Supervisors OK Tentative Court Funds Settlement

The Board of Supervisors approved a tentative settlement Tuesday that would end its six-month legal fight with Orange County’s judges over court funding.

Under the deal, the judges would get another $2.95 million in operating funds from the county, but some of the courthouse improvements they had sought will remain in financial limbo.

The Board of Supervisors also agreed to create--but not fund--19 marshal positions and 30 new administrative positions in the courts.

Officials on both sides of the divisive issue expressed relief that the legal drama appears to be over and said they hoped relations between the county and the court system would gradually improve.

“The expense of a long trial has been spared with this deal,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman William G. Steiner. “It’s nice to finish the year by having this issue resolved.”

The tentative agreement came about two months after attorneys for the county and courts placed the lawsuit on hold and began negotiating.

In April, Orange County’s six presiding judges filed an unprecedented civil complaint saying the courts needed an additional $13 million to continue operations through the end of the fiscal year and an additional $10 million for capital improvements and technology upgrades.

County supervisors allocated an additional $4.5 million to allow the courts to get through the end of the fiscal year in June, but they refused the judges’ other demands.

The two sides went back to the negotiating table in September, after the state Legislature had passed a new law shifting some of the responsibility for court funding to the state and away from the county. Under the law, the state could pick up as much as 30% of funding now covered by the county.

Theodore E. Millard, presiding judge of Orange County Superior Court, said the state law “complicated” the issues of the lawsuit, which centered on a state statute requiring counties to provide courts with “suitable” facilities and “sufficient” funding.

“With the new law, there were no clear answers,” Millard said. “That was a good part of the motivation to settle.”

Millard said the settlement does little to address the courts’ need for improved facilities, maintenance and staffing. Even the new state legislation is not expected to immediately meet the courts’ requirements for additional funds, he said.

The county’s courthouses need new heating and air-conditioning systems, computer equipment and other basic supplies, he said. Courthouse maintenance costs that have been postponed for lack of funds could top $30 million, the judge added.

“The funding battle is not over,” Millard added. “I am optimistic that the board members will step up to the plate and acknowledge their responsibilities. . . . [But] one of the things I think this lawsuit demonstrated is that we will take action when we have no alternative.”

Court officials will decide later exactly how to spend the $2.95 million. In addition to allocating that sum, the county also agreed to pick up the judges’ legal bills.