Neither corruption nor sheer incompetence have any place in California’s judicial branch.
That’s why we are reaching out to the thousands of readers of JCW to get each and every one of you to write a snail mail letter to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and point out that nowhere else in America does any judicial branch entity execute an executive branch function of building and operating courthouses. Most especially, no entity does this with a marked lack of both accountability and oversight that the California’s Judicial Council does.
If we want to see the results of another blistering audit of the Judicial Council’s ineptness, the time to act is short.
According to the Joint Legislative Audit Committees website, all requests for a new audit must be received in the JLAC office, LOB Room 107 no later than 5 PM on Tuesday, August 4th 2015.
The full address is:
Joint Legislative Audit Committee – California State Capitol
10th and L Streets – LOB Room 107
Sacramento, CA 95814
http://legaudit.assembly.ca.gov/hearings
The date and time of this hearing is Tuesday, August 25th at 9:30AM at the above address, room 444
Please consider starting off your letter with a request for a construction and facilities maintenance audit of the Judicial Council. Following your request, feel free to detail the reasons for your request, many of which can be found in the pages of this publication.
Again, the time to act is short. You have less than 25 days to get your snail mail request to lawmakers in Sacramento.
Judicial Council Watcher 
wearyant
July 10, 2015
Again, thanks for all you do, JCW. Your info is invaluable to those of us who have adapted to email away from snail mail. And not only is there lack of accountability and oversight, incredibly needed over the AOC, the JC staff’s shortcomings from ethics, human values, all the way to knowledge of the real world of business is breathtaking. We cannot forget the bungling of the case management systems, infamously known as CCMS. The software vendors were delighted when they found they were not dealing with knowledgeable, worldly people, but more of the “babes in the woods” ilk, a vendor’s dream. No accountability or oversight. Kinda makes a taxpayer’s blood run cold.
unionman575
July 10, 2015
Done!
😉
unionman575
July 11, 2015
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://www.courts.ca.gov/familyjuvenilecomm.htm
July 14, 2015 AB 1058 Funding Allocation Joint Subcommittee Meeting (Closed)
😉
2:00 – 4:00 p.m.
July 16, 2015 Joint Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee, and Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee Meeting
2:00-4:20 p.m.
1.877.820.7831;
Listen Only Passcode: 3059688
😉
Posted on: July 10, 2015
anonymous
July 11, 2015
The electronic version-
Subject: Audit the California Judicial Council’s facilities maintenance and construction program
Hi,
I created a petition to The California State House and The California State Senate which says:
“We believe that the California Judicial Council’s 5 billion dollar facilities maintenance and construction programs are fraught with fraud, such as kickbacks and bid rigging and that Californians who get traffic infractions are being forced to pick up the tab with outlandish fees and fines.
We’re concerned because this branch of government is self-policing with neither police, laws, meaningful accountability or oversight. We request that the Joint Legislative Audit Committee of the State Legislature direct the State Auditor to immediately audit these programs and confirm what whistleblowers have already pointed out and lost their jobs over. ”
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/audit-the-california?source=c.em.cp&r_by=4605253
Thanks!
Michael Paul
July 13, 2015
If electronic means is more convenient to you and you wish to save a stamp, feel free to compose your request via email or (preferably) in a word document format (even the free google docs stores in a .doc format these days) and email it to michael.paul AT yeninteractivemedia.com We will print them off and they will be hand delivered to the joint legislative audit committee on the morning of August 4th.
If 500 people can comment on the SEC results and nothing meaningful has happened in all of these years since, surely at least that many people don’t want to lose their jobs so that the judicial council can continue to build courthouses that later get shut down because they can’t afford to pay you to staff them.
JusticeCalifornia
July 13, 2015
JCW, do you prefer a snail mail letter or a signature on the petition?
JusticeCalifornia
Judicial Council Watcher
July 13, 2015
IMHO A snail mail letter will be more effective but signing a petition is better than inaction. If you want to save a stamp, send it to Michael Paul via email and it will be personally delivered on August 4th.
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2015
A little food for thought. Published today, Monday, July 13, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner, and, as always from Girdner, well worth the read.. It should all sound disturbingly familiar.
Quotes of the day:
“Ultimately, though, my sense of injustice settled not on the individual actors . . . but on a state government that does nothing to punish such bad actors and instead goes to irrational lengths to defend them.”
“She is the leader of a state prosecution machine of career cops and prosecutors who reflexively defend bad conduct by their own. Like other state bureaucracies, they view their responsibility inwards, towards themselves, rather than outwards, towards the public that supports them, gives them jobs and clothes them in the sacred mantle of enforcing the laws of the people, by the people, for the people.”
I’d vote for Bernie Madoff before I would ever vote for Kamala Harris. At least Madoff admitted to being a crook.
What’s Wrong With Kamala Harris
By BILL GIRDNER
An old man who is disabled from a stroke is driving carefully down the road. A little too carefully for two young guys who had been given the mantle of defending the public and fighting crime on California’s highways.
