It was once the crown jewel of California's courthouse construction program: a $6.5 million single-courtroom hall of justice in the Eastern Sierra, designed with the novel purpose of serving residents in two rural counties. More ski chalet than bureaucratic building, the cedar-planked Plumas-Sierra Regional Courthouse in the town of Portola won rave reviews from state judicial leaders, and awards from construction wonks when its doors opened in late 2009. Twelve years later, however, those doors are now locked due to budget cuts and a hoped-for growth in population and filings that never came. The courthouse that once graced the cover of the judiciary's statewide statistics report is all but abandoned and has fallen into disrepair, and graffiti marks the front door and an interior hallway. Exterior stonework crumbles onto unused walkways littered by long-ago delivered phone books—one dating back to 2018. Vegetation is overgrown or, in some places, dead. "At present, the condition of the facility and property are an eyesore and embarrassment to the [Judicial Council], the city, and, ultimately, the local judiciaries," Portola Mayor Bill Powers wrote in a letter to the region's judges this summer. For years, Powers and other local leaders have pleaded with judges, the Judicial Council and elected leaders for help breathing new life into a once-grand building that now sits like an albatross in a town eager for economic activity. The mayor said he's heard next to nothing in response. "We just want somebody to move in and use it," Powers said recently after giving a visitor a tour of the building's exterior. As Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye continues to preach the need for greater access to justice in California, the abandoned Portola courthouse stands as a cautionary tale to those who see a construction boom as a key answer. Like now, the state was flush with cash when the regional building was envisioned and eventually funded in the mid-2000s. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers this summer approved $2.1 billion in spending over the next five years for 14 courthouse construction and renovation projects. That trend is likely to continue next year, as legislative budget leaders have signaled that infrastructure spending will be a major target of a revenue surplus projected to reach $31 billion. There are dozens of courthouse projects on the books awaiting a green light, including plans for a new $66 million courthouse in Quincy, the Plumas County seat located 33 miles northwest of Portola. A Judicial Council spokesman said there are no plans to build that courthouse in the near future even though it's listed as an "immediate" need by planners. But local judges, often the biggest cheerleaders for new courthouses, can retire, and the state's budget picture can change on a dime. And in California's most rural counties, plans for a new housing subdivision or a resort can fizzle, nixing any expectations for a rise in court-users and cases. The presiding judges of the two counties' trial courts declined to talk about the Portola courthouse. Sierra County Superior Court Judge Charles Ervin did not respond to messages. In a brief email, the court's executive officer, Ann Mendez, said questions about the building "should be directed to the Judicial Council of California." Plumas County Superior Court Judge Janet Hilde declined to answer questions. In an email she wrote, "We closed the courthouse because of the severe budget cuts to our court, and I don't have any information on the building's future." In an Oct. 15 letter to Powers, the Portola mayor, Hilde blamed the courthouse's 2014 closure on "the financial crisis and extreme budget cuts." "The Plumas-Sierra Regional Courthouse is owned and maintained by the Judicial Council of the State of California, not the Plumas or Sierra Courts," Hilde wrote. "As a result, we have no authority to make decisions with regard to this courthouse." |

An Empty Building With No Takers

After the courthouse shuttered, there was talk about the city of Portola or Plumas County taking over the deteriorating building. But neither government agency has the money to fix it. The Judicial Council does collect some rent, $9,600 a year, from the California Department of Transportation for office space. On a recent day, a consultant entering the back door said he is the only one who regularly uses the building. He said he comes by for an hour or two each week and relishes the quiet place to fill out his paperwork. "The Judicial Council has reached out to other state agencies to see if they have an operational need for a building in that area," Judicial Council spokesman Blaine Corren said. There have been no takers. The judiciary spent just under $18,449 on utilities and another $3,269 on fire protection and exterior repairs last year, according to records. Rumors of a law enforcement agency moving into the building haven't turned into a reality. The courthouse does not have a holding cell. "The courthouse in Portola was really a beautiful building with a very smart dual county model," said Plumas County District Attorney David Hollister, who is also president of the local bar association. "I think it would have really benefited the citizens of eastern Plumas and Sierra counties" "Having a back-up superior court location seems even more prudent now that we factor the disruption caused by recent forest fires," Hollister added." Unfortunately, the only time the subject of that courthouse seems to come up is when it gets vandalized by one of our wayward youths."

Map by David Palmer / ALM

From Boom to Cobwebs

The Portola courthouse was never envisioned as a full-service judicial building. Retired Sierra County Superior Court judge William Pangman said he and his Plumas County counterpart, Judge Ira Kaufman, came up with the idea after talking about the tiny, isolated towns in their jurisdictions and the long distances residents had to drive for basic goods. Reno, Nevada, is the nearest "big city" destination for many living on the eastern slope of the Sierra Mountains and the California Highway Patrol writes plenty of speeding tickets for those traveling back and forth, Pangman said. The thought was, "If we could place a courthouse near the rural residents it would save them from having to go to Quincy or Downieville to take care of fines and small legal matters. There was a sense, too, that the region was poised for residential development given Reno's growth, Pangman said. Developers had floated plans for a major condominium and resort-style project in Sierra County. A growing population on the eastern slope seemed inevitable. The two judges pitched their plan to the Administrative Office of the Courts in 2003 just as the judiciary was assessing building needs across the state amid a shift from local ownership of courthouses to judicial branch control. Kaufman and Pangman sold the novel idea of a joint-use courtroom, which would replace a substandard facility in Portola and a leased service center in Loyalton. The courthouse doors opened on Dec. 7, 2009. Sierra County Superior Court Judge John Kennelly presided over a limited calendar focused on traffic matters and small claims. Though there were no expansion plans, the courtroom's design would allow for an addition on the east side, if necessary. "The belief was that the whole Sierra Valley would attract people, in part, from the Reno area and it would build out and there would be a need for services for the population center in Portola," Pangman said. That never happened. The courthouse's opening coincided with the Great Recession. Land development plans evaporated. State revenues plummeted and court budgets were slashed. Pangman, who retired in 2010, can't remember if the courtroom ever hosted a jury trial, although there is a jury room, now filled with boxes and furniture. He does recall service levels slowly dying. An original staff of two clerks and one judge became just two clerks. Two clerks dwindled to just one. And less than five years after the two-court courthouse opened, it closed for good. Still taped on the window of a cobweb-covered door is a one-page notice dated August 2014 that says the courthouse will close in three months due to budget cutbacks. |

Not Ready for 'Prime Time'

Meanwhile, Portola is trying to redefine its economic future. A major railroad yard closed there in the 1990s. The historical timber industry has withered. City leaders this year approved plans for a "world-class" disc golf course as part of an ongoing effort to establish itself as a recreational destination. A decaying courthouse standing vacant across the street from the city's ballfields is just another sign of an unfulfilled promise. Could better budget times re-open the doors to the courthouse? "Having a small claims or traffic calendar in Portola would be exceptionally helpful to east Plumas [and] Sierra county residents—particularly in the winter," Hollister said. But there's no clamor from the local bar associations, where membership is small. Hollister estimates about 10 to 15 active lawyers are based in Plumas County and even fewer hang shingles in Sierra County. The region's population is largely stagnant and includes many flatlanders who leave their mountain vacation homes for warmer climates when the weather turns cold. "Without a significant increase in year-round living in these areas, I don't believe that the idea [of reopening the Portola courthouse] will be ready for prime-time," Pangman said. "It was a nice facility and perfectly functional and attractive but from a traditional operational standpoint, I don't think it would be something the courts would be interested in."