COLUSA, CA (MPG) – The County of Colusa continues to shoulder more than $420,000 annually in court-related costs despite California’s shift to state-funded trial courts nearly three decades ago, prompting county officials to take a closer look at facility agreements, reimbursement practices and future use of county-owned court buildings.
Assistant County Administrator Molly West presented the findings prior to the Board of Supervisors’ July hiatus during a review of the county’s relationship with the Superior Court, outlining a network of agreements that govern maintenance, operations and cost-sharing for the Historic Courthouse, Courthouse Annex and Bunker Building. The review was prepared as part of County Administrative Officer Joshua Pack’s 2026 goals and objectives.
Although the state assumed responsibility for funding and operating trial courts under the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act, West said counties retained significant financial and maintenance responsibilities for many court facilities.
“As a result, court facilities are managed through a combination of state and county responsibilities, requiring ongoing agreements between the county, the Superior Court and the Judicial Council of California,” West said. “It does require pretty constant coordination between us, the courts and the JCC.”
County officials reported the county receives about $53,000 annually in reimbursements for court facility costs while paying more than $420,000 each year in required court-related obligations, including a state-mandated maintenance-of-effort payment of about $394,000 and a court facilities payment of about $26,600. The county has not made any recent excess revenue-sharing payments because revenue collections have not exceeded the statutory threshold.
West said the county maintains two special revenue funds dedicated to court and criminal justice facilities. One supports construction, maintenance and operations, while the other is restricted primarily to courthouse and courtroom capital projects. Together, the funds hold about $1.4 million, although about two-thirds of the revenue received for the capital projects fund must be remitted to the Judicial Council under state law.
One of the review’s most significant findings involved the unfinished second floor of the Courthouse Annex, which county officials said remains a potential opportunity for future county use.
West said she and Pack investigated long-standing rumors that the space could not be developed because of parking shortages or structural limitations.
“We contacted community development staff that have been here much longer than the two of us have and confirmed that the building was designed to accommodate the second floor,” West said. “Any structural concerns that may have been rumored around were also unfounded.”
County officials also confirmed parking concerns had been resolved with the construction of the public parking lot at Sixth and Jay streets.
West said the second floor currently serves primarily as storage space. The Superior Court pays the county $1,200 annually to store items there, while court occupancy percentages used in cost-sharing agreements apply only to the finished first floor.
West emphasized county officials are not proposing construction at this time but said the space could be evaluated if future county needs arise.
“We would definitely need to do a more detailed feasibility analysis, cost estimates, space planning and operational considerations,” she said.
The review also found county officials have begun more closely examining reimbursement requests from the courts to ensure expenses are paid by the appropriate party.
West cited a recent request involving an air-conditioning unit serving court-designated space. After reviewing the governing agreements, county officials determined the repair was the court’s responsibility rather than the county’s.
County officials concluded the review confirmed the county continues to bear substantial long-term responsibility for maintaining court facilities while identifying opportunities to improve cost allocation, reimbursement practices and long-term planning. They also recommended continued evaluation of facility utilization, maintenance obligations and future capital improvements as county needs evolve.