pre pandemic years. In felony cases, this is largely due to expanded bail and detention decision making, diversion options, and resentencing reviews. Across nearly all case types, the introduction of AI and increases in digital based evidence have increased the volume of information that requires judicial review.

As mentioned on even numbered years, the Judicial Council is required to report on the judicial need across California. Sorry.

The judicial needs study, which will be transmitted to legislature by November first of this year, combined the case weights I just mentioned with three year average case filings in each superior court to determine the demand for case driven judicial time. This is then compared to a judicial full time equivalent, just like you would see for a full time equivalent on staffing and budget change proposals.

But it focuses solely on case related work. This then derives judicial need in each trial court. And as mentioned reveals that as of today, 146 additional judges are needed. And that brings us to the question of how those are allocated.

The methodology for allocating judgeships was first approved by the Judicial Council in 2001, and is now codified in Government Code Section 69,614. It was adapted from the Huntington Hill method used to apportion seats in Congress. The methodology considers absolute need, adjust for proportional need after each hypothetical allocation, and gives additional weight to a court's first judgeship.

This approach helps to balance the need across large and small courts, ensuring that large courts like Orange County, who may have a lower proportional need, but have a double digit need in terms of judge positions. And a small court like Yuba, which has a judge gap of more than 40%, but only needs two judges, ensures they're both considered.

When only a small number of new judgeships are funded, this can result in what appears to be an odd result. For example, a large proportional improvement for a small court that receives one judgeship and a lower proportional gain for a large court even when it receives several new judgeships. These results are less likely when a larger number of judges are allocated at once as the balancing factors in the methodology are more effective in a larger sample.

The Data Analytics Advisory Committee is committed to reviewing this methodology in the coming 12 to 24 months to reevaluate these priorities and make a recommendation to the Judicial Council on whether to preserve or modify this approach. This timing would result in completion of this review before the next Judicial Needs Assessment in 2028.

At which time, it is my hope that we'll use this methodology to allocate another group of much needed new judgeships. Thank you.

Thank you. Are you speaking on behalf of Placer County or on behalf of overall the methodology, the report that you did?

On the methodology, as the Chair of the Data Analytics Advisory Committee, which is responsible for overseeing the development of the study itself and the recommendation of the Judicial Council.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that.

But he also wanted to make sure I would view that Placer County did get one. Yes. That's very good.

Exactly. Honorable Jacqueline Jackson, who's the presiding judge at Riverside Court.

Thank you so much for allowing me to speak to you today. I appreciate that time you've given. So there are experts on the methodology. I am not one of those. I'm just asked to talk about the experience of being a court that is large, fast growing, one of the biggest in our state with the deficit of judges we currently have and how appreciative we are of the new study and also the work this committee has done to assist us with getting our additional judgeships.

We're very grateful for that. So focusing on people and litigants or court users, I wanna talk a little bit about who comes to court. We know there are parents looking for resolution of custody or other disputes with children. We have a lot of housing disputes or people wanting a safe place to sleep at night and maybe landlords wanting property back, and so those are urgent in the court.

Alleged victims, the accused of crimes, and children also in areas like dependency or probate whose families can't take care of them or aren't able to at that time.

And they're all looking for a timely resolution of their disputes. And so when our county thinks about the growing judicial need. In 2022, the needs assessment had Riverside at needing about 22 additional judges. As Mister Chatters had said, the current one brings us to 45, and that impact on the individuals that come to the courthouse steps has been pretty significant for us.

So as one example in family law in 2023, if a hearing was requested today, we could bring them to court in Riverside in 51 days. That's a very long time, but that's what our calendars provided for.

As I speak to you at this time, that number has increased to 78 days. For some school children, that's an entire summer of not knowing about custody or which school they might attend or which doctors they may be going to, as their parents or caregivers need court assistance with navigating that for them. It's a very long time.

Another brief example I'll give is one that is pretty well known, I believe, are criminal proceedings. So for some context, my court devotes 50% of all resources to our criminal division, bench officers, staff, resources.

Even so, between January 2023 and March of this year, we had to dismiss 494 criminal trials. We did not have the capacity to get them out to trial in a timely fashion. To give a brief snapshot of what my trial judge's day looks like, when they send one jury out to start deliberation, not returning with the verdict, start deliberation, a new case immediately comes.

And they're working with those lawyers, those litigants, a new veneer, and they are picking a new jury or working on motions before the other jury is back with the verdict. We have done that for years and years.

And even so, we had almost 500 cases dismissed in that period of time I had mentioned. And so looking at levering technology to help us be more efficient, we have tried very hard to do that. Both our bench and court administrators are very behind that. It has improved the ability to get access to the courts to get things through a little quicker.

However, efficiency alone has not, and we don't believe it can, completely make up for the lack of our judicial resources. And so for us, the additional judges mean better capacity to enter court, more calendars, more trial courts, and the ability for us to reduce those delays that that do concern us. We want to do very good work for the citizens of our county and everyone who comes to the courthouse doors.

And so it would allow us to be much more sufficient. Of course, those judgeships need to be supported by staff and facilities and technology, and we know that this committee has been very diligent at looking at that whole picture, and we do appreciate that as well. Those 13 new judgeships are invaluable to us.

We are so grateful to this committee and also the judicial needs assessment for looking at that so closely and being able to provide a way for us to get that help we need soon with those judicial resources. We don't take that for granted, and we're very appreciative of the legislature's investment in the courts in that way. And we want to continue partnering with with. You know, as we look at what the courts need.

Riverside needs 45, but the branch need 159. And we see that as well, as a state, we really want to be able to help get people timely, meaningful access to justice no matter where they live and no matter what kind of case brings them to our courthouse steps. And so I'm so very grateful for your time and consideration and the work I know has already occurred on behalf of the courts. We just wanna thank you, and we look forward to continuing to move forward for that.

Thank you very much. With that, we'll turn to Leah Rose Goodwin. She's our Chief on Data and Analytics with the Judicial Council.

Thank you, Senator. So, Mister Chatters and I combined our time together so that he could give you a full picture. I don't have anything further to add other than I'd be happy to support the panel with any questions that you might have.

Okay. Thank you. Mister Z?

Here in support. Thank you, Senator.

Okay.

I'm able. Available for questions.

Okay. What is your title officially?

I'm a Budget Director of Budget Services of the council.

Okay. Could we, grab another Chair for Mister Z? Because we have one right over here. I think, there might be some things you may you may find the need to chime into. So in light of the presentation that was made, I'd like to go back to a couple things.

So my staff and I, we did an analysis and following the current Judicial Council's methodology, we looked at if the amount of judges were. Would be distributed as the current methodology allows for. The fastest growing counties in the State of California, it would take them actually at least 8 years to meet their a 100%. This was back in 2022.

For them to get to a 100 of their allotment, it would take approximately 8 years where other communities would actually reach their 100% goal or or need, maybe judicial need as the proper term, in order to do that.

And then when I looked at the upcoming, the new prioritization, that's come out, that considers additional things, it's similar in that case as well. And let me, be more specific in my example. So for example for 2026, if we follow the methodology as you presented Riverside receiving four, San Bernardino two and then Kearns, Stanislaus, I know I said that wrong, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Fresno and Glasser County all receive one.

The fastest growing counties with the greatest need would only receive 9%, respectively in the Riverside County and I think this is 6% for San Bernardino. Whereas, for example, San Joaquin would receive 11% of their need, Fresno would receive 13% of their need, and Placer County through that one would receive 25% of its need.

So I did a little research because those of you who've come before me, in this last year of being Chair know that this has been something I continually asked. And so I got tons of information to read and so what you described as your methodology, let's see, the methodology also gives additional weight to each court's first judgeship ensuring positions are distributed broadly across the state rather than concentrating in the courts with the largest numeric need.

So for me as a legislator, it's hard for me to understand why we would focus, particular waiting, in other areas when we're really not addressing the largest need. So my question is this, is the Judicial Council willing to be open for future allocations?

I'm not talking about the one that we have now, but is the Judicial Council willing to be open to consider looking at the counties that have the greatest need? I'm not saying you have to completely throw out your methodology, but is there an openness to re look at, can't we focus on the counties with the greatest need? Maybe, you know, they get double of what they normally would have gotten and then the others still get some if we're willing as legislators to help fund that.

And the reason why I say that is, I mean, I get the idea that you want all of the counties to get something. I get that. But when you have other communities that are suffering greatly, It just, it just doesn't, you know, it just doesn't make sense.

And then to have this a greater weight on the fact that, you know, well, you already got one, so now we'll wait, you know, before you can get one more. It's just completely different from the way we typically, and being a member on the budget, evaluate things. So what I'm just willing... I'm not willing.

My request. My question is, is the judicial council. I know you've spent much effort on this methodology. I know it's being used across the country. I read all of that.

I know it follows all these amazing things, but it doesn't change the fact that we have desperately needed communities that meanwhile the methodology, you know, is helpful, but it's it's not really. It's gonna take us so long then to reach the other side. So is there any willingness, on behalf of the council to at least work with the legislature?

I did read in one of the reports, that the Judicial Council has enjoyed the fact that the legislature and the Governor has, you know, allowed it to follow the methodology, you know, that it's done. Meaning, I'm glad you guys have stayed out of our pot and leave us alone and let us do it.

That's the way I rephrase it. But I just, I hope that you would also respect that we work in these communities. We talk to the people who say I've waited 75 days for a resolution or whatever. So my question is, I said all of that to say, is there a willingness on the Judicial Council if we can help with additional resources so that you still do, you know, the one offs for Placer County that helped them get 25%.

But if we can reach and do more, can we get. Are you willing to work with us that when we reach to do more, it can help go to those counties that have the numeric need? Because it, we just. We gotta balance this better.

I can't speak for the council itself, right? But as an Advisory Committee to the Council, the Data Analytics Advisory Committee, which prepares these recommendations to the council, we have listed on our work plan for the next year to look at that prioritization methodology. So from our standpoint, yes. We hear from both, courts that both have a large numeric need, so Riverside or San Bernardino.

And you hear from, you might hear from them saying, although that's not what you said, judge, but saying, you know, we want more of these judges would be helpful because we need 50 judges.

That's a big number. You also hear from the smaller courts, you might hear from Lake County, which has a very high percentage need, but they only need one judge. And so trying to balance, to your point, how do you. You know, for that community to be needing one judge, which might be 50%. It's not a 50% increase, but whatever that increase is, you know, they don't wanna be.

They don't wanna feel like their need as a smaller community won't be met. So we do hear from both of those elements. And, but yes, the short answer to your question is is yes on the advisory committee side. We intend to look at that over the next one to two years.

And intend to make some recommendation to the council. So if that helps.

Can I build upon my question? I also read that, and, you know, I'm not a Judge, I'm not a Lawyer, so I'm doing the best that I can on this subject matter. But I also read somewhere that based upon some cases, you have a requirement of two judges or two justices for a particular area.

And I'm just wondering, have you guys also explored maybe, some other creative ways to help smaller courthouses, whether it's through remote, whether it's through sharing, you know, if there is neighboring and maybe, you know, a smaller, maybe not an edifice like an official courthouse but maybe a mobile courthouse or something that could be created. I know we're using, what are they called, the buildings, the outdoor built to mobile.

What? Yes. Have have we. Is there a willingness of the council to maybe think out of the box that could still help rural communities because I support all the communities to still get their needs met, but maybe not necessarily in the traditional way of, okay, we need one more.

So now we're gonna have one courtroom with one judge and we're only gonna hear x amount of cases when maybe we could look at how we're providing that service differently, because I was reading where, you know, it can be point three or point five or whatever that's needed.

Have we, have we looked at maybe how we provide the service to our constituents such that maybe it doesn't have to be the one person in the courtroom, but they're still getting the service. And then that way communities that have this huge, backlog and issues can have, more of the support that way or traveling or, you know, whatever. Are are we working on thinking out of the box with some of these ideas?

So I think, if you're referring to the two judge courts, so like, Alpine County, which has, you know, not a large population, but they do have two judgeships in Alpine County. I think it's. That those are the counties you're talking about with those two judges?