The old man is 76 and he is driving five miles under the speed limit, on a dangerous curve. So the two California Highway Patrol officers stop him. They hear his slurred speech and think he is drunk.
He explains that he has had a stroke and does not drink. He also says the stroke has left him with bad balance. Regardless, the patrolmen twice put him through a physical sobriety test, which he of course fails.
They then test him with a breathalyzer and it turns out he is telling the truth. He has not been drinking.
So rather than accept that confirmation of his account, they decide a 76-year-old is taking some unspecified drug, and arrest him anyway.
As the judge presiding over the case said, the old man had acted as a ‘model citizen’ until the patrolmen wanted to put handcuffs on him. He objected because he had difficulty balancing. So the agents of the state grabbed him on either side, the one punched him, and they took him down to the ground.
Back at the station, the man was held overnight and then someone with a modicum of sense concluded his difficulty was in the medical realm, as he had been explaining all along. And here is where things take an unfortunately familiar turn.
The patrolman who hit the old man failed to report the blow, a routine requirement when force is used, suggesting, as the judge noted, that he knew the punch was unjustified. The patrolman then claimed the old man raised his fists, where the second patrolman saw no such thing. And then they both charged the 76-year-old with resisting arrest.
The local district attorney quickly saw what baloney the charges were made of, and dropped them.
Two years later, the events appeared to anger federal jurors who unanimously awarded the old man $125,000 and found the punching patrolman guilty of using excessive force and making a false accusation.
“The ‘crimes’ at issue could hardly have been more minor,” wrote Judge William Shubb in a 26-page opinion upholding the verdict.
“There was no evidence that plaintiff posed any appreciable threat to the officers’ safety. Plaintiff was a 76-year old disabled man confronted by two young officers.”
I thought the conduct of the patrolmen was both terrible and familiar, in line with a rich California history of police, sheriffs and patrolmen who, confronted with something they don’t understand, resort immediately to force.
And I was frustrated with our own editorial staff for playing the story in the lower Siberia of our news page, focusing on the amount of the award rather than the man’s age and helplessness, and leading with a legalistic interpretation of the ruling instead of the judge’s simple, clear finding that the verdict was “amply justified.”
Ultimately, though, my sense of injustice settled not on the individual actors — there are unfortunately bad cops among the many good ones — but on a state government that does nothing to punish such bad actors and instead goes to irrational lengths to defend them.
“Although the Attorney General persists in attempting to defend it, neither the jury nor the court can find any justification for that blow,” said the federal judge.
He is referring to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party favorite who is running for U.S. senator and who is a likely shoo-in.
Why would the first female attorney general in California, born of an Indian mother and a Jamaican father, persist in defending a patrolman who without any justification punched a disabled and elderly man, and followed that up by falsely accusing him of resistance.
She is the leader of a state prosecution machine of career cops and prosecutors who reflexively defend bad conduct by their own. Like other state bureaucracies, they view their responsibility inwards, towards themselves, rather than outwards, towards the public that supports them, gives them jobs and clothes them in the sacred mantle of enforcing the laws of the people, by the people, for the people.
It takes courage to buck that machine, to punish rather than defend those who would punch and falsely accuse a helpless old man. This case was a chance for Attorney General Harris to demonstrate just a little bit of that courage, and she showed none of it.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/07/13/whats-wrong-with-kamala-harris.htm
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
July 13, 2015
The whole courthouse construction audit issue gets lost in the larger question. Why is the California judiciary in the real estate and construction business to begin with? The federal courts and most state judicial systems leave all that to an agency charged with and experienced in the management of buildings, leases and new construction. I have pointed out before and all are entitled to weigh in on the legal skills of insiders like HRH-2, J. Hull and J. Miller. I actually think their legal rulings are generally sound and well reasoned. This however doesn’t qualify them or any other 455 Golden Gate insider to oversee the billions spent on every new and old courthouse in California. The mess in Long Beach , San Diego and Plumas just to mention a few proves my point. We need to get the Crystal Palace out of the real estate business and return the management of court facilities to local county governments where things sailed along great for hundreds of years before Ronald George and the current insulated and anti democratic insiders showed up to ” fix” everything.
Michael Paul
July 13, 2015
The whole larger question is the reason for an audit. As I have said many times, nowhere in America will you find another judicial branch performing an executive branch function of developing and managing their own real estate without a trace of accountability.
It is all this developer\constructor money that has directly fueled AOC growth. I worked in IT. SB1732 paid my entire salary. Every division has employees that are billed to the construction program. They represent over a third of the employees.
Michael Paul
July 13, 2015
By the way, a few years prior to working at the AOC, I worked for U.S. General Services Administration – the executive branch entity that maintained, built and remodeled federal courthouses.
Wendy Darling
July 14, 2015
“Every division has employees that are billed to the construction program. They represent over a third of the employees.”
