Senate BudgetSubcmte 5 — 2026-10-21

The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation We'll begin now in 60 seconds. Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation will now come to order. I'm Senator Laura Richardson, Chair of the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on the items that I previously described. Today I want to welcome you to discuss in this hearing the issue of judgeships and facility needs in California courts. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Eloise Gomez-Reyes, for her participation today, as well as the Judicial Council, court representatives, and all of our witnesses who have joined us today. I also want to note that Senator Cervantes and Senator Sayarto have also a very important interest in these issues, and we plan on working with them to produce an after-action item report that will come with recommendations to the pro tem and to the chair of the budget committee. I'm especially pleased that we're holding this important hearing here in the 35th Senate District at the Compton Courthouse providing us an opportunity to examine these issues in a community directly impacted by the accessibility and efficiency of our judicial system. Access to justice is a basic fundamental right and some of these words you might hear familiar because when when the Chief Justice gave her presentation, I stole some of her words, so I'm not plagiarizing, I'm advising you in advance that some of these quotes do come from her. Access to justice is a basic fundamental right and ensuring that our courts have the judges, resources and facilities necessary to serve the public is a responsibility we must take seriously. Across California, our courts continue to face challenges involving judicial vacancies, growing caseloads, aging facilities, and resources necessary to uphold our constitutional rights. This is why there are three separate, co-equal branches of government, each with a different responsibility. It is important that our courts have sufficient resources to not only deliver timely and fair justice, but also to protect court personnel, the public and our court systems from threats. These challenges extend beyond physical and online security to include the recruitment and retention of judges and court staff, as well as the maintenance of safe, functional, and accessible court facilities. As we'll hear today, justice is not being served in the way that it should be, and we as legislators, it's our priority to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested responsibly while addressing the needs of our courts and the communities they serve. Today hearing will focus in one key area which is court transparency which is why we here and doing this hearing today to effectively explain the difficulties that our court system is facing in their needs to be able to properly serve the public. It is my hope that today's discussion will provide valuable insight into existing challenges, identify opportunities for improvement, and help guide for future budget and policy decisions. The 2026 budget, in conjunction with my colleague and also with the Senate budget staff, included $100 million one time and $44 million ongoing to support new judgeships. We're also looking at additional money to support court construction and maintenance. I was proud to be a part of the team to spearhead these efforts, but as I've done more research, I found that there really is so much more to do. So with that, we will welcome the other members of the committee. Senator Reyes. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to participate in today's hearing. When you mentioned that we're here at the Compton Courthouse, I saw a few applause over the corner over there. We always love our own courthouses, and we know the needs of our courthouses, whether it's more judges or construction or repair or delayed maintenance that has been delayed for far too long. We've heard those stories. And Madam Chair wasn't just a participant of what we were able to accomplish in this budget. She was the leader in it. And without her leadership, I truly do not believe we would have received in the state budget the amount of money and the areas that needed to be covered had it not been for her leadership. And I want to thank you again. But I want to thank you again for that leadership because it makes a big difference in how a final budget is finally put together. I'm really proud that this hearing follows the state's recent budget investment, as Madam Chair has indicated of $100 million one-time funding plus the $44 million ongoing funding to support new judgeships, and also with the associated court facility projects that are mentioned in the budget. These investments are an important step toward addressing judicial shortages and improving access to justice for communities across California, and in my case, including the Inland Empire. The Inland Empire continues to face significant court workload pressures. In San Bernardino County, the Superior Court serves more than 2.2 million residents while facing a shortage of nearly 31 judgeships. Judicial officers are managing caseloads approximately 18% above the state average. I do want to thank our representatives from San Bernardino who have been in my ear to make sure that we take care of what needs to be taken care of. Riverside County has a shortage of 45 judgeships. So between the two counties in San Bernardino, we account for almost 50%, it's 47, almost 48% of all judicial shortages. And I sincerely appreciate the emphasis that Madam Chair has placed on making sure that we are equitable in what we do These numbers underscore a simple reality Justice delayed is justice denied When our courts lack the resources and judicial capacity they need it can mean longer waits 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 of the greatest need. The work of our judicial officers is invaluable, and I look forward to hearing from our judges, from judicial counsel, the legislative Analyst's 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. Thank you very much. With that, we're going to start with our first panel, and the title of that is Judicial Need and Allocation of New Judgeships. Let's start with our first issue, and we will start with Drew Zadabour from the Legislative office, followed by Jake Chatters, Leah Rose Biglin, Judge Jackson, Mr. Z, and those of us who are here know who that is, Lachko Thuradorovic. I'm going to get his name perfect before I finish my time. If all of you could please come for me. With that, we will begin with Mr. Soderborg.

take questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. Now we'll go to Jake, our

thank you are you speaking on behalf of Placer County or on behalf of overall

for clarifying that but he also wanted to make sure we knew that Placer County

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

So there are experts on the methodology.

data and analytics with the Judicial Council thank you senator so mr. Chatters

you senator okay able available for questions okay um what is your title

grab another chair or mr. Z because we have our right over here I think there might be some things 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 counsel'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 eight years to meet their a hundred percent this was back in 2022 for them to get to a hundred percent of their allotment, it would take approximately eight years where other communities would actually reach their 100% goal or need, maybe a 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 Stan, Stanulus, I know I said that wrong, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Fresno, and Placer 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 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 see the methodology also gives additional weight to each court 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 weighting 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 spent much effort on this methodology, I know what'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 going to 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 percent. 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 got to

council so that 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's 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 the 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 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 going to have one courtroom with one judge and we're only going to 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

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

Okay. I'm willing to fight for the funding. I'm just willing to fight for the funding if we're going to 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 eight years to get at their 100% while five other counties get to their 100% in year one or two. 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 going to 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 going to 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 going to look let say at a county and say in order for us to do let say 12 or 15 or 20 judges in the fastest county in the state we going to need a new courthouse And in order for us to do a new courthouse, that's going to take us 5-10 years. So if it's going to take us 5-10 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

for telling mr. chatters that I didn't want to 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 need, 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 Sayarto and Senator Cervantes in 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 to to introduce legislation and and when we're talking 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 now we're talking about the mobile courtrooms 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 Jim the Jim mobile and 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're talking about earlier many of my my friends who retired as judges are now annuitants and I think it's a great help to 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 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 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 when we look at those numbers from 2022 compared to the numbers we have now where both courthouses have about the same need of 134 almost 135 each. Did Riverside not get any judges this last time around? Are you looking... Because now we have 45 needed for Riverside, 31 for San Bernardino. So the updated that the difference there is not

work for judges so we try to balance that out every couple years wonderful I do want to thank you judge Jackson for being here I think 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 the 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 want to thank you for being here.

the next panel what I'd like to say to all of you is that this 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 the rules. And I noticed you all said, you know, thank you so much to the legislature, and we appreciate that. 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 want to challenge you to do is when you come before us, you know, I know it's not very popular, but we need 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 million things that we need to be doing, but we understand that this is a problem. And so we'll be 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 want to 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 going to turn to our second panel which is judicial salaries with that panelists please come to the table we'll again start with mr. Soderbh or from the legislative analyst office

then we will have Justice Hill and still from the budget side Mr. C will be here to join us we will start with Mr. Soderborg. Drew Soderborg, Legislative

Currently, there is litigation ongoing on this topic. A lawsuit was filed in 2024 arguing that CalHR'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 Welton.

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 thanking, but what I did want to 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 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

Newsom appointee and when I 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 colleagues coming out of law school were mid-sized 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 child care 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 got to be on the bench until X amount of time. There is no hybrid work. And I'm very, very quite candid about it. And it is, yes, we have to expend money on child care 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 my income would be more right now if I was still there. 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.

