Budget Troubles Not Putting Brakes on New Courthouse

A new courthouse proposed for the Santa Clarita Valley is still on track even as the money set aside to build it is being eyed as a source of funding for the struggling state court system. The courthouse and the adjacent annex are both nearly 40 years old, making the building outdated for their purpose. A main argument in favor of a new facility is that the area the courthouse serves is one of the fastest growing in Los Angeles County, with the case load reflecting the increase in population. “It is like buying a condo and finding out you are going to have triplets,” said Judge Robert Schuit, the Supervising Judge of the North Valley District, which includes Santa Clarita. Santa Clarita was one of six new courthouses approved last year to be constructed using funds set aside by the legislature through Senate Bill 1407. The bill authorized up to $5 billion for a total of 41 new and renovated court facilities using court user fees rather than the state’s general fund. With funding to the Superior Court system declining, questions have been raised about why new courthouses should be built at a time when courtrooms have been closed and staff numbers reduced. Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Charles W. “Tim” McCoy has been vocal about taking the construction money and using it for court operations instead. The Administrative Office of the Courts, the policy-making authority over the court system, would prefer that if the construction money is diverted that it not delay projects that have already been approved, said Teresa Ruano, an office spokesperson. “Most of the other courts have gone on the record they do not want to solve the problems by pulling from the immediate and critical needs account,” Ruano said. Redirecting money An arrangement still needing approval by the legislature and Gov. Schwarzenegger would accomplish two goals – keep the courts operating without further cuts and keep construction projects in the pipeline. The deal came about following three days of meetings in mid-May in Sacramento between lawmakers, unions, the AOC, and other stakeholders. It would redirect $100 million in SB1407 money, McCoy said. “While much has been accomplished much remains to be done to bring it across the goal line in a manner to keep (the courts) open every day,” McCoy said. A new courthouse in Santa Clarita has been identified as one of the highest priority projects receiving SB1407 money. A project feasibility report from September 2009 recommended a 54,000-square-foot facility on at least 5 acres. A two-story building with basement would cost about $58.1 million. The City of Santa Clarita passed a resolution last year to donate 7 acres on Golden Valley Road. Los Angeles County has identified several land parcels to make available but had not yet finalized an offer. The feasibility report was detailed in the deficiencies of the courthouse and annex. Three criminal courtrooms are in one building; the single civil courtroom is in the annex These courtrooms are undersized, have limited seating, and can be accessed by court personnel only through a non-secure corridor also used by prisoners. There are no courtroom security cameras and inadequate holding cells for prisoners. A small lobby area with a portable metal detector often causes lines out the building that move at “a snail’s pace,” said Brian Koegle, the president of the Santa Clarita Valley Bar Association. With the civil courtroom being in a different building than the clerk’s office often results in attorneys bouncing between the two, said Koegle, an attorney with the firm of Poole & Shaffery LLP.. “It’s an inefficient use of the space,” he added. Other shortcomings The study also found the jury deliberation room was undersized; there was not enough parking; no secure parking for judges and staff; many non-ADA compliant features throughout the buildings; and poorly designed public waiting areas. The current civil courtroom only handles small claims cases and those involving $25,000 or less. Cases with a higher dollar amount are heard in either downtown Los Angeles or Chatsworth. A new courthouse could resolve that. “We would love to see a facility accommodate both criminal and unlimited civil,” Koegle said. “But we understand there are limited resources and that is not going to happen.” The resources to keep the courts operating will become more limited if additional money is not found. A $79 million deficit for the current fiscal year is expected to balloon to $120 million in the fiscal year starting July 1. Another round of layoffs and courtroom closures is scheduled for September that could put the future of the current Santa Clarita courthouse up in the air. The four courtrooms there could be put on the chopping block with the case load transferred to either Antelope Valley or the courthouse in the City of San Fernando. That would not need to happen if the legislature and governor sign off on the deal that includes diverting some of the construction funds. In the event that the deal is not approved and the cuts need to be made, then the planned new courthouses need to be delayed, McCoy said. “As the presiding judge if we could not continue court operations I believe it would be in the best interests that we slow the projects down and keep the system operating,” McCoy said.