Two Cities Courting County for Chance to Do Justice to Justice

Vista and Escondido Monday formally unveiled Monday competing plans to solve North County’s courthouse shortage--each arguing with logic and money that it should play host to new courtrooms to serve the region.

Vista maintained that it is the geographic and historical center of North County’s criminal justice system and should remain so. It offered to throw in $3 million in land next to the existing complex on South Melrose Avenue to accommodate new courtrooms and parking.

Escondido, arguing that it is more central to the booming inland North County region, offered $10 million in a combination of cash, land donations and property trades toward the construction of a four-story, 22-courtroom facility in its downtown. The site proposed is on Broadway across the street from the new civic center and Grape Day Park.

Proposition A Problem

Both cities offered financing tools that, they claimed, would allow immediate construction of new courtrooms without having to rely on Proposition A--the half-cent sales tax measure approved by voters last year and then struck down by a judge--to finance new jails and courtrooms in San Diego County.

Monday was the deadline for North County cities to forward their courthouse proposals and, although the cities of Oceanside and San Marcos earlier had shown some interest in the competition, in the end it was only Vista and Escondido that entered.

Most of North County’s courts--11 superior and nine municipal--are in Vista. The county also operates two municipal courtrooms for civil matters in an aging county building in Escondido and recently opened two municipal courtrooms in San Marcos to handle traffic and small-claims matters.

51 Courtroom Sought

The county wants to have 51 courtrooms to serve North County by 1994, and the debate will not only take into account the financial offers of both Vista and Escondido, but also the efficiency of operating two courthouses in North County versus maintaining a single, enlarged courts complex.

Previously, a county consultant questioned the cost and logistics of transporting prisoners from the County Jail in Vista to court appearances in Escondido, and the manpower efficiency of staffing a second courthouse there. To that end, Escondido officials say prisoners can be arraigned by appearing on video camera and will not have to be transported to Escondido. Additional staff costs, officials countered, are simply the cost of offering improved service to inland residents.

Escondido’s proposal would still require some more courthouse construction in Vista if the county is to reach its goal of 51 courtrooms in North County.

County officials said Monday they were not prepared to comment on the competing proposals, but will establish a committee including representatives of the courts system to evaluate and respond to the proposals and to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Both cities hope to land the additional courts in order to lure professional and commercial enterprises.

Other Arguments

Vista also contends that, since it is burdened with a 1,000-inmate jail, it should enjoy the economic benefits of having the entire courts complex. Escondido, meanwhile, is counting on a courthouse to further its downtown redevelopment, generally evident so far only in the construction of the new civic center and plans for an adjoining cultural arts complex.

The proposals by each city did not discuss specifically what kinds of courthouses should be built in their city, but simply forwarded arguments why theirs should be chosen for logistical and financial reasons.

The Escondido proposal calls in general for a four-story courthouse on the southeast corner of Broadway and Sherman Street, with a four-level parking garage next door to the south. Concurrent with that--but separate from the courthouse proposal--the city would independently develop the corner lot at Broadway and East Valley Parkway as a four-story business and professional building, likely to be leased to a bank and attorneys.

Escondido’s partner in the project is Lusardi Construction Co., which owns most of the 3.8-acre site and which would serve as construction manager.

Escondido’s Terms

Escondido’s offer includes the following terms:

* The city would contribute $2 million toward such pre-construction cost as design, schematics and preparation of construction drawings.

* The city’s Community Development Commission--in charge of the city’s redevelopment--would give $4 million outright to the county to help cover actual construction costs for the courthouse and parking garage.

* The city would buy the county’s Deer Park, just north of the city limits and now leased to the California Conservation Corps, for $2.5 million--money that the county could in turn use to buy the downtown courthouse site.

* The city would close parts of two streets that would become part of the courthouse site--Pennsylvania Avenue and Kalmia Street, as well as an alley--and dedicate that property, at a value of nearly $1 million, to the county.

* The redevelopment agency would pay for the environmental impact report and other development-related fees, at a cost of about $500,000.

Furthermore--and an element that Escondido boosters say would make their proposal the most lucrative of all--the city proposes that the balance of $22.4 million needed to construct the $32.4-million courthouse be financed with property-tax revenue credited to the county from the Escondido redevelopment agency--its share of increased property tax revenue in the downtown Escondido area generated by redevelopment and increased land values there.

In other words, Escondido officials say, the county could build a 22-room courthouse and adjacent parking structure without having to depend on funds from Proposition A, which last year authorized a half-cent sales tax increase for jails and courts expansion.