Well, it's nice to be back. Thank you very much. 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 state judges, and she did so in her State of Judiciary address, which 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 has been noted by the previous panelists, this issue also directly impacts the state's ability to recruit 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 are 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 our 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.

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 35 years. And I took a pay cut to join the bench.

now and the fact that it's very difficult to recruit well 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 35 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.

No, thank you, Senator.

homes anyone can answer thank you if I may we do not have security stipends that are offered in fact I 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 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 to keep our families safe give our children safe words in case we in the community and something happens But we are very much responsible for ensuring our own security not sure if you want to add to that or not the same 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

that time, based upon some of the things that Mr. Soderbergh mentioned, this

knowledge? Yes, Mr. Zin. Ms. Zlatko Theodorovich from the council. There was

a bill, I can get you that information, that confirmed 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 limit to the

provide the same type of benefits right my question in place but no change or any effort 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 sense 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 against like with your rich there's been a few efforts on retirement that's

and been related to those who are retired and not active judges I think

forward and 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 judges salaries but they say they have nothing 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 restraining myself today because 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 judges

understanding we have no one to represent judges no one to speak up for

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 those 21 unions, but there is no representation that judges get.

representation no one represents us our salaries under 68 203 this pay formula has been tied to the average of what 21 other state unions receive so I want to drill down a little bit on that for the public to make sure every M 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

okay and then yes please the other thing I wanted to add to is that Cal HR right now is only considering general salary increases so this is when a salary

correct yes you can tell I've been up reading the last week here it's my understanding that in addition and mr. Sada board maybe you can help us with that that in addition to salaries there other things that could be considered that aren being considered And it my understanding they not being considered at the discretion of Cal HR I guess is deciding that literally the term adjustments for judge salaries is

bargaining unit is getting but is not considering that that could also be equated to judges salaries is that correct and could you expound a little

going to respectfully request mr. C do you work in this area at all work in every area yeah I think so okay so what I'd like to do is ask the on the record ask the judge association to please provide us and also mr. Z from the budget services side and honorable Justice Hill as well and mr. 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 and inclusive in salaries. How should pay raises be tied, whether CPI, whether areas in your public attorneys 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 cap of how for us to avoid this going forward. You shouldn't have to come every year, every two years, every five years, every 20 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 7th and we'd like to look at things that we can do and there's a whole lot as mr. Soderberg 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 okay thank you got a little homework all right 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 in our 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 judges salaries but it was vetoed because of the the budget aspect of it. maybe I was given wrong information efforts on retirement the judges were speaking about salaries I was speaking about retirement efforts there was a bill by Senator Moorlach at one point that was vetoed in the past but I think there's been some progress on the margin on retirement only okay so the big issue on salaries I with the information you all would provide I think it would provide the impetus for 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 had, we discussed this at great length with our colleagues 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 a salary for our judges. When something like that comes, reaches us, then 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 come in to ask for these increases. I know that for many of my attorney colleagues, being a judge is the greatest honor for them. It's something that they want to be able to achieve, usually after 10 years. Not everybody gets it early. But to do good work and then to finally, 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 in a union I mean well why aren't you

judges are leaving their judgeships and just the irony so retired judges their pay increases and rightfully so is governed by government code 75523 I believe it is and so their increases when you're retired judge that their

There'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 judges 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 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 thank you we've already talked about retirement thank you so much thank you all 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'll we're still working to get everybody out on time thank you with that now we're going to turn to panel number three which is court construction for that panelists please come to the table we will again start with mr. Soderborg is it Soderborg

Borg from the legislative analyst office followed by Justice Hill who's going to stay with us here Erica's spur back judge Tapia Tamar Ahmed and we have mr. Z who's staying here as well I see you okay mr. Soderborg all right so if you

construction projects that were funded in the 2627 budget the 2627 budget

in lease revenue funds and 62.1 million 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 1.3 billion dollars

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.

