STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - courts.state.nh.usSTATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH PRESENTATION TO...

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH

PRESENTATION TO HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE JANUARY 22, 2009

INDEX

TAB 1 Judicial Branch Outline

• Core functions of the judiciary • Structure chart

TAB 2 FY 2008-2009 Budget

• Expenditures as percentage of state budget • How FY 2009 appropriation was spent • Nov 18, 2008 letter to Gov. on FY 09 reductions • Reductions bring FY 08-09 budget below

maintenance level • Current status of funded initiatives FY 08-09 • Current judicial positions and vacancies • Current non-judicial staff and vacancies • Accountability for human resources

TAB 3 FY 2010-2011 Request

• Oct. 17 letter on FY 10-11 budget request • Detail on FY10-11 budget request (maintenance

and change) • Jan 12 response to request for proposed

reductions • FY 10 budget at 97% of FY 09; FY 11 budget at

100% of FY 09

TAB 4 Caseload

• Filings by jurisdiction and year TAB 5 Court Technology

• Information technology infrastructure needs

PRESENTATION TO HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE JANUARY 22, 2009 Index TAB 6 Revenue

• Fine collections and initiatives • Fines collected by type and by year • Descriptions of unrestricted and restricted

revenue TAB 7 Security

• Court security TAB 8 Alternate Dispute Resolution

• Office of Mediation and Arbitration TAB 9 Facilities

• Judicial branch facilities • January 2009 Facilities Needs Report

TAB 10 Innovations

• Opportunities for further efficiency • Initiatives to improve efficiency

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH

Core Functions

The function of the Judicial Branch is to provide a forum for fair and efficient resolution of legal disputes, through trials, mediations and hearings, in order to protect the safety and stability of our communities. Judges In resolving criminal and civil disputes, judges and marital masters follow the provisions of the NH Constitution; state statutes (RSAs) adopted by the legislature, which can include specific requirements that courts must follow in certain types of cases; administrative rules that are adopted by state agencies; local ordinances. Law clerks (Supreme and Superior Court only) assist judges in legal research and writing. Court Clerks, Registers And Staff Clerks and staff carry out a core responsibility of the court system which is to maintain a formal legal record of criminal and civil proceedings. Non-judicial staff schedule trials and hearings, process all pleadings and court orders in cases, and interact daily with members of the public. Administration

The Chief Justice or the Administrative Judge in each trial court jurisdiction is responsible for administration, operations, and improvements. The Administrative Office of the Courts provides centralized support to all courts in fiscal management, budget preparation, information technology, accounting, and purchasing. The Office of General Counsel oversees legislative affairs and judicial and staff education. Judicial Conduct Committee

The Judicial Conduct Committee operates independently of the court system and has a separate budget and administrator.

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE COURT SYSTEM

SUPREME COURT Five Justices

• Has mandatory jurisdiction, by court rule, in most cases arising from trial courts, and discretionary jurisdiction in appeals and some criminally related matters

• Issues advisory opinions for the state executive and legislative branches

• Provides a public Law Library • Provides centralized support services to the courts in the areas of

budget, finance, technology, personnel, and security through the Administrative Office of the Courts

PROBATE COURT DISTRICT COURT

SUPERIOR COURT

FAMILY DIVISION

19 Justices sit in 10 counties

• Hears cases involving torts, contracts, real property rights, and other civil matters ($1,500 minimum, no maximum)

• Has jurisdiction over marriage dissolution and custody/ support cases

• Has jurisdiction over felonies

• Hears misdemeanor appeals from District Court

• Holds jury trials

Currently located in eight counties

• Will be expanding into Hillsborough County in FY 2009

• Has jurisdiction over all types of family law matters including divorce, child custody and visitation, child support, juvenile matters, domestic violence, guardianship of minors, and adoptions

Currently 9 Judges sit in 10 counties

• Has jurisdiction over cases dealing with adoption, termination of parental rights, guardianships, trusts, wills, estates, and involuntary commitments

54 full- and part-time Justices sit in 33 District Courts

• Hears civil cases involving torts, contracts, and real property ($0-25,000)

• Hears small claims ($0-5,000)

• Has jurisdiction over misde-meanors, traffic violations

• District Court hears domestic violence petitions concurrent with Superior Court and juvenile matters

Effective October 7, 2008

The Judicial Branch Budget for FY 2009 as of 12/15/08 is $72,883,773 excluding revolving funds.

*The largest components of Current Expense include:2,083,692$ Telephone, Telecom, Postage, Printing/Supplies

779,763$ Interpreter Services749,679$ NH Law Library & Court Legal Library Materials482,803$ Equipment Replacement419,777$ In-state Travel403,988$ Workers Compensation

JUDICIAL BRANCHFY 2009 APPROPRIATION

Current Expense* & Other

$7,091,73910%

Facilities Expense $8,434,266

12%

Judicial Salaries & Benefits

$16,118,98422%

Non-Judicial Staff Salaries & Benefits

$36,883,49551%

Jury Fees$1,073,253

1% Sheriffs & Court Security

$3,282,0364%

Tnr SrnrE oF NSupnrME

EW HnUPSH ICounr

RI *

JOHN T. BRODERICK, JRCHIET JUS] ICT

SUPNEME CQURT BUILDINGUNE UHAHLI5 UOh URIVE

coNcoRD, N.H.03301(603) 271-3751

FAX: (603) 271-6630email: jbroderick @ courts.state.nh.us

November 18, 2008

His Fxcel lency, John H. LynchGovernerr, State of New HampshireState HouseConcord, New Hampshire 03301

Dear Governor Lynch:

Your counsel , Michae I Delaney, recent ly cal led me to ask that the judic ia lbranch submit to your office ideas for how we could reduce our ulready-reducedFY 2009 budget by an add i t iona l $3 mi l l ion . You w i l l reca l l tha l i jena te B i l l 321 ,enac ted las t June, requ i res tha t the jud ic ia l b ranch reduce i t s F \ '2009appropr iat ion by $1.6 mi l l ion in addi t ion to our "average histor icai i lapse amountof $1.1 mi l l ion per f iscal year." This total of $2.7 mi l l ion amounts to almost 4% ofthe onginal $73.8 mi l l ion appropr iated by the legis lature for the operat ion of thejudic ia l branch in FY 2009. Budget cuts in the judic ia l branch, l i l . re many of theexecut ive branch agencies, are part icular ly di f f ieul t because much of our budgetis made up of the cost of the employees and faci l i l ies needed to accompl ish ourmission. Judic ia l branch personnel comprise 75% of our budget; faci i i t iesamount to 12o/o, re imbursing sher i f fs for secur i ty in super ior court faci l i t ies totalsZok' , and jury fees are over 1%. This leaves less than 10% of our budget for a l lo iner expenses.

BUDGET RSDUCTIONS ALREADY TAKEN IhI FYOS

To reduce our expendi tures by the amount enacted by the legis lature inSenate Bi l l 321, we have aiready taken the fol lowing steps, many of which impactour c i t izens and the operat ion of state and local qovernment:

1. Today we hold vacant 36 of the 614 ful l - t ime permanent non- judic ia lpostt ions (6% of our non- judic ia l workforce). Vacancies exist in al l partsof the judic ia l branch and, except in extraordinary c i rcumstances, we areholding vacant the posi t ions of a l l employees who leave.

5.