Yes.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the two judge courts are established in the Constitution that they're required to have two judges in that, in that county. So I would say, I don't know to what extent there's been any dialogue about changing the Constitution around them having two judges. I do know just from experience that, you know, judges who are in. I'll take Alpine County because I know them, know this of them firsthand. Those judges will go to other counties and fill in other courts.

So if they, if their courthouse is dark, they might be going to fill into Nevada County or someplace else based on an absence or a vacancy in those other counties.

So those resources do get shared. Courts have reciprocal agreements with some of their neighbors. So in the event that the bench has to recuse itself, can't hear a case, they can rely on a neighbor to handle that. If there are, I don't know of many courts that don't fill out their judge's docket, but if they didn't, there is an ability for a judge to go to another county and help out at the request of the two presiding judges.

And is that reflected, can that be reflected in the roll up of the need then of some of those adjoining and neighboring courts?

We've never done that I think because of the presumption in the constitution, the California constitution.

There also is a program called the Assigned Judges Program that, the Chief upon request of the courts, will send often retired judges to the counties that have needs, of which I believe Riverside has received that kind of support. So there are ways that we're trying as a branch with the resources we have to help meet the need, but it's clearly not consistent.

There are limitations on how, you know, how many days these judges can work, but we are, we are looking at that. But it fundamentally fundamentally comes down to getting larger numbers. The 13 is a relatively small number.

And when we were looking at this methodology, and they could speak to it even better than I can, which is we were looking at it in larger pieces, not the 13s, but 50s, you know, are. So then when you have that and you're getting 50, then you're gonna. We're gonna get to your point as far as meeting everybody's initial need.

So, you know, 50 would be one third of the current list, whereas the 26 that were approved a couple of years ago was an amazing and, you know, great opportunity that the legislature was taken to authorize additional judgeships. We just need the funding in larger pieces, but we are again, thankful and working to see if we can get more judgeships out of the the funding that was approved in the budget.

Okay. I'm willing to fight for the funding. I'm just willing to fight for the funding if we're gonna have some flexibility in our methodology is what I'm saying. Because again, I hear what you're saying, but I also am seeking you hearing what I'm saying. And that we can't wait for the fastest growing county in the state to have to wait 8 years to get at their 100%, while 5 other counties get to their 100% in year 1 or 2.

It just isn't. It just is not the best use of our investment. So, as long as there's an openness to work with us. I would also say that, later in this hearing, we're gonna talk about facilities. And you didn't mention it, but I've also learned that a part of having more judges is we need to make sure that we have the facilities.

We have the courthouses. We have all of the support that's required. So I realize it's a multi pronged thing, but I'm just hoping and one of the asks that I'm gonna have at the end of this hearing is that we really come to the table when we do a follow-up of this, that we come to the table with some ideas, some short term, mid term, long term ways.

Because if we're gonna look, let's say, at a county and say, in order for us to do, let's say 12 or 15 or 20, judges in the fastest growing county in the state, we're gonna need a new courthouse. And in order for us to do a new courthouse, that's gonna take us 5, 10 years.

So if it's gonna take us five, ten years, well, why don't we give them to these other counties? And so what happens is though that continues to happen, we don't get then that new courthouse or it takes 10, 20, 30 years to get it. And by then, the people who actually need the support are still waiting.

And so I think we have to get away from, you know, only one way of looking at it and begin to think about how can we figure this out to address the problem. Yes.

Working with you on those things. And as Mister Chatters said, we are open and looking for the partnership to to expand access. Absolutely.

Okay. Yes.

Yes. I just wanted to point out also that the legislature always retains the ability to allocate judgeships by changing statute and determining specifically where they go. As you're no doubt aware, that's a power that the legislature does have.

Thank you for telling Mister Chatters that. I didn't wanna pop this bubble of him throwing the constitution at me for him not to know that we can still do it. But thank you so much, and that's absolutely correct. Yeah. Thank you.

Senator Reyes.

Thank you so much, and I sincerely appreciate the questions and this conversation, especially because we know that it's the Inland Empire. When we're talking about the greatest needs, we are talking about the Inland Empire. We are the fastest growing, and that is why there's great interest for myself and my colleagues, Senator Seyarto and Senator Cervantes in trying to find ways that take care of the people that need justice.

And those are really important questions about how we really allocate this. And yes, the legislature does have the ability to introduce legislation and when we're talking about the budget as well, the special requests.

We do want to find a way that is. That provides the greatest equity throughout the State of California also. I, One question that I, that I did have, we're talking about the mobile courtrooms. I I don't know how many of our courtrooms do have a mobile unit.

I do know that San Bernardino does. I forget the name of it.

Justice in motion.

Jim. The Jim Mobile. And it, that Justice in Motion, and they do go out to the more rural areas of San Bernardino County and provide services, which I think is. It's very innovative, and I hope more of our counties are doing the same thing.

Another is annuitant judges. Is this the same thing that we were talking about earlier? Many of my friends who retired, as judges are now annuitants, and I think it's a great help to our system to have the annuitants come back. They have that experience. Their hours are limited, which is good for them.

They don't have to spend their entire life in the courtroom, and I think that's really, really good. In the 2022 assessment that was done, it showed that San Bernardino needed 130 judges, and Riverside needed 112 judges. The, and Riverside had 89, and San Bernardino had 100. And so the need there was almost 31 for San Bernardino and almost 23 for Riverside.

What is the difference now in. When we look at those numbers from 2022, compared to the numbers we have now where both courthouses have about the same need of a 134 or almost a 135 each. Did Riverside not get any judges this last time around?

Are you looking.

Because we're now. We have 45 needed for Riverside, 31 for San Bernardino.

So the updated that the difference there, is not just about whether or not either of those jurisdictions received additional judgeships through funding. The judicial needs assessment looks at what are the changes in terms of how much time each type of case takes and what are the trends in terms of individual filings in those counties.

So to the extent that there's a difference in the total number of judicial positions needed between 2022 and 2026, now that is a factor of a change in how much, you know, judicial time it takes for each type of case and or the filing mix within that county.

So, I don't have a direct answer for what, what impacted those two individual counties on why it went up and down, whether it was just case type change or case weight changes or filing mix changes. But that is why we redo that study every two years because sometimes you have, unfortunately felony cases rise and so that means there's more work for judges or it could go.

Hopefully, you're seeing the opposite in juvenile cases and they're going down as there's less work for judges. So we try to balance that out every couple years.

Wonderful. And I do wanna thank you, Judge Jackson for being here. It, I think if there. Knowing that you are, with the 2026, the county with the greatest need of judges to have you here with us, I think, is extremely important.

You provide a different perspective that other counties, aren't able to because it's numbers there. Yes, there are some counties that need two judges. They only have one, so they're missing 50% of their judges. And we do have to take that into consideration. I recognize that.

But having the county with the greatest need here, I think is extremely important. I do wanna thank you for being here.

Thank you. Before we go go to the next panel, what I'd like to say to all of you is that, this happened to me when I served in Congress. I found that oftentimes, staff or individuals who are supporting in some capacity, you know, there's. You have to kind of play by the rules. And I noticed you all said, you know, thank you so much to the legislature and we appreciate that.

Thank you so much. We appreciate all of your support over there. We know it is. We appreciate you. Thank you.

Thank you.

But really, we should be doing a lot better, frankly. And, your Chief Justice actually said that to us, when she gave the State of the Judiciary to the legislature. And so what I wanna challenge you to do is when you come before us, you know, I know it's not very popular, but we need to know what you need and we need to know how to do it. That's why we're here. If we didn't care or want to do it, we wouldn't be here.

We'd be working on the other 50,000,000 things that we need to be doing. But we understand that this is a problem. And so we'll be submitting subsequent questions. Also, the other Senators, I'm sure we'll have follow-up questions. But please answer them truthfully, and I know you do.

You take a note to do that. But I'm, maybe truthfully is not the word. Please not feel inhibited by our roles, and please tell us what you need and how we get there because we want to get there. Frankly, we have to get there.

Because at this pace, I was. When I read that, I think it was in 2007, 50 were authorized. It took to 2009, maybe two were then funded. Then it went into 2018, 2019 to 2022 before half of them were actually funded.

Then that subsequent year, we had the other 50%. We can't spend. We as a legislature cannot take 20 years to fill half of the judgeships that you need. That is not going to work, and that's why we're here. So we really need you to work with us, tell us, help us, to understand, be flexible in how you think of how we can provide services so that we can get, more at this number.

And, I just wanna encourage you to do that. With that, please don't sneak away even though your part is done because we will be covering facilities. And because facilities has a large part in how judges are allotted, there may be some follow-up questions. So if you don't mind sticking around, we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much. We will now. Now we're gonna turn to our second panel which is judicial salaries.

With that, panelists, please come to the table. We'll again start with, Mister Soderborg from the legislative analyst office, followed by judge Walton and judge Vallejo here on behalf of the California Judges Association. And then we will have justice Hill and still, from the budget side, Mister Zee will be here to join us. We will start with Mister Soderborg.

Drew Soderborg, legislative analyst office. If you turn to page three of your handout, you'll see a discussion a discussion of salaries for trial court judges. Statute establishes judges' salaries and governs their annual raises. The California Department of Human Resources, also known as CalHR, calculates annual, increases in judges' salaries, which become effective on July 1. The formula used to calculate them is tied to the average annual salary increase received by state employees.

Looking at base salary alone, California judges are among the most highly, paid in the nation with only four states and jurisdictions paying more. However, once... And this is, according to an analysis carried by the National Center for State Courts. However, once cost of living is factored in, California moves from fifth to twenty eighth in the nation. Additionally, as you can see in the figure, trial court judges' salaries have grown at a relatively slow rate and have not kept up with price increases.

Specifically, while, salaries have increased by 26% over the last decade, the California Consumer Price Index over that time period has increased by 33%. It is important to note, however, that this just focuses on the base salaries. There are some counties that give trial court judges additional benefits that can contribute to salary. The Judicial Council last formally studied county supplemental, supplementary benefits in 2009, so our information is somewhat dated here.

It found at that point in time that ninety percent of trial court judges served in counties that provided some sort of supplemental benefit.

For example, as of 2015, Los Angeles County contributed funds to allow trial court judges to purchase medical, dental, vision coverage, or life and disability services or insurance, and any funds not used to purchase these benefits could be retained by the judges as supplements to their salary. At that point, it amounted to 57,000 annually. Other counties, however, might offer different supplementary benefits, such as a gym stipend or parking allowances. And at the time of the 2009 study, there were some counties that didn't offer any supplemental benefits.

At that point in time, Alpine, Inyo, and San Benito offered no supplementary benefits.

It is also important to point out that the pay structure has been subject to litigation. So a lawsuit filed against the state in 2014 argued that the state wrongfully withheld salary increases from trial court judges between 2008 and 2013, and a court ultimately issued a $40,000,000 judgment against the state in that case. Currently, there is litigation ongoing on this topic. A lawsuit was filed in 2024, arguing that Cal HR's, formula for calculating annual increases inappropriately excluded, targeted wage increases, and that litigation remains ongoing.

Happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Honorable judge Laura Walton.

Thank you. I want to, first thank, the Chair, Senator Richardson, and Senator, Gomez Reyes for your support... Constant support to the judiciary, and thank you for allowing us to appear today. I'm Laura Walton, judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and I'm appearing today in the capacity of the vice president of the California Judges Association. For the past nineteen years, judges have had to rely on government code sixty eight two zero three for their judicial salaries to keep pace with inflation.

And during that time, inflation has increased 60% while judicial salaries have only increased 35%. And we understand that this was not intentional, but yet it has occurred over the past nineteen years. The last time there's been a gap in inflation as well as judicial salaries was right before the great recession. And in 2001, the legislature stepped in. They gave judges an unscheduled eight and a half percent increase in pay.

And then again in 2007, the legislature stepped in and gave judges another eight and a half percent, increase in pay, so that judges' pay could stay in tune with inflation. However, since 2007, judges have had to rely solely on government code sixty eight two zero three for any salary increases. And judges did not receive a salary increase in 2025 bay... Or 2026, and we don't anticipate at this time receiving one in 2027 based on government code section sixty eight two zero three.

