The Administrative Office of the Courts’ top 10 trial court capital improvement projects:
1. Plumas & Sierra counties: Land acquisition and design for a new branch serving both superior courts in the Portola/Loyalton area. The current one-room Portola courthouse has a leaky roof, no security and only 1,100 square feet of space. Cost: $2,232,094
2. Placer & Nevada counties: Construct a new Tahoe/Truckee regional courthouse. The region, isolated from more populated areas to the west, is “underserved” by the current Placer-only courthouse in Tahoe City, according to the AOC. Officials say a new two-room courthouse will save money and serve more residents. Cost: $9,745,729
3. Merced County: Second phase of new downtown Merced court that will replace an inadequate courthouse and modular trailers with an 18-courtroom facility that provides separate areas for the public, court staff and inmates and creates a single entrance for security clearance. The county, the court and the state are sharing costs. Cost (state’s share): $3,040,000
4. Contra Costa County: New Antioch court to handle the east county’s rapid population growth and to replace the old Pittsburg-Delta facility. Cost: $56,144,254
5. Fresno County: Renovate the B.F. Sisk Federal Courthouse in Fresno for use by the Fresno County Superior Court. The current Fresno County Courthouse is “very overcrowded,” according to the AOC. Cost: $42,639,760
6. Fresno County: Construct a new Fresno area juvenile delinquency court. The four-courtroom facility will be part of Fresno County’s 12-building juvenile justice campus, designed to increase safety and cut down costs associated with transferring juvenile wards from site to site. Cost: $31,056,955
7. Mono County: First phase of a new, two-room Mammoth Lakes courthouse. Court proceedings are now held on the leased second floor of a commercial office building that does not meet ADA requirements or security needs. Cost: $13,355,043
8. Humboldt County: New Eureka court that will consolidate courtrooms and office space now scattered among the county administration building and the Veteran’s Memorial Building. Cost: $80,302,688
9. Merced County: Construction of a new courthouse in Los Banos, which has experienced tremendous growth from Bay Area commuters looking for affordable housing. The current 3,800-square-foot facility cannot handle a limited criminal and civil calendar, according to court staff. Cost: $13,658,753
10. Riverside County: A six-courtroom building will be constructed to replace an inadequate leased facility in this fast growing community. Cost: $21,244,813
The Judicial Council will also lobby for lawmakers’ approval of state constitutional amendments that would give the judiciary greater independence from the governor and the Legislature.
One amendment would clarify that the Judicial Council has authority over California’s 451 courthouses � many of them now in a state of disrepair. Ninety percent of the state’s court buildings require “significant” repairs, renovation or maintenance, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts. Eight in 10 were built before earthquake safety building codes took effect.
Court administrators have compiled a list of 183 capital improvement projects that will cost $9.8 billion over 10 years.
But efforts to find money for those fixes have failed in the Legislature. Most recently, a bill by Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Norwalk, to sell an unspecified amount of courthouse construction bonds was bogged down in late summer.
An aide to the senator said the bill likely will remain shelved until the governor and lawmakers finish negotiating the larger infrastructure bond.
In recent hearings around the state, Senate Democrats have pitched a $10.3 billion bond to beef up flood protection, expand roads and ports, start construction of high-speed rail lines and build affordable housing.
The Democrats’ bill includes nothing for courthouses. But its authors say they’re still shaping their funding wish-list and that the bond could be just the first in a series the state floats in coming years.
The governor, too, is talking about his own infrastructure spending proposal � perhaps more than $50 billion. And that, Chief Justice Ronald George said in an interview this week, may prove the judiciary’s best opportunity to secure at least some courthouse construction money.
In his annual meeting with the governor two weeks ago, George said Schwarzenegger told him that he considers court facilities part of the state’s infrastructure needs. George said he told the governor, “You’re preaching my sermon.
“I want to be very clear: there was no commitment,” the chief justice said. “He expressed strong interest, and that leads me to be optimistic.”
H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the state Finance Department, said the administration has not set a “fast and firm” dollar amount for the bond, nor has the governor decided what projects should be included.
“I mentioned to the governor that I understood for both fiscal and political reasons that all of our needs could not be met” in one bond, George said. “I’d be pleased if we could do it in two parts or even three parts.”
But state Sen. Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Irvine, said he doesn’t expect courthouse construction money to make it into the so-called mega-bond.
“You look at the numbers, the levees need $10 billion, the roads another $150 billion, water $20 [billion] or $30 [billion] and you’ve got ports at $40 [billion] � $45 billion,” Ackerman said. “It’s not that [the courts] are unimportant, it’s just that there’re so many other things.”
Ackerman, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the courts may be better off taking a separate bond measure before voters.
Dunn has floated the idea of giving the Judicial Council authority to submit bond measures to regional voters. Ackerman dismissed the notion, calling court funding a “statewide issue.” Even Dunn said he doubts his colleagues would agree to his notion.
“There are some within the Legislature that fear giving bonding authority to more entities would simply mean more bond debt without an overall management of our priorities,” Dunn said. “And there’s some legitimacy to that.”
The governor is expected to reveal details of his bond proposal when he delivers his annual State of the State speech in early January.
