D.A., Court Must Vie for Building Dollars

Judge Pamela L. Iles has tried asking nicely. She’s tried humor to get her point across. She’s begged and pleaded.

Now, it’s come to this: a threat to sue Orange County unless it moves forward on building a new courthouse in South County to replace one that’s bursting at the seams.

“We desperately need a new facility. Things are getting dangerous here,” said Iles, a judge at Municipal Court in Laguna Niguel. “I’m looking at a fuse and it’s burning. Something is going to blow.”

When the Laguna Niguel court was built in 1968, there were only about 100,000 residents and relatively few scofflaws. Today, there are 470,000 people in South County and far more miscreants.

Located on Crown Valley Parkway, the current facility consists of four courtrooms. An annex on Moulton Parkway in Laguna Hills houses three other courts for traffic and small claims cases.

There’s not enough room for the jurors they summon, not enough for the criminal defendants being brought to trial, and not enough for all the documents the courts are required to store. And judges there handle more cases per judge than any other urban municipal court in the state.

Things have become so bad that Iles is contemplating renting big tents in a few weeks and setting them up in the parking lot to shelter jurors awaiting assignment to jury pools instead of leaving them in crowded courthouse hallways.

Canned sardines have more space to move, court employees complain.

“Something has to be done,” said Iles, who has spent more than 12 years trying to get a new courthouse built and heads the court’s committee on the project.

Iles, however, is not alone in her quest for new digs.

Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi has recently stepped up his lobbying effort to persuade county officials to build him an office building he says is sorely needed.

He, too, says that working quarters for his prosecutors and other employees are too cramped. “Prisoners in jail are entitled to more space,” Capizzi has joked in the past.

Instead of a centralized office, Capizzi has employees scattered throughout the Santa Ana Civic Center, hampering office efficiency and ultimately wasting county time and money, he said. Moreover, the second-floor courthouse space currently occupied by the district attorney’s office is being eyed by Superior Court officials who need more courtrooms.

“We have a real need for this [building],” Capizzi said last week.

Less than two years ago, both projects seemed well on their way to being built. Plans had been drafted, designs had been approved. Then the bankruptcy struck and most of the county’s capital projects, including the new South Municipal Court and Central Courthouse Office Wing, were shelved indefinitely.

With last month’s emergence from bankruptcy, both Iles and Capizzi are renewing their pitches to get their new buildings. Both realize, however, that financial resources in the county’s post-bankruptcy budgets are scarce.

It will be tough enough convincing the Board of Supervisors that one project must go forward, but two? Good luck. An unofficial contest has developed between the district attorney and the judge to see whose project will go forward.

Iles said there is no other project in the county more deserving than hers. And, she said she’s spent nearly $70,000 in court funds hiring attorneys to make sure she gets one. The county, she says, has canceled the project on four occasions over the years. If the Board of Supervisors doesn’t act soon, she said she will sue the county for not adequately providing the court with the resources it needs to conduct business.

Capizzi, attempting to be less confrontational, said the projects should not be viewed as a “North versus South” situation.

County officials, meanwhile, said they are sympathetic to the plight of both the district attorney and the judge but are unsure whether there is funding for either.

“I’m reluctant to commit to any project without an identified source of funding,” County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier said. “I understand their needs but I can’t recommend them to the board right now.”

Lacking the CEO’s recommendation, Iles and Capizzi have started lobbying the Board of Supervisors directly on the merits of their proposals.

Some board members last week seemed more inclined to help Iles than Capizzi, who is trying to prosecute Supervisors William G. Steiner and Roger R. Stanton for their alleged failure to adequately oversee the risky treasury operations that drove the county into bankruptcy.

Supervisor Marian Bergeson, whose district includes South County, said her first priority is getting the courthouse built.

“This is an urgent project. It’s critically important for the South County interests,” Bergeson said. “It’s very difficult for them to work in those conditions.”

Steiner agreed, saying “there’s quite a lot of sentiment to accommodate the South County court. The central court wing is a little bit down the line.

“There is a feeling that [Capizzi’s project] is worthy, but it’s not high on the priority list. More jail beds and the South County court are first in line,” he added.

Steiner said his final decision on the projects will be based on the merits and will not be influenced by the legal problems he faces with Capizzi’s prosecutors.

Stanton could not be reached for comment.

As proposed, the new $66-million South County court would be built on Antonio Parkway at the Foothill Tollway. The 2 1/2-floor facility would have 19 courtrooms when completed and contain offices for the district attorneys, public defenders and court personnel.

The mission-style building would be able to expand. It’s a “no frills” building, Iles said.

Furthermore, Iles said she has crafted a financing package with the Koll Co.--the project’s developer--that would minimize the county’s initial investment. Under the terms of the Koll deal, the company would build and maintain the facility and lease it to the county, which would have an option to buy it any time after the first two years. The county would make no payments on the project while it is under construction or during the first two years it is occupied.

The district attorney’s office structure, called the Central Courthouse Wing, would be a $42-million project built on a parking lot next to the courthouse.

The seven-story structure would be connected to the courthouse and also house the grand jury, the jury assembly room and the court cafeteria. The existing cafeteria space in the courthouse would be transformed into additional courtrooms.

Capizzi said he, too, is cobbling together a financing package that would minimize the county’s expenses. One option he is looking at, he said, is using a portion of so-called Proposition 172 sales tax money, which he receives from the state for public safety purposes.

Some county officials, however, said it might not be necessary to build Capizzi a new office structure when there are vacant offices throughout the Santa Ana Civic Center.

One solution circulating throughout the Hall of Administration is giving the district attorney the three-story General Service Agency building across from the courthouse on Ross Street. The GSA building is expected to become vacant under a proposal by Mittermeier to eliminate the agency, officials said.

Another option being discussed is giving the district attorney space at the existing federal courthouse in Santa Ana once the federal courts are relocated to a much larger structure that is expected to open in fall 1997. The existing courthouse consists of temporary modules.

Capizzi said both options are inadequate to meet his needs. He said farming his employees out to various offices around the Civic Center is very inefficient and might end up being more expensive for the county in the long run.

Meanwhile, Iles said time is running out for the county.

“If there isn’t a groundbreaking soon, I’ll take the county to court,” she said.

Even if there isn’t much room.