And another comparison I would like to point out is when you compare judges' salaries with those of public attorneys.

And we're not talking about private attorneys that work in the big firms because we know the first year associates start out at 250,000 or more, which is more than a judge make. And we're not even talking about the elected public attorneys, like the district attorney or the public defender of various counties. But I'd like to point out a few comparisons.

When you look at the salaries of the senior attorneys in the public defenders and district attorney's offices, those that run the day to day operations, they make more than we do as judges. And if you look at counties such as Los Angeles, Orange County, San Francisco area, Alameda, judges there...

I'm sorry. The, senior attorneys there make anywhere from 35% or more than we do as judicial officers. And then if you want to say, well, that's in the big city and, you know, you have the market because attorneys get paid so much in Los Angeles in the big city. We even made the comparison for some of the mid sized counties like Monterey, Solano, Napa.

And still, the senior attorneys in the district attorneys and public defender's office still make 21% to 10% more than we do as judicial officers.

In San Francisco, most of the city attorneys make more than we do as judges. Half of the district attorneys make more than we do as judges, and a third of the public defenders make more than we do as judges in San Francisco. And this has started to affect, our ability, honestly, as judicial officers to retain excellent judges. And just to give you a few examples, 20 judges left Los Angeles County, left the bench this year. Many of those were appointees by Brown and Newsom.

In San Francisco, one out of every six judges, one out of every six, has less than a year of judicial experience on the bench. And two judges in Riverside left before their pensions even vested, and they are leaving to go do other jobs that make them more money. And it saddens me because we have some of the most diverse judiciary in the country, which reflects the citizens of California that my colleagues are starting to leave because their salaries are lagging behind. And this is not new.

This really isn't anything new.

If we even look back, I'll go back just as far as 1960. The legislature set judicial salaries to go with the cost of living. And then when that fell behind, see... Still fell behind inflation, they reset our judicial salaries in statute in 1980. And then in 2000, as I've discussed, they gave us an unscheduled...

2001, an unscheduled pay increase and another one in 2007 so that judicial salaries will stay in tune with inflation. And so it seems to occur every twenty years or so. We as judicial officers are back here at the table asking the legislature to please reset our salaries. It hasn't been done since the last unscheduled pay increase in 2007, and we're almost here at 2027.

And we're just asking that you work with us so that you can fix this problem and allow our judicial salaries to stay in tune with the rate of inflation.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today on behalf of the California Judges Association.

Thank you very much. Honorable judge Tania Vallejo.

Thank you so much. I'm here as, the secretary treasurer of the California Judges Association. I would also like to thank the both of you. I heard your earlier remarks about thinking, but what I did wanna say to you is, all of us judges were former lawyers. And one of the things that, we were always grateful for was the time that that judges gave us when all we wanted was to be heard, have a judge that was pensive and reflective.

And in our efforts, the both of you have given us that time, especially throughout the last several months in our efforts. And so I think that's really why we are so so grateful today that you have given us this opportunity. All of my... All of our time, was allotted to judge Walton, and so I'm really here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Before, though, I realize your time was allotted, but we still have discretion here. From your perspective, from a diversity perspective, how important is it with recruitment to attract women, diversity, and so on to judgeship positions in light of what you're seeing with the pay?

I can say that I am a Newsom appointee. And when Aye, I was a lawyer, I was a public defender. And, one of the things that, I believe the governor saw in me that I share with so many of my colleagues are the fact that I'm a normal regular Californian. I have small children. I have challenges like childcare challenges.

We don't hybrid work, and so those are real challenges like every Californian that comes before my court. As a Latina woman, I can tell you that statistically, there are only 6% of Latinos going through law schools and coming out of law schools, which means the pipeline is not a very robust pipeline coming through to be appointed as judicial officers. Many times, it is challenging to get, work, where you are, big firm work.

And so a lot of my my colleagues coming out of law school were midsize firms, or they are coming into public defender work or prosecutor work. And so when you are first generation like I am and you are saddled with, loans like I was saddled with loans, it's very hard to make sure that you are balancing childcare needs, repaying loans, and you really want to do the work of service in the community.

That's why a lot of us do come from the public sector and a lot of us become judges because we want to make sure that we continue on that journey. And so it is really hard, I can tell you, to recruit diversity, women, women with small children because I'm consistently asked, well, how do you do that? Because you've gotta be on the bench until x amount of time. There is no hybrid work, and Aye... And I'm very very quite candid about it.

And it is... Yes. We have to expend money on childcare and figure out those needs, and they do become financially challenging. When I left the public defender's office, I left as a manager, and Aye... My income would be more right now if I was still there.

And... But I can tell you that, the ability to be on the bench and have people that come before me that I know are seeing someone on the bench that is reflective of all Californians is extremely important to me, and it's extremely important to a lot of my colleagues.

And so the financial challenges, we continue to go with those financial challenges because we understand the greater good of being able to, offer, all of the things that we do on a daily basis to the Californians that come before us, and we take great pride in that. Thank you.

Thank you. Honorable justice Brad Hill, this isn't our first rodeo. Welcome back.

Well, it's nice to be back. Thank you very much. And thank you. I'll just echo the thanks from the entire panel for shining a light on this issue. California's chief justice Patricia Guerrero has stressed the need for adequate compensation for states' judges, and she did so in her state of judiciary address that you heard.

She stated that for the judicial branch of government to fulfill its mandate to deliver the highest quality of justice and service, it must be able to attract and retain the best qualified candidates to the bench. And as was been noted by the previous panelists, this issue also directly impacts the state's ability to recruit and and retain a diverse judiciary. This is a concern that needs to be addressed as we cannot afford to make it harder and harder for lawyers to consider applying for a judgeship.

As a member of governor Newsom's judicial selection advisory committee, I've had increasing difficulty convincing candidates to apply over the years. I've run into a number of people who say I would love to, but, again, I am not financially able to make that kind of commitment at this time and to take that kind of a cut.

I've also seen an exodus of very experienced judges who were seeking other opportunities. This issue of retention is equally important as the chief has pointed out and one that greatly impacts the courts. Unless we address this growing salary gap, we face a reality where applicant pool becomes very limited and our bench far less experience. Helping to narrow this gap represents a sound public investment that will support recruitment of highly qualified candidates to the bench and at the same time retain experienced judges.

This investment will strengthen the courts in the long term, the health and stability of our state government, and we very much appreciate you shining a light on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, justice Hill. If I might, your hair is a beautiful color. Mine's not quite that way because I dye it. But but if I might ask you, you... How long were you a lawyer before you became a judge?

I was a lawyer for about... I was appointed when I was 36, so about seven or eight years. I've been on the bench thirty five years. And I took a a pay cut to to join the bench.

Wow. And when you see... You spoke about, the difficulty, you know, of recruiting folks. Can you tell me what it was like, when you first were appointed to the bench? What a, you know, an honor or something that people strove, strived for as lawyers to become a part of the judge role versus being a lawyer?

How has that changed from, you know, when you first were appointed to what you see now and the fact that it's very difficult to recruit?

Well, it it obviously is an honor of a lifetime. All of us would agree with that. We we cherish the opportunity to do what we're doing, and that's why I've been on for thirty five years and hope to be on for another five or ten. But by the same token, there are people in circumstances where they simply cannot avail themselves of that opportunity. They have families.

They have obligations. And, I've talked to a lot of people who really would like that opportunity. They're very honored to be considered, but they just financially have to make that decision with the number of children that they may have, that they may have to put through college or other financial obligations that as much as they would like to do it, they can't make that call.

Thank you. Mister Zee, did you have anything you wanted to add? No.

Thank you, Senator.

Okay. Thank you. Although I have asked a few questions, I I have a lot more. And I can't even... We don't even have enough time for me to ask all of them.

So some of them, again, we will be submitting for the record. A few questions I'd like to ask. One, does... We have heard nationwide various security issues that have occurred unfortunately with judges. Is there any security stipend that judges are provided, to assist them to make sure that they have adequate security for themselves and for their homes?

Anyone can answer.

Thank you. If I may, we do not have security stipends that are offered. In fact, we do have a judicial protection unit, meaning that we have law enforcement that we can contact, but that's mostly to report threats, security threats. I recently spoke with my court leadership, and what I was basically told was we have so many coming in per week that we can hardly keep up.

Recently, as recent as yesterday, I reported a security threat for a panel that I am speaking on, that I'm going on my own accord.

And when I requested and asked, can I? Will I have security there? The answer is, well, no. You don't have... You're not really entitled to it.

But if you see something, walk away from the event. And so I highlight that because these... My story is not a unique story. It's actually a very common story, that we are faced with real threats, on a daily basis. And, we don't have...

We have to expend our own resources to put cameras up around our homes. We have to expend our own resources to ensure, that we are able to keep our families safe, give our children safe words words in case we're in the community and something happens. But we are very much responsible for ensuring our own security. I'm not sure if you might add to that or not. Okay.

Absolutely. Listing.

Listening for Los Angeles County, I think for the entire state, we as state judges at the trial level, I shall say, do not receive any additional funds for security. And we can only report it after the threat, and then someone will act, but nothing to try and ensure that there are no threats at home or anything of that. We don't receive any additional funding to secure our homes or anything.

Okay. I spent a lot of time reading the report Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts. It was a report, to the Judicial Council provided to the legislature. The date was 11/20/2009. And the subject of the report was report to the legislature historical analysis of disparities in judicial benefits.

This was 11/20/2009. At that time, based upon some of the things that Mister Soderborg, mentioned, this report came out to discuss these disparities. Report, it had that these recommendations would be provided for the legislature to act upon. Has there been any action on this report specifically?

It says, for example, about 90% of the superior court judges serve in courts where some form of benefits are provided, which demonstrates the widespread acceptance of the need for appropriateness of providing judges with better benefit packages than what is currently provided by the state.

And yet there's nothing... I couldn't find anything after that that said the legislature specifically took action to make changes your current way of being paid, superior court judges by the state, the basic benefits that you have. But has the legislature taken specific action to change these methodologies, formulas? Any... Have we had any hearings about that to your knowledge?

Yes, Mister Zine.

Miss Lakota Yorovich from the council. There was lit... There was litigation that occurred about that time, and then ultimately, there was a bill, I can get you that information, that confirmed the the judicial benefits that were being provided to judicial officers. So there was action, for the specific benefits that existed at that time that were subject to the to the litigation. We can get you that information.

Yes. Just to add a bit more context. At the time, there was a challenge to whether or not it was legal for counties to provide those supplemental benefits. And what the legislature did is step in at that time and pass statute to make it clear that it would be legal for counties to continue to do that. But to my knowledge, there continues to be differentials between counties because not all counties provide the same type of benefits.

Right. My question

in in place, but no change or any effort to to have a more common approach.

My question isn't related to the case. My question is related to the fact that as has been now testified, the judge salaries are not in line with, counterparts, whether they be public attorneys and so on. And my question is, has there been any action from the legislature to look at retirement, look at dental, look at long term, look at whatever it is to make, since the...

What occurred in 2007 of the pay reset, have there been any other activities, to make changes to the basic salary, that judges have? I'm not talking about, the supplemental, to the salary or to any other benefits, that relate to judges.

Again, it's like with your works. There's been a few efforts on retirement. That's about it. I don't know if any of the representatives

And hasn't that retirement then been related to those who are retired and not active judges?

I think there's been some that were prospective and and and maybe have resulted in some pay for changes. But it's been not a lot, but there's been a couple of efforts and some bills that have been passed. But if you have that, you wanna have...

To add that, it's my understanding that there has been nothing moving forward. And That's my understanding. And, and I also wanted to add that, this is really the crux of why we are here because, uniformity of salaries is something that the legislature has always stressed at looking at.

And in fact, in that same report, it was by design by the legislature because two things that the legislature pointed to was, one, ensuring the stability and independence of the judicial branch, and two, the quality of justice to be administered at a uniformly high level throughout the state, which is why the uniformity of salaries is so important for us today.