One of the dirty little secrets of 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Not that anyone is actually going to do anything about that.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
July 18, 2015
Hmm. Kind of interesting.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Judicial-Branch-of-California-RVW5705454.htm
https://www.tumblr.com/search/judicial%20council%20watcher
Judicial Council Watcher
July 18, 2015
Thou dost giveth us too much credit (and blame)
Reading the other reviews of the workplace is enlightening and some of what we believe goes along the same lines as what is written at glassdoor.
1. Many of the lower waged positions at the Judicial Council Staff Offices are underpaid and cannot compete at all with the private sector.
2. Many of the career oriented mid-level (non-management) positions are also underpaid and cannot compete at all with the private sector.
3. The sheer quantity of managers, senior managers, assistant directors and directors that are overpaid is overwhelming for an agency their size and many could never cut it in the private sector, nor could they ever cut it in another government agency.
4. We generally believe that lopping off all management above the rank of supervisor and promoting all supervisors to management would be the way to go. There is a problem with many of these managers, senior managers, assistant directors and directors as most of them were put in place by Vickrey and Overholt. They were inexperienced and are poisoning the well, so to speak. Many of those people (but not all) turned around and hired competent, professional managers and gave them the title of supervisor.
If the salary and compensation study never sees the light of day or is never released to the public, it is because of what it likely says and it very likely makes the first three points we’ve made above.
Lando
July 14, 2015
An audit is fine but earlier audits of 455 Golden Gate changed nothing. We need 455 Golden Gate downsized and closed. Return the real estate management to local government. Reduce the useless AOC budget by 95% and send the judicial branch operating funds directly to the trial courts. Let the people have the ultimate say about their government instead of anti democratic insiders who have squandered and wasted billions. In that way the insiders can preside over their downsized universe where they can laugh, congratulate themselves, present awards to each other, name meeting rooms in honor of each other, limit public comment to 1 minute ( how absurd is that J. Miller) and remain in power over nothing of any importance.
Wendy Darling
July 14, 2015
“Earlier audits of 455 Golden Gate Avenue changed nothing.”
Exactly. And neither will another one.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
July 14, 2015
True that audits would be more effective if they used words like “fraud” and “off with their heads”. But in light of the fact that AG Harris won’t do her job to stop corruption in CA gov’t; audits do give legislators ammo to cause some change.
Think about who was sitting in the deck chairs in 2010. Many of them have been thrown overboard via audits giving legislators the needed tools. There are several more who need to be made to walk the plank. I think THIS audit could be particularly valuable in helping to cause that.
Trying to do my part. Personal goal of 50 signatures on the petition. Also intending to fax in my own letters. Assembly: 916.319.2352 Senate:(916) 319-2352
Michael Paul
July 14, 2015
The committee indicates they will not accept faxed letters Sharon, so you’re better off forwarding them to me, I’ll print them off and have them hand delivered.
sharonkramer
July 14, 2015
Good to know. Thx.
Lando
July 16, 2015
I wonder if the ultimate insiders, J Hull and J Miller got Mr Child’s e-mail regarding all the great things his new employer CourtCall can do? Did they wonder how all these e-mail addresses under their Judicial Council control were somehow used? Maybe somebody memorized all 1,400 of them. Hmm… sounds like this all raises a number of ethical issues and questions for the insiders and their management of what should be confidential information. As they used to say on the legendary 93 KHJ, ” the hits just keep on coming”.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 16, 2015
Yes, we were forwarded a copy of Mr. Child’s email. Funny that you can leave the legislature and are prohibited from lobbying, yet when you leave the judiciary or the judicial council, you can turn right around and start lobbying them using confidential information likely obtained from your previous employer.
For those that aren’t aware, Curt Child has accepted a job with CourtCall and sent all the judges in the state an email at their official email address as the new director of court and government relations.
Yet the email is pretty much an intro sales pitch. We’ll post it in a few days along with the unofficial hackathon announcement the judicial council inadvertently made on 7/14/2015.
Apparently CourtCall is not aware of Mr. Child’s credibility with those in the courts and in the legislature. But if you follow the bouncing ball of profits, courtcall advertises itself as a way for courts to make money and a bunch of closed courts equals opportunity for Curt.
unionman575
July 16, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/aecommittee.htm
Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch
July 29, 2015 Meeting
12:00 – 1:00pm
Public Call-in Number: 1-877-820-7831
Public Participant Code 4045700
😉
Posted on: 07/14/2015
unionman575
July 17, 2015
Click to access 2015-16-supplemental-report.pdf
Supplemental Report of the 2015-16 Budget Package
See pages 35-39: Judicial Branch—Capital Outlay
😉
sharonkramer
July 18, 2015
Why are there two separate paragraphs on Glen County? (They aren’t next to each other in the report) One says $33.182M is provided for the construction phase and the other says $1.6M is provided for the construction phase. All other words in the paragraphs appear identical.
