State has 3 site proposals

WILL BUILD TO SUIT:
Anderson’s 36-page site proposal package, complete with site maps, archeological studies, wildlife inventory and green building concepts, is one of three that will be considered by the Judicial Council of California as a possible location for Shasta County’s new $211 million state-financed courts facility.

Three competing site proposals for a state-financed $211 million Shasta County courts facility have been submitted to the Judicial Council of California's Administrative Office of the Courts as of the March 31 deadline. The state is looking for free or low-cost property of at least 6.5 acres to 7.5 acres on which to construct a 173,000 square foot building.

In a two-page letter with two aerial photographs attached, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and the Redding City Council teamed up to promote two sites, one on either side of Court Street in the heart of downtown Redding.

The first proposed site, at 4.6 acres, would replace the existing four-story courts building between West and Court streets as well as the existing two-story courthouse annex and adjacent surface parking lots. That plan would require phased construction allowing existing courtrooms to be used within the construction zone even as new courtrooms are built up around them, explained Larry Lees, the county's administrative officer.

The second Redding site, at 5.9 acres, includes the existing Sheriff's offices on Court Street and four adjoining parking lots, as well as short sections of Butte and Oregon streets and a large expanse of parking fronted by Oregon and Tehama streets, Lees said.

Those offices could re-locate to the third floor of the existing court house once the state vacates that area, Lees said.

Meanwhile, in a move that took Redding and Shasta County officials somewhat by surprise, the City of Anderson is proposing a courthouse site on mostly vacant land adjacent to both Interstate 5 and the Sacramento River in north Anderson. The Anderson proposal is a 17-page document complete with a site map, color photographs, an artist's rendering and 19 pages of supplemental studies, endorsements and related attachments.

The decision on which site gets tapped for the 14-courtroom, four-story building now lies in the hands of state court administrators. Although the state's own guidelines call for up to two local stakeholders to be on the site selection committee, no local entities have been invited to sit on that panel, lamented Les Baugh, District 5 supervisor for the county.

Despite representing Anderson, the city's former mayor and four-term council member has publicly opposed re-locating the proposed courthouse due to the potential for increased travel costs of having the courthouse facility 11.3 miles away from the Shasta County Jail and existing offices for the district attorney and public defenders' offices.

In an e-mail sent Thursday, April 2, to the Valley Post, Lees indicated that the Anderson site could cost Shasta County more than $2.66 million each year in additional transportation costs if offices for the district attorney, probation, public defender, child support services and juvenile hall remain in Redding.

"The increase in annual operating cost as projected by the departments:

Sheriff (includes inmate transport) - $864,174

District Attorney - $821,500

Probation/Juvenile Hall - $650,448

Public Defender - $284,966

Child Support Services - $42,000

The total annual increase in County operating cost would be $2,663,088," Lees wrote.

Countering that argument, in large part, Anderson City Manager Scott Morgan said the South County proposal includes adequate additional land for the county to, over time, relocate all ancillery and related court offices to Anderson.

"That is entirely up to the county to decide how to most cost-effectively reduce their operating expenses," Morgan said. "For the Anderson site, there aren't any construction staging issues. The people can remain where they are until the new facility here opens."

The Anderson proposal was carefully crafted during the last 27 days to "pay particular heed to the state's wish list of specified priorities," Morgan noted with obvious pride.

"We're very pleased with our proposal and we think it is an excellent tool with which to promote Anderson," Morgan said.

Among the many advantages listed for the Anderson site include the potential for certification with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, a third-party verification process that uses nationally accepted benchmarks for the design, construction and operation of building projects that are environmentally responsible, profitable and a healthy place to live and work.

Such features include the use of a passive solar design since the building's main entrance will likely face the south, Morgan said. Also, the site lends itself to active hot water heating and photovoltaic power generation that could easily be tied to the regional power grid.

For summer cooling, the site is adjacent to the Sacramento River and the natural temperature benefits of its riparian habitat as well as proximity to the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District canal that could significantly reduce air conditioning costs, he added.

"Such water would be conveyed to the subject property . . . and be available from approximately mid-April through mid-October of each year," states a portion of a short letter from Stan Wangberg, general manager of the irrigation district.