I was impressed by the committees that were formed to kind of look at this whole issue of judge salaries, and it's something I plan on, discussing with Senator Reyes and others. I believe this is a very serious problem as has been testified. I'd like to request that the members of the Judges Association submit for the record, all the things that you referenced of the disparities in pay. So it is on the record for us to reference. I wanted to speak to now get into...

I know CalHR is the one that actually implements the judge's salaries but they say they have nothing to to do with the formula. You guys got so many freaking methodologies and formulas. But I used a good word. When I get home, my mom usually says, you didn't use that bad word today, did you? And I say, yeah, I did.

But I'm I'm restraining myself today because I'm in I'm in a courtroom. But it's my understanding that with the shift that was made from the judges being more predominantly paid by county and county and state in some cases, now state with some county contributions that you're represented... The judges are represented by an entity. I won't name the entity. But even with that entity, you don't have a specific local or representative who's negotiating to make sure that the judge's, specific needs are adhered to.

Is that a correct understanding?

That's an absolute correct understanding. We have no one to represent judges, no one to speak up for us when it deals with salaries, when it deals with hair... Health care benefits. We are tied, it's my understanding, to 21 other unions that have representatives that speak up for them, unions that fight for them. And our pay increase under government code sixty eight two zero three is paid, is tied to those unions, but we have no representation.

So we get... If they're able to fight or get a pay increase, then that's what we get. We get the average of of those 21 unions, but there is no representation that judges get. And I want to point out for the past two years under government code sixty eight two zero three, again, judges have gotten a zero pay increase in 2025, 2026, and as I stated, we anticipate again in 2027.

But unions who have the ability to negotiate, while not on paper, they haven't gotten a pay increase.

They've gotten in kind, maybe more vacation. Maybe they didn't have to contribute to their health care. Maybe they didn't have to contribute for a year or two to their four zero one k, which ultimately means as we know, more money in their pockets. But no, we have no representation. No one represents us.

Our salary is under $6,820.03, this pay formula, has been tied to the average of what 21 other state unions received.

So I wanna drill down a little bit on that, for the public to make sure every... And for the record, so when you say, and it's my understanding, that the judge's salary is tied to the average of pay increases. So it's not saying... So let's say, for example, the scientists get 20% increase because it was seen that they were lower than they should be for scale. And then let's say another position, whatever it is that gets 5%, you're getting the average of those two.

You're not necessarily getting for the specialty of your field. That's not being represented. It's the average of all of them which could be any number of 20 positions which I would like to request for the record what those 21 other positions are that this average is going across. But isn't that the case that when we say average, we're not talking about, let's say for example, scientists or senior lawyers or whatever for the state. We're talking about an average of all positions within that particular bargaining unit.

Isn't that correct?

You are correct, Senator.

Yeah. It's crazy. Okay. And then... Yes.

Please.

Yes. The other thing I wanted to add to is that CalHR right now is only considering general salary increases. So this is when a salary increase applies to everybody in a specific bargaining unit. They're not counting salary increases that are more targeted than that. So for example, sometimes just folks at the top end of the pay step will get a salary increase, and that's considered a special salary increase.

And so that wouldn't be figured into the average.

So that was my next question. I think they're called SSAs?

Okay.

Correct. Yes.

You can tell I've been upgrading very late the last of the last of week here. It's my understanding that in addition, and Mister Soderborg, maybe you can help us with that, that in addition to salaries, there's other things that could be considered that aren't being considered and it's my understanding they're not being considered at the discretion of CalHR.

You can tell I've been upgrading very late the last of the last of week here. It's my understanding that in addition, and Mister Soderborg, maybe you can help us with that, that in addition to salaries, there's other things that could be considered that aren't being considered and it's my understanding they're not being considered at the discretion of CalHR.

So, that was my next question. It think they're called SSA?

Correct. Yes.

You can tell I have been abbreviating lately. The last of, the last of week here. It's my understanding is that in addition to Mr. Soderborg you can help us with that. In addition to salaries, theres other things that could be considered that aren't being considered and it's my understanding that they're not being considered at the discretion of LHR, I guess it's deciding that literally the term adjustments for judge salaries is salary only, not considering all these other components.

Maybe that the same bargaining unit is getting, but is not considering that that could also be equated to judge's salaries. Is that correct? And could you expound a little bit?

Yes. That's correct. So, yeah, as I was saying before their. CalHR is interpreting the statute to only require them to look at general salary increases, again, applying to everybody. But at this time, they're not looking at special salary increases. So these would be salary increases. They just don't apply across the bargaining unit or other forms of compensation that might not be a salary increase but could be.

I'd say like a pay differential for working in a hard to staff area that only applies to hard to staff area that only applies to people that are working in that area. Those things are not being considered, and that's actually the subject of the 2024 litigation that I referenced earlier. That is what is the. Some judges have sued on this basis, and that's in front of the courts as we speak.

So I'm going to respectfully request, Mister Z, do you work in this area at all?

I work in every area. So...

Yeah. I think so. Okay. So

How can I help?

What I'd like to do is ask the. On the record, ask the Judge Association to please provide us and also Mister Z from the budget services side and Honorable Justice Hill as well and Mister. Frankly, all of you. Let me just say that.

I'd like to respectfully request that all of you, any specific legislative, ideas that you have that we could consider for legislation to provide direction, better direction of what's deemed an inclusive in salaries, how should pay raises be tied, whether CPI, whether areas in your public public attorneys, you know, in the state. Whatever suggestions you have that could help us to craft what would get at the problem to not only one, fix the deficiency that we have currently in the judge salaries.

But also, I need for you to put on your thinking hat of how for us to avoid this going forward. You shouldn't have to come every year, every two years, every five years, every twenty years, unfortunately, to seek adequate pay when we might be able to tie it to something to help eliminate that.

So if all of you would please kindly put on your thinking hats and within the next two weeks ideally, because we go back on December 7 and, we'd like to look at things that we can do and there's a whole lot as Mister Soderborg has said, from the first panel and this panel, that we can potentially do to change how, how things are implemented. Can I get an agreement from all of you? Y

Okay. Thank you. Got a little homework. Alright. Senator Reyes.

Thank you so much. I appreciate all the questions that Madam Chair has asked because those are the most important ones. I think that in our discussions, my prior discussions, because we have talked to, many of our judges who have told us of this problem. And that is why Madam Chair has put together this hearing and included this topic in it. It is something that I think needs to be tackled.

I was under the impression that there had been a bill before regarding judge's salaries, but it was vetoed because of the the budget aspect of it. Maybe I was given wrong information. I'll just

As I mentioned, there's been efforts on retirement. You know, the judges were speaking about salaries. I was speaking about retirement efforts. There was a a bill by Senator Morlock at one point that was, vetoed in the past.

I think there's been some progress on the margin on retirement only.

Okay. So the the big issue on salaries. I, with the information you all would provide, I think it would provide the impetus for the the proper language as we introduce legislation as the Chair introduces legislation. I hope to join her on that. And there are other colleagues who have.

Because the discussion about judgeships was something we had, we discussed this at great length with our colleagues as it was as it was going through. Many of them started talking to their courthouses and to their presiding judges and found that a big issue was pay, was salary for our judges.

And when something like that comes. Reaches us, then it, we try to do what we can to try to address the issue. Judicial counsel has been very helpful in many of the issues that we deal with.

But I think that here, having Madam Chair ask for each of you to provide information, I think having all of that is going to be key to putting together legislation that we hope would make it to our new Governor's desk and to have it signed, and I think, making sure that there isn't a need to have to continue to to come in, to ask for these increases. I know that for many of my being a judge is the greatest honor for them.

It's something that they, that they want to be able to achieve usually after ten years. Not everybody not everybody gets it early. But to do good work and then to finally. This is, this is, like the reward for doing good work and the bench gets to witness that. And then they invite you to be part of their team.

But this information is very important. I did have a question. When you say that judges have no representation to bargain for their salary, my question is why not?

Because we're not part of any union. I mean.

But why aren't you part of a union then?

Because judges judges are not considered employees, and employees are part of unions. So we are elected officials quite like you and you and the legislature.

So we are not employees. As employees, we are not able to unionize. We are elected officials, and we have to rely on the legislature, as our, partners as well as elected officials to help, set our salary. So that's why we have no representation. We can't unionize.

We're not considered employees. We're considered elected officials. And can I just point out.

Like us with our retirement? Right?

And when you're talking about retirement, I just wanna point out, another reason that judges, are leaving their judgeships and just the irony. So retired judges, they're pay increases in rightfully, so. Is govern by Government code 75,523, I believe it is. And so their increases when you're a retired judge, that their increases is based on, the cost of inflation.

Oh.

So look at the irony. Our retired judges last year got a $10,000 pay increase as a retired judge. You see why people are just leaving, and we as sitting judges got zero.

Alright. There's, It's something absolutely wrong with that. And I think, be sure that when you provide the information that you include that information about how.

The retired judges because perhaps then it's, it would be tying your judge's salary to the same government code as, retired judges. We just have to think, as Madam Chair has said, we have to think outside the box. This has been going on for a long time. The last adjustment was in 2007. And it's like, yay. Thank you so much. And you know, when's the next one? Well, 20 years later. Right? But hopefully, something can be done.

We know it's a long process. I really thought that there had been legislation on this before. But if there hasn't, it's clear from our colleagues and with the leadership of Senator Richardson that we should be able to at least begin that process and begin it early. In December is when we start to put together a legislative package.

Thank you. And we've already talked about retirement. Thank you so much. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm gonna ask if you don't mind if you hang tight a little bit just because some things might be related. We only have two more panels. So we're still working to get everybody out on time. Thank you. With that, now we're going to turn to panel number 3, which is court construction.

For that panelists, please come to the table. We will again start with Mister Soderborg. Is it Soderborg or Berg?

Soderborg. Like like cyborg.

Cyborg. Okay. Mister Soderborg, from the Legislative Analyst Office, followed by Justice Hill, who's gonna stay with us here, Erica Sperbeck, Judge Tapia, Tamar Ahmed, and we have Mister Z who's staying here as well. I see you. Okay. Mister Soderborg.

Alright. So if you turn to page five of your handout, you'll see a figure depicting the 13 construction projects that were funded in the '26-'27 budget. The '26-'27 budget provided $1,800,000,000 for court construction. This includes 1,700,000,000 in lease revenue funds and $62,100,000 from the general fund to support various stages of these 13 construction projects.

The budget also includes language specifying the legislature may authorize up to $1,300,000,000 in additional funding in 2027-'28 for further judicial branch capital outlay projects. However, this language is really intent language, and the legislature is always free to approve more or less than that amount.

Thank you. Judge Tapia, Honorable Judge.

Good afternoon. Chair Richardson, Senator Eloise Gomez Reyes, good afternoon. And Miss Brackville, good afternoon. I am Sergio Tapia. I am the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

I do wanna welcome you back to your courthouse, Senator Richardson, in the heart of your district. I wanna thank you and Senator Eloise Reyes Gomez for coming here to see firsthand the facilities challenges facing Los Angeles County as well as the rest of the state.

Thank you also for the nearly $1,900,000 for courthouse in the last year budget. Part of that funding will help court for the closure of the federally owned Spring Street Courthouse in the year 2028. That commitment, in my opinion, shows the state recognizes courthouses as essential public infrastructure. You know, a courthouse is where the constitution's abstract promises become real for ordinary people.

The condition of those buildings says a great deal about how seriously we take those promises. Today, California is falling short. This morning, we saw what that looks like. Twice in a single month, failing pipes flooded this building. It closed for eleven days, disrupting roughly ten thousand cases and affecting more than 20,000 litigants.

The consequences, however linger. Families with young children have nowhere to eat. Self represented litigants crowd into a makeshift self help center carved out of a shuttered cafeteria. People wait 20 minutes or longer for an elevator on the way to what may be the most consequential moment of their lives. Compton is not an outlier.

Despite everything you saw today, its renovation ranks 71st out of 80 projects on the Judicial Council statewide list. If the courthouse ranks 71st looks like this, consider the 70 ahead of it. Nowhere is the problem more acute than in LA County. 19 of our 36 courthouses are more than 50 years old. At least once a month, someone is trapped in one of our elevators.

