The project would create a new location for the court facilities currently housed on the fourth floor of the courthouse on N. Forbes in Lakeport.
Last July the state Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), at the direction of the Judicial Council of California, submitted 18 trial court funding projects to the state's Department of Finance, according to the Office of Court Construction and Management.
Eight facilities were given priority for funding in the 2009-10 fiscal year. Lake County is among them, along with Imperial, Monterey, Riverside, Sacramento, Shasta, Sonoma and Sutter, the Office of Court Construction and Management reported.
A 32-page project feasibility report on the proposed new Lakeport courthouse states the the court's current location on N. Forbes is “severely overcrowded, poorly serves the growing needs of the superior court and lack of basic security features causes unnecessary risk to the staff and public who use this building.”
The report also notes that the court location has “significant security problems, severe accessibility deficiencies, is very overcrowded, and has many physical problems, and prevents the court from providing safe and efficient court services to the public.”
On a courthouse safety scale of 0 to 80, with 0 being best and 80 being worst, the Lakeport facility got a 69 score, according to the report.
For all of those reasons, the Lakeport courthouse project landed in the “immediate need” priority group in the Trial Court Five-Year Infrastructure Plan, the report says, adding that Lakeport's new facility “is one of the highest priority trial court capital-outlay projects for the judicial branch.”
The report calls for a 50,158 square foot building on a three-acre property, with 120 parking spaces. The construction costs for the project are estimated at $70.8 million, not including finance costs.
That breaks down to $2.6 million for acquisition – which is set to be allocated in the 2009-10 fiscal year – along with $2.4 million for the preliminary plans phase, which would be completed between October 2011 and May of 2012.
Another $3 million would go for the working drawings phase, scheduled for May of 2012 to January of 2013. Construction, estimated to cost $62.7 million, would take place between May 2013 and January 2015, according to the feasibility report.
Funding for the courthouse projects comes from state Senate Bill 1407, legislation enacted last year that sets up a revenue system to support the construction projects, according to the Judicial Council of California.
Based on a series of fee increases, assessments and penalties imposed on court users – such as a portion of parking tickets – SB 1407 creates a framework for issuing $5 billion in revenue bonds for the courthouse projects, the council explained in a January statement.
Over the next decade, court construction projects are planned to take place in 48 of the state's 58 counties, according to the council.
The council reported in January that it had completed courthouse transfer agreements for 466 out of more than 500 facilities across the state. Those transfers, according to the council, pave the way for new facilities under the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002, which transferred courthouse governance from counties to the state.
The transfer of responsibility agreement for the Lakeport courthouse's fourth floor became effective on Sept. 1, 2008, while the agreement and title transfer for the South Civic Center in Clearlake went into effect on Sept. 29, 2008, according to Judicial Council of California records.
Building a better courthouse
Mary Smith, chief executive officer of the Lake County Superior Court, said a lot of that $70.8 million price tag for the Lakeport courthouse project is expected to come into the community in one form or another.
Smith said the issue of establishing new local court facilities has been around for several years.
The current court facility on the fourth floor of the Lake County Courthouse has approximately 15,332 square feet of floor space, according to the feasibility report. “It's not very big,” Smith said.
The fourth floor includes four courtrooms – Departments 1, 2 and 3, plus Department A, which is the location of small claims and juvenile court cases. The report on the new facility said it also will have four courtrooms.
In addition, it will have other components the current facility lacks – attorney-client meeting rooms, a jury assembly room and records storage space. The current court's cramped quarters mean they have to rent storage space for court records, said Smith.
A new building will have all of those areas, said Smith. “It's going to be a great thing to have everything in one place.”
Smith is now heading up a committee that will be instrumental in making recommendations on a courthouse location.
The committee includes about 10 people, including county department heads, with members of the Board of Supervisors set to join, she said.
Richard Knoll, the city of Lakeport's redevelopment director, said he, interim City Manager Kevin Burke and Utilities and Community Development Director Mark Brannigan all sit on the courthouse committee, along with Judge Arthur Mann, Assistant Court Executive Officer Kip Rodda and businessman Bill Brunetti.
The group first met in November and met again in late February, said Knoll.
Smith said the group isn't very formal yet. “I think we're still away from any kind of decisions.”
Effort under way to keep courthouse in Lakeport
Lakeport officials are keenly interested in seeing a new courthouse facility stay in the city, said Knoll.
City officials worry that there's potential for the facilities to be moved out to a county-owned property near the Lake County Jail. "We're very concerned about that," said Knoll.
At the November meeting, a possible list of 13 court sites within Lakeport was offered, said Knoll.
Before City Manager Jerry Gillham left for a deployment in Iraq last summer, he and Knoll spent an afternoon driving around Lakeport and looking at possible sites, and from there they developed a list, Knoll said.
Since then, the number of potential sites in Lakeport has grown, said Knoll. Using a three-acre template, he applied it to vacant parcels on a large city map in his office in the Carnegie Library.
He's so far sketched out 25 prospective sites on the map, looking primarily at property size and if the land would be conducive in a very general way to the project. That doesn't mean the specific sites will necessarily work, he added.
Possible sites include locations on Industrial Avenue, Grace Lane, S. Main Street, Kimberly Lane, Second Street, N. Main Street at Third, Bevins Street and Bevins Court, South Street, Todd Road Extension and Central Park Avenue and 11th Street.
Knoll cautioned that the properties on the list are only proposals, and that city officials have only had very introductory discussions with some of the property owners. No in-depth conversations have taken place.
"Where we are right now is kind of zeroing in on a couple of the more promising sites," he said.
They're doing that with a view to making a proposal, which he said is difficult for the city to do because it's not in charge of the process. So they have to take part in the process and make a meaningful recommendation, and hope it makes functional and financial sense.
Knoll said city officials don't believe eminent domain will be needed. "Our efforts at this point have not gone in that direction."
Ultimately, the decision will be up to the committee, which will then forward its own proposals to the state, Smith said.
"We're really just trying to be somewhat aggressive," said Knoll. "But we're not really sure if that's going to work."
But he thinks the city has a good proposal.
Ruff and Associates, the architectural firm that's working with the city on its downtown facade improvement program – and the same firm that worked on Ceago del Lago – is working with the city to develop a prototype of the courthouse project. Knoll said the prototype would show how the building would look on a given site.
The goal is to eventually invite the courthouse committee to a presentation at Lakeport City Hall, where the city will make its pitch using the prototype design, Knoll said.
For Lakeport, it's key to keep the court facilities downtown, for both logistical and business reasons.
Knoll said a central, downtown location gives court employees greater access to services and other facilities. It's also good because many of the services are within walking distance.
That, he said, is a greener, more urban-centered approach to land development.
"I think there's a lot of positives involved in trying to stay in downtown Lakeport," he said.
That includes using the facility to serve as an economic catalyst and an anchor tenant to support other redevelopment activities.
"It's good for business in downtown Lakeport," he said.
Meantime, the committee is waiting for direction for the AOC, said Smith. “It's hurry up and then wait,” she said.
She said she hopes to be ready once the AOC begins offering guidance on the next steps to take.
Smith said it's really up to the community to keep the project moving forward.
“It's a big project,” she said. “It's an exciting project.”
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:2}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