The Legis lature has author ized sg fut l - t ime judic ia l posi t ions. in NewHampshire t r ia l eourts. we current ly operate wi th seven judic ia lvacancies ( three in the super ior court , three in the c j ist r ict courts, andone in the probate courts) , a number that is almost l?% af our fu l l - t imejudic iary. We have asked you not to f i l l these vacancies at th is t ime and,with great reluctance, we now extend that request such that new judgesto f i l l those vacanctes are nominated and conf i rmed in a manner that thenew judges would not begin unt i l on or af ter June 5, 2009 { the f i rstworkday that wi l l be paid in FY 2010). Later in th is tct ter ( i tem #1 onpage 3), we also make the same request with respe ct to lhe recenlly-announced upcoming vacancy on the supreme cour l . whi le we usepart- t ime and ret i red judges to make up some of the lost judge t ime,each tr ia l court jur isdir : t ion shares part of the burden caused by unf i l ledjudic ia l posi t ions. The remaining judges are struggr ing to make up thedi f ference in judge t ime and recent ly al l of my col leagues on thesupreme court have agreed to each take a turn in the trial courts to try tolessen that burden. This act ion comes at some consequence to theoperation of the supreme court.

wi th some trepidat ion, we directed our inter im secur i ty manager to notspend funds appropr ia ted fo r secur i ty sc reen ing equ ipment . wh i le weare aware of the r isks th is creates, we recognize that these di f f icul teconomic t imes require that we el iminate even very i rnportant equipmentand services.

we have reduced mileage reimbursement for non-judicial emproyees lo40 cents per mi le and we have reduced mi leage reinrbursement forjudges and masters to 25 cents per mi le fo r th is en t i i c f rsca l year .

We have reduced memberships in professionai orgarr izat ions.

We have signi f icanl ly reduced our cont inuing educat ion budget byeliminating out of slate programs and overnight confefences, exceptthose already under contract .

7. The bureau of courl facil i t ies in the deparlment of administrative seryicesagreed to reduce i1s FY 2009 expendi tures by $150,000 (almost Za/o ofthe faci l i t ies budqet) .

B. We are reducing legal l ibrary expendi tures by el iminat ing some servicesand by migrat inq to electronic legal subscr ipt ions whc,.n those chanqessave money.

3 .

4 .

n

Superior Court Chief Just ice Robert J. Lynn has directedsuper ior cour l suspend jury t r ia ls for one month th is f iscal

that eachyear.

10. We have reduced per diem judge days in the distr ict court and fami lydiv is ion by 200 for FY 2009.

fven with al i of the above act ions, we cannot guarantee we wi l l re ach the ful l$2.7 mi i l ion dol lars of reduced expendi tures envis ioned by Senate Bi l l 321.

FURTHTR PO$SIBLT BUDGET RENUCTIONS IN FYOS

This br ings me to the request for an addi t ional $3 mi l l ion i i r reducedexperrdi tures. As ment ioned above, because so much of our buclget is made upof personnel and faci l i ty expenses, we have l imi ted f lexibi l i ty i r r f incl ing otherbudget reduct ions. Moreover, we have already exhausted many of the cclstsavings in the l is t above cf act ions taken to meet the budget reduct ion in SenateB i l l 321 . F ina l i y cons t ra in ing our ab i l i t y to fu r ther reduce our budg;c t i s the fac tthat more than one*third of FY 2009 has already passed. Nevert l re less, we couldtake the fol lowing act ions now for a total est imated savings of an addi t ional$431 .789 .

t2 , "

3.

4 .

5.

Ask you in fi l l ing the vacancy ereated by the retirement of Supremecourt Just ice Galway 1o f i l l l t in a manner that the new just iee would notbegin unt i l on or af ter June 5, 2009 ( the f i rst workday that wi l l be paid inFY 2010) for a savinqs in FY 2009 of $C9,373.

Have al l our employees shut of f their computers on weekends, savingan est imated $8,500 in ut i l i ty costs. shutdawn is not possible everynight due to downioads and virus scans which run at r"r ight .

Disconnect twenty-nine underut i l ized phone l ines for a savings of$10 ,150

Make greater use of state supply and printing contracts, more carefullyscrut in ize al l purchases, and postpone purchases where possible for anes t imated sav ings o f $25,000.

Suspend payment of a l l remaining memberships in professionalorganizations for the remainder of FY 2009, in addition to the reducedmemberships prevlously ordered, for a savings of $66,000.

Further reduce subscr ipt ions to local court law l ibrar ies for an est imatedsav ings o f $21,406.

7. Reduce acquis i t ions in the New Hampshire Law Library for anes t imated sav ings o f $15,000.

B. Further reduce our ccrnt inuing educat ion budget, such that the budgetfor FY 2009 would be reduced to 990,000, for a savirrgs of $4S,860. lnthe f i rst rounci of budget cuis, ment ioned above, th is i :ueiqet was

0 .

reduced by $64,140 from the legls lat ive appropr iat icn of $200,000 to$135 .860 .

9. Have the super ior court suspend jury t r ia ls for a second month in Fy2009, which would mean two months of no jury t r ia is between Januaryand June 2009, for an est imated savings of $73,000.

10. Ask the county sher i f fs to reduce secur i ty in super ior court faci l i t ies, inpart due to the suspension of jury t r ia ls and the exist ing judic ia lvacancies, for an est imated savings of $50,000.

11. Reduce law clerk t ravel by pooi ing resources at one si te and usingelectronic and telephonic meet ings for an est imated savings of $5,000.

12. Ask the judic ia l conduct commit tee to reduce i ts expendi tures by$5,000.

13. The bureau of court facil i t ies in the department of acinrinistrativeservices informs us the two part-t irne positions which have becomevacant wi l l not be f i l led for a savings of $38,b00.

FURTHER PO$SIBLT BUNSET RTDUCTIONS IhJ FYOS RNQUIRINGLEGISLATIONI

ln addi t ion to the above, other potent ia l savings exist which would requirelegis lat ive act ion. Unless such act ion is taken soon, however, these i tems would beof l i t t le help in FY 2009. These i tems include the fol iowinq:

1. Amend RSA 499:18-b to remove civ i l service of process by sher i f fs forindigent plaint i f fs as a charge against the state for a monthly averagesav incs o f $1 .333 .

El iminate ai l commuting mi leage reimbursement for judges andmasters, who current ly receive taxable mi leage reimbursemenl for thepoftion of their commute to their home court in excess of twentv-fivemi les fo r a month ly average sav ings o f $2 ,417.

Terminate the lease with Merr imack county of the Merr imack countyProi:ate court and move the probate court into the superior courtbLr i lc i ing for a monthly savings of g 8,053.

POS$IBLE PERSONNEL INITIATIVrS

We have a lso considered personnel in i t ia t ives to save some personnelexpense. These inc lude the fo l lowina.

2

1 . Offer our non-judicial anci judicial staff the opporlunity to take voluntaryunpaid leave t ime for short durat ions for the resl of FY 2009. For non- judic ia lstaf f , th is proposal ra ises issues of the payment of d isabi l i ty ret i remenf ordeath i :enef i ts should an employee become disablecj or c j ie whi le onvoluntary unpaid leave. We are explor ing these issues with of f ic ia ls at theNew i iampshire Ret i rement System. In addi t ion, we wi l l rar ise th is matter wi thCommissioner l - lodgdon of the department of administrat ive services to see i tth is proposal ra ises any concern wi th her. Based on a survey we did of ouremployees, we est imate that voluntary unpaid leaves could resul t in asavlngs of $55,000 for the remainder of Fy 2009.

Offer some non-judicial employees who are eligible to retire the opportunity toretire from iudicial branch service with the understanding that we would hirethem back on a temporary par l - t ime basis not to exceed twenty-nine hoursper week. l f we of fered this ret i rement incent ive and f i f teen employees tookadvantage of i t , we est imate the savings to the judic ia l brarrch in Fy Z00g {obe $68,1 88. l t shou ld be noted that some, but not al l , of those savings woulc lbe of fset by an lncrease in the expenses of the department of administrat iveservices for ret i ree heal th ins ' : rance. For th is feason, we wi l l ra ise th is matterwith Commissioner Hodgdon of the department of adminis l ra l ive services.

2"

POS$IBI -E REVTNUT RAISING IDEAS

We have also brainstormed about revenue-rais ing ideas. Some of the ideaswe have developed require legis lat ive act ion and are, thbrefore, subject to the samettme constraints as discussed above. Others of the ideas l is ted below we couldtnrplement pursuant to the supreme court 's ru lemaking author i ty, but we are loathetO cir : so unlcss there is 1o be a general increase in fees acfoss s la le governnrent.Our revenue-rais ing ideas are as fo l lows:

Amend RSA 188-F:31 to increase the penal ty assessment on cr iminalfines and dedicate the increase to the general fund. Each one percentincrease in the penal ty, assessment would generate an est imatedaddi t ional revenue per month of $19,/s0. l t should be noted that thereis a t ime lag before an increase in the penatty assessment producesaddl t ional revenue so this idea would generate some, but not much,addi t ional revenue in Fy 2009.