Pipes fail, escalators break, floods and asbestos put court records out of reach. These are not isolated maintenance failures. They are the predictable result buildings reaching the end of their useful lives at once. How we rank these projects matters. The Judicial Council scores each building's need, looking at condition, seismic and fire risk, security, overcrowding and access to services.

It uses cost only to set the order within each tier. But those scores rest on assessments from 2019 before the floods in this building and the number of people a courthouse serves counts for little. We welcome this committee's exam examination of that process. We also welcome the legislature's direction that the Judicial Council report on ways to build faster and more efficiently. Our court is doing its part.

This year, LA County began a long range facility strategic plan, which we expect to release early next year. It will draw on several sources. For instance, population and caseload data, how litigants actually use our buildings today, and what remote appearances and digital access now make possible. The courthouses of tomorrow need not look like the courthouses of today. If we are going to invest billions, we must invest wisely.

That means litigant centered courthouses, accessible, safe, and designed so that everyone who walks through the doors can fully participate. We will submit the plan to the Judicial Council to reassess our countywide priorities working with the Department of Finance, the legislature, and our local partners. That plan will make one need unmistakable.

We must replace the Stanley Moss Courthouse. The Moss Courthouse serves about 1,100,000 visitors a year. Let me repeat that. One courthouse in this state serves 1,100,000 visitors a year. However, it is the fourth most seismically vulnerable courthouse in California. Replacing it is a public safety imperative.

Best opportunity to build the courthouse I have described on a scale that reaches the most people. Moss is near the top of the list for site acquisition funding, and we ask for your support in moving it forward. I would like to conclude my remarks with this.

The courthouse is the most visible public space in our democracy. People come there to resolve disputes, protect their families, defend their rights, and seek justice. Today, you saw what happens when we fail to keep faith with them.

When we build well, we tell every person who walks through our doors that their rights are worth the investment. We here in LA are doing the work to plan for something better, and we look forward to building it with you. I want to thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony and I am here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Next, we'll have, Miss Erica Sperbeck.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm actually gonna defer to Justice Hill to go before my testimony.

Sure.

Thank you again and thank you Judge Tapia. We're partners on this effort, and it's an important effort. Judge Tapia is member of the Court Facilities Advisory Committee, and we wanna thank you. It needs to be said and needs to be said often that you are supplying the opportunity for all of us to rectify, it's been wrong with the system for a very long time. And funds that you are providing making a dramatic difference, across the state and certainly here in Los Angeles.

The citizens of this state deserve safe and secure courthouses, and your efforts have gone such a long way toward making that a reality and will do so in the future. I previously touched on the needs statewide, which impact really every region of our state. These needs strike at the core of our mission in terms of access to justice, security, ADA accessibility, seismic safety, overcrowding, and things like access to food, which we talked about this morning.

Some perhaps things that aren't glamorous, aren't talked a lot about, but are critical for many courthouses around the state. I've noted many times the serious seismic concerns that we all have, most notably in Los Angeles and San Francisco, where we have courthouses that are in dire need of replacement.

Here in Los Angeles, I've been working with the court leadership on plans for the replacement of the Moss Courthouse, a $3,000,000,000 undertaking. And as you know, this project is the very next project in line for funding and not a moment too soon.

Along with the LA court leadership, we are actively looking for a site that we can embark on immediately once funding is authorized by the legislature. One of the fastest growing areas of Los Angeles in terms of caseloads is Santa Clarita, and that $600,000,000 project is authorized, funded, and in land acquisition as we speak.

If we were to travel all over the state, those courthouses and those areas that are getting new courthouses, we would see conditions that have deteriorated dramatically over time.

And Judge Tapia is right. We see conditions here that are awful. I've toured so many courthouses around the state, San Francisco, and courthouses up and down the state where they all are in, or many of them that are in line for replacement, are in a state of disrepair. Our Court Facilities Advisory Committee stands ready to ensure that we are deserving of your trust to prudently spend the funds that you have authorized.

And as indicated, Judge Tapia and I, as members of the Court Facilities Advisory Committee, will make sure that we're deserving of your trust and will expend those funds to only those courts most in need across our state. Thank you very, very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Miss Sperbeck.

Thank you, Madam Chair and and Senator. So Erica Sperbeck with the Judicial Council. And I just wanna echo Judge Tapia and Justice Hill's, appreciation for your leadership, and advocacy for the judicial branch. We also really appreciate the money that was put into the budget for our Capital Construction Program. What was not included in the budget were support resources.

So really appreciate the opportunity to provide a road map to you as required in the budget by January 10 on courthouse construction, including recommendations, potential statutory changes, and resource needs. So I just wanted to provide some high level comments just to provide context for our Capital Program.

So in addition to the robust to the robust governance that Justice Hill spoke to, we also have a great dedicated facilities team led by Director Tamara Ahmed, who I'm joined by today, and including about a 140 other staff who primarily deliver capital construction projects. And we strive for accessible, safe, functional courthouses on time and within budget. We also operate and maintain about 430 facilities statewide.

Those are buildings and parking structures and courthouses, etcetera. Of that number, about 288 are actual courthouses that serve the public. We're committed to public service, accountability, and transparency in the service of equal justice to California or to all 40,000,000 Californians throughout the state.

A good example of us being accountable is notwithstanding having not received resources in the current year, to begin delivering on the capital program. We've identified resources that we could redirect internally, immediately to begin delivering. We've already filled some program manager positions and some consultant positions to begin delivering on on the commitment that the legislature made.

We're also committed to being good partners with counties, communities, and others, which in some cases does add time to our projects. I will say notwithstanding our efforts to simplify and standardize courthouses building them is incredibly complex as there are generally three buildings in one. There are courtrooms as we sit in here today.

There are also public areas, and they also include detention areas, all with specialized requirements. On average, it takes eight to fifteen years to build a courthouse. Our Capital Construction Program is driven by our judicial branch five year infrastructure plan, which we do update annually. However, the underlying basis for that is our prioritized list of projects. It's the comprehensive assessment conducted back in 2019.

Judge Tapio mentioned that. It was pursuant to budget trailer billing, which we followed the requirements in the statute. We believe it's appropriate to conduct such an assessment of our portfolio about every ten years. It is a huge undertaking for the counsel, for the courts, for our partners. So we believe that every ten years meets the right mark to give courts and others expectations on new facilities and planning for new projects, etcetera.

As it relates to the money that was included in the budget, again, appreciation for that, we've already begun hiring positions to begin delivering.

We've initiated planning effort for the new Tracy courthouse in San Joaquin. The new East County courthouse in Kern. And the Clear Lake courthouse renovation in Lake County. The Tahoe courthouse renovation, one of the projects that was approved is on hold because of a county driven potential scope change. And finally were actively working to deliver the roadmap to the legislature on January 10th. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr Ahmed.

Thank you Senator, for the hearing. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Not so easy. Just kidding. I'm gonna turn to Senator Reyes to kick us off with these 2 panelists.

Thank you so much. I wanna begin by thanking judge Tapia. When we were talking about all the judges we needed, not about the topic for today, I called and I said, help. San Bernardino Riverside needs help, and I really appreciated the conversation that we had. I tried to think outside the box. I said, can you lend us some of your judges? But he's very protective of his judges too, and I appreciate that. I think that.

1 of the words, I think that is most important for me is accountability, transparency also, but accountability. When we're talking about investing on capital improvement and new courthouses, maintenance, deferred maintenance. When we're talking about these topics and the money is put in, it's like it goes into a hole.

And we have to be sure that when we get our reports, when we get the feedback, it tells us we've invested properly, that the need was there and that the money is being spent to take care of the needs that have been identified. Some of my colleagues, more of a comment rather than a question, some of my colleagues had mentioned to me when I told them we were having the informational hearing.

They said, we have to be careful that it isn't. I won't say it the way they said it, but let's make sure that we take care of everybody, not just because we're loud that we get it. And we all. But we know the squeaky wheel is the 1 that gets oiled. So I think they're finding that balance because the greater your need, the more you're going to be asking.

If you don't have a great need, there. You wouldn't be asking for a new courthouse. You have 2 judges. You have a courthouse. You're done.

But for those areas that are growing. And I'm not just saying the Inland Empire because there are other areas that are also growing, but to make sure.

That it is based upon the data just as it is for judges that those needs, as you've done in your report in talking about, as 1 of you mentioned the seismic issues and all of the other issues that you've listed on there that are important, that it is data driven and that if we're going to deviate from that there be a special you know, convening to determine if the the deviation is appropriate because the funding that is provided is based upon the information that we receive.

And so that accountability. Transparency too, but the accountability is extremely important. And I appreciate that you specifically mentioned that.

If I may, Senator Reyes, I would go back to... And and, Chair Richardson, I think maybe this will resonate more fully with you. But since the April Senate hearing that that we had, let me just name, a few accomplishments in our construction area. I think that will help just provide again context. We dedicated the new 53 room Sacramento Courthouse on April 17.

We dedicated the new 15 courtroom Sonoma Courthouse in Santa Rosa on May 29. We dedicated the expanded San Bernardino juvenile dependency courthouse on July 8. We broke ground on the sixth district court of appeal courthouse in Sunnyvale on August 5. And we obtained the certificate of occupancy on the new Lakeport Courthouse. And, actually, I believe it's open for business, which the Lakeport Courthouse was our first design build project on September 9. So just a lot of accomplishments and it it... Very exciting.

I think it... Aye... For for for me as a legislator, Aye... To to hear the accomplishments and, to see how the money is spent is extremely important. And just having you talk about different areas, not just one area in the state of California, also is extremely important.

So thank you so much. And those are my comments. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. A few questions. So I think this is to miss Spearbeck and Mister Ahmed. On average, based upon your current staffing levels, your current bandwidth, how many courthouses can you see that you can build?

And before I think you get into that question, can you walk us through how long it's taking from acquisition to plans to this to that? Because I think that's also one of our challenges. And by the way, this is not a, what the young people call a shade, to your department. All construction is facing... Are facing these challenges of major...

If you're looking at a major development, how long does it take you to actually acquire your site and, you know, go through the different steps. Could you walk us through approximately how long that's taking? Ideally, if if we were to identify and you have, I think, 10 or 17 here, locations, how long does it take from start to finish to actually get that done? And how many people is it taking, to do that?

And then I'll ask Tamara to weigh in as well. Just in terms of, the the staffing, the resources. So So the 1,900,000,000 included in the budget, was for four new projects and then, continuing the fate... Next phase for nine previously approved projects. So the the analysis part of the, road map that we're developing will identify the resources necessary to support those efforts.

And then I'll also just highlight and it's been mentioned, but the current year budget also referenced a potential of another 1,300,000,000 next year for five additional projects. That's something that we're looking at our overall capacity to be able to come back and and and request resources to do. Again, we've identified or redirected current year positions or resources to be able to to start on those projects in the current year. And in terms of the phasing and the timelines, I'll ask Tamar to weigh in.

Yeah. Thank you for the question, Senator. It takes about seven, eight years minimum in order to build a courthouse up to 15. And that is based on historical data regarding the projects that we've done, but also it takes into consideration the projects that are coming up. Some of our projects are small where it's like a major renovation of a one courtroom courthouse.

That is about a seven, eight years because of the three different phases that are involved. A large courthouse like, just Tapia talked about the mosque replacement could possibly take about fifteen years. The reason is a... The most difficult, phase of any project, in my opinion, is the acquisition phase. Getting the land, to build a courthouse for several reasons.

A courthouse needs to be close to the justice partners. So that kinda limits the locations where we need to put the courthouses in. Finding a willing seller, the environmental clearance associated with that. Sometimes... And we've really worked with the Department of Finance, and they've been really a good partner with us.

If we find a site, but the site is not available now, we lock in the site by having something called a purchase option where we lock the site, and it's up to us to buy and the seller would need to to sell until possibly that location, for example, if it's county owned, that they get all their functions or maybe somebody that occupies the county building, their lease ends in their site.