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 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 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 1.1 million visitors a year. Let me repeat that. One courthouse in this state serves 1.1 million visitors a year. However, it is the fourth most seismically vulnerable courthouse in California. Replacing it is a public safety imperative. It is also our best opportunity to build the courthouse I have described on a scale that reaches the most people. MOSC 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

you Judge Tapia. We're partners on this effort and it's it's an important effort. Judge Tapia is a member of the Court Facilities Advisory Committee and we want to 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 what's been wrong with the system for a very long time and the 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 been working with court leadership on plans for the replacement of the Moss Courthouse a billion undertaking And as you know, this project is the very next project in line for funding in 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 million dollar 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 or in a state of disrepair our court facilities advisory committee stands ready to ensure that that we are deserving of your trust to prudently spend the funds that you have authorized. And as indicated, Judge Toppe 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 very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator. So Erica Sperbeck with the Judicial Council. And I just want to 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 roadmap to you as required in the budget by January 10th on opportunities to accelerate and streamline our courthouse construction, including recommendations, potential statutory changes, and resource needs. So I want to just provide some high-level comments just to provide context for our capital program. So in addition 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 140 other staff 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 etc of that number about 288 or 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 million 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 the commitment that the made and We 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 they're generally three buildings in one their courtrooms as we sit in here today they're also public areas and they also include detention areas all with specialized requirements on average it takes 8 to 15 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 is the comprehensive assessment conducted back in 2019 judge Tapio mentioned that it was pursuant to budget trailer bill language we followed the requirements in the statute we believe it's appropriate to conduct such an assessment of our portfolio about every 10 years it is a huge undertaking for the council for the courts for our partners so so we believe that that every 10 years is meets the right mark to give courts and others expectations on new facilities and planning for new projects etc as it relates to the money that was included in the budget again appreciation for that we've already begun hiring positions to begin delivery delivering we've initiated planning efforts for the new Tracy courthouse in San Joaquin the new East County courthouse in Kern and the clear 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 we're actively working to deliver the roadmap to the legislature on January 10th thank you thank you

that you may have just kidding I'm going to turn to Senator Reyes to kick us off with these two panels thank you so much I want to begin by thanking judge top ya I when we were talking about all the judges we needed not about the topic for today I call and I said help San Bernardino is where I need help and and 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 one 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 just, 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. But we know the squeaky wheel is the one 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, you wouldn't be asking for a new courthouse. You have two 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 is one of you mentioned the seismic issues and and all of the other issues that you've listed on there that are important that that it is data-driven and that if if we're going to deviate from that that there be a special convening to determine if the deviation is appropriate because the funding that is provided is based upon the information that we receive and so that accountability and transparency too but the accountability is extremely important and I appreciate that you specifically mentioned that if I may Senator Reis and 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 17th we dedicated the new 15 courtroom Sonoma courthouse in Santa Rosa on May 29th we dedicated the expanded San Bernardino juvenile dependency courthouse on July 8th we broke ground on the 6th District Court of Appeal courthouse in Sunnyvale on August 5th 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 9th so just a lot of accomplishments and it very exciting for me as a legislator and 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 senator a few questions so I think this is to miss Spearbeck and Mr. 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 what the young people call a shade to your department. All construction are facing these challenges of major if you 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 taking? Ideally 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 then I'll ask Tamar to weigh in as well just in terms of the staffing the resources so the 1.9 billion 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 roadmap 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 1.3 billion 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 request resources to do again we've identified or redirected current year positions or resources to be able to start on those projects in the current year and in

question Senator. It takes about between seven eight years minimum in order to build a courthouse up to 50 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 Judge Tapia talked about the mosque replacement could possibly take about 15 years. The reason is 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 kind of 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 sell until possibly that location, for example, if it's county owned, that they get all their functions or maybe somebody that occupies a 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 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 with 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 that 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 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 rest of the building, and those gets approved through the authorities having jurisdiction, the State Farm Marshal Division of State Architect, and once those are approved, then we start in the construction. Something like the Moss Courthouse is probably going to take about six years to construct, and I'm talking about shoveling the ground until it gets completed, because it's going to be about a million square feet.