Capital Outlay
Item 0250‑301-0668—Judicial Branch—Capital Outlay
1. Glenn County—Renovation and Addition to Willows Historic Courthouse. The
amount of $33,182,000 is provided for the construction phase for the renovation
and addition of the existing Willows Branch Main Courthouse in Glenn County. The
addition to the existing 15,798 gross square feet (gsf) courthouse will be 26,069 gsf,
for a revised total 41,867 gsf building which will house three courtrooms. Total estimated project cost is $40,953,000 without financing: $1,539,000 for acquisition, $2,021,000 for preliminary plans, $2,600,000 for working drawings, and $34,793,000 (CCCI 5804)
for construction. The construction amount includes $29,290,000 for the construction contract, $2,095,000 for contingency, $1,394,000 for architectural and engineering fees, and $2,014,000 for other project costs. Acquisition was completed in February 2011 and preliminary plans in May 2014. Construction is scheduled to begin in November 2015 and be completed by November 2017.
2. Glenn County—Renovation and Addition to Willows Historic Courthouse. The
amount of $1,611,000 is provided for the construction phase for the renovation
and addition of the existing Willows Branch Main Courthouse in Glenn County. The
addition to the existing 15,798 gsf courthouse will be 26,069 gsf, for a revised total
41,867 gsf building which will house three courtrooms. Total estimated project
cost is $40,953,000 without financing: $1,539,000 for acquisition, $2,021,000 for
preliminary plans, $2,600,000 for working drawings, and $34,793,000 (CCCI 5804)
for construction. The construction amount includes $29,290,000 for the construction contract, $2,095,000 for contingency, $1,394,000 for architectural and engineering fees, and $2,014,000 for other project costs. Acquisition was completed in February 2011 and preliminary plans in May 2014. Construction is scheduled to begin in November 2015 and be completed by November 2017.
2. Lake County—New Lakeport Courthouse. The amount of $40,803,000 is provided
for the construction phase for the New Lakeport Courthouse in Lake County.
The new 45,300 gsf building will house four courtrooms. Total estimated project
cost is $49,984,000 without financing: $1,901,000 for acquisition, $2,830,000
for preliminary plans, $4,450,000 for working drawings, and $40,803,000
(CCCI 5959) for construction. The construction amount includes $33,907,000 for
the construction contract, $1,732,000 for contingency, $812,000 for architectural
and engineering fees, and $4,352,000 for other project costs. Acquisition was
completed in January 2011 and preliminary plans in June 2012. Construction is
scheduled to begin in June 2016 and be completed by July 2018.
3. Siskiyou County—New Yreka Courthouse. The amount of $56,936,000 is provided
for the construction phase for the New Yreka Courthouse in Siskiyou County.
The new 67,459 gsf building will house five courtrooms. Total estimated project
cost is $66,019,000 without financing: $1,288,000 for acquisition, $3,277,000 for
preliminary plans, $4,518,000 for working drawings, and $56,936,000 (CCCI 5949)
for construction. The construction amount includes $48,712,000 for the
construction contract, $2,489,000 for contingency, $1,174,000 for architectural and
engineering fees, and $4,561,000 for other project costs. Acquisition was completed
in June 2012 and preliminary plans completed in August 2014. Construction is
scheduled to begin in August 2016 and be completed by September 2018.
1. El Dorado County—New Placerville Courthouse. The amount of $1,084,000 is
provided for completion of the acquisition phase and $3,696,000 is provided
for completion of the preliminary plans phase to construct the New Placerville
Courthouse in El Dorado County. The new 77,559 gsf building will house
six courtrooms. Total estimated project cost is $79,669,000 without financing:
$2,795,000 for acquisition, $3,696,000 for preliminary plans, $4,918,000 for working
drawings, and $68,260,000 (CCCI 5959) for construction. The construction amount
includes $59,015,000 for the construction contract, $3,015,000 for contingency,
$1,325,000 for architectural and engineering fees, and $4,905,000 for other project
costs. Acquisition was scheduled to be completed in June 2015 and preliminary
plans are scheduled to be completed by September 2016. Construction is
scheduled to begin in August 2018 and be completed by June 2020.
[This is where the 2nd Glenn County was in the report]
3. Inyo County—New Inyo County Courthouse. The amount of $696,000 is provided
for completion of the acquisition phase and $1,234,000 is provided for completion
of the preliminary plans phase to construct the New Inyo County Courthouse
in Inyo County. The new 21,015 gsf building will house one courtroom and one
hearing room. Total estimated project cost is $24,204,000 without financing:
$1,449,000 for acquisition, $1,234,000 for preliminary plans, $1,636,000 for working
drawings, and $19,885,000 (CCCI 5959) for construction. The construction amount
includes $17,080,000 for the construction contract, $873,000 for contingency,
$480,000 for architectural and engineering fees, and $1,452,000 for other project
costs. Acquisition is scheduled to be completed in February 2017 and preliminary
plans are scheduled to be completed by January 2018. Construction is scheduled
to begin in January 2020 and be completed by February 2022.