So it takes about four to four and a half years to to get acquisitions done for various reasons, including CEQA, and finding a site and and clearing CEQA associated with that. Then it it depends on, like I said, like the project. So one or two years is spent in what we call performance criteria, and that is the criteria that the state puts out to say, we want this courthouse to be that big. We want the requirements to be one, two, three, four.

Regarding to the different building systems and what have you. That takes about a one or two years depending on the size of the building. Of course, the smaller the courthouse, the the less time. As far as construction, it goes between four years to about, you know, eight years or so. The smaller courthouses...

And I'm talking about design build because our current delivery method is a design build where we get one entity to design and goes through the permitting process of different packages, the ground, the steel framing, the the the rest of the building. And once... And those gets approved through the authorities having jurisdiction, the state fire marshal, division of state architect. And once those are are are are approved, then we start in the construction. Something like the Mosque Courthouse is probably gonna take about six years to construct.

And I'm talking about shoveling the ground until it gets completed because it's gonna be about a million square feet.

So what can we do to cut that time down? Is it manpower? Is it legislation? What can we do? Because, I'll I'll speak very frankly and open with you.

I have discussed with, the budget, committee, that of us exploring doing a lease revenue bond. And if we do a lease revenue bond, unfortunately, those... Not unfortunately, those funds have to be dedicated towards new construction. It can't be done towards maintenance. So if we were able to get a substantial amount of more money, which is what I'm hoping part of why we're doing this is to...

And you all can relate to that. We have to make the case. We have to first say that there's a problem that more court houses, more judge... More judges are needed. In order to have more judges, you have to have more court houses and more courtrooms.

So once we make that case, which is what we were working on in the first two panels, then we go to this part. So if we were to potentially do a lease revenue bond and secure the support of an incoming governor and so on, and if there were to be more resources, we need to know that it can be sooner than fifteen years. How... My question is, how can we get to seven years? How how do we do that?

Is it more people? Is it, sequel exemptions? Is it, all of the above? What would it take for us to get there? And when we initially put the request in to do more money, I was told that the judicial council was a little shy about I put money in specifically for program...

The pre program stuff, the the pre acquisition, the pre management, the pre design, all of those things that take money. And I was told, oh, no. We don't really wanna separate it out. And I'm thinking, well, don't you need more money to kinda get this done on the front end? And it it was kinda poo pooed on.

So help me understand what do you need from us to accelerate this? And maybe you don't know all of that answer right now.

Yeah. What I was gonna share and then I'll turn to justice Hill is just, madam Chair, that's exactly what we're working on in the road map to accelerate and streamline courthouse construction. The budget included very specific language of things to look look at, you know, our internal processes. There's oversight. There's the construction industry writ large.

So resources are definitely gonna be a component of that. But report is required to be done in consultation with the Department of Finance. So just, we are actively working on that. It's due to due to you, January 10, just at a high level. But then, justice Hill, did you wanna...

Well, I was just gonna add, I think in part, we can do it faster. And and that is to great credit to judge Tapia and David Slayton from LA. We've been working on this for a while. And in terms of acquisition and finding sites that might be available... So as as soon as we get the money authorized, we have done couple years worth of work at the front end to get ready for that.

We can't obviously enter into any agreements for land prior to that. But a lot of the legwork has been done, so hopefully it won't be one of those situations where, well, now let's start looking for options. We've been talking about and looking at options for several years now, and I think that will shorten up the process considerably at the front end so that we can get to the construction phase much faster. Okay.

So I understand. Yes, please.

Which is I think this partnership that we're talking about, We've had a good partnership with the judicial council with respect to cons... Potential construction in LA. But there are some issues we've already flagged, and you mentioned one of them. Let's just assume our goal is to stay in the civic center. And this is not unique.

You can apply this to other counties. We have other, government entities we're gonna have to deal with, but also other agencies, and we will need the help of the legislature. For instance, you mentioned CEQA. This is one project where I guarantee you we will be coming to you to ask you for a CEQA exemption because that in and of itself will cut this down a couple of years if we were able to get that.

So it's critical that we're having this conversation now, that we continue the conversation, and that the legislature be flexible, but also ready to act at a moment's notice.

Because sometimes, and we've experienced this with our Santa Clarita project, we were looking at a piece of of of a property, but because the process takes so long, that opportunity disappeared. So we are going to need your help in this effort, not just here in LA County, but across the state because of the issues that we have seen and that justice Hill and our committee have identified already. So I welcome the opportunity to continue that particular discussion because it will affect every single county.

So, to protect your email inbox and ours, for the record, we'll say when we say CEQA exemptions, we're not saying that the public would not be involved in the process and have an opportunity to share their concerns and us to make changes. It's just making sure that we operate at a speed, streamline where possible, but not disavowing the public involvement. Just wanna say that for the right... Just save your email and mine.

Concur with that.

Yes. That's a really important Yes. Explanation. Yes. So let me come back to this January 10 report.

So what I'd like for you to do is put on your thinking cap and say, if the legislature, even in our tough times, were able to think of other financial ways to solve these tremendous problems that we have, which is inadequate, court space. If you were to have double the money, triple the money, quadruple the money, what would you need to do to do that? And that's what we need the answer, in addition to what you're already preparing.

So does that mean you need x amount in support services? Does it mean you need to contract program management, for example?

What... Really think... Again, I can't say it enough. Think out of the box. Don't be restrictive only to what you have in your toolbox, but to think if we had x.

Because the last thing we wanna do is authorize, bust our tails and get it done and and get this these funds. And then we just see time and time, which time is money. So we really need for you to think about if you were to have x, how can you make this happen?

And I know one of the challenges is acquisition and so what we don't wanna have happen though is and what I've seen in a couple of the examples where I looked at and it might be more on the facility side than the new courthouse or courtroom side.

But if we have a challenge area, let's say we thought a property was gonna be available, now it's not available, you know, we need to broaden how the areas you're looking, you know, maybe you need a bigger team of people to be able to evaluate, you know, I don't know.

But show us how you can do it given additional resources so that we know we can have the confidence to fight for and say, okay, we can consider a lease revenue bond of x. That yes, the judicial council in addition to its partners and of course your partners need to follow all the labor rules that we all believe in, you know, if you... If you're partnering with some degree...

Because I realize you may not be able to hire enough people within a short period of time to do everything. So you may have to engage some other companies to partner with you to meet these incredible demands that would be ahead of you.

But we really need in this January 10 report to tell us how could you get there if you if you were to receive the substantial amount of funds to address these numerous projects that we have before us.

We hear you, madam Chair. I I will also just say, and I I made this remark, but I'm gonna double down on it, the notion that we're committed to being good partners with Counties, with Communities, and others. It'S, 1 of the revelations that I have had, and I joined the judicial, branch in in February of this year.

But is this notion of historically that the idea of a courthouse being the center of a community and welcome and historical and beloved and and who wouldn't want a courthouse in their community? That's not always reality.

I will just tell you in my short tenure. And so the notion of, you know, there are things that are within our control. There are some things that are outside of our control. We really do strive to be good partners.

So... And if I may just say something, I mean, we are using outside help in order to help us with project management and deliver those projects. I wanna tell you that today, my manager of real estate is in Kern County.

Kern County, one of the authorized projects that got authorized this year, looking at sites with the, the course, leadership, and they're having a public meeting, not in in the CEQA perspective, but to to kinda let the public know about that there is a courthouse coming, and we're looking for properties, and send us your property. So we are moving fast regarding acquiring properties on the projects that got authorized this year.

Today, we are in Kern County looking at at properties for the new courthouse there.

Okay. And then the last thing I wanna talk about is another one of your lovely methodologies and how you select where we're going. Again, I'm more than happy to fight the fight, to get more resources. And, Justice Hill mentioned, you know, where the the commitment to consider greatest need.

My only ask is is that if we jump through these tremendous hoops to make greater progress than our current pace which is not satisfactory, we just need to know that there's gonna be flexibility in considering these wonderful methodologies that you've had in place that, yeah, it may make sense to, you know, do a nice little courthouse wherever.

I don't wanna say a particular county's name because I don't want my email blown up. But, there's got to be at some point where maybe you consider x amount of money helps to follow your methodology and then you have another pot of money that is really reaching for where the need is and we're addressing that. And we're not waiting five years, ten years before they're even put in the queue to start considering locations and so on.

That we all know where the data is, we all know what's happening, that that we're willing to be open enough to consider broadening methodology ideas.

Absolutely. And we've been at this for about eighteen years in terms of methodologies, and and things have changed. And over time, we learn. And we learn through hearings like this. We learn through public input.

We learn from meeting after meeting. And so, I agree completely. Flexibility is a key. And you can't develop a methodology in 2008 and say that's it for all time. It was changed in 2019, and if it changes again to make it more reflective of the needs of the state, we'll definitely do it.

Thank you. And, judge Tapia does not know I'm gonna ask this question. I don't want anyone here to hold it against him, but I think it leads to what my last comment was. And that is, Judge Tapia, why did the LA Superior Court, county system feel the need to do an additional study?

I won't say aside from, but to build upon what currently is evaluated, why did the LA County, Superior Court see a need to do a little more diligence or look at things differently to make sure that we're every...

That the full needs are being considered?

Well, I think the answer is pretty simple. It's urgency. As we mentioned during the tour, we have 36 court houses in this county. More than half of them are more than 50 years old. They're falling apart.

Based on the current methodology, by the time we replace the newest courthouse in this county, which is the Long Beach Courthouse, which was inaugurated right around 2011, 2012, That facility will not get replaced for another one hundred and sixty years under the current methodology.

So we felt that it was critical to sit down and come up with a better plan to really focus on data, to ensuring that our decisions and our plans are data informed to meet the needs of the public that we serve. We hope that through this strategic plan that we are developing for our court, we're able to set an example for perhaps a new way to look at courthouse construction moving forward, which is again, data informed but meets the needs of the community that we serve.

But really it comes down to urgency. Our buildings, as you have seen here in Compton, are falling apart, but you see the same things in San Bernardino, in Riverside, in Tulare.

You name the county. There are old facilities there too. And we need to think differently about how we're gonna tackle this problem, to ensure that we meet meet the needs of the public that we both serve.

Any comments to that?

We're good partners, and and it's a new day. Thanks in great measure to you and all of the members of the committee, and we thank you and look forward to working with you.

Thank you, Sir. Okay. No other questions?

One question. On the assessment, it's every ten years?

Assessment was done in 2019. It's not currently been funded to be repeated. Our advocacy is we believe that it's appropriate to update a comprehensive assessment every ten years.

Thank you. And and on the acquisition, clearly, that's... It's a problem because you can't start the acquisition until you have the money to do it. But are there... In in something that you all said that you've had...

Been having these discussions, justice, Hill and and judge Stopia. You've already been having these discussions. Is there... I'm just... Again, thinking outside of the box.

I love being with Senator Richardson because she doesn't just say, here's the way it's been done. How are we gonna do this again? It's... This is the way it's been done. Tell me everything else that we can do.

And I appreciate that so much because I think that's how we get good legislation. So in trying to to think through I'll use the example of San Bernardino, although it's it's not at the top of the list. But I'll use the example of San Bernardino that they're not next in line to to get funding for a new courthouse. We know they need a new courthouse, and it's already on the list. And the longer they wait, the the the less land that will be available.

I I I know in Victorville, there's a piece of land there. My colleague, Assemblymember Carrillo, talked about it and... But they're not on the list yet. And so by the time they... Their name gets up to the top, by that time, that land is gone, and yet it's so close to the other courthouse.

Is there something that can be done that... So that there is, like, first right of refusal or or something. I know you talked about county buildings that that the lease is going to be ending, and so you'll be next in line. Something along those lines that we would be able to use because we already know the date is coming. We just just don't know when because we don't know when that money is going to be there.

Generally speaking, yes, we don't... Or we're not authorized to acquire land before we have an approved project. And there... And there's rationale behind that. Behind that.

And I will say the notion that, well, that's the way it's done or that's the way it's always done. I think you'll hear from us. That's not our thinking. Right? We aim to think creatively and and and new ways and flexibility and things like that as well.