And maybe you don't know all of that answer right now. Yeah what I was going to share and then I'll turn to Justice Hill. Just Madam Chair, that's exactly what we're working on in the roadmap to accelerate and streamline courthouse construction. The budget included very specific language of things to look at. you know our internal processes and there's oversight there's the construction industry writ large so resources are definitely going to be a component of that but that 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 10th just at a high level but then Justice Hill did you want to I was just going to Anna I think in part we can do it faster and and that is to

yes which is I think this partnership that we're talking about we've had a good partnership with the Judicial Council with respect to construct 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 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 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 want to say that for the right to save your email in mind to

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 we're 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, 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 want to do is authorize, bust our tails and get it done and get 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 want to 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 going to be available not as 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

this remark but I'm going to double down on it the notion that we're committed to being good partners with counties with communities and others it's one 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. 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 want to 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 course leadership. and they're having a public meeting, not in the CEQA perspective, but to kind of let the public know that there is a courthouse coming and we're looking for properties and send us your properties. So we are moving fast regarding acquiring properties on the projects that got authorized this year. Today we are in Kern County looking at properties for the new courthouse there.

consider broadening methodology ideas. We've been at this for about 18 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 it changes again to make it more reflective of the needs of the state will definitely do it thank you and judge topia does not know

mentioned during the tour we have 36 courthouses 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 replaced 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 160 years under the current methodology so we felt that was critical to sit down and come up with a better plan to really focus on data to ensuring that our decisions in 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 were able to set an example for perhaps a new way to look at courthouse construction moving forward which is again data and form but meets the needs of the community that we serve but really 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 are going to tackle this problem to ensure that we meet the needs of the public that we both serve.

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

our advocacy is we believe that it's appropriate to update a comprehensive assessment every 10 years.

Generally speaking, yes, we're not authorized to acquire land before we have an approved project. And then there's rationale behind that. 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 new ways and flexibility and things like that as well. One of the risks, though, is plans change, right? you have leadership changes within the courts or counties etc where you know

all right if you turn to page 7 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 million dollars including 65 million from the state court facilities construction fund and 15 million dollars from the general fund and these dollars are allocated at the discretion of judicial counsel. However the 2627 budget did include a one-time augmentation for the Orange Central Justice Center project. Specifically the budget provided 36 million from the general fund and 3.6 million from the state court facilities construction fund in 26 27 and a similar amount in 27 28 if you turn to page 8 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 a hundred and ninety eight million dollars including a hundred and four million dollars from the court facilities trust fund and ninety four million dollars from the general fund is provided annually to support facility operations and maintenance costs also occasionally facility and 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 187 related to appellate courts and the total value of these projects amounted to six point one billion dollars the 2627 budget provided a hundred and fifty one million dollars in additional one-time funding to address some of these needs including 1 million specifically for deferred maintenance and other extensive repairs at the Compton Courthouse happy to address any questions when that time

