About that tunnel in San Diego:
Last year this statement was being uttered by San Diego leadership and others to win support to move forward with a new San Diego Courthouse.
“The State of California will pay for the tunnel because it was part of the negotiations to obtain the land for the courthouse from the County. The tunnel is included in the budget for the courthouse project.”
As you know we’ve been looking at this future boondoggle unfold and as you might have guessed if you checked out SB1407, the funds to tear down old courthouses on lots that the AOC will not occupy in the future isn’t in the cards. As you might recall from the Long Beach incident, with ‘realignment’ comes a shift of responsibility to the sheriff/police to get their incarcerated to court.
And that don’t include no tunnels to no jails brother.
Let’s put a picture in your mind: Imagine moving prisoners in this congested downtown area is on a daily basis, how outrageously expensive it is to park and the increased costs of holding people at the courthouse two blocks from the jail by having to build another holding jail under the courthouse. Because holding cells must meet the same standards as jails, it makes this area the most expensive area of the whole courthouse. More expensive, even than turning the old courthouse into a high-rise parking lot and putting a tunnel under the parking lot to the jail. You can trust that the AOC already knows what they are giving San Diegans and it is an invoice and an eyesore for years to come.
Today, circulating around judicial circles is this missive: Some names have been omitted to protect our sources but you’ll find… a contrasting view… yeah, that’s it… of those negotiations with the county of San Diego over the land deal for the future courthouse…
___________________________
From: Hill, Brad [mailto:Brad.Hill@jud.ca.gov]
Monday, April 8 2013
As you know, the tunnel is no longer a part of this project. One of the reasons for this decision by our working group was the cost escalation that took place as a result of a myriad of factors. (JCW: Yeah, they did not want to tear down the old courthouse because they have to do that before they build a tunnel under it…or risk collapsing the tunnel. They knew that years ago when they cheated San Diego County out of the lot.) Although the initial cost estimates were in the $3-5 million range, the final estimate of $25 million (jcw because, duh!) necessitated our cancellation of the tunnel. I appreciate your suggestion as to various options that might be considered. We are definitely looking at a variety of approaches.
As far as the cost associated with the demolition of the existing courthouse is concerned, that is not a part of the approved budget for the construction of the new courthouse. The Judicial Council has fee title to the buildings and property that currently contain the Superior Court, office space and the old jail facility. Although our committee is not working on this aspect of the project, it is my understanding that this property could be sold at some point in the future. Any decisions as to the demolition of the buildings would probably be made by the new owner of the property.
___________________________
State of California to Citizens of San Diego: Coin Detected In Pocket.
While prominent insiders like So and Roddy get plush new penthouse digs overlooking San Diego bay in a new courthouse, the city will be left with a dangerous, festering eyesore for years to come. The county will be left transporting prisoners over surface streets two blocks and until now, it appears the other parties are not aware of all of this. (the city and county, that is…) and the AOC will be left purchasing insurance on the abandoned courthouse until they give it away, as opposed to the touted significant return to the TCIF, another touted reason to do this deal.
Boondoggle? A big-ass lie at the least. With Mr. Ham at the helm, it’s only going to get worse before it gets better.
Lando
April 8, 2013
Oh what a tangled web we weave. As taxpayers should we be expected to pay for this tunnel and for demolition of a courthouse in addition to funding a brand new one at incredible expense? We are starting to see yet another huge failing in Ron George’s master plan. When he was so intent on taking over all the courthouses from local county government, I never understood why that was a good idea, given the fact the state was taking on aging no longer functional facilities that would be extremely expensive to replace. The ” overlords” at the crystal palace failed to recognize then and now that a bigger more centralized government is never better than one that is decentralized, and closest to the citizens we were elected to represent.
AOC Tracker
April 8, 2013
Ham considers himself beholden to no one. He operates outside the lines without any oversight and absolutely no accountability. The AOC Office of Court Construction Management (OCCM) for those who may be new to this blog can not be bailed out by Justice Hill and his last minute committee making last minute decisions. The OCCM has regularly misled the State Board of Public Works in order to get approval for spending 1407 funds. They have misled the Department of Finance regarding construction projects (Long Beach is the most aggregious example of OCCM lies followed by coverups) in the very same manner that the AOC misled the State Auditor and the Legislature on CCMS.
San Diego may be the undoing of Ham and the OCCM when the City and County of San Diego figure out they’ve been scammed. When the project architect, Skidmore (SOM), is the same firm who consulted for the AOC on the feasibility for the project, including site recommendations, the project was tainted from the get go. How did the AOC miss the obvious conflict of interest? Perhaps the more important question is why?