2 . Double to $10 the fee for divorce certificates anddivorccs arrd double tecords lesearch fees |"or anreirenue per montir of $2S,000.

certi i ied copies ofcsl i r r ra leei add i t ional

3. charge $10 for a wr i t of execut ion, for which no charge is currenf lyimposed, for an est imated addi t ional revenue per month of $400.

4, Increase f i l ing fees, except for smal l c la ims, in al l courts for anest imated addi t ional revenue per month of $23,000 for each $5increase.

FURTHER PO$SIBLE PERSONNTT CUTBACKS

Even i f a l l of the above were implemented, we do not even come close to therequested addi t ional budget reduct ion of $: mi l l ion" That leaves as the only opt ion afu r ther reduc t ion in personne l cos is . On ly two cho ices are ava i lab le , ne i lher o fwhic l r we recommend or encourage because they impact cr i t ical services. Onewou ld be a reduc l ion in per d iem judge t ime, and the o ther wou ld be layo f fs o f non-iud ic ia l oe rsonne l .

1 . Regarding per diem judges, each day of per diem judge t ime, ef fect iveJanuary 2, 2009, costs the judic ia l branch $538.25. Because ofhear ings a l ready schedu led , i t wou ld be d i f f i cu l t to e l im ina te any perd iem judge days be fore January . From the beg inn ing o f January un t i lJune 4, 2009 ( the last workday that wi l l be paid in FY 2009),approximately 950 days of per diem judge t ime wi l l be scheduled. Anyel iminat ion of these days impacts the fami ly div is ion most heavi ly.Whi le some smal l fur ther reduct ion in per diem judge t ime is possiblebeyond the 200 days already commit ted, we would nol on our ownorder a wholesale reduci ion in th is area. l t would have too great animpact on the del ivery of just ice to New Hampshire 's c i t izens.

Regarding possible layoffs of non- judic ia l personnel , the judic ia l branchis already holding vacant over 6% of i ts non- judic ia l posi t ions. Formany reasons, layoffs now at the level needed to reach a $3 mi l l ionbudget reduct ion th is year would devastate the judic ia l branch for yearsto come. Tlrus, my col leagues and I wi l l not consider them withoutlegis lat ive act ion. Here is how we calculate the impact of each layoff .We assume an average annual salary, ef fect ive January 2, 2009, of$42,160, plus the benef i l percentage of 48.3%, for a total annual costper employee of $65,523. Div id ing the annual cost by twelve y ie lds amonthly savings per employee la id of l of $5,210. These savings areoffset by a total average layoff cost of $7,313 per employee, made up ofan est imated average leave payout of $3,156 per employee plus threemonths of full health benefits and three more months of 50% healthbenef i ts (see Laws of 2007, Chapter 263:74, lV) cost ing $4,157. Sincelayoffs require notice, they could not occur unti l at least early 2009,making them impract ical because of {he l imi ted savinqs they coulc lenQender.

L .

We know this is a very diff icult t ime for our state and nation. We have writtenthis letter in the spirit of cooperation, trying to do what we reasonably ean to helpnarrow the looming deficit. In fact, some of the items we have put on the table inthis letter, we believe are not reasonable, but we have done so to squeeze everydollar we can from our FY 2009 budget. We stand ready to discuss these items withvou.

REDUCTIONS BRING FY 2008-2009 BUDGETS BELOW MAINTENANCE

FY 2008 FY 2009 Amount Amount (in Millions) (in Millions) Maintenance Funding Level 68.4 69.3 New Initiatives Funded 1.2 1.2Operating Budget 69.6 70.5 Reduction -1 -1.6Additional Reduction -0.4Average Historical Lapse -1.1 -1.1Net Maintenance Amount 67.5 67.4 Amount Below Maintenance -0.9 -1.9

INITIATIVES FY 2008 FY 2009 Current Status

Hire nine case managers - four in superior court, two in probate court, three in family division. They will assist pro se litigants by helping them to understand the court process, helping them complete forms and answering questions.

396,793 460,175 Case Managers are employed in the four largest superior courts. Two Service Center Coordinators were added in the probate court. Two Case Managers were added to the Family Division in FY 2008 in Strafford and Merrimack County. The FY 2009 Case Manager position has not been filled yet.

Hire 10 additional clerical support positions in the family division as supported by the recent weighted caseload study. This will help to relieve the backlog of case processing that exists in some locations.

315,937 331,729 Hired in the Family Division

Provide training on delivery of service for judges and staff; incorporate productivity training into curriculum.

115,000 115,000 FY 2008 budget was fully expended. To meet budget reductions requested in FY 2009, $110,000 was cut.

Establish an Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Office which will be self-funding in future years.

137,500 Office was established and is self-funding.

RSA 519-B, Chapter 197:1, Laws of 2005, establishes screening panels for medical malpractice claims. Because of the increasing number of these claims, there will not be enough retired judges to chair the panels. Compensation for the chairperson is authorized under the statute.

20,000 20,000 $1,316 lapsed in FY 2008. Costs for FY 2009 are projected at $36,500, an amount in excess of the appropriation.

Move to full-time judiciary; convert five part-time judges to full-time. Four of these are funded for nine months in FY 08 and a full year in FY 09.

151,240 207,478 Four part-time judges were converted to full-time. There are a number of full-time judicial vacancies now.

30,000 30,000

2295 2295Total $1,168,765 $1,167,217

*Relying on the FY 09 appropriation, we reshaped the court system to adjust to the change in our constituency, particularlythe increase in self represented litigants. Subsequent reductions in that appropriation, requested by the Governor, require us to hold 40 staff positions vacant which has an impact on efficiencies and service to citizens.

Hire a part-time web support person to keep the content on our website current.

JUDICIAL BRANCH FY 2008-09 BUDGET INITIATIVES FUNDED*

Hired and hours extended for one day through a grant from the Charitable Foundation that expires on June 30, 2009.

Judicial (1) Total Funded FTE Need Plus CJ/AJ Need 1/22/2009 FT PT

Superior 31.2 0.6 31.8 25.1 (2) 3 0Probate 5.9 0.6 6.5 4.9 1 0District 28.1 1.0 29.1 25.9 3 3Family 19.3 0.0 19.3 18 (3) 0 0

Totals 84.6 2.2 86.8 74.9 7 3

Supreme Court (4) 5 0 0

1. CY 2007 judicial need rolled forward for family division sites established to date.

3. Family Division Judicial positions include 9 FTE's of judge time and 9 marital masters.

4. Judge Galway will retire February 1, 2009.

Vacancies

JUDICIAL POSITIONS AND VACANCIES

2. Superior court funded positions include 19 judges, 4.5 marital masters, and 1.6 FTE senior active status judges.

January 22, 2009

TemporaryFT PT FT PT Assignments

(FTE) (FTE) (FTE)

Supreme37 2.86 1 0.87 0.00

AOC49 1.60 0 0.67 0.80

Superior170 3.84 14 1.80 0.00

Probate61 2.00 4 0.60 0.22

District186 6.77 10 2.55 1.97

Family Division111 2.19 5 0.77 0.00

Judicial Conduct0 1.33 0 0.00 0.00

Total 614 20.59 34.00 7.26 2.99

Security16 140+/- 6 0.00 X

(Part of AOC)

Budgeted Positions Vacant Positions

NON-JUDICIAL STAFFING AND VACANCIESJanuary 22, 2009

Accountability for Human Resources

• In all trial courts, we decide where to assign our judges and staff based on a weighted caseload method designed by the National Center for State Courts, the nation’s leading resource for research and information for state courts. This model gives us an objective measure of the number of judicial and non-judicial full-time equivalent positions that are supported by the workload. •The workload, or weighted caseload, for each court site is based on the number of cases filed and the relative complexity of the cases. We strive to balance vacancies between the trial courts using the weighted caseload. • All trial court session schedules are tied directly to this weighted caseload analysis • Judicial officers and staff are assigned to locations based on the judicial and clerical weighted caseload • A significant number of our judges and staff serve in multiple court locations •The Judicial Branch uses a weighted caseload methodology for the calculation of part-time judicial salaries as required in RSA 491-A:3 and A:4.