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 Executives 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 L.A. was Long Beach in 2013. 26 other counties in California have opened a courthouse since L.A. 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 mr. Soderbergh 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 you some of you saw firsthand this morning on the tour of the Compton courthouse what that looks slide. 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 eighty eight point one million dollars a fifteen dollar 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 original to the building that the companies that make their parts no longer exist Some of the replacement parts must be made on a 3D 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 few for the flood an elderly woman who used a walker needed to reach her hearing on the eighth 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 and mosques chills chilled water system flooded an electrical room and caused a building while 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 courthouses 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 1.4 billion of that 6.1 billion dollars that that mr. Soderbergh just mentioned in deferred maintenance backlog even with this year's increase in deferred maintenance funding which we're so grateful for a hundred and fifty million 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 twenty three point nine million 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 two hundred and thirty three million dollars below our calculated funding need that twenty three point nine million is the equivalent of over 150 staff that we could not we could have hired to help litigants and 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 going to 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 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 alarm panel replacement of which had been requested and was estimated to cost sixty seven thousand four hundred ninety three dollars instead when it fell the building is now on a 24-7 fire watch at a cost of twenty five thousand dollars 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 $163.2 million is a good start. Fixing problems before they fail is the fiscally responsible choice for the state for the courts and for the people we serve Thank you and I look forward to your questions at the appropriate time thank you thank you okay okay so thank you thank you

answer questions thank you just as so probably thinking me again I I will be

stand ready for any questions thank you mr. Ahmed any further comments yeah maybe

What was the name of that funding source the second one The facility modifications is made out of six categories per our policy So we do emergencies When emergencies happen we fix those The second one is we categorize as a priority too It needed That means that it is a building system or a building equipment that has passed its life expectancy

Okay, thank you. Senator Reyes, you want to kick us off? Thank you. In the report it says that the deed is about, it's just over six billion dollars to take care of all of these but you have the various categories that you've talked about but priority number one the critical need what would it cost to take care of the critical deed or are you able to do that with this 151 bucket if

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 on judicial the fact that 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 my chair Richardson about how great that need was so I just want to go back to to that question then that I just asked so priority one and priority two could be met with another 45 million okay that's I wanted to be sure that I was clear on that and the request is and I appreciated that was included that the request is for sustained ongoing funding for deferred maintenance to the tune of 400 million per year and you believe that that would be an amount that if 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 years right for 10 to 12 years so 400 million dollars a year for 10 to 12 years to clear the deferred maintenance backlog

I really appreciate your answer. I told her it was a lot, but she said it's not enough. And then my final question is the additional money that was specifically for the Orange Central Justice Center project. Why so much money? Why was so much money channeled to Orange? Yeah, that was funded through a special budget change concept. Yes.

My follow-up question is, as the request for that money came in, almost $80 million. As the request came in for that, how was that vetted? How was that compared to other requests for money? Nothing against Orange. Many of our colleagues are from Orange, and they would be fighting for them. But I'm trying to understand if this is data-driven, how was that project given a priority to the tune of almost 80 million dollars? It was an existing construction project that had started and if we did not get

So this building was purchased from the county? Yes, it was transferred from the county. Transferred or purchased? Transferred. So there was no exchange of money? Yeah, the county's put in what we call the county facilities fund. Yeah, yeah, sure.

you're giving an answer is that if this was the counties 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

It's my understanding of this building when it was determined, it was determined to be like red tag, like it could not be used. So it became a priority because it was no longer an ability to use it, especially when the fire system was discovered. And they opened up the rafters and 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 architectural drawings. But we now are the owners of that building. And therefore, that's why it's our responsibility. There wasn't a purchase between us.

Okay. Okay. And then, as you said, then it is determined to be a priority. And that's what I'm getting at. It isn't just that, oh, you know, we need an extra $80 million. Can you push that through the budget? There was a process to determine that it was a priority. Yeah, and similar to the Spring Street building. Not on our list, not on any radar. And then all of a sudden the federal government says, you are no longer going to be able to be a tenant in that building. And all of a sudden that project in Los Angeles became the number one priority last year. So while we haven't built something new, we put that as the first priority for the branch and the legislature saw fit to agree with that. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. yes let me feel further build upon what Senator Reyes is saying don't leave yet mr. mr. Z so don't the counties contribute annually towards the services that are provided in the courthouses from a facility standpoint or from a there is a county facility payment that is made

to effectuate the transfer. And when you say those amounts are fixed, how are they fixed? Are they