SOM identified the tunnel as a seismic risk in the initial feasibility study. SOM identified the liability risk of the tunnel in their initial feasibility study. SOM cited a known 2000 City of San Diego report that advised the fault underneath the current courthouse should be considered “active.” This, by the way, is where the proposed tunnel would go – directly through an active fault. No kidding. A few years after SOM submitted its report to the AOC, SOM contracted with the AOC as the architectural firm for the proposed courthouse. The contract amount is significant at around $20million or so.
Despite documentary evidence that this issue was known from the start, Project Manager Clifford Ham forged ahead hoping no one would notice.
The information JCW has just provided in the email from Justice Hill is of no surprise since the tunnel could never have been built, however, the only way the City and County would have approved of the project was with the understanding that prisoner transport would not be their financial burden. San Diego city and county officials either missed the seismic issue when submitting their comments for the 2010 Environmental Impact Report or blissfully overlooked the reality as a matter of political expediency.
I wonder how Justice Hill and his committee will handle this one? Sounds like a job for Curtis Childs. Another AOC Fact Sheet may be right around the corner…
Great work JCW.
Wendy Darling
April 8, 2013
What does it say about the “leadership” of the California Judicial Branch that they are collectively known, with good reason, as a bunch of liars who just keep on lying? It shouldn’t surprise anyone at this point that the people they hire to run things are a bunch of liars too.
What a great reputation for the branch of government that is supposed to represent and defend the value of telling the truth. We need to educate everyone that lying is now an acceptable form of conduct in the California court system, starting with top branch “leadership” and on down. Maybe the Chief Justice could spread that message in her “civics” seminars. Everyone who uses the California courts needs to be dispelled of the illusion that telling the truth matters.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 9, 2013
Wendy,
They aren’t “lying” because that would assume that they can distinguish fact from fiction.
Remember that truth is a relative concept that changes with the passage of time.
I was just admiring the Art & Justice plaque at the Crystal Palace which reminded me that with all these people, the end justifies the means and you can’t let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Scout Finch
April 9, 2013
Interesting issue, Judicial Council Watcher. On this courthouse construction problem, especially the Long Beach deal, has anyone asked about whether the Judicial Council approved a Budget Change Proposal for the payments due to start up in September? The Contract for the LB Courthouse requires that the AOC “shall make a timely submission for the State Fiscal Year in which the Occupancy Date will occur of a budget change proposal to the Department of Finance that includes the initial Service Fee payable and will make a timely submission of a budget change proposal to the Department of Finance for any subsequent change to the Service Fee.” Also, if the service fee is not included in the Governor’s budget that is submitted to the State Legislature, “the AOC will either submit a budget change proposal directly to the State Legislature requesting inclusion of Service Fee in the budget, or will prepare legislation for a sponsor to introduce in the State Legislature that makes an appropriation of funds for the purpose of paying the fee.” See Article 25 (D) of the Contract.
Noncompliance with Article 25 (D) is a breach of the contract per Article 25 (G).
The recommendations for budget change proposals are supposed to come from the Accountability and Efficiency Committee for presentation to the Judicial Council for action. I don’t recall ever seeing any reference to judicial council action on this issue. Instead it appears that the AOC will use 1407 funds, though the contract itself requires the process set forth in the above referenced language.
Did the AOC submit a bcp as required by the contract that included using 1407 funds? If so, did the Judicial Council authorize this action. If not, did the Judicial Council submit any bcp at all? Did Hill’s committee take action on this issue? Does anyone know anything?
There is a significant misrepresentation made by the AOC in the Recitals to the Long Beach Contract. “The AOC, with the approval of the Judicial Council, concluded that utilizing a contract with a private firm for Project design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and management would best fulfill its needs in developing and implementing the new Long Beach Court Building.” (Page 1 of Contract, under the heading RECITALS, last sentence in the 3rd paragraph.). This is not true. The Judicial Council never drew this conclusion. The Judicial Council never exercised any policy making decision in this regard. The Judicial Council never exercised a shred of oversight of the Long Beach project. It was 100% handled by the AOC OCCM. The language in the contract to the contrary is fraudulent.
On December 7, 2007, the Judicial Council acting on the written advice of General Counsel Mary Roberts delegated all authority to the AOC to take all action necessary for completion of the LB Courthouse. Never did the Judicial Council approve or conclude that utilizing a contract with a private firm would best fulfill its needs in the development and implementation of the courthouse.