FY 2010 FY 2011

Maintenance Request 80,719,931 81,235,369

97% of FY 2009 70,207,175

100% of FY 2009 72,378,531

Difference 10,512,756 8,856,838

97% of the FY 2009 Judicial Branch appropriation is $10,512,756 less than the Judicial Branch FY 2010Maintenance Budget Request.

100% of the FY 2009 Judicial Branch appropriation is$8,856,838 less than the Judicial Branch FY 2011Maintenance Budget Request.

FY 2010 Budget at 97% of FY 2009and FY 2011 Budget at 100% of FY 2009

Judicial Branch Information Technology

Infrastructure Needs

Outdated Judicial Branch infrastructure jeopardizes the courts' interfaces with Executive Branch administrative systems and courts administrative systems, and lowers Judicial Branch productivity. The Risks: Central servers at the AOC are outdated. If they fail:

All judicial branch judges and staff would lose use of:

• Payroll Systems

• Leave Systems

• Email System. 79 courts could not transfer revenue to General Fund.

All AOC staff would lose use of all computers.

Most AOC IT staff would be less productive. Financial/Human Resource programs are outdated. If they fail:

We could not process payroll.

We could not process employee leave records.

AOC could not process revenue sent from 79 courts.

Superior courts could not process jury payments

District and probate courts could not process per diem judge

compensation.

One-half of trial court servers and PC's are outdated.

Malfunctions reduce staff productivity.

Slow systems reduce productivity.

Modern software (Odyssey) cannot be installed without hardware

upgrades.

Document imaging uses obsolete hardware and software.

Most probate archives are not maintained electronically.

Financial Need: We project a need for $1.8 million annually to maintain and renew existing technical infrastructure. This need will continue into the future, indefinitely. There are three funding possibilities:

The Capital Budget Hardware and software both have short life spans, relative to capital bond

repayments.

Hardware and software must be continuously, not sporadically, updated.

The Operating Budget The State has a revenue shortfall.

Costs are great.

Without a dependable revenue stream, it is hard to plan.

A Dedicated Fund

Court users would pay the cost.

A steady revenue stream would facilitate planning.

Demand on Operating Budget would be reduced.

Foundation would be in place for new court technology projects.

The Proposal:

Create a dedicated fund to maintain and renew judicial branch IT

infrastructure.

Allocate 14% of court filing fees to IT infrastructure fund.

Increase court filing fees so fund is revenue neutral.

Allocate 16 2/3 % of fine penalty assessment revenue to IT infrastructure

fund.

Increase penalty assessment so fund is revenue neutral.

Annual Restricted Revenue is estimated at 1.8 Million.

Fine Collections • The Judicial Branch estimates the fine collection rate is 90% of all

fines within 3 years. • The Judicial Branch collects fines and penalty assessments for

various state agencies including Fish and Game, Safety, DRED, Police Standards and Training, and for cities and towns.

• When an unpaid fine is “defaulted” by the court, DMV revokes driving privileges and vehicle registration. The court may issue a bench warrant.

• Criminal cases represent 68% of all cases filed in the Judicial Branch.

New Fine Collection Initiatives for FY 2009 • Piloting centralized issuance of delinquent fine notices. • Introduction of District Court Fine Collection Protocol. • Contacting defendants whose fines were ordered to be paid

through the Department of Corrections using available DMV database to obtain current addresses.

• Working with the Department of Justice on collections. • Developing a comprehensive fine collection reporting system. • Proposed legislation to impose a $25 fee to obtain a time payment.

GENERAL FUND UNRESTRICTED REVENUE & TOWN FINES COLLECTED

ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUALFY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

MV-FINES $14,236,838 $13,222,433 $14,473,192 $15,093,220 $19,139,178 $19,960,521 $19,250,606ENTRY FEES 3,399,795 3,453,227 3,471,871 3,397,126 3,298,672 3,277,240 4,392,929FINES 2,938,602 2,910,519 2,845,939 2,973,644 3,065,331 2,988,899 3,015,747DEFAULT FEES-SAFETY 1,080,650 1,022,150 1,081,050 1,172,275 1,070,100 1,099,050 1,022,651FEES OTHER 885,646 889,693 2,111,198 2,078,178 2,215,523 2,267,603 2,058,902DEFAULT FEES 417,568 363,274 336,790 340,221 333,497 386,748 383,428BAR EXAM FEES $46,520 58,903 74,217 80,305 89,260 79,770 83,158INTEREST 16,937 11,880 17,403 24,734 34,962 24,266 8,988BAIL FORFEITURE 170,201 145,464 235,803 295,289 217,909 278,492 115,354MISC. SALES/REVENUE 41,845 36,083 25,729 61,848 35,413 89,413 97,556TOTAL $23,234,602 $22,113,626 $24,673,192 $25,516,840 $29,499,845 $30,452,002 $30,429,319

PERCENTAGE CHANGE 0.1% -4.8% 11.6% 3.4% 15.6% 3.2% -0.1%

TOWN FINES COLLECTED BY YEAR

TOWN FINES 1,078,982$ 1,084,334$ 1,591,189$ 1,630,571$ 1,609,707$ 1,651,380$ $1,495,421

1/23/2009

UNRESTRICTED GENERAL FUND REVENUE DERIVED FROM COURT FINES & FEES

Title Description Bail Forfeitures (Non-Driving Offenses) R/S 7309

Bail may be forfeited when a defendant fails to appear in court for an offense that does not involve driving. Bail forfeited on driving offenses is credited to a restricted revenue account within the Department of Safety.

Bar Exam Fees R/S 1361

$275 paid by those applying to take the New Hampshire Bar Exam, or seeking admission to the Bar through a motion.

Criminal Fines R/S 7308

Fines paid for criminal offenses described in Title LXII of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated.

Other Fees R/S 7312

Fees set forth in the court rules for filing certain motions and petitions, and for obtaining certificates, copies, writs, records research.

Entry Fees R/S 7310

Fees established by court rule for filing of civil and domestic actions ranging from $60 to $155.

Interest – Court System R/S 1501

Interest earned on operating accounts maintained by each court.

Misc. Sales/Revenue R/S 7509

Sale of publications, unclaimed funds, and other receipts.

Default Fee Collected by Courts R/S 7311

$50 penalty imposed by the courts for late payment of a fine, payment with a bad check, or failure to appear in court when an appearance is required.

Default Fees Collected by Safety R/S 1357

$50 administrative processing fee imposed by the Department of Safety when driving privileges have been suspended for failure to respond to a plea by mail complaint.

Motor Vehicle Fines Collected by Courts R/S 1441

When a driver has been issued a motor vehicle complaint, the driver may request a trial in the district court. Serious offenses are often issued as “must appear” meaning the driver must appear in court and cannot enter a plea by mail. Defendants found guilty are fined; these fines are payable through the courts.

Motor Vehicle Fines Collected by Safety R/S 1451

When a driver has been issued a complaint for a plea by mail offense, the driver may enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere and pay the fine directly to the Department of Safety.

Refund of Prior Year Expense R/S 2700

Refunds received for expenses paid in a prior fiscal year.

FINES & FEES COLLECTED IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH FOR RESTRICTED FUNDS Title Description Penalty Assessment R/S 2271, 2252

A portion of the penalty assessment is credited to this account pursuant to RSA 188-F:31. The portion has ranged from 10% to 15% of fines since the inception of the fund. The fund is administered by the Police Standards & Training Council, agency 087.

Facility Escrow R/S 7344

Seven percent of each entry fee collected in the courts is deposited in this fund for court facility improvements to existing facilities by the Department of Administrative Services as recommended and approved by the Supreme Court. RSA 490:26-c

Guardian ad Litem R/S 7195

$41 of each petition in domestic relations cases is deposited into this fund. Expenditures are made by the Judicial Council for mediators and guardians ad litem when the parents are indigent. RSA 461-A:17.