One of the risks though is is plans change. Right? You have leadership changes within the courts or counties, etcetera, where, you know, the risk is we end up with a piece of property that that was not in the best interest of the state. So

And and one thing on that, and I agree with you completely because I've I've seen circumstances where the court will come and say, we have the perfect piece of land. How do we how do we capture this or how do we indicate to the owner that we'd like to buy it? And the problem, of course, is they're down the list. We can't get the funding for it.

And most private landowners are not willing to just say, well, we know you'd really like it, and we'll somehow put it in abeyance just for you.

And so we've had that that problem in Santa Clarita, for instance, where, we've had a piece of land and and the city said, see if you can, you know, do this. And and the landowner said to us, it's going to take you too long. You don't... You know, it's gonna take a couple of years. I have a buyer right now that's gonna write me a check.

So we're competing with others on that and and you make a very good point and it's something we live with every day that we wish that government moved a little bit faster, but as we all sometimes rue the the slowness of the process. But we're also being good stewards of the taxpayers' funds because we can't spend it until you tell us that we can.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think though building on what Senator Reyes is saying, and we both happen to be subcommittee chairs on the budget. And I think what we're trying to say though is we need for you to come to us and tell us and give us an option. We're not hearing those... I've been on the subcommittee two years that handles judiciary and no one has come to me and say... And said, hey, we...

If we could really get a billion dollars, we could help solve this problem that we see to even have me bring bring it forward to try. No one has done that in my two years as Chair.

So I think what we're trying to say is we realize the technical business, you know, things that we have to go through, but what we're saying to you is if you're seeing opportunities, if you're seeing, hey, if I knew that I would have x amount be able to put down for that, tell us and and let us at least try. But if we don't even know, we don't know what's out there or what's, you know, necessarily Victorville or Santa Clarita or LA or whatever.

We don't know that.

So I challenge you to come to us not only with what you're coming to us in January 10 but going forward and frankly that's part of the problem with term limits and us continually changing is you gotta re educate the new Chair who comes in, you know, two years later. And that's a whole another subject that we need to internally discuss, not just us two, but the broader of members.

But we need for you to come to us and don't be shy and put it on the table. If we don't bite, that fault then is on us. But at least let us know so that maybe we can figure it out.

Because you'd be surprised what what gets done.

Oh, we appreciate the offer. We promise not to wear out our welcome, but we appreciate the offer and we'll take you up on it.

Yeah. Just as an example, perhaps it can't be it can't be your money that's used to purchase it. But maybe the state will say that the circumstances are just so perfect. I'll give you an example. Golden Golden Gate Fields, State invested a $125,000,000 to purchase this property in San Francisco because it was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

And if we're able to do that for this land in San Francisco, that is to be used as a park for for everyone, then it... Perhaps there is some.

Thing else that would warrant that kind of attention also, just as an example, where we we we know that if we follow the rules, absolutely, we should not acquire a piece of land unless we're ready to start building. And if we buy that land and now we have the opportunity is just just once in a lifetime.

And the only way we will know is if those who know the lay of the land tell us this one is a once in a lifetime because that's exactly what happened with the Golden Golden Golden State Fields, and we we put that in the budget. It happened to be in my subcommittee, and I had to be convinced of it. How are we taking money away from other areas to purchase this?

But once in a lifetime, and I think when we see that... And if we wait, it'll just be double, triple. Anyway, just just something to think about.

We hate it.

Thank you.

With that, that concludes this panel. I think some of you are hanging around for the next one, which we appreciate, but please don't sneak off. We are going to work to get to public comment at 03:45 so we can have people out of here, not out of here, but giving people an opportunity to head out by 4PM, which was our promise. So with that we're going to turn to panel four. Finally we'll have the facilities modification and maintenance section.

The panelist before us is still continuing. Mr. Drew Soderborg from the Legislative Analyst's Office followed by Justice Hill who is still here, Madam Erica Sperbeck, and we also have joining us David Slayton who is new to the panel and we're still continuing with Mr. Ahmed. Okay.

And Mr. Z is in the wings. He's in the wings there. All right, Mr. Soderborg.

Alright. If you turn to page seven of your handout, you'll see a discussion of facility modification projects. These projects involve physical changes to a facility or its building components that improve its design level of functionality. But, however, these projects are generally smaller than the construction projects we were discussing, previously.

Funding is provided annually for these projects in the state budget that currently amounts to $80,000,000 including $65,000,000 from the state court facilities construction fund and $15,000,000 from the general fund, and these dollars are allocated at the disc...

Discretion of judicial counsel. However, the 2627 budget did include a one time augmentation for Central Justice Center project. Specifically, the budget provided 36,000,000 from the general fund and 3,600,000 from the state court facilities construction fund in 2627, and a similar amount in 2728. If you turn to page eight of the handout, you'll see a discussion of facility maintenance projects, which are, distinct from facility modification projects. Trial court facility operations and maintenance monies are used to support ongoing facility operations, repairs, and maintenance.

These include preventative and routine maintenance, equipment replacement, utilities and leases. A total of $198,000,000 including $104,000,000 from the Court Facilities Trust Fund and $94,000,000 from the General Fund is provided annually to support facility operations and maintenance costs. Also, occasionally, facility modification money is provided for maintenance reasons. Despite this ongoing funding that's available, there are many unmet maintenance needs. When a maintenance need is unmet, it is considered a deferred maintenance project.

As of August 2026, the judicial branch identified 22,356 deferred maintenance projects with about just over 22,000 related to trial courts and about a 187 related to appellate courts and the total value of these projects amounted to $6,100,000,000 The 2627 budget provided a $151,000,000 in additional one time funding to address some of these needs, including 1,000,000 specifically for deferred maintenance and other extensive repairs at the Compton Court House. Happy to, address any questions when when that time is appropriate.

Thank you. Mr. Slayton.

Thank you very much, Chair Richardson and Senator Gomez Reyes. Thank you so much for this hearing today. I'm David Slayton. I'm the executive officer and clerk of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. I'm also serving this year as the Chair of the Judicial Council's Court Executive's Advisory Committee.

So I speak today not only for our court but from the perspective of trial court executives across California. Chair Richardson, thank you for bringing this hearing to Compton and for championing court infrastructure funding including the 88% increase in deferred maintenance funding in this year's budget act. As you heard on the last panel, there have been many courthouses opened in the last several years. Judge Tapia mentioned that the last one to open in LA was Long Beach in 2013.

26 other counties in California have opened a courthouse since LA opened our last courthouse.

Hence, many of the issues I'm going to be talking about with regard to deferred maintenance in our court. Deferred maintenance as, Mister Soderberg mentioned is the repair and replacement work a building needs but hasn't received pipes, roofs, heating and cooling, electrical systems, elevators and escalators. Every project we put off becomes a larger, more expensive failure. And the people who pay for it are the litigants, jurors and families who come to our courthouses.

Some of you saw firsthand this morning on the tour of the Compton Court House what that looks like.

Over five days this August, just a few months ago, four separate leaks and plumbing failures struck this building that we're sitting in today. One spread across three floors, damaging files and offices. Others displaced public defender staff and the evidence technician, forced asbestos containment in the district attorney's offices and closed restrooms. This courthouse alone has more than 200 deferred maintenance projects totaling $88,100,000 A $15 replacement hose could have averted the previous twenty twenty four Compton flood that shut down the clerk's office and courtrooms for months.

Downtown, the Stanley Moss courthouse, which you spoke about in the last panel, which is the largest largest courthouse in the nation with 100 courtrooms hearing civil, family law, restraining order, eviction and probate matters tells the same story.

Its escalators are so old, they're original to the building, that the companies that make their parts no longer exist. Some of the replacement parts must be made on a three d printer. On any given day, two to three escalators at least are out of service. In 2021, a failed irrigation pipe flooded that building and took a bank of elevators out for seven months. I'll note those had opened just the previous week they had been replaced.

Wasn't a great timing for the for the flood. An elderly woman who used a walker needed to reach her hearing on the 8th Floor. With no working elevator, she rode the escalator up. When her hearing ended, the down escalator was broken and the fire department had to bring her down. Whatever the outcome of her case, think about what that day told her about whether her justice system was built for her.

Last November, a drain failure in Mosque's chilled chilled water system flooded an electrical room and caused a building wild building wide outage and power surge. That surge destroyed recently purchased courtroom audio equipment, some of which you see in this one today, that supports remote hearings. For several days, litigants who rely on remote appearances to remove barriers to participation and perhaps because they are fearful to come to court houses, could not join their hearings and the court had to replace all of that equipment.

These failures have a price and right now, trial courts are paying it out of their operating budgets many times. Los Angeles accounts for $1,400,000,000 of that $6,100,000,000 that that Mister Soderbergh just mentioned in deferred maintenance backlog.

Even with this year's increase in deferred maintenance funding, which we're so grateful for, 150,000,000 addresses a small fraction of that need. So when a system fails, we have no choice but to fix it ourselves. Last fiscal year, our court here in LA spent 23,900,000 of our operating budget, money meant for staff and services for a litigants on repairs that are technically the state's responsibility. We did that while funded $233,000,000 below our calculated funding need.

That $23,900,000 is the equivalent of over 150 staff that we could not, we could have hired to help litigants in our self help services, case managers to help litigants move their cases through the system and staff to assist litigants in our restraining order centers.

Every dollar diverted to repairs is a dollar not spent serving your constituents. And this is not just a Los Angeles problem. Many of the state's courthouses are more than 50 years old as you've heard. Court executives from nearly every county could sit at this table today and tell a version of the same story I'm up here saying. I'll give you some examples since I knew who was gonna be here today.

In San Bernardino, seismic base isolators have deteriorated in one of their courthouses and need to be repaired or replaced to safeguard the occupants of that courthouse. And parking lots need to be resurfaced to eliminate the safety hazards for pedestrians and vehicles.

In Riverside County, they recently experienced a catastrophic failure of the fire fire alarm panel, replacement of which had been requested and was estimated to cost $67,493 Instead, when it failed, the building is now on a 20 fourseven fire watch at a cost of $25,000 per month for a two year period, exchanging a $68,000 project for $600,000 Our request is simple, make this year's investment the floor, not the ceiling.

We urge this committee and the subcommittee and the budget committee to support sustained ongoing deferred maintenance funding for plumbing, heating and cooling, elevators and other essential building systems. The Judicial Council's pending budget change proposal of $163,200,000 is a good start.

Fixing problems before they fail is the fiscally responsible choice for the state.

Thank you and I look forward to your questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Are you gonna defer to Justice Hill?

I am. Thank you. Okay.

Are you sure? Sure.

Okay. Okay. So, thank you. Mr. Brown. Thank you, David.

Erica Sperbeck. Sperbeck. Yeah. For the Judicial Council. So again, thank you, Madam Chair, for your leadership and advocacy, in this area as well, the $151,000,000 included in the current year budget.

I'm not going to repeat some of the highlights that my colleagues up here mentioned, so I'll try to supplement my talking points. But our approach to maintaining the the 430 court facilities includes basically three components. It's it's maintenance and operations, and that... That's preventive maintenance to extend the life of equipment. It's also demand maintenance when equipment breaks down.

The number cited here, the $108,198,000,000 dollars a year, we estimate an existing funding gap in that area of just over $18,000,000 And it's not that bucket is not just maintenance. It includes rent and insurance and utilities as well. The second bucket, the facility facility modifications. So facility modifications are governed, again, by Judicial Council's robust governance. There's a trial court facility modifications advisory committee.

There's also a trial court facility modification policy, which sets out the categories of of need. And and it ranges from immediate or potentially critical needs all the way down to hazardous materials managed but not yet abated. It was mentioned that the current funding is $80,000,000 annually. That isn't sufficient to cover even the... All of the priority one and priority two requests, not to mention priorities three, four, five, and six.

We estimate a current funding gap of about 45,000,000 for just the priority one and two requests. We don't have an estimate for all six categories because as courts submit requests, we don't necessarily estimate or cost them out, particularly if they're not going to be funded. And it's a resource issue in order to do that. And then the third bucket, of course, and these all interrelate. To the extent we're underfunded in maintenance and operations, it may fall to facility modifications.