4. Los Angeles County—New Eastlake Juvenile Courthouse. The amount of $13,772,000
is provided for completion of the acquisition phase to construct the New Eastlake
Juvenile Courthouse in Los Angeles County. The new 57,799 gsf building will
house five courtrooms. Total estimated project cost is $89,091,000 without
financing: $30,939,000 for acquisition, $2,356,000 for preliminary plans, $3,203,000
for working drawings, and $52,593,000 (CCCI 5959) for construction. The
construction amount includes $45,914,000 for the construction contract, $2,346,000
for contingency, $824,000 for architectural and engineering fees, and $3,509,000 for
other project costs. Acquisition is scheduled to be completed in October 2017 and
preliminary plans are scheduled to be completed by November 2018. Construction
is scheduled to begin in October 2020 and be completed by October 2022.
5. Mendocino County—New Ukiah Courthouse. The amount of $3,466,000 is provided
for completion of the acquisition phase, $4,550,000 is provided for completion of
the preliminary plans phase, and $6,068,000 is provided for completion of the
working drawings phase to construct the New Ukiah Courthouse in Mendocino
County. The new 90,206 gsf building will house eight courtrooms. Total estimated
project cost is $95,378,000 without financing: $5,673,000 for acquisition, $4,550,000
for preliminary plans, $6,068,000 for working drawings, and $79,087,000
(CCCI 5959) for construction. The construction amount includes $68,197,000 for
the construction contract, $3,484,000 for contingency, $1,726,000 for architectural
and engineering fees, and $5,680,000 for other project costs. Acquisition is
scheduled to be completed in July 2015 and preliminary plans are scheduled to be
completed by October 2016. Construction is scheduled to begin in June 2018 and
be completed by September 2020.
6. Riverside County—New Mid-County Civil Courthouse. The amount of $414,000 is
provided for completion of the acquisition phase and $4,259,000 is provided for
completion of the preliminary plans phase to construct the New Mid-County
Civil Courthouse in Riverside County. The new 89,690 gsf building will house
nine courtrooms. Total estimated project cost is $92,515,000 without financing:
$5,563,000 for acquisition, $4,259,000 for preliminary plans, $5,666,000 for working
drawings, and $77,027,000 (CCCI 5959) for construction. The construction amount
includes $66,688,000 for the construction contract, $3,407,000 for contingency,
$1,633,000 for architectural and engineering fees, and $5,299,000 for other project
costs. Acquisition is scheduled to be completed in January 2016 and preliminary
plans are scheduled to be completed by March 2017. Construction is scheduled to
begin in December 2018 and be completed by May 2021.
7. Santa Barbara County—New Santa Barbara Courthouse. The amount of $5,894,000
is provided for completion of the working drawings phase and $400,000 is
provided for demolition work prior to the construction phase to construct the
New Santa Barbara Courthouse in Santa Barbara County. The new 92,331 gsf
building will house eight courtrooms. Total estimated project cost is $99,507,000
without financing: $10,568,000 for acquisition, $4,411,000 for preliminary plans,
$5,894,000 for working drawings, and $78,634,000 (CCCI 5959) for construction.
The construction amount includes $67,790,000 for the construction contract,
$3,464,000 for contingency, $1,660,000 for architectural and engineering fees, and
$5,720,000 for other project costs. Acquisition was completed in July 2011 and
preliminary plans are scheduled to be completed by January 2016. Construction is
scheduled to begin in December 2017 and be completed by April 2021.
8. Shasta County—New Redding Courthouse. The amount of $8,675,000 is provided
for completion of the working drawings phase and $174,000 is provided for
demolition work prior to the construction phase to construct the New Redding
Courthouse in Shasta County. The new 165,296 gsf building will house
14 courtrooms. Total estimated project cost is $159,282,000 without financing:
$4,589,000 for acquisition, $6,028,000 for preliminary plans, $8,675,000 for working
drawings, and $139,989,000 (CCCI 5959) for construction. The construction amount
includes $121,348,000 for the construction contract, $6,200,000 for contingency,
$2,352,000 for architectural and engineering fees, and $10,089,000 for other
project costs. Acquisition was completed in June 2012 and preliminary plans are
scheduled to be completed by September 2015. Construction is scheduled to begin
in August 2017 and be completed by March 2020.
9. Sonoma County—New Santa Rosa Criminal Courthouse. The amount of $11,252,000
is provided for completion of the working drawings phase to construct the
New Santa Rosa Criminal Courthouse in Sonoma County. The new 169,342 gsf
building will house 15 courtrooms. Total estimated project cost is $175,429,000
without financing: $6,698,000 for acquisition, $7,670,000 for preliminary plans,
$11,252,000 for working drawings, and $149,809,000 (CCCI 5959) for construction.
The construction amount includes $126,596,000 for the construction contract,
$6,468,000 for contingency, $3,710,000 for architectural and engineering fees,
and $13,035,000 for other project costs. Acquisition was completed in April 2012
and preliminary plans are scheduled to be completed by September 2015.