DRED/OHRV Fines R/S 5924

Fines for violations of RSA 215-A issued by a DRED officer. Agency 035.

Victims Assistance R/S 2231

A portion of the penalty assessment is credited to this account pursuant to RSA 188-F:31. The portion has ranged from 2% to 5% of fines. The fund is administered by the Department of Justice.

Court Modernization Fund (aka Computerization) R/S 2224

Authority was repealed effective July 1, 1998. This had been funded by 3% of the penalty assessment on fines (see RSA 188-F:31) pursuant to Chapter Law 220:2, Laws of 1992. Since being repealed receipts have been lapsed to the general fund at year end.

Admin Fees –Discretionary R/S 7431

The fund was created pursuant to RSA 597:38-a. A $50 administrative processing fee is imposed whenever a party recognized to appear for any offense defaults. The fee is retained by the court.

Bail Forfeiture – Driving Offense R/S 1523

Pursuant to RSA 597:38-b whenever a party recognized to appear for any offense involving driving defaults and the recognizance is declared forfeited, the forfeited recognizance is paid into this fund known as the default bench warrant fund established in RSA 263:56-d to pay the costs of state, county and local law enforcement officials who make arrests pursuant to bench warrants issued for persons improperly at large for driving-related offenses and to pay the cost of breath analyzer machines.

Probate Publications R/S 2091

Authorized under RSA 490:18-a, receipts and expenditures for probate legal notices are recorded in this fund. The revolving fund enables the probate courts to remit payment to the newspapers and take advantage of early payment discounts.

Transcripts Paid by Parties R/S 2149

These transcript deposits are held while the transcript is being prepared. Once invoiced, these funds are remitted to the transcriber and any excess is returned to the payer.

DRED Forests

R/S 1521

Fines for violations of RSA 79, and 216-227. Recorded as DRED, agency 035.

FINES & FEES COLLECTED IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH FOR RESTRICTED FUNDS Title Description Forms, Publications, Educational Material R/S 2063

Authorized under RSA 490:18-a the AOC is authorized to establish revolving funds for the printing and sale of forms, publications, and education materials, and such funds shall not lapse.

Law Library Revolving Fund R/S 3527

Created pursuant to RSA 490:25, all receipts of the law library from sales, fines, donations, gifts and grants are deposited into this fund. Funds may be used by the law library upon approval of the Supreme Court. The $225 motion fee to appear pro hac vice is dedicated to this fund pursuant to RSA 490:24.

Mediation & Arbitration Fund R/S 3115, 3172

Created under RSA 490-E:4, $5 is added to each entry fee collected in a probate court, each small claim entry fee collected in district court, and each entry fee collected in the family division to help fund paid mediation and arbitration in the judicial branch and support the operation of the office of mediation and arbitration. There is also a $50 administrative fee imposed for each party choosing a neutral third party for civil alternate dispute resolution under Superior Court Rule 170.

Pease Development Authority R/S 3857

Fines for violations of RSA 12-G:52.

COURT SECURITY In March 2005, a Supreme Court "Task Force on Court Security" was established to conduct a statewide assessment of security needs in the state courts, including prisoner transport, courthouse safety and standards and training for security personnel. At the time, Chief Justice Broderick said the Supreme Court wanted to make sure everything was being done to provide for the safety of the citizens, judges and staff who are in our buildings daily. We remain concerned about the same safety issues today. Following that committee’s report, a legislative study committee in November 2007 recommended passage of SB 79 which would have County Sheriffs provide all court security under budgetary control of the Department of Administrative Services with uniform equipment; uniform standards developed by Police Standards and Training; training by Police Standards and Training; and a pay increase to $100 per day. The bill was voted inexpedient to legislate during the 2008 session. The legislation has been reintroduced in the 2009 session and the Department of Administrative Services has funds in its “change” budget to implement the new system on a phased basis. Total annual cost when fully implemented would be $3 million in addition to current expenses.

CURRENT SECURITY PROGRAM •Judicial Branch provides security in most district court and family division locations ($1,908,249 in Judicial Branch FY09 budget) •Interim Security Manager; 10 full-time officers; 2 part-time officers •Approximately 140 per diem officers at $65 per day •County Sheriffs provide security to all courts located in superior court facilities •County Sheriffs are reimbursed from Judicial Branch budget for their security services at $65 per officer per day ($1,350,000 in Judicial Branch FY09 budget) •Some counties supplement the per diem

1

•County Sheriffs provide custody and control of prisoners while in any court in New Hampshire •County Sheriffs are reimbursed from Department of Administrative Services budget for custody and control of prisoners at $65 per officer per day ($1,457,510 in Administrative Services FY 09 budget).

2

Office of Mediation and Arbitration The Judicial Branch Office of Mediation and Arbitration was established in July 2007 by the legislature to manage, develop, and oversee the court system’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs. Mediation is used in a wide range of cases in the New Hampshire courts, including small claims, family law, probate and non-criminal superior court cases. The mission of the OMA is to make the ADR programs within the Judicial Branch an efficient, effective and useful part of the court process both in terms of cost and results. This work is particularly important during tough economic times because it provides a way, through court sponsored programs, to assist the public in getting their cases to resolution, without having to go to trial. Cases that settle with the assistance of mediation will move off the dockets, allowing those cases that really do need judge time to proceed to trial. We are now administering ADR programs in Family Division, voluntarily mediated adoptions, District Court small claims, Probate Court, and Superior Court. We have been working to develop programs or support ADR in administrative agencies and in the new business court docket. In 2009 we hope to initiate ADR at the Supreme Court level. Revenue Generated by the Office of Mediation and Arbitration When the OMA was established by the legislature, it was anticipated that the office would become self-funding and we expect to reach that goal in the upcoming biennium. Based on our experience so far, we project that we will generate about $116,000 annually from user fees and rostering fees for court-approved mediators. The original appropriation from the Legislature was $137,500.00. With the addition of pre-suit mediation and arbitration and the fees associated with that program, we expect to collect the additional $21,500.00. These funds go directly to support OMA administrative costs. The Office is also responsible for paying mediators in some of its programs. The OMA pays mediators on a fixed fee, per-case basis, from funds collected from $5.00 surcharges on filing fees in Probate and District Court small claims cases. These funds also pay mediators on a per-case basis in the voluntarily mediated adoption program which takes place in family division. Notable achievements of OMA:

• In 2008, 60 new mediators were trained for the Rule 170 program. We added new mediators in Family Division and Small Claims, and we added 4 new probate mediators.

• New initiatives we are working on include the Business Court docket pre-suit mediation - arbitration program in Superior Court and the Appellate Program.

JUDICIAL BRANCH FACILITIES (12 PERCENT OF JUDICIAL BRANCH BUDGET)

45 JUDICIAL BRANCH FACILITIES ONE SUPREME COURT 41 TRIAL COURT FACILITIES

27 FACILITIES HOUSE MULTIPLE TRIAL COURTS

14 STAND ALONE FACILITIES

SUPERIOR COURT CENTER

DISTRICT COURT, PROBATE COURT, FAMILY DIVISION, AND OFFICE OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OFFICES AT JOHNSON HALL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

41 TRIAL COURT FACILITIES HOUSE 79 COURTS

11 SUPERIOR COURTS

10 PROBATE COURTS (ALL CO-LOCATED WITH SUPERIOR COURTS.) THE PROBATE COURT ALSO CONDUCTS WEEKLY SESSIONS AT THE NH HOSPITAL FOR INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT HEARINGS.

33 DISTRICT COURTS

24 FAMILY DIVISION SITES (ALL CO-LOCATED)

WILL EXPAND INTO 7 ADDITIONAL SITES FOR A TOTAL OF 29 FAMILY DIVISION SITES (ALL CO-LOCATED)

1

41 TRIAL COURT FACILITIES

14 FACILITIES ARE STATE-OWNED

23 FACILITIES ARE LEASED 4 ARE SUBJECT TO LEASE/PURCHASE CONTRACTS THE BUREAU OF COURT FACILITIES MANAGES COURT FACILITIES NINE-MEMBER COURT ACCREDITATION COMMISSION

APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, AND BY THE SUPREME COURT.