And then clearly, to the extent facility modifications is underfunded, that falls to deferred maintenance. And you've heard you've heard a lot about that today. There is no ongoing annual funding such that $150,000,000 or $151,000,000 is much appreciated. It is a drop in the bucket, I think, as David mentioned. In fact, Madam Chair, you had asked us to do some estimates.

We estimate that we would need $400,000,000 a year for ten to twelve years in order to clear that deferred maintenance backlog. It's also worth noting and and and Mr. Slayton mentioned this, that courts can and do use their operating funds for needed facility modifications beyond, the state's ability to fund them.

In terms of the $151,000,000 that was included in the budget, that has been allocated $143,500,000 to the trial courts and $7,500,000 to the appellate courts for 105 projects covering 28 counties, with the county receiving the highest allocation being Los Angeles at $51,900,000 36% of the total funding that was provided. And then the lowest allocation being to San Luis Obispo at $5,000 But I'll mention again, they cover 28 counties, which means 30 counties didn't receive any of that funding.

We have retained one lead consultant, a senior project manager and four consultant project managers to deliver on this commitment in the budget as well. And with that, happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Justice Hill?

You're probably thinking "me again." Yeah. I will be very brief because it's been very eloquently stated what we're dealing with here. We have 22,000 deferred maintenance projects as has been noted, 22,000,000 square feet that we try to keep in some state of repair, 430 buildings, 2,100 courtrooms, and we've been doing it for about twenty plus years.

And these buildings over time are getting older and older and older, and it has been a tall order to get through what we have to get through. We've had a very dedicated trial court facilities management committee that has been referenced. It's been chaired and co chaired by two very dedicated judges. Judge Heiberger from Los Angeles is one, and judge Byrd from Glenn is another. And they have to make all of those tough decisions day in and day out, really.

They get emergency calls from courts across the state and it's, you know, whose roof do we repair? Whose pipes do we repair? What proactive maintenance can we make so that we don't have the disastrous, effects that Los Angeles has been hit with and other courts? And so this kind of a a whack a mole approach that they have had to u... Utilize for years has been ameliorated certainly somewhat by your efforts.

And we thank you very, very much for that because I can't tell you how relieved they were when they got that news because they were constantly in a state of telling courts, I'm sorry. There's an emergency ahead of you, and we don't know whether we can we can perform that repair. And so it it obviously is not all that we need, and and Erica has indicated what that would be, but it made a a big step in that direction.

And thank you on behalf of the committee and on behalf of the branch because there's nothing like a Monday morning flood to deal with or a Monday morning no air conditioning in Central Valley or the Inland Empire or any of the other, incidents that happen all over the state all the time. So I will rest my case and thank you for your efforts and stand ready for any questions.

Thank you. Mr. Ahmed, any further comments?

Yeah. Maybe I'll add to what miss Purver talked about. So the two funding categories in the facility modifications that we're able to fund, like Erica said, the emergencies, like the emergencies that happened here in Compton when we had the floods. We think we're able to fix that. The second category that we...

That is... That we're not able to meet on a yearly basis is the needed. Meaning that we expect a piece of equipment to fail because it's kinda dying. And we have we have enough funds to kind of fund some of those projects, but sometimes we have to wait until the end of the year and defer those projects until the next year when we get a new set of $80,000,000 that can fund those.

So we're always catching up on the on the needs categories of the equipment that we expect to fail because we don't have enough money.

Just Kinda wanted to Kinda add to that.

What was the name of that funding source, the second one that maybe

The modifications. The facility modifications is is made out of six categories per our policy. So we do emergencies. When emergencies happen, we we we we fix those. The second one is we categorize as a priority two.

It's needed. That means that it is a building system or a building equipment that is... You know, has passed its life expectancy. We've repaired it, but it fails, and we repair it and fails, and we're expecting it to kinda fail at any time. And we're only to fund...

We're able to fund part of those categories or some projects in those categories, but not necessarily all of them.

We're able to fund part of those categories or some projects in those categories, but not necessarily all of them.

Okay. Thank you. Senator Reyes, you wanna kick us off?

Thank you. In, in the report, it says that the need is about... It's just over $6,000,000,000 to take care of all of these. You have the various categories that you've talked about. Priority number one, the critical need, what would it cost to take care of the critical need?

Or are you able to do that with this 151?

So let me just maybe clarify. So the, the second bucket, if you will, that we talked about, facility modification, that current gap for priority one and priority two is 45,000,000. So that... We get $80,000,000 a year for facility modifications. The gap only...

The only thing we've costed out at this point is the... All the priority one, all the priority two. There are priority three, which are actually needed. I think these are outlined in your agenda. So sorry to, to rattle them off.

But... And then priority four, does not meet current codes or standards. Priority five is beyond rated life, but serviceable. Priority six is hazardous materials, managed, but not yet abated. We don't have an estimate for those priority three through priority six.

The $45,000,000 gap is just for priority one and priority two. And then as it relates to deferred maintenance, we do have a list. I mean, the, the entire list, that 22,000 projects, total cost of just over 6,000,000,000, of which the Judicial Council share is 4,450,000,000. The remaining 1.6, 1,700,000,000 is actually county share. It's not in a prioritized order, so to speak.

When we do get deferred maintenance funding, which is subject to the budget, whether we request it or a generous legislator, such as yourself, puts it, adds it to the budget, when it gets appropriated, we then... Our facilities team takes that list and goes through... There's a methodology, Madam Chair, to try to identify the, the highest priority needs, and they're in buckets as well.

I mean, for example, the top of the list would be the building, the exterior skin, you know, the walls, the roofs, things like that. At the bottom of the list literally is like interior finishes.

So, so we go through a process to prioritize and allocate that funding, which goes to our Judicial Council governance, or goes through our Judicial Council governance, the Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee, which is a mouthful, and in short is called TCFMAC. It's one of my favorite new acronyms.

They... And it's made up of judicial officers and court executives. So at any given time, we have the governance that we have.

Right? You have the Judicial Council itself, led by the Chief Justice. We have six committees. We have 25 advisory committees, and then we have myriad work groups and subcommittees, etcetera. But at any given time, there's up to 525 judicial officers and court executives that make those decisions about funding allocation.

So that's how, when you add $151,000,000 to the budget, we go through and do an analysis and tee up a recommendation to the decision makers to say approved, if that's helpful.

I will tell you... Normally, we don't talk about our budget process, but I will tell you that Senator Richardson did not want just 150. Her number was a whole lot bigger, and she fought and fought and fought. And even with that, I think it was 88% higher than what would have been received otherwise. It's a big win.

I know she wasn't satisfied. And as she fights on for this, she'll have lots of allies with the rest of us because part of it is educating the rest of us about how serious an issue is. I mean, on judicial, the fact that we, we had a shortage of judges in certain counties, I was very well aware of that. But the deferred maintenance, I think many of us were educated by, by Chair Richardson about how great that need was.

So I just wanna go back to that question then that I just asked.

So priority one and priority two could be met with another 45,000,000. Okay. That... That's... I wanted to be sure that I was clear on that.

And the request is... And I appreciated that that was included, that the request is for sustained ongoing funding for deferred maintenance to the tune of 400,000,000 per year. And you believe that that would be an amount that, if it were ongoing, could provide for what's needed to take care of tier one, tier two, and then move on to the next tiers.

Right. For ten to twelve years. So 400,000,000 a year for ten to twelve years to clear the deferred maintenance backlog. And for what it's worth, Madam Chair, we have no doubt. I mean, you've heard it a lot today, but just want to go again on record our appreciation for your leadership and advocacy.

Deferred maintenance funding in the last few years, I mean, so we got $151,000,000 in the current year budget. Prior to that, it was 2021, we got $138,500,000. In 2016-17, we got 45,000,000. In 2018-19, we got 50,000,000. And in 2019-20, 15,000,000. So 151,000,000 is a lot, relative to, to what we've been funded in that area.

Really appreciate your reaction.

Told her it was a lot, but she said it's not enough. And then my final question is the, the additional money that was specifically for the Orange Central Justice Center, channeled to, to

Orange? Yeah. That was funded through a, a special budget change concept... Yes. Or budget change proposal, in order to install fire life safety systems at the Central Justice... Central Justice Center in Orange. The building was county owned until it got transferred to the Judicial Council.

Prior to the transfer, the, the county installed fire life safety and fire sprinkler systems in floor 11 through 4. But then we took over, and we needed the, the money in order to do the, the equivalent of fire alarm, pipe suppression, and an evac system in this building. When we got into the building, when we started construction, we found out that the, the plans do not reflect what was actually the case.

Because the building is so old, it was very difficult for us to investigate what's above the ceiling. So when we opened the ceiling and we...

When, when, when, when we moved people out in order to occupy the building in order to work, and we opened the ceiling, we found that it... The plans did not reflect what was actually constructed. So we had to supplement and ask for additional money in order to build it the way it was supposed to be built in the sixties when it got constructed.

And we, you know, partnered with the State Fire Marshal to identify what are the requirements in order to meet the codes, in order to kinda do that. That's why we needed initial funds in order to, to, to put back what was not, or put in what was not put in when the, when the building was originally constructed.

If, if my follow-up question is, as the request for that money came in on... Almost $80,000,000, as the request came in for that, how was that vetted? How is that compared to other requests for money? And nothing against Orange. You know, many of our colleagues are from Orange, and they would be fighting for them.

But I'm trying to understand if we're... This is data driven. How, how was that project given a priority to the tune of almost $80,000,000?

It was an existing construction project that had started. And if we did not get that money, we would have stopped the project without it being completed. It was an existing construction project that's... That we needed to continue in order to achieve the original scope. So we were kinda put in a situation that when we started doing the construction, the plan did not reflect what the county had built.

So it was, was channeled there in order to complete the project. And I wanna, you know, report is, when we first asked for the money, we were about 25% complete of the first milestone. That first milestone is scheduled to be completed December of this year. We're done. We're doing, you know, the punch list associated with that, and we're moving back the courts in milestone one, and then we'll be moving out the, the courts and the staff that are in phase two and phase three. So we are

So this, this building was purchased from the county?

Yes. It was transferred from the county. Yes. Transferred or purchased? Transferred.

So there was no, no exchange of money?

Yeah. The, the counties put in what we call the county facilities fund. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Sure. It's budget related, so I think Zlatko is much better.

And the reason I asked that, as you're giving an answer, is that if, if this was the county's and their plans reflected something that was inaccurate, then my first guess would have been then there should have been litigation against the county, and they should have been the ones that footed the bill as opposed to the state.

Yes, Senator. If I might, there was an entire process by which the judicial branch, the state, took responsibility for court facilities, an entire set of legislation and a lengthy process of this transfer process, not a pay... Payment and purchase. All that counties were expected to provide was some level of maintenance funding, sometimes 25¢ a square foot. So we got...

We didn't get a great deal from the counties, but that was the arrangement. And so a number of these, these buildings are ours, not a financial transaction. And then we assumed responsibility for them. It's my understanding this building, when it was determined... It was, it was determined to be a red tag, like it could not be used.

So it became a priority because there was no longer an ability to use it, especially when the fire system was discovered. And they opened up the rafters, and they... Where they expect to see metal studs, they were wood. So the building... That's to Tamara's point, is that the building was not built to the spec in the, in the architectural drawings.

But we now are the owners of that building, and therefore, that's why it's our responsibility. It wasn't a, a, a purchase between us. It is the problem that now we've inherited, and why we have such a significant need is the, the, the counties when they were... Like a used car. If you know you're gonna sell it, you don't put new tires on it, you don't change the oil, you just hope the next person gets it and buys it, and then they, they, they move on.

We inherited courts in disrepair.

Okay. And then, as you said, then it is determined to be a priority. And that's what I'm getting at. It, it isn't just that, oh, you know, we, we, we need an extra $80,000,000. Can you push that through the budget?

It, it... There, there was a process to determine that it was a priority.