Members of the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee expressed concerns last week about aspects of the judiciary’s requested $845 million budget for courts and probation, while also hearing about the Judicial Department’s relatively restrained spending over time.

“If you adjust for inflation, spending has actually gone down” for the trial courts, said staff analyst Amanda Bickel.

The department has again emphasized the need to add judges, following the General Assembly’s addition of 15 trial court judgeships earlier this year. The implementation takes effect over two years, and the judiciary emphasized the need to maintain the second wave of judges.

Bickel told legislators they could save money by spreading the addition of judges over a longer period, but it would require separate legislation and a supermajority vote. Members of the JBC appeared reluctant to do so, considering the judiciary’s need for far more than 15 judges.

“I think we already dramatically cut what they asked for and it does seem like we’ve done enough damage already,” said Sen. Judy Amabile, D-Boulder.

In a written report, Bickel indicated caseloads have rebounded to nearly where they were 10 years ago, following a decrease in 2020. The report also noted that probation caseloads have declined since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, but “more complex and higher oversight probationers” are causing an increased workload.

“I would love to see the data that the department has put together that indicates the caseload they are handling is increasingly complex,” said Rep. Kyle Brown, D-Louisville.

The judiciary is also seeking a range of additional employees, from staff attorneys at the Court of Appeals to a risk management officer and an analyst to work on judicial security. Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez has indicated she plans to launch a judicial security task force, which the analyst would work with.

“We absolutely need security for judges and court employees,” said Amabile, but an analyst “doesn’t seem like the most direct way to address the situation.”

“That is actually a county responsibility as much as it is a state responsibility,” added Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton. “They need to start working within existing resources.”

JBC members also spent substantial time discussing the desire to reduce spending on courthouse furnishings. Although the law places responsibility on counties for courthouse costs, Bickel’s report indicated the practice has been for the state to shoulder the burden of furnishing. Ending all but the funding for audiovisual equipment would save the state roughly $3 million per year.

“The court system is definitely a state-local collaboration,” she said.

“There seems to be some fairness in bearing the cost of (courthouse) expansion, but that doesn’t mean we can afford it,” responded Sen. Jeff Bridges, D-Greenwood Village.

The JBC also gave a chilly reception to the idea that the Judicial Department should have greater authority to adjust certain fees set by law. Bickel indicated the judiciary’s “array of fees is phenomenally complex.” Unlike regulatory agencies that impose fees on regulated entities to cover the costs of regulation, there are more purposes behind judicial fees.

“And there’s been a fair amount of research that says a lot of times, fees are a real problem for people,” she said.

“I don’t feel comfortable with that,” said Rep. Emily Sirota, D-Denver, the committee chair, referring to blanket fee-adjustment authority.

Bickel added that statewide policy changes tend to drive requests for increased funding, and some potential opportunities for savings would be rooted in legislation, rather than budget decisions.

“The judiciary is not gonna take a position that any particular bill is a bad idea. That’s outside the box they consider appropriate,” she said. “On the other hand, because judges are actively involved in administering the law, they can see where things are not working well.”

Bickel conveyed a suggestion from multiple people of combining two separate sections of state law that govern evictions, but cautioned it would be “likely a complex and technical process.”

Rep. Rick Taggart, R-Grand Junction, said he was sympathetic to the judiciary’s spending priorities, even though the legislature has faced back-to-back deficits of around $1 billion.

“This department has been very frugal and it’s unfortunate they’ve had to bring so much to us in two very tight budget years, and probably another one after this one,” he said. “The timing for this department has not been great.”