Shamefully, as was the case with CCMS, the Judicial Council turned a blind eye to the goings on relative to Long Beach. It should come as no surprise that the AOC later misled not only the DOF and the Legislature as to the cost of the project. Afterall, the contract itself includes misleading language, falsely claiming that the Judicial Council concluded that the private partnership “best fulfilled its needs in developing and implementing the new LB Court Building.” As is the case with the San Diego Courthouse, the AOC has created a mess from start to finish. Is Long Beach another Clifford Ham project? I do believe so? Is Clark Construction the same contractor on both projects? I do believe so? Is Ham the Project Manager referred to in the Pegasus Report as one who answers to no authority? I do believe so.
And as for Mary Roberts who recommended that the Judicial Council delegate away all oversight including delegating away the ultimate responsibility for the determination as to whether the private partnership was the “best” available plan, what about Mary? Her horrible advice, argued in her written memo as a money and time saving measure, was blindly followed by the Council in a unanimous vote of approval at the December, 2007 meeting.
No wonder the AOC brass has become more insular and secretive. The news only gets worse.
unionman575
April 9, 2013
Yes the news only gets worse.
There has been no BCP submitted.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 9, 2013
Wait for the other shoe to drop and LBJP declaring the JC/AOC in a material and incurable breach of contract whereby the terms drastically change and the rent drastically increases.
In the end, the AOC will pay even more than 2.3 billion dollars when they should use the opportunity to lower the project costs or walk away from it. Long Beach should have been Ham’s undoing all on its own. Instead, the fools on the council give him another high profile project where he ignores the client and builds what he wants to build.
Par for the course so far.
unionman575
April 9, 2013
😉
See paragraph 4:
“Absent a BCP for funding the moving and operational costs related to a new facility, effective July 1, 2014, the ability of any trial court to fund the costs related to moving to a new facility will only be by shifting costs within their existing local budgets.”
Michael Paul
April 9, 2013
Translation: Sure you can move into that new courthouse just as soon as you lay off a few hundred workers so you can afford to move into that new courthouse.
Even a first grader can connect the dots.
unionman575
April 9, 2013
Page 6
Judicial Branch Facility Program budget proposals:
• Ongoing General Fund appropriation for service fee for the new Long Beach Courthouse ($33,832,000) as required for the Project Agreement entered into by the Judicial Council of California, AOC and the Long Beach Judicial Partners LLC for the design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and management of the New Long Beach Court Building. Occupancy is scheduled for September 2013.
“Ongoing GF appropriation”. Really?
😉
Michael Paul
April 9, 2013
I’d like to see that general fund appropriation legislation myself. I must have missed that.
Not.
The OBT
April 9, 2013
The problem is that judges in San Diego, like J So, who have become among the biggest cheerleaders of centralized San Francisco based judicial control expect the JC/AOC will take care of them in exchange for their blind and continued loyalty to the ” insiders ” at 455 Golden Gate.What San Diego overlooked was is that the “insiders” in the end will only protect their continued power. With massive reductions of courthouse construction dollars the “insiders” are backing off off of their original commitments. Sorry San Diego. Maybe your court needs to finally arrive at the party and join the rest of us in questioning the failed, so called leadership of the JC/AOC.
courtflea
April 9, 2013
ho hum same ole BS at the AOC. glad you are on it JCW. but geeze. these guys have a license to steal. lets get N.Woodhulls amendment on the ballot.
Scout Finch
April 9, 2013
The AOC doesn’t need a license to steal. As the administrative arm of the judicial branch, a coequal, separate branch of government, the AOC is not required to obtain a license.
unionman575
April 9, 2013
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-court-cutbacks-20130410,0,3144605.story
Budget cuts force California courts to delay trials, ax services
The courts have lost about 65% of their state general fund support in the last five years, a new study says, and the effect of the cuts is growing.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
April 9, 2013, 6:44 p.m.
😉
unionman575
April 9, 2013
http://www.ivpressonline.com/news/ivp-supes-demand-commenting-on-court-closures-20130410,0,4186290.story
Supes “demand” commenting on court closures
By ALEJANDRO DÁVILAStaff WriterImperial Valley Press
April 10, 2013
As deliberations on whether closures could affect three local courts continue, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors agreed on Tuesday to submit a letter to the appropriate agencies asking that the board be included in these discussions.