Construction is scheduled to begin in July 2017 and be completed by
November 2019.
10. Stanislaus County—New Modesto Courthouse. The amount of $15,252,000 is
provided for completion of the working drawings phase to construct the New
Modesto Courthouse in Stanislaus County. The new 301,464 gsf building will
house 26 courtrooms. Total estimated project cost is $265,866,000 without
financing: $13,766,000 for acquisition, $11,026,000 for preliminary plans,
$15,252,000 for working drawings, and $225,822,000 (CCCI 5959) for construction.
The construction amount includes $195,684,000 for the construction contract,
$9,998,000 for contingency, $3,926,000 for architectural and engineering fees,
and $16,214,000 for other project costs. Acquisition was completed in September
2014 and preliminary plans are scheduled to be completed by November
2015. Construction is scheduled to begin in July 2017 and be completed by
February 2020.
11. Tuolumne County—New Sonora Courthouse. The amount of $4,066,000 is provided
for completion of the working drawings phase to construct the New Sonora
Courthouse in Tuolumne County. The new 61,537 gsf building will house
five courtrooms. Total estimated project cost is $65,405,000 without financing:
$1,597,000 for acquisition, $3,049,000 for preliminary plans, $4,066,000 for working
drawings, and $56,693,000 (CCCI 5959) for construction. The construction amount
includes $48,898,000 for the construction contract, $2,498,000 for contingency,
$1,046,000 for architectural and engineering fees, and $4,251,000 for other project
costs. Acquisition was completed in April 2012 and preliminary plans are
scheduled to be completed by September 2015. Construction is scheduled to begin
in August 2017 and be completed by November 2019.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 18, 2015
Over a billion dollars. That’s got to be the last (or close to the last) of the bond money.
sharonkramer
July 18, 2015
Why did they seperate Glenn County into two different paragraphs of the report? Why didn’t the just include that $1.6M in the $33.2M? Odd.
unionman575
July 18, 2015
This shoots their wad so to speak.
😉
sharonkramer
July 18, 2015
Snippet of an eblast from Kamala Harris’ campaign for US Senator (taken out of context):
“…For so long, we have been offered a false choice that suggests we’re either ‘soft on crime’ or ‘tough on crime,’ instead of asking, ‘are we smart on crime?’… I actually wrote the book on it, titled Smart on Crime.”
Wonder what the book says? Maybe?..If you want to be a federal senator instead of a CA atty general, you should be Smart on Crime of gov’t employees, by keeping your eyes averted and your mouth shut.
wearyant
July 18, 2015
http://venturacountystar.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=0e458dee6
entitled, “We can learn a lot from ants.” maybe King George should’ve thought of another insect to disparage when he spoke of his detractors.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
July 18, 2015
😉
unionman575
July 19, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/32738.htm
unionman575
July 19, 2015
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/general-news/20150715/courthouse-lawn-raises-concerns
unionman575
July 19, 2015
Click to access 68106-fresno-20150707.pdf
unionman575
July 19, 2015
Click to access 68106-sutter-20150624.pdf
Effective August 28, 2015 at 12:00 p.m., the Sutter County Courthouse located at 446 Second Street and 463 Second Street in Yuba City will be permanently closed.
unionman575
July 19, 2015
Click to access hr-staffing-metrics-1415-05.pdf
Court houses close that used to serve the public while there is too much overheard over there at the Death Star.
😉
Time to shut it all down – SF, Burbank and Sac – all of it down NOW.. and redirect funds to trial courts.
unionman575
July 20, 2015
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/07/15/hangtown-objects-to-76-million-courthouse.htm
Wednesday, July 15, 2015Last Update: 10:13 AM PT
‘Hangtown’ Objects to $76 Million Courthouse
😉
By NICK CAHILL
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Plans for a $76 million courthouse in California’s gold country were approved despite a faulty environmental impact report, a historic preservation league claims in court.
The Judicial Council of California completed the project’s EIR on June 10 without exploring the harm the new courthouse could do to Placerville’s economy and the environment, the Placerville Historic Preservation League claims in Superior Court.
“The EIR failed to adequately, disclose, analyze and/or mitigate the project’s economic impacts to the businesses in historic Placerville on Main Street that will lead to urban decay and blight,” according to the July 10 complaint.
The 88,000-square-foot building would replace El Dorado County Courthouse in old Placerville and could result in several businesses leaving the historic downtown area, the group says. It claims that staff and visitors to the old courthouse account for 5 to 20
percent of the business on Main Street.
Aside from failing to assess economic impacts, the EIR provides no mitigation for the impact on bird species and rare plants and violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the preservation league says. It also claims the new courthouse could clog traffic in the small town.
“The findings fail to identify the changes or alterations that are required to avoid or substantially lessen the project’s significant environmental effects,” the complaint states.
Placerville, pop. 10,000, is in El Dorado County, 40 miles northeast of Sacramento. It was founded after gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill in nearby Coloma, setting off the California Gold Rush.
Placerville was known as Hangtown for several decades.