Proposition A was to have financed courts construction throughout the county, but was struck down by a Superior Court judge in Riverside who said that the measure needed two-thirds voter approval, not the simple majority that it received. His ruling is being appealed by the county.

Escondido officials note that the appeal may not be resolved for two years and said the county doesn’t have to wait that long to begin construction of the overdue courts expansion.

“This means that the new courthouse could be built with revenues exclusively from the Escondido tax base,” said Escondido CDC Executive Director Marilyn Whisenand. “Under our proposal, no county funds would be needed to build the courts.”

Vista’s Offer

Vista, on the other hand, essentially is offering to float a loan to the county to finance the expansion of courts there. The city’s redevelopment agency would finance the construction, to be repaid by the county--whether through Proposition A funds, should they eventually be made available, or from other county money.

Ken Lounsbery, vice president and general counsel for Lusardi, said growth in inland North County mandates a second courthouse to serve the region, even if operating a separate courthouse is more expensive than operating an expanded one at the Vista site.

“It’s more economical to have just one central library to serve an entire county,” Lounsbery said, “but still we have branch libraries to serve the public better. The goal is to serve the public where it lives.”

Lounsbery, a former Escondido city manager, cited projections by the San Diego Assn. of Governments showing inland North County growing as fast as the coastal region and that traffic bottlenecks along California 78, which runs east-west across North County, will require two service areas for North County: Vista and Escondido.

Whisenand said city officials are not overly concerned about increased traffic downtown and said the proposed parking garage could serve both the courthouse during the day and the city’s cultural arts complex, which is expected to be open by 1993, at night.

Escondido’s proposal would fulfill its financial obligation to the county in return for the city’s establishment of a redevelopment district that would reduce the property taxes the county otherwise would have received.

Based on that agreement with the county, Escondido had the choice of contributing $6 million toward the construction of a new courthouse, constructing a new building for the county to use or turning over the city’s existing police station, on West Valley Parkway, to the county.

Whisenand said Monday that, if the county does not accept its courthouse proposal, the city will turn over the police station--valued at $2 million--to the county as its way of settling the redevelopment tax agreement with the county. The city would then build a police station on its own, elsewhere in the city.

By accepting the courthouse proposal, Whisenand contended, the county comes out $8 million ahead.

Convenience Stressed

Vista’s proposal for the North County courthouse stresses the convenience of expanding the existing facility on Melrose Drive and the liabilities of a bifurcated courts system for North County.

“If the county is going to be frugal, which we hope they will be, they will choose the Vista site,” Mayor Gloria McClellan said Monday. “It eliminates a lot of problems.”

Expanding the Vista courthouse has the advantage of keeping the court system next door to the existing jail, which houses all North County prisoners. Keeping the two buildings together would eliminate the cost, the inconvenience and the danger of transporting prisoners back and forth for court appearances, McClellan said. Sixty-five percent of the cases handled in North County are criminal cases, she noted.

The Vista proposal also points out the inconvenience to attorneys, jurors and others with business at the courthouse in having to travel to Escondido. To split the courts between Vista and Escondido would only exacerbate the long-standing traffic troubles on California 78, McClellan said.

Site of Jail

If nothing else, Vista is hoping the county will reward the city for being a polite and uncomplaining host to the County Jail for nearly three decades. Vista was selected by the county in 1961 as the most logical site for a North County Regional Justice Center, McClellan reminded county officials in a letter that accompanied the city’s proposal.

“Although reluctant to see jails built in Vista, our citizens understood the county would mitigate at least a portion of the negative effects through the creation and continued expansion of Municipal and Superior Court facilities at the same site,” McClellan wrote.

It would cost about $1.3 million to duplicate the services now available at the Vista courthouse in Escondido, according to the Vista proposal. “It only seems right to have the courts here where all the activity takes place,” McClellan said Monday. “There is no need to split up the courts.”

To sweeten the pot, Vista is offering to donate 6 acres next to the existing 33-acre court complex. The empty lot, on the site of the former Breeze Hill Ranch, is valued at $3 million, according to the city’s proposal.

Besides the land donation, Vista is proposing to do $23.5 million worth of road improvements--including a project, already under way, to widen Melrose Drive from four lanes to six and install a traffic light in front of the courthouse. The city has also proposed improvements to the closest major intersection and constructing a new frontage road to connect the two main streets nearest the court complex.

Jones Construction Management, which analyzed the details of the Vista proposal, estimated the total construction cost at $101 million to $106 million. The Vista proposal calls for the project to be financed with lease-revenue bonds issued through the city’s redevelopment agency, to be repaid by the county from whatever money is available.