And again, the counties saw this coming years in advance. And so when they did the look back period, it was during a point when they were barely spending any money on maintenance of our buildings. Right. So building upon what Senator Reyes was saying, though, is if the state of California was under the impression we were getting something of value and hence what we were getting of value, we were willing to take on a greater role of payment because we're getting the value of this building and if in fact what we received is not what we thought then that leads to not that we necessarily are going to move forward with anything we not saying that but our point is what senator Reyes and I concur with her is that you know sometimes now we getting stuck fixing something that we didn't think we were going to have to fix I thought I was getting 10 apples in a bag and in fact I got four so you know okay so then maybe that's also reflective in when we're going to do something else whether it's new judgeships or whether it's whatever maybe adjustments need to be considered based upon impacts I think that's what we're saying is just if we can have flexibility in one area then we need to always be flexible in all areas understanding that different things happen and if they happen and we end up having to hold the bag with it then we may then want adjustments not adjustments considerations and that's what totally and I would want to clarify similar to the deferred maintenance where we said it was six billion dollars and we have some of these but many of these buildings do have some share owed amounts by the county so it's not a full hundred percent payment on our end sometimes they are the major occupant and we pay a share the you know the say 40 percent or 30 percent so it varies depending on how much of the space was shared use and that they still there's a joint occupancy agreement without that that lays out all the responsibilities and what what happens in terms of any any payments of maintenance that happen building the Judicial Council we own title to this building we own our equity share is 66% so the other 34% is owned by the county that Joe that joint occupancy agreement governs who pays what for what. Madam Chair, your example, I would say the and hold me the trial court facility act of 2002, the four apples that you got when you were supposed to get 10 happened in 2002 or early 2000s and there was statute that governed you know what you've got is you're good with it. So that is an example that's where we sit with this portfolio right but we didn't know we were good with it at that time but the statute had I don't guardrails or requirements or agreements and and the one of our challenges is as much as we have a I think about good we do have a very good governance process it's it's a factor of a lack of funding I mean if we could do more if we had more funding would be further down the list to a a mosque. We'd be further down. We would have, and we've had good partnerships with the administration and the legislature, and this year's budget is a reflection of all three coming together to do that. Thank you. Your leadership has been tremendous. But ultimately, this is the first time, and I've been in the branch for 15 years, we've gotten this kind of infusion from any source, I mean, be it the legislature or the administration in proposed budgets that then come to fruition so we really do appreciate that very much witness to what

there are any other comments yes madam chair my name is Kelvin Feiler and I currently serve as a supervising judge at the Compton Courthouse and I didn't have a question but I was gonna stand up because I wanted to come up here and say thank you I want to say thank you for holding this session in the Compton Courthouse in my hometown and I was listening very carefully this first time I've been through an entire legislative session like this, and I was extremely impressed by both of the state senators, your inquiries the fact that you asked the panelists to give you some suggestions give you specific suggestions and said and you don have to give them to me now give them to us later that shows sincerity That shows legislative empathy. That shows humility. And that shows sincerity on the part of both of you. And I just wanted to commend you for that and say thank you. And you're always welcome back to the Compton Courthouse. Thank you.

not sure I could say it any better my name is judge Ashley price and I am the assistant supervising judge here and I would just echo judge filers comment it's been such a pleasure to host you and your staff on multiple occasions to this courthouse and we just have such a tremendous amount of pride in our community and so the fact that you've also taken an interest in our community in our courthouse and come here with your staff on several occasions means so much to us so thank you for being here asking such thoughtful questions and trying to get us the help that we need to keep this courthouse running so we can bring justice to our community and continue to do our jobs to the best of