As part of the decision, supervisors Michael Kelley and John Renison volunteered to be part of the ad hoc committee following the matter.
“I think this board should stand up and demand that we be heard and that we be considered in the discussions that directly affect all residents in Imperial County,” Kelley said during his report to the board, moments after announcing there is a decision pending relating to the closures of the El Centro jail court, the El Centro juvenile court and the Calexico court.
“I think that going forward with the proposed action would put a tremendous financial burden on the county,” said Kelley.
The California court system, the largest in the world, has faced state budget cuts for years, according to the California Judicial Branch website.
In the last five fiscal years, the California judicial branch budget has been cut $1 billion in funding, Chief Justice of California Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye said during her State of the Judiciary address last month.
Since 2010, 22 court facilities have closed, 114 courtrooms have shut down and 30 courts have had to reduce hours at public service counters across California.
If the county jail court where to close, this would incur a burden on the Sheriff’s Office, which would have to transport all prisoners to wherever court hearings would be held, explained Kelley, a former county Chief Probation Officer.
Under the current system, inmates go from the jail to mostly arraignment proceedings, and then walk back to the jail, which is adjacent to that court.
“The same holds true for the juvenile court,” noted Kelley.
He based his opposition to the proposed closures on “the cost of transportation, additional staff for security, not to mention the requirement to separate juveniles from adults, which is another burden placed on us.”
Supervisor Jack Terrazas agreed with Kelley.
“I think that pretty quick we are going to be stuck with some changes we haven’t prepared for,” he said.
Terrazas said there is a need to revisit any budgetary issue and added that, “In a small county, I don’t think it’s a major amount for the amount that the state is in shortage.”
Ray Castillo, chairman of the board, pointed out that, “By slashing some cuts to the courts to the tune $500,000, we are looking at double that in cost (of) transporting inmates. So you save over here but … you gave the cost in this case to the county.”
Court Executive Officer Kristine Kussman was out of town Tuesday and couldn’t be reached by press time.
However, in a previous interview with the Press, Kussman said the court is facing a deficit of more than $1 million in fiscal year of 2013-2014 that starts in July.
Valley courts have already determined to reduce working hours in Winterhaven Superior Courthouse.
In addition, there are plans to consolidate an undetermined courthouse into the Brawley Superior Courthouse, but no decision has been made yet.
Meanwhile, the state has asked the local court to use its savings to balance its budget.
The latter change comes following Gov. Jerry Brown’s January budget, which proposed transferring $200 million from trial court reserves to support court operations.
Valley courts have had to use $4 million from their $9 million reserve funds to balance out their budget as a result of Brown’s proposal.
By fiscal year 2014-2015, the courts will no longer have a reserve fund, Kussman said in last month’s interview.
Staff Writer Alejandro Dávila can be reached at 760-337-3445 or adavila@ivpressonline.com
😉
The OBT
April 10, 2013
Hey General , I also saw the Art and Justice display ay the crystal palace recently. What a tribute to arrogance. How out of touch can the JC/AOC be to have such a display when so many hardworking court employees have lost their jobs and services to the public are radically cut back. Reminds me of “Let them eat cake” .
Lando
April 10, 2013
It has been awhile since I was allowed above the basement bunker at 455 Golden Gate but I am guessing this Art and Justice deal has something to do with Ronald George and the Shapiro fund ? It is amazing how the Judicial Council and AOC cannot repeatedly honor themselves, the Ronald George State Complex , the William C. Vickrey Conference Center, the Richard Huffman award and now an Art and Justice tribute ? All great reasons to follow the SEC report and move this arrogant mess to Sacramento. You can’t make any of this up. Really.
The OBT
April 10, 2013
While we are dedicating places in the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate , I move we call the Inquisition chamber in the penthouse of the crystal palace the Judy McConnell Board Room .
Lando
April 10, 2013
So true OBT. Perhaps we could also call the Judy McConnell Inquisition room the “Happiest Place on Earth “
wearyant
April 10, 2013
LOL!
unionman575
April 10, 2013
Next big top circus:
Judicial Council Meeting April 25 and 26
wearyant
April 10, 2013
“WE don’t get to taste the ‘cake,’ but we CAN watch THEM eat it!”
(Shamelessly borrowed from other outrage on the ‘net.)
Lando
April 10, 2013
Great tune Unionman. Maybe we should call the Judy McConnell Inquisition room “The Tunnel of Love “
unionman575
April 10, 2013
I like that one Lando.
😉