Court system budget proposals released
Court system budget proposals released
The House and Senate appropriations subcommittees with oversight of the judicial branch budget unveiled their fiscal year 2016-17 funding recommendations in late January.
“Within the court system, the budget provides funding to address deficits in the State Courts Trust Fund as well as the Clerk of Courts, while also funding technology needs and other operational budget issues,” said Sen. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice.
The funding recommendations from the various House and Senate appropriations subcommittees have been rolled up into a proposed General Appropriations Act for each chamber — SB 2500 (Senate) and HB 5001 (House), where both the House and Senate appropriations committees passed them out February 3, with only a few amendments affecting the judiciary.
The respective acts include full or partial support for a number of issues contained in the judicial branch’s legislative budget request, as well as funding for several issues that were not part of the judicial branch’s request.
The Senate has earmarked $5.9 million for staff equity and retention pay. Although the amount of that special appropriation for the courts is not specified in the Senate’s General Appropriations Act, the Office of the State Courts Administrator said a press release issued by the Senate president’s office states that the courts are designated to receive $5.9 million of the special appropriation’s lump sum. That money, however, is not part of the House’s initial funding recommendations.
The $5.9 million in the Senate plan would fund the second phase of the court’s plan to address salary problems facing non-judge employees. The budget specifies that the funds are to be used to “encourage employee retention, provide equity adjustments to equalize salaries between the judicial branch and other governmental entities for similar positions and duties, and provide market-based adjustments necessary to remedy recurring employee recruiting problems for specific position classifications,” according to OSCA.
Neither proposed budget includes an across-the-board pay increase for state employees. However, the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee on February 1 unanimously passed SB 478, by Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, that authorizes a 3-percent increase in each state employee’s base rate of pay. Similar House bills (HB 213 and HB 1239) have not yet been scheduled for hearings.
OSCA said neither the Senate nor House proposal appears to change state life insurance, state disability insurance, or state health insurance employee premiums.
The Senate and House have also released conforming bills that make statutory changes to complement their respective budget proposals, including a Senate bill that would increase the conflict counsel flat fees (to $15,000) for noncapital, nonlife felonies represented at the trial level and for life felonies represented at the trial level (SB 2506), according to OSCA.
The total Senate budget amount is approximately $1 billion more than that of the House.
The Senate’s recommendations provide for $4.7 million for the Trial Court Technology Comprehensive Plan; $483,292 for trial court interpreting resources; $3,470,377 for trial court case management support; $7,275,757 for completion of the Fourth DCA’s new courthouse; $6,482,222 for completion of Third DCA security and ADA project; $78,414 for Supreme Court security support; $237,360 for Supreme Court interior space refurbishing; and $771,025 for operational support/Supreme Court annex (OSCA). The House budget plan does not now contemplate funding for those issues, which are part of the branch’s budget request.
The preliminary House budget does include $293,800 for Second DCA additional lease space in Tampa; $100,000 for a Second DCA facility space study, both of which do not appear in the Senate’s budget. Both chambers have $115,671 set aside for JQC operational increases.
Some items requested by the judicial branch not funded in either proposal include:
• Reimbursement for certain Supreme Court justice and appellate judge travel ($451,240).
• Appellate building, facilities maintenance, and operational upkeep ($400,000).
The proposed budgets also provide funding for the courts that are not part of the branch’s request, including in the Senate $1 million for the Charlotte County Justice Center; $350,000 for the Glades Small County Courthouse; $500,000 for Nassau County Courthouse renovations; $1.3 million for Children’s Advocacy Center funding (the House budget provides $1.5 million); $1.2 million for mental health jail diversion program; $2 million for Vivitrol drug treatment (to help treat alcohol and opiate drug dependency); $660,000 for drug court funding; $800,000 for veterans court funding (the House budget provides $105,000). The House budget also provides $200,000 for mental health court funding, which is not now included in the Senate plan.
The full Senate appropriations committees approved amendments to provides $415,000 in nonrecurring general revenue funds for appellate public defender workload issues in the Second, Seventh, 10th, and 15th circuits and $100,000 in nonrecurring general revenue funds for the Cuban American Bar Association Pro Bono Project.
OSCA said both the House and Senate proposed budgets provide additional general revenue for the courts system (and make a corresponding reduction in trust fund authority) to assist with the cash flow problems that have resulted in insufficient funds in the State Courts Revenue Trust Fund to support authorized spending. However, the House proposed budget reduces the general revenue authority of the trial courts by $5 million, citing an annual trend of reversions.
The proposed General Appropriations Acts and related implementing and conforming bills now go to the floors of the respective chambers before a conference committee will be appointed to work out the differences in the spending plans.