Tapia with his support we were able to create a very unique courtroom here in the Compton Courthouse it was the first of its kind in the state of California it's a dependency courtroom that serves this specific area the six closest zip codes to the courthouse for families who have dependency issues abuse and neglect allegations against them but they have children under the ages of three the science tells us that that's the most important time for early intervention and support for our most vulnerable children but also our most vulnerable parents during that postpartum time and so we looked at the data and this area was particularly impacted by dependency cases so the court wanted to do something to bridge that gap and reach out to those families give them the support that they needed and the goal of the courtroom is to really keep children safe by keeping them safe at home by supporting their parents giving extra services and so one of our partners is here miss high muff right behind me from Children's Law Center and we've seen that when you do things differently you have great results so just as you have come and sat eye level with your constituents and taken testimony that's what I did in my courtroom as well is come down off the bench and speak to parents and find out what they really needed to try and get down to the root of the issues and let them know that in a community that sometimes has distrust of the court system that they were welcome to come to our courthouse and get help get support that they needed and so we're just very grateful that you came to support that courtroom I've since moved into a court but it's being manned now by another great judicial officer because of the continued support from the community as we try and really keep those families

Hi, I'm Leslie Heimov. I'm the executive director at Children's Law Center of California, and as Judge Price noted, we do staff the Hope Court up on the 12th floor of this building. I'm here today on behalf of the Dependency Council Coalition. We are the court-appointed attorneys who represent every parent and child involved in the child welfare system across California. We support the actions that have been taken by the legislature to increase funding for judgeships and facilities. However, Senator Richardson, challenge accepted. I would like to tell you what we need and can follow up after this hearing to offer a solution. I was struck by your opening comments in that while everything you said about access to justice and the need for resources was spot on, there was one missing piece, the attorneys. Specifically dependency attorneys. As I noted, some who work on the 12th floor of this building, which you visited last spring. We are woefully underfunded and in many counties including Los Angeles on the verge of a crisis due to unprecedented attrition and a dearth of unqualified applicants will a dearth of qualified applicants willing to accept sub- substandard compensation for some of the most challenging work an attorney can undertake Like the judges you heard from this afternoon dependency counsel typically earn 20 to 30 percent less even more if you include benefits than the county counsel who appear in the same courtrooms on the same cases Everything said today regarding judicial compensation applies to dependency counsel. There is no system in place to ensure fair compensation. The sporadic increases in funding we have seen over the past 30 years, and I've been at CLC for 34 years, have come through legislative action. Accordingly, it is critically important that as this committee continues to work to address the funding needs related to facilities and judgeships that you also take a hard look at the Dependency Council funding. We cannot continue to meet the high standards the courts and families we represent deserve without adequate resources. And I would add, I anticipate hopefully a question, if you would like to see more HOPE courts throughout LA County, you would need to double our funding for us to staff those courts it costs us twice as much to staff a court like Hope Court as it does for us to staff a traditional dependency courtroom and that is not sustainable and not something we can do

thank you thank you good afternoon I'm on judge Nicole Bershon from Los Angeles and as of Saturday I'll be the president of the California Judges Association. I just want to thank both of you so much, and I don't think what the public knows, this isn't the first time that you've asked about judges and buildings and salaries. You both have been so kind with your time and your resources, and you've talked to us offline at your offices and said to us, how can we help you? And today you made it resoundingly clear that you're interested in helping us, and we so appreciate it. on behalf of the 2200 members of our organization, judges, commissioners, justices, tribal judges, ALJs, we want to thank you. And I just want to brag a little. You got to see, we talked about the diversity in judicial excellence, and it represented in this room You heard from our incredible vice presidents Judges Vallejo and Walton and you heard from Judge Tapia and we have our incoming presiding judge Judge Rick Ocampo and assistant presiding judge, Judge Verastegui. There's also Judge Jackson from Riverside, and Judge Puente Porras. I'm going to call her out because I saw her, and Judge Brody. These are our members, and they are incredible, and they work hard every day, and they represent the broad diversity of our judiciary and the communities they serve so on behalf of all of us I just want to thank you for your time and your commitment we really really appreciate it and we look forward to working with you to come up with some solutions so thank you so very much thank you seeing no other public comment