County Vows to Proceed With Court in Chatsworth

Faced with a shortage of money for courthouse construction, Los Angeles County officials are recommending indefinite postponement of six projects that have already cost millions of dollars, and completion of only two buildings--one in Chatsworth and the other near Los Angeles International Airport.

The recommendations, released late Wednesday by Chief Administrative Officer Sally R. Reed, immediately touched off a storm of protest from officials who have been lobbying for an $80-million courthouse in the Antelope Valley city of Lancaster, and from residents of Chatsworth, who have sued the county to block construction of a $51.5-million facility there.

The issue is scheduled to come before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

In a 16-page report, Reed recommends that the supervisors indefinitely postpone construction of six proposed courthouses that have already cost the county $16 million in land acquisition, design and other costs. The sites are in Lancaster, Pasadena, West Los Angeles, South Bay, Santa Monica and North Hollywood.

Two other proposed projects--in Southeast Los Angeles and Long Beach--that have cost the county nothing to date should also be delayed indefinitely, the report states.

As a stopgap measure, Reed recommends that the county lease space for traffic cases and other non-criminal matters to free up courtrooms in the Antelope Valley, South Bay and Santa Monica until there are sufficient funds to build courthouses.

Courthouse construction funds come from a portion of general court fines, court-imposed traffic school fees and parking citations. After rising through the late 1980s, the annual revenue for courthouse construction has been dropping steadily since 1989, falling from $25 million that year to $16.5 million in the latest fiscal year, according to the report.

The county would face deficits of up to $312 million over a nine-year period if it continues with plans to build all 10 courthouses, partly because projected costs have gone up dramatically, the report states.

Court administrators and judges warned that many existing courthouses are already severely crowded and lack proper security.

“There’s a need for all those new courthouses,” said Rob Quist, deputy administrator for the Los Angeles Municipal and Superior courts, adding that leasing space in the interim will not solve the problem. “Our projections show that by the year 2010, we’re going to need 30 courts up in the Antelope Valley alone.”

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who represents most of the San Fernando and Antelope valleys, “completely opposes” the recommendations and will propose Tuesday that the county build the Lancaster courthouse instead of the one in Chatsworth, said Lori Howard, an Antonovich aide.

The report acknowledges the need to replace the 30-year-old Antelope Valley courthouse, which is so small that cases are frequently transferred at least 45 miles away to facilities where courtrooms are available.

A group of judges also recommended earlier in the fall that the board build the new Lancaster courthouse before the one in Chatsworth because rapid growth in the Antelope Valley has outstripped the capacity of the existing building.

But Reed recommends proceeding with the projects in Chatsworth and near LAX instead, largely because the county has already spent about $40.2 million on them, compared with only about $5.8 million on the Lancaster project.

Construction can begin on the projects in Chatsworth and near LAX in the next fiscal year, which begins in July, according to the report.

“The county should proceed to construction to avoid loss of the substantial investment to date,” the report states.

“Antelope Valley pays taxes too,” Howard said. “At an absolute bare minimum, residents there deserve at least an adequate level of services.”

“They got their head in the sand,” Lancaster Mayor Arnie Rodio said. “I just wish they’d let us secede from the county. We don’t get zip from those people.”

In Chatsworth, residents who are suing the county to block construction of a courthouse said they were disappointed in the recommendations, and vowed to press on with their opposition.

“I think they chose the wrong place,” resident John Lindsay said.