SETS FACILITY STANDARDS

RECOMMENDS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS

2

NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH

JUDICIAL BRANCH FACILITIES NEEDS

January 5, 2009

This list of Court Facilities Needs is presented in three sections. The first section lists major construction projects - those involving partial or possibly full building construction. The second section includes limited construction projects. The third section includes maintenance projects that concern safety, security, or general maintenance issues and that, in the aggregate, will require significant state expenditures.

SECTION I: MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

1. LONG RANGE PLANNING FUNDING REQUEST (New to the list pursuant to Court Accreditation discussions) Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request for FY 2010-2011.

• A request for $500,000 is currently pending as part of the capital budget to address a 20-year master plan for court facilities. It will support a formal plan providing a consistent matrix to look at the needs and priorities of various court sites. The plan will aid the Legislature as it looks at which projects to include in the capital budget each year. In addition, it shall provide the public and communities with an insight into pending court capital projects and priorities to be considered as part of the process.

2. HILLSBOROUGH NORTH SUPERIOR/PROBATE COURT AND

MANCHESTER FAMILY DIVISION (Moved up from Section II: Limited Projects due to the extreme conditions described below.)

• The Hillsborough North Superior Court facility in Manchester was known to contain asbestos in spray-on fireproofing. The Legislature appropriated $2 million in the FY 2008-2009 Capital Budget for abatement of that hazardous condition. The abatement project stopped when consultants reported that there was more asbestos in the building than previously thought and that the HVAC system would not permit safe abatement of the asbestos in two distinct phases. A September 2007 limited non-destructive survey found asbestos in spray-on fireproofing, floor tiles, mastic used to secure floor tiles, fiberglass pipe insulation, and joint compound. While tests indicate the reported asbestos poses no current health or safety risk to staff and the public, disturbance of any asbestos-containing materials could jeopardize the health and safety of building occupants. In light of significant deferred maintenance of electrical and mechanical and other systems in the facility, the asbestos should be abated. Failure to abate could expose staff and the public to contamination by asbestos in the event of a burst pipe, fire, or other disturbance. Furthermore, such an unplanned disturbance could seriously interfere with access to justice in the Hillsborough North

2

catchment area. • The FY 2010-2011 Capital Budget includes a request for $17 million to abate the

asbestos in the Hillsborough North facility, gut the structure, and construct a new court facility in the remaining shell. The Legislature appropriated funds in the FY 2008-2009 Capital Budget for renovation of the first floor of the Manchester District Court building to provide space for expansion of the family division into that facility. The family division project should be completed in October/November 2009, permitting the Hillsborough North marital division staff to move into the Manchester Family Division space in December 2009. At the same time, and contingent on legislative approval of the referenced $17 million capital appropriation, the remainder of the Hillsborough North staff will move to the Hillsborough South facility in Nashua. Asbestos abatement will begin in the empty Hillsborough North facility in January 2010; Hillsborough North operations will resume in Manchester in July/August 2011.

3. MERRIMACK SUPERIOR/PROBATE/ DISTRICT COURT

• Combined capital budget funding in the amount of $400,000 was approved for

the current biennium for architectural services for this project along with Keene District Court/Family Division and Cheshire Superior/Probate Courts as noted in the following narratives.

• A new court will require a building similar in size to Hillsborough South which

contains a total of eight courtrooms. For the first time, in calendar year 2003, Merrimack Superior’s filings exceeded Hillsborough South Superior Court. While Hillsborough once again exceeded Merrimack's filings in 2004, 2005, and 2006, the trend indicates similar sized operations. The family division expanded into Merrimack County in September 2007 with the marital department moving into the Concord District Court building. This move effectively exceeded the capacity of the Concord District Court facility. It is recommended that the new facility house the Concord District Court, the Superior Court, and the Probate Court. The family division should remain at the current district court site. In addition, the building would be large enough to incorporate the superior, district, probate, and family division administrative offices with adequate space for current and future operations.

• In comparison to the eight Hillsborough South courtrooms, the current Merrimack

site has five courtrooms, including one probate court courtroom. This facility is too small to accommodate the high volume use of this court. There is also a severe onsite parking shortage. About every aspect of court operations is severely restricted by the limitations of the current site, from security to conference rooms.

4. KEENE DISTRICT COURT (Short Term Plan)

(Short-term plan is new to the list because the City of Keene may not renew the District Court lease.)

3

• Keene District Court’s facility is one of the worst in the state with severe space limitations. While it is the fourth largest district court in the state, the space it operates in is approximately 4,600 square feet. If the state were to construct a standalone courthouse, programming would require a Dover generic model that includes 24,000 square feet. Keene is currently operating with one courtroom and one small juvenile hearing room. The juvenile room also serves as a conference room, video arraignment room, and overflow hearing room. The court should have a third hearing room to help with scheduling problems and the need at times to have three judges. Chambers are inadequate for chambers conferences. The court has no attorney-client conference rooms. The court lacks a secure hallway for the transport of prisoners. The lobby area is inadequate and is a security problem as it is shared with multiple city departments. Seating allows for six people. There is no more room for expansion of clerical staff or filing. Staff is using the same corridors as the public and prisoners.

• The City of Keene has indicated that it needs the current space and does not

wish to renew the lease which expires June 30, 2009. A request for proposals for a new location should be a priority with funding from the operating budget. The space should include sufficient space for expanding the family division to the Keene jurisdiction in Cheshire County.

5. CHESHIRE SUPERIOR/PROBATE/KEENE DISTRICT COURTS AND FAMILY

DIVISION

• Combined capital budget funding in the amount of $400,000 was approved for the current fiscal years for architectural services for this project along with the previously mentioned Merrimack/Probate/District Court.

• Construction of a multi-level facility similar to the Carroll County Courthouse with

the addition of a basement to accommodate the larger dockets in Cheshire County.

• At the Superior Court, there are two small jury courtrooms which are not large

enough for efficient jury selections and jury trials. The public is not allowed access at times due to space limitations. The jury assembly room is not adequate to comfortably seat prospective jurors. The marital department and courtroom are located in another section of the building with staff using public hallways to pass from one area of the court to the other. The clerk’s office has reached its maximum capacity. There is inadequate parking on site for the number of agencies utilizing the building.

• The Probate Court is located on the second floor and security is an issue for staff

as the hallway to the courtroom is the common point for court staff to move from office to office. Reaction time to any emergency would be restricted as the court is situated a distance from security staff.

• The Keene District Court's severe deficiencies are described in number four

above this section.

4

• Family division adds another dimension to the above problems as none of the

sites adequately address the security and operational requirements of the family caseload.

• While the local community and county have provided some alternatives, due to

all the courts in Keene having the above restrictions, the most economical and long-term solution would be for all the levels to relocate to a consolidated facility utilizing a generic and proven design that provides the security and versatility that is required for effective court operations.

6. HAMPTON/EXETER DISTRICT COURT

(Reversed with Milford District Court as Hampton/Exeter is a higher priority) Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request in the amount of $7,976,001 for FY 2010-2011.

• Court construction of Hampton/Exeter District Courts. Exeter District has been temporarily relocated to the Rockingham County Courthouse in Brentwood due to health issues that were ongoing at the Exeter location. In addition, Administrative Services has secured a temporary site for the Hampton District Court due to safety issues at the prior location. There has been some discussion within the communities to once again move in the direction of consolidation and construction of a new facility. Due to the severity of the limitation on both courts, this should continue to be a high priority.

• Architectural and engineering funding in the amount of $165,000 was approved

in the FY2003 capital budget. There are several locations that have been reviewed for the location of the court.

• A capital appropriation is required along with land sufficient to accommodate

parking for this consolidated court. The court would be similar in design to the new Dover District Courthouse. Because Rockingham County is rapidly growing in population, a suggested change to that design would be to relocate the holding cells and sally port from the first floor to the basement. This would provide additional space on the first floor for future clerical or courtroom space.