As the Gold Rush brought thousands to the region, crimes and murders increased. According to a city history, after an “impromptu citizens’ jury” convicted three men of an unstated crime in 1849, the jury asked what happened next.
“Hang them!” someone in the crowd shouted. And so it was done.
The stump of the hanging tree remains, “hidden in the cellar of a bar on Main Street,” according to the city website.
The new courthouse would hold six courtrooms and has an estimated completion date of 2020. Funding will come primarily from state Senate Bill 1407, approved in 2008, which dedicated $5 billion in bond money for courthouse projects.
😉
The preservation league asked the court to set aside certification of the EIR and suspend construction. It is represented by Donald Mooney, of Davis.
The Judicial Council of California did not respond to a request for comment.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 20, 2015
Placerville- Basically 3 reasons to stop there.
1. You got a ticket or need to go to court
2. You forgot to buy tire chains for half the price down the hill
3. You need to buy gas on your way somewhere else.
If the courthouse isn’t downtown (which is an oxymoron as there really is only about 1 main street) then the businesses starve.
Unless they sell gas and tire chains.
unionman575
July 20, 2015
http://www.pe.com/articles/menifee-773095-courthouse-civil.html
MENIFEE: Deal near for new court
BY TOM SHERIDAN / STAFF WRITER
Published: July 10, 2015 Updated: July 11, 2015 8:00 p.m.
A board that oversees construction projects for the state is finalizing the purchase of a site in Menifee that is expected to be the home for a new civil courthouse.
The State Public Works Board has approved the acquisition from Regent Properties, the owner of the Menifee Town Center development, of a 3.8-acre parcel for the future home of the Riverside Mid-County Civil Courthouse.
It would replace the courthouse in Hemet, which opened in 1969.
Menifee Town Center, a 172-acre mixed-use development off Newport Road just west of I-215, also is slated to be the future home of Menifee City Hall.
“It’s one of the centerpieces of our Town Center development,” said Menifee Mayor Scott Mann.
Regent Properties spokesman Daniel Gryczman said that the state board has approved the acquisition and that some processing is all that remains to complete the purchase. Gryczman said the courthouse parcel is across the street from the future site of Menifee City Hall.
The Riverside Mid-County Civil Courthouse will be an 89,000-square-foot facility with nine courtrooms, according to a news release from the Judicial Council of California, which sets policy for the state court system.
Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 and be completed by 2021, although those dates are subject to change, the release said.
The new courthouse will be more than three times the size of the 26,511-square-foot Hemet courthouse and will have four more courtrooms.
Keby Boyer, a spokeswoman for the Judicial Council of California, said it came down to a choice between renovating the Hemet courthouse and placing a new one in Menifee.
“The site in Menifee was ultimately chosen because of its central location within the county’s growing population center where the majority of filings originate,” Boyer said.
Harold W. Hopp, presiding judge of the Riverside County Superior Court, said growth in the mid-county region is “badly straining the courthouse in Hemet.”
“This new facility will help us to increase access to justice, particularly for family law and civil cases,” Hopp said in a news release.
T
he price was not disclosed. Gryczman said that according to the development agreement, Regent was to sell the property at 50 percent of its fair market value and that the negotiated price fell below that figure.
😉
Civil proceedings include divorce, small claims, traffic, probate and family law hearings and trials.
The court will not handle criminal proceedings.
😉
“This is not a superior court complete with a jail across the street,” said Mann. “It is not like the Southwest Justice Center in any way, shape or form. Nor is it like the Superior Court in downtown Riverside, with a jail across the street. It will be a place where civil cases are heard.”
Contact the writer: 951-368-9682 or tsheridan@pe.com
Judicial Council Watcher
July 20, 2015
$92 million dollars is what the judicial council has estimated this courthouse will cost.
*no need for holding cells
*no need for a sallyport
This is unquestionably a courthouse that’s about 72 million dollars more than it needs to cost.
sharonkramer
July 20, 2015
“according to the development agreement, Regent was to sell the property at 50 percent of its fair market value and that the negotiated price fell below that figure.”
Why would Regent Properties sell them the land in Menifee at less than 50% of fair market value?
The owners of the company seem to be very interesting fellows — not meant to be a snide comment. truly interesting. look them up. heavy hitters who make the social columns.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141201006520/en/Regent-Properties-Announces-300-Million-Equity-Commitments#.Va2ijylRGzc
Judicial Council Watcher
July 20, 2015
It’s like an anchor tenant. A reason people will be drawn to the development.
unionman575
July 20, 2015
http://www.thesungazette.com/article/news/2015/07/15/panel-judge-put-ethics-on-the-bench/
unionman575
July 20, 2015
Congrats to the City of Chino…you own a courthouse…Good luck! Chumps!
http://www.dailybulletin.com/government-and-politics/20150709/superior-deal-chino-to-buy-old-courthouse
Superior deal? Chino to buy old courthouse
By David Allen, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Posted: 07/09/15, 1:36 PM PDT | Updated: 1 week, 3 days ago
Chino will buy the former courthouse a few steps from City Hall, a move that will give the city ownership of the entire 8-acre Civic Center.
