O.C. Says $2.5 Million More Will Cover Courts for Now

SANTA ANA — After reviewing the court system’s financial documents, county officials said Friday that local courts needed up to $4.5 million in additional funds to continue operating through the end of the current budget year, less than half the amount judges demanded to head off a courthouse shutdown.

Court administrators said that $2.5 million in newly promised money, added to the $2 million the county allocated two months ago, probably would be enough to forestall any curtailment of courthouse operations before the budget year ends June 30.

The latest funding plan must still be approved by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday. While it may resolve the courts’ immediate funding needs, it is not expected to alter the ongoing legal battle between local judges and county officials over what is adequate court funding.

In a civil complaint filed in April, Orange County’s six presiding judges said the courts needed $13.3 million to cover employee salaries, equipment and supply purchases and other operating costs just to keep operating through June 30.

County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier’s office disputed the judges’ numbers, saying the courts needed little more than the $129 million the county had already allocated.

The Board of Supervisors voted in late April to set aside an additional $2 million for the courts. The new funding plan would raise the supplemental appropriation to $4.5 million, though officials said the court might need slightly less.

Rather than allocating the entire sum directly to the courts, the supervisors would give Auditor-Controller Steve E. Lewis instructions to dole out the money as needed after the Superior Court and six municipal courts deplete their operating budgets.

“With the support of the board, this will get the courts through the end of the fiscal year at an amount that is far less than what [judges] have asked for,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman William G.

*

Superior Court Judge Kathleen E. O’Leary said Friday that the court will probably be able to cover operating costs if the county provides the entire $4.5 million and makes good on an earlier promise not to collect $7.7 million in overhead charges until after all salaries are paid.

“If the [overhead bill] is the last charge of the fiscal year, we can get to the end of the fiscal year without closing the courts,” O’Leary said.

Although she disagreed with some of the statements contained in Mittermeier’s funding proposal, “obviously we appreciate any efforts the board makes to fund the courts,” the judge added.

Robert L. Palmer, a Los Angeles attorney representing the county in the legal battle, said he hoped the $4.5 million would “take care of this fiscal year” and allow the case to focus on determining larger court funding issues.

The case centers on a state law that requires counties to provide the courts with “suitable” and “sufficient” facilities and personnel to operate, and the looming legal battle will center on what constitutes sufficient funding.

County officials said they determined that up to $4.5 million was needed after reviewing detailed financial breakdowns that the Los Angeles Superior Court judge hearing the case ordered court administrators to provide.

*

Palmer said the data indicated the courts needed $6.7 million to get through June 30. But after crunching the numbers, county officials determined that the total included computers and equipment purchases “not essential to occur in the two remaining weeks of the fiscal year,” according to a county report released Friday.

But court administrators insist that the financial documents did not reveal any information the county didn’t already know.

“It’s no different than the information we have already provided them at budget hearings. There is no new information,” said Alan Slater, executive officer of Orange County Superior Court. “It’s being characterized as if we finally complied with something [that] we have already done.”

Slater and O’Leary said they couldn’t comment on specific details in the documents because it is part of ongoing litigation.

Slater stressed that the $4.5 million would not cover the many “critical” projects needed by the courts, ranging from an airport-style security system to maintenance projects and computer upgrades.

But Steiner said the county’s findings speak for themselves. “This is so much less than what they said their needs were,” he said. “So much for the courts’ credibility on that.”

The $2.5-million allocation will come out of the county’s contingency fund, leaving it with a balance of just $500,000.