Court Plan Would Give County Extra $35 Million

Chronically short of money to pay for everything from road repairs to jails, San Diego County now has the chance to pick up an easy $35 million a year from the state.

But the county might turn it down.

The money represents the annual windfall the county could receive if it opts to let the state take over most of the cost of trial courts, one of the county’s most expensive programs.

But county officials say the offer, made in the form of legislation signed into law last month by Gov. George Deukmejian, might have some hidden pitfalls. Drafted behind closed doors at the end of the Legislature’s 1987 session, the measure has several elements that give the county cause for concern.

Need Voter Approval

“It’s a mixed blessing,” said David Janssen, the county’s assistant chief administrative officer. “We’re pleased that the Legislature and the governor have finally done this. But they’ve done it in such a way that it may not be anything the county is going to benefit from.”

The chief complaint county officials have with the deal is that it will require voter approval before they can spend the full windfall. That’s because the extra money would push the county over the constitutional spending limit enacted by California voters in 1979.

Beyond that, the county, by accepting the state’s offer, would have to agree to allow the state controller to determine the county spending limit. That task historically has been performed locally, and county officials want it to remain that way because they want the ability to figure the limit by whatever method allows them to spend the most money.

Another part of the deal would require the county to modify its split of property taxes with three cities--Encinitas, Solana Beach and San Marcos--which now get less than 10% of the taxes collected within their boundaries.

Finally, the county would have to agree to forfeit its right to claim reimbursement for certain programs that the state requires the county to perform but fails to fully fund. That change would cost the county about $1 million a year, officials say.

Biggest Obstacle

The spending limit could present the biggest obstacle. County officials tremble at the thought of going to the voters every four years for permission to spend a large chunk of their budget. But that’s exactly what could happen under this plan.

Currently, the county is about $20 million below its Gann Limit, named for tax crusader Paul Gann, who authored the constitutional amendment California voters approved in 1979 to curb government spending. Each governmental entity has its own limit, based on how much was spent before 1979 and then adjusted upwards in connection with changes in population and inflation.

If the county’s revenues exceed its spending limit, the surplus must be refunded to taxpayers, unless the voters agree to waive the limit for four years.

Under the new court-funding program, the state has agreed to pay the county $480,000 for each Superior Court judgeship and $474,000 for each Municipal Court position. The state will also begin reimbursing the county for most of the salaries of Municipal Court judges, as it already does for the Superior Court.

For San Diego, the total grant would come to about $59.6 million a year.

In return, the county, if it participates, must give the state all revenue collected from fees and fines paid to the courts, the county clerk and the marshal, as well as some other funds it was getting from the state. That amount comes to about $24.8 million, leaving a net gain for the county of $34.8 million.

Numbers Unclear

John Sweeten, director of intergovernmental affairs for the county, said it’s not clear yet how much, if any, of the $34.8-million windfall the county could spend without the voters’ approval.

That ambiguity and several others make Sweeten uncertain about whether it would be worth it for the county to participate.

“The question is what is it going to cost us to make effective use of those revenues?” Sweeten said. “If the liabilities exceed the benefits provided by the bill, then that would certainly tend to lead us to a negative conclusion about what to recommend to the Board of Supervisors.”

County Supervisor Leon Williams said he would object to the county joining the program without first obtaining voter approval to spend the extra money. And even if voters approve the first spending limit waiver, the process would leave the county and its services vulnerable to a change in voter attitudes by the time the second waiver is needed four years later.

By then, the stakes--and the potential tax refund--would probably be much higher. The courts would be secure because they would be assured of state funding.

But other programs, perhaps health and social services for the poor, for example, would likely become dependent on the money freed up by the state’s funding of the courts and would have to be cut back if the voters balked.

Funding Fears

Williams said “it would hurt” to turn down a funding boost of $35 million, enough to build a small jail or pay for more than half of the county’s mental health system. But he said it makes no sense to fund such programs if the money for them could disappear at any time.

“I see no point in getting into that kind of a messy situation,” Williams said. “County government is serious business, and we ought not do it in a patchwork, half-baked kind of way. We ought to move into a position where we are stable and people can depend on us for services and we can deliver what they want and what they want to pay for.”

The idea of shifting the responsibility for trial courts to the state is a goal San Diego and other counties have been pursuing for years. The argument is that the judicial system ultimately is a state function--the governor appoints the judges, after all--and the state ought to pay for it.

“We have a state legal system, but the administration of it and the funding of it has been left to the differences between the counties,” said William Davis, director of the administrative office of the state Judicial Council, which oversees the courts.

Davis and Larry Naake, executive director of the County Supervisors Assn. of California, said they expect most counties to participate in the shift despite the legislation’s blemishes.

Reaction Called Positive

“The reaction has been very positive,” Naake said after a meeting Wednesday with county officials from throughout the state. “We have been pushing for this.”

William Pierce, administrator for the San Diego County Superior Court, said the court’s judges are pleased that the state has followed through on its pledge to fund the system from Sacramento. Pierce said he expects the state to provide a healthier and more stable flow of funds to keep pace with the growth in the local caseload--if the county agrees to accept the new funding arrangement.

“One of the major problems we’ve been faced with for a number of years is the problem the county has with funding sources, that basically they do not have enough resources to provide adequate staffing and equipment,” he said. “Even though they have us as a very high priority, it’s been very difficult for the county to provide everyone with what they want.”

The result has been a backlog that means civil cases scheduled 16 to 18 months ago are just now coming to trial. Although a recently implemented monitoring program appears to be moving cases along faster, additional funding from the state would help eliminate the backlog, Pierce said.

The legislation provides 10 new superior court judgeships for San Diego, but Pierce said the county has no spare courtrooms in which the new judges could preside. Some of the new money could go for building or leasing more courthouse space.

But for now, county supervisors and administrators say they don’t know enough about the new program to commit themselves. Supervisor Susan Golding said the situation reminds her of the confusion that resulted after the Legislature passed a landmark measure to bail out local government after the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. The impact of that bill is still not totally clear, she noted.

“This trial court funding bill unfortunately may end up being that difficult to understand and analyze,” Golding said. “I can’t say whether it’s going to be good or bad for the county. All I can say is that it’s messy and unclear at this point.”