😉
The courthouse closed in 2012, leaving Chino without a court facility for what was said to be the first time in 125 years (but who’s counting?).
😉
What’s Chino going to do with the building?
😉
“Maybe we’ll start our own courthouse,” joked Tom Haughey, a councilman.
Not really. Actually, the city has no plans for the building — but this move could be the first step in a major change for Chino. More on that in a bit.
In the meantime, the City Council agreed Tuesday night to the price, which is $2.2 million, most of which will be taken from the city’s reserves.
The courthouse was appraised at $4.4 million, but it would need $2.2 million in upgrades, which cut the price drastically, City Manager Matt Ballantyne said.
What price justice? In Chino, it’s half-off.
The former Superior Courthouse is no grand edifice. There are no pillars or stone lions out front. It’s pretty much indistinguishable from City Hall or the former police station, its neighbors.
The trio of buildings was developed in 1976 in a burst of urban renewal on land that had once held such businesses as Chino Lumber Yard and the Pyrenees restaurant. The government center was built in a vaguely Early California style of low-slung structures with tile roofs, all within a square block and connected by paths and terraces.
The main impression the Civic Center leaves today is white stucco.
But I’m a layman. In the original plan, which Ballantyne sent me, the finish was described by the architects, Cashion-Horie of Pomona, as “heavy Spanish textured plaster.”
I can imagine a city official of the period exclaiming: “Great! As long as it’s not stucco!”
Before Tuesday’s council meeting, I peeked into the courthouse, which is only steps from City Hall. Through the glass entry doors, disassembled cubicles, file cabinets and other detritus is in the lobby, all in clear view. Lovely.
😉
😉
The courthouse, in other words, may be vacant, but it’s not empty. There was some byplay about this during the council meeting.
Haughey observed: “The county has a lot of its…”
“…junk?” Mayor Dennis Yates suggested.
“…stuff stored there,” Haughey said politely.
😉
The courthouse was shuttered due to budget cuts at the end of 2012. Even though the courts left, they didn’t quite move out. Ballantyne said the facility will be emptied at some point.
😉
Buying the courthouse has been in the works for a year and was complicated by the property’s joint ownership: 51 percent by the Judicial Council of California and 49 percent by San Bernardino County.
The City Council approved the purchase 4-0, with Earl Elrod absent. Council members, incidentally, could see the courthouse out the window as they cast their votes. Chino expects to take possession by September.
The adjacent police station is vacant as well after its 2012 move to bigger, better quarters. Even though there’s no pressing need for the courts building, buying it consolidates ownership of the whole block in city hands, officials said.
“We want to control the entire Civic Center,” Ballantyne explained.
“It’s best to have all the property, not three-quarters of the property,” Councilman Glenn Duncan said.
And once they own the whole thing, they may sell the whole thing.
“This area isn’t the center of town anymore,” Yates observed. “College Park is more the center. We’ve been looking elsewhere for a place for a new City Hall.”
Well, cops and courts left. Why not the bureaucrats?
Ballantyne elaborated for me after the meeting.
A more-central location for the Civic Center could be city-owned Ayala Park, where the 14-acre driving range for golfers has sat unused for several years. The city’s holdings downtown total 16 acres. “It’s almost like for like,” Ballantyne said of a possible swap.
(Knowing how government officials love golf, maybe if they move to the park, they’ll keep a putting range.)
Besides the Civic Center, which also includes the Neighborhood Activities Center gym, the city owns the adjacent library, senior center and community theater, all north of D Street, and the community services office and former fire station, both across Central Avenue.
Formal requests for proposals may go out in early 2016, said Ballantyne, who imagines interest might come from housing developers, retail developers, Chaffey College, Chino Valley Unified School District and Chino Valley Medical Center.
“Let the market make proposals,” Ballantyne told me. “We’ll cast the net and see how it goes. I just want to create a menu of things for the council to consider. One of the options is just to stay here.”
At this point, Ballantyne said, the Civic Center is almost devoid of life, which hurts downtown.
“We need to create foot traffic,” Ballantyne said. “With the Police Department and the courthouse gone, nobody’s coming here except to pull permits or for a meeting.”
Councilwoman Eunice Ulloa expressed reservations about moving and said the public needs to provide feedback.
“I would suggest the council hold multiple workshops. It will be a headache, but it’s what we need to do,” Ulloa said during the meeting. “I think it’s really critical that we not abandon this downtown area.”
For now, Chino is preparing to own its very own courthouse.
😉
As for what happens to it and the rest of the Civic Center, that’s for the court of public opinion.
😉
David Allen courts readers Friday, Sunday and Wednesday. Contact david.allen@langnews.com or 909-483-9339, visit insidesocal.com/davidallen, like davidallencolumnist on Facebook and follow @davidallen909 on Twitter.