The Recorder
30-day free ttrial
  • Home
  • News
  • Cases & Courts
  • In Practice
  • Special Reports
  • Events
  • Lawjobs
  • About Us

Home > Lawmaker Promises 'Hard Look' at Long Beach Courthouse Deal

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Lawmaker Promises 'Hard Look' at Long Beach Courthouse Deal

By Cheryl Miller Contact All Articles 

The Recorder

December 12, 2012

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
Senator Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa

Senator Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa
Image: Jason Doiy/The Recorder

SACRAMENTO — The chair of the state Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday that the Legislature "is going to take a hard look at" the troubled Long Beach courthouse financing agreement that has placed funding for 23 other projects around the state in jeopardy.

"There will be the inevitable questions," said state Senator Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa. "I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm just saying there will be questions."

Evans' North Coast senate district is home to three planned courthouse projects — in Sonoma, Ukiah and Lake counties — that may be delayed or even shelved after the Judicial Council's Court Facilities Working Group meets Thursday. The group's chairman, Fifth District Court of Appeal Administrative Presiding Justice Brad Hill, said members must slash $600 million in funding from other projects to free up money for the new Long Beach courthouse.

The 31-courtroom Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach is being built under a novel public-private partnership model. A consortium of companies will finance, construct and maintain the downtown building, expected to open next fall, and the Judicial Council will pay an annual service fee over the next 35 years. The first full-year fee is expected to total $54.1 million.

The plan, pushed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office and approved by the Legislature in the 2007 budget, assumed the state's general fund would cover the payments. But this summer state Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, told judiciary leaders not to count on any money coming from the overburdened general fund. They should instead rely on an internal judiciary construction fund, Leno said.

The state has already swept and borrowed millions from that fund, leading the Judicial Council to reduce the list of once-planned 41 new and renovated courthouse projects to 23. The reductions will continue anew on Thursday as Hill's group works to get its recommended cuts to the full Judicial Council by January.

Sonoma County Superior Court Presiding Judge Rene Chouteau, who is hoping plans for a new Santa Rosa criminal courthouse will be salvaged, called Thursday's meeting premature.

"The fundamental question is, why isn't the state meeting its obligation to fund this out of the general fund?" Chouteau said.

Many advocates of the original 2007 Long Beach deal have been termed out of office. The Legislature's many new members are likely unaware of the arrangement and even those who were in office probably don't remember much about the details. Evans, a state assemblywoman in 2007, said she needed to refresh her memory on the plan.

"It's just another problematic legacy of the Schwarzenegger administration," she said. "I know the Legislature is going to take a hard look at it when it returns in January."

Evans would not commit to seeking general fund money for the Long Beach courthouse, noting the many other demands on the state's biggest source of discretionary funding.

The problem for Chouteau and others hoping to hang on to the endangered 23 projects is that the Long Beach courthouse will consume a larger piece of any construction money pie. Unlike traditional projects that comprise only a new courthouse, the Long Beach agreement includes costs for ongoing maintenance and building services.

"It's a huge commitment for a project that is unrelated to the" 23 other planned courthouses, Chouteau said. "It's just like apples and oranges."

The presiding judge said Sonoma County has already committed $11 million toward preparing the site of the future Santa Rosa courthouse. He's not sure what he would tell county leaders if judicial funding evaporates.

"We've worked 10 years to replace our criminal courthouse," he said. "We're one of the courts that are unsafe because of security reasons, because of seismic reasons. This is not a fun-to-do project .… It seems a little unfair to pull the rug out from underneath it at this point."



Subscribe to The Recorder

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Fifth District Court
  • Judicial Council
  • Senate Budget Committee
  • Court Facilities Working Group
  • Superior Court
  • Senate Judiciary Committee

Key categories

    
  • Judges

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit
    •      
  2. Pass Rate on February Bar Exam Was 41 Percent
    •      
  3. Juror's Online Research Forces New Trial
    •      
  4. Viewpoint: Court Struggles to Regulate Attorney Blogging
    •      
  5. Ninth Circuit Strikes Arizona Abortion Law
    •         
      • Subscription Required
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Hiring Interns? Be Sure to Do It Right

ACC Weighs in on Arizona's In-House Pro Bono Rules

Ex-Dewey Partners Face New Foe in Firm's Bankruptcy

S&C Adds Linklaters Restructuring Partner in London
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Enron Sandbox Stirs Up Private Data, Again

LegalTech West Coast Wraps Up With Ethics, VC News

In Tricky Prosecutions, Judges Play Peacemakers

Ropers Majeski Tries to Re-Invent Itself
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Attorneys Lead Force-Placed Insurance Fight

Lawsuit Names Missing Fla. Attorney for Alleged Fraud
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Summer Programs Still in a Drought

Lawyer Not Covered for Alleged Malpractice at Prior Firm
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Firm Takes Another Hit in Bid for 'Unconscionable' Fees

New York's Martin Act Faces Test in Challenge to 2005 Case

Castille Testifies in Favor of 'Civil Gideon' Funding

Workers' Comp Judges Can't Fight Rescinded Raise
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Advising Clients on Weather and the Workplace
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Texas Sues BP, Others Over Deepwater Oil Spill Disaster
  •      
    • Subscription Required

'Follow That Escapee!'

Judge Who Tossed Defense Counsel Accused of 'Partiality'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media