7. ROCHESTER FAMILY DIVISION

(New to the list due to shortcomings of the Strafford County location)

• The family division was expanded to Strafford County in January 2008. There are two locations; one in the center of Dover at the newly constructed district court building and the other location was established on a temporary basis at the current Strafford County building in rural Dover in the former marital department space. The county location is inadequate for several reasons. The operations including the juvenile and domestic violence divisions exceed the capacity of space available at the county building. Currently, court sessions are scheduled in available time slots using both the superior and probate court hearing rooms.

5

Staff and filing space are insufficient for operations with files located in the master’s chambers and in superior court limited spaces. One of the major issues is that most of the caseload of the Rochester Family Division originates in Rochester and further west, not towards Dover. Rochester District Court is too small to absorb the family division operations.

• A space program established in June 2008 recommends 12,500 square feet

would meet the needs of the Rochester Family Division. Space including three hearing rooms with adequate parking consisting of at least 55 parking places should be obtained in Rochester. This would move the family division operations closer to the public and numerous agencies that work with the family division.

8. MILFORD DISTRICT COURT

Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request in the amount of $7,976,001 for FY 2014-2015.

• The court moved from Amherst in June 2001 to a leased location in Milford consisting of 5,700 square feet. The family division is scheduled to expand and use the current facility for operations in the next two to three years. While this space will address the needs of the court for at least the next five years, serious considerations should be provided to plan for additional space to accommodate the anticipated increase in caseloads expected in this fast growing area of the state.

• In the long-term, consideration should be to construct a new facility. The

caseload in Milford has been fairly stable over the last several years. This is surprising when the population growth in the area is considered. The size of this facility currently calls for a courthouse similar to the expanded Franklin model. However, consideration should be given to the next size up similar to the Dover model to accommodate the expected rise in population in the southern part of the state.

9. HENNIKER/HILLSBOROUGH DISTRICT COURTS

(Wording revised to address the merged courts and expanded family division) Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request in the amount of $3,629,501 for FY 2012-2013.

• Court construction of Henniker/Hillsborough consolidated district court and family division. The courts are now consolidated with the closing of the hearing room in Hillsborough December 2008 and the family division expanded to Henniker in September 2007. While the current location in Henniker functions, it was intended to be only a short-term location. The lobby, courtroom and security is non compliant with facility standards. Filing and storage at the site are now beyond the capacity of the rooms designated for this purpose. Staffing has used every square foot in the clerk’s area with working conditions extremely limited. In the past, there was discussion relative to constructing a building in a central location between the two towns.

6

• Architectural and engineering funding is required to begin the process of locating

and designing the building. Currently the court system is leasing 2550 square feet. A 3000 square foot building similar to the Franklin style would be in order.

• A capital appropriation is required along with land sufficient to accommodate

parking for this consolidated court. The court would be similar in design to the Franklin facility with two courtrooms and with additional space for storage and court operations.

10. FRANKLIN DISTRICT COURT

(New to the list due to shortcomings of space at the existing building) Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request in the amount of $507,200 for FY 2010-2011.

• Staffing and record retention have exceeded the capacity of the building. Storage is now extended into the rear hallway. The original construction provided two courtrooms and only one chamber. To address this shortcoming, the break room has been subdivided to provide one additional chamber for a master or referee.

• A capital appropriation is required for a 1400 square foot addition to the existing

building. 11. BERLIN/GORHAM DISTRICT COURTS

(Changed the narrative to reflect a potential new location.)

• The Berlin and Gorham District Courts are consolidated. In addition, the family division has expanded to the Berlin District Court. The current site is the original county courthouse and while there is a fair amount of space within the building, the layout does not meet the current judicial operational requirements nor is the building ADA compliant.

• It has been determined that a new location would be the best alternative for the state’s needs including space for the Department of Education’s Adult Learning and Rehabilitation along with the Department of Health and Human Services. On November 19, 2008, the Governor and Council approved a ten-year lease with Berlin Falls Real Estate, LLC with the above state agencies sharing space in a newly constructed building. The total court space located on the first floor will consist of 9,780 square feet that will meet the needs of the court system for the period of the lease.

12. COLEBROOK DISTRICT COURT

(Added to the narrative the possibility of renovating the current site)

• The district court and family division space located at the Colebrook Town Hall do not adequately address trial court needs or meet minimum judicial branch

7

facility standards. The court is located at the rear of the facility and shares the courtroom and the one conference room with the town. When court is in session, the public has to pass through the courtroom to access the clerks' offices. There is virtually no lobby. The clerical area is extremely limited with shared usage of the chambers by staff.

• Within the last couple of months, an architect was hired to evaluate conditions at

the existing site and to make recommendations as to whether renovations could be completed to address many of the shortcomings. A design was completed with a cost estimate of $150,000 for substantial renovations. Funding should be obtained for this more moderate approach instead of perhaps new construction which would be much more costly.

• An alternative and long-term approach to the shortcomings would be to lease or

construct a building with approximately 4,000 – 5,000 square feet. An updated space program will need to be provided if this is considered.

13. CLAREMONT DISTRICT COURT (Reversed positions with the Newport District Court/Sullivan County Courthouse as it is a larger concern due to the potential of not renewing the lease)

• The City of Claremont has notified Administrative Services that it would not be renewing the lease which expires June 2010. In the past, serious consideration has been given to the possible consolidation of Claremont and Newport District Courts.

• The family division expansion was completed September 2005. With the addition

of the family division, and even considering the recent renovation of the clerk's office, operations are marginal in the limited space available. Consideration should be given to a long-term solution to provide an adequate facility similar to the state’s generic Franklin facility that will be large enough to handle the district and family caseloads.

14. NEWPORT DISTRICT COURT/SULLIVAN COUNTY COURTHOUSE

Obtain ownership and add on to the recently renovated Newport District Court. A former bank building was donated to the Town of Newport along with funding to renovate it for use as the Newport District Court. The site might support constructing a building in the rear to accommodate the superior and probate courts. The Town has expressed an interest in selling the property to the state that would allow for future expansion. There is no estimate for this project.

15. PLAISTOW DISTRICT COURT Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request in the amount of $3,629,501 for FY 2014-2015.

• Court construction of Plaistow District Court

8

• In 2001, the court moved from the second floor of the town hall to the prior site of

the town library. While this addressed some ADA issues, the size of the courtroom was greatly reduced. The facility remains inadequate for long-term and effective operations in compliance with today’s standards for courts operations.

• Lease purchase or capital appropriation with architectural and engineering

funding required for a court similar in design to Franklin (expanded to 7,000 square feet providing some additional space for storage and court functions). In the past, the town of Plaistow has shown an interest in building a new court facility for the district court and has offered several sites for consideration. One of the considerations should be land provided that has space for sufficient on site parking.

9


January 5, 2009

SECTION II: LIMITED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

1. SUPREME COURT ADA RENOVATIONS Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request in the amount of $275,000 for FY 2012-2013. The state's highest court is not fully accessible. Individuals with mobility disabilities cannot enter the building by the front door nor can they move freely in and around the courtroom. These design defects in this 37 year-old building expose the state to potential liability, especially in light of the 2004 United States Supreme Court case involving a court facility in Tennessee.

2. FAMILY DIVISION EXPANSION Effective July 1, 2005 the Legislature established the Family Division as a permanent part of the New Hampshire Judicial Branch. See RSA 490-D. Pursuant to that statute, the judicial branch has expanded the family division from its original footprint in Rockingham and Grafton Counties into Sullivan, Carroll, Coos, Merrimack, Belknap, and Strafford Counties. Expansion into the remaining two counties, Hillsborough and Cheshire is scheduled to begin in January 2009 as part of the move to the new Goffstown location and construction of the Merrimack District Court courthouse. Expanding to other locations present several facility challenges. Some of those challenges are addressed elsewhere in this schedule of Court Facilities Needs (Manchester Family Division at the Manchester District Court, Cheshire County Superior/Probate/Keene District Courts, and Milford District Court). Compliance with the legislative mandate to expand the family division will require either construction of the facilities mentioned or significant expenditures for renovations or for new leases.

3. SUPREME COURT PARKING LOT Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request in the amount of $394,300 for FY 2010-2011. A capital appropriation is required to expand parking used by both the Supreme Court and the Administrative Office of the Courts. With 91 employees and only 69 spaces, (including five spaces that are reserved for individuals with walking disabilities) there are never enough parking spaces to meet the routine needs of staff. Those who attend Supreme Court oral arguments or meetings and trainings at the AOC are forced to park on the sides of the access ways, making it difficult for emergency vehicles to approach the facilities and jeopardizing pedestrian safety. It is recommended that 75 additional parking spaces be located to the east side of the AOC building.

10

4. SUPREME COURT HVAC SYSTEM UPDATE Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request in the amount of $1,200,000 for FY 2012-2013. Update the HVAC system in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court building was completed in 1970 and housed 15 people. The building now houses about 40 people. New office spaces have been created in the basement and throughout the second floor. The air circulation does not meet current building standards. We have requested assistance from the Department of Administrative services to obtain an estimate of the cost to update the HVAC system.

5. SYSTEM-WIDE ADA RENOVATIONS The Governor's former Accessibility Specialist, Cheryl Killam, surveyed court facilities and reported on the need for renovations to make leased and state-owned facilities accessible to the public. As part of the combined efforts of Administrative Services and the court system, there are plans to address most deficiencies over the next several years. Legislation has passed increasing the facility escrow fund revenue that will help offset the costs associated with the renovations.

6. GRAFTON COUNTY COURTS REVIEW OF SPACE NEEDS

• The County has constructed a new building that will house many of the county offices including the Registry of Deeds. When the county offices are relocated, the additional space will be available to the Grafton Superior Court, Grafton Probate Court, Haverhill District Court, and Family Division. Superior court has expressed an interest in additional space and all courts will require additional storage space for records. Consideration should be given to providing a courtroom and chambers on the second floor adjacent to the district court and the family division. Currently the two trial court divisions use the probate courtroom and have to pass through public hallways to that space.

• Additional funding for the lease will be required. A review of the space needs of

each court level needs to be completed to (1) provide a plan for the court and county (2) address increases in the lease to cover said additions (3) address weaknesses in security that currently exist.

7. NASHUA DISTRICT COURT

• This court's caseload is similar in size to Manchester District Court. Manchester

has four courtrooms and Nashua has three. Consideration should be given to adding courtroom space along with providing clerical space for future staffing.

• OPTION 1 - As a short-term solution, locate an additional courtroom in the

basement. This would use a current storage room that would result in lost space for records retention. It also has some operational drawbacks by having the public areas extended to the basement.

11

• OPTION 2 - Research the feasibility of adding on to the building constructing at least two courtrooms and providing for related court services resulting from future growth in caseload.

• OPTION 3 - Consider moving part of the caseload (one or two divisions) and staff to the Hillsborough Superior and Probate Court site.

8. SALEM DISTRICT COURT

• Consideration should be given to completing a review of whether it is economically in the State’s best interest to continue leasing the existing site or approach the Town of Salem to purchase the courthouse. Comparisons to similar generic courthouses as to operational costs versus leasing should be considered as part of this review.

9. SUPREME COURT CUPOLA

Note: Funding is a pending Capital Budget request in the amount of $77,000 for FY 2012-2013.

A capital appropriation is requested for refinishing the Supreme Court cupola. The cupola is in need of re-gilding and painting with the condition deteriorating over the past several years. Additional louvers in the cupola along with attic ventilation should also be considered to aid in correcting ice damming.

12


January 5, 2009

SECTION III: MAINTENANCE PROJECTS (This is a new section to the Facility Needs list this year as it is evident there are numerous and substantial maintenance projects that are required on many of the state-owned court buildings. The intention here is not to list all maintenance required on every facility but to address the large dollar amount projects that present safety, security or general maintenance issues that require funding in the near future due to deteriorating conditions. Due to the impact of these, it is important for the Court Accreditation Commission to include them in the annual planning process.)

1. ROCHESTER DISTRICT COURT – REPAIR FRONT GRANITE STEPS


The front entry, granite steps need to be fixed and re-supported due to a general disintegration of the under-step sand/gravel support. In addition, there is a leak in the block foundation wall and the rear retaining wall is crumbling, all of which are safety concerns.

2. NORTHERN CARROLL COUNTY COURT ROOF REPLACEMENT


The roof is approaching 20 years of age and will need replacement. Adjustments must be made to the roof (line) at the front entrance to the building since it is prone to large snow and ice buildup presenting a safety hazard to the public and staff as they enter and leave the building.

3. HILLSBOROUGH SOUTH COURTHOUSE ROOF REPLACEMENT


The roof is currently 16 years old and in need of replacement. There are currently several leaks that require ongoing maintenance.

4. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY COURTHOUSE SELECTIVE REPLACEMENT OF

CARPET


13

The carpeting was installed when the building was built in 1996 and is in need of replacement in various locations. This has become a safety issue to prevent slip and falls along with the general appearance.

5. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY COURTHOUSE REPAIR AND RESEAL PARKING

LOT


The parking lot has severe pavement cracking. Repair and resealing is required to prevent further degradation of the pavement. Restriping of all areas will be necessary once the resealing is completed.

6. CONCORD DISTRICT COURT EXPANDING PARKING LOT


The parking lot is too small to handle the daily activity of the third largest district

court and family division in the state. The plan is to add an additional 60 parking places.

7. CONCORD DISTRICT COURT ROOF REPLACEMENT


The roof is 17 years old and will need replacement in this timeframe. Repairs are currently needed to sections where shingles have lifted or leaks are present.

8. PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT ROOF REPLACEMENT


The roof is approaching 20 years old and will need replacement in this timeframe.

9. ROCHESTER DISTRICT COURT REPLACEMENT OF AIR CONDITIONING

UNITS


The air conditioning units are 15 years old and will need to be replaced in the

coming two to three years. More frequent maintenance problems are expected in the coming years.

14

10. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS MECHANICAL SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS


The mechanical systems have not been operating efficiently for years with the exhaust unit actually shut down most of the year. The mechanical systems require alterations to provide control, comfort, and economical operations.

Facility Needs Plan.doc Revised 1/5/09 GLF/DDG

OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER EFFICIENCY

New Hampshire Judicial Branch

1. Explore realignment of trial courts to enhance efficiency. 2. Explore reorganization of judicial districts to enhance efficiency. 3. Explore court consolidations where two or more courts operate in close

proximity. 4. Expand use of satellite court locations to serve communities where courts

are closed.

5. Seek a constitutional amendment to abolish the position of register of probate.

6. Seek legislation to permit appointment of regional clerks in the district,

superior, and probate courts.

7. Seek legislative changes to authorize judges appointed to any jurisdiction to serve in any trial court on a temporary basis, with the approval of the “sending” and the “receiving” administrative judges.

8. Require clerks and registers in multi-jurisdiction trial court sites to cross-

train and share staff according to workload demands.

9. Seek legislation to create the presumption that a misdemeanor is a class B misdemeanor unless the prosecutor has affirmatively stated that he or she will seek incarceration on a finding of guilt.

10. Seek legislative and rule changes to expand the opportunity to plead guilty

by mail in the district courts.

11. Expand use of centralized typing service. Funding for hardware and software upgrades has been requested in the FY 2010-2011 budget.

12. Explore centralized mailing of juror summons.

13. Consider reducing public hours at selected court sites as vacancy rates

rise.

14. Expand use of video conferencing, Go To Meeting, and other electronic communications to reduce travel time and expense reimbursement.

Initiatives to Improve Efficiency

• Offered voluntary furloughs and early retirement options.

• Eliminating underutilized telephone and fax lines.

• Holding our mileage reimbursement rate at 25 cents & 40 cents per mile to discourage travel.

• Closely monitoring the use of overtime.

• Exploring how to National Change of Address services to reduce

undeliverable mail to potential jurors.

• Eliminated many hard copy library materials & replaced them with electronic research services.

• Hiring freeze for non-essential positions.

• Freeze on all non-emergency equipment purchases.

• Not renewing maintenance contracts for date and time stamps.

• Making an abrupt shift to distance learning using Go to Meeting to

reduce continuing education budget.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - courts.state.nh.usSTATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH PRESENTATION TO...

Documents

Transcript of STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - courts.state.nh.usSTATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH PRESENTATION TO...