California’s budget crisis has already jacked up college tuition costs, ransacked redevelopment agencies and hammered funding for social services across the state.

Now, at courthouses around California, the fiscal crunch is about to produce longer waits to file that divorce case or resolve those legal feuds between Silicon Valley companies, delays in fixing a broken air conditioner in a sweltering courtroom and trouble paying lawyers appointed to represent the poor. And, on some days in some cash-strapped legal systems, there will be a “closed for business” sign hanging from courthouses from San Francisco to the Central Valley.

California’s courts are about to suffer a record budget blow, preparing to absorb $350 million in cuts this fiscal year and an equally harsh reduction projected for next year. The state Judicial Council, the courts’ policymaking arm, meets Friday to consider recommendations that have judges throughout California shuddering in their robes.

“This is unprecedented,” said Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who heads the council. “There is no other way to say it. It is an amount that is startling to us.”

For the state’s 58 trial courts, which conduct the bulk of judicial business, from criminal trials to child custody spats, the budget cuts will hit hardest. If the judicial council approves the approach endorsed last week in a closed-door meeting in San Francisco attended by judges and court officials, local courts will lose $135 million in the fiscal year that began July 1 and another $170 million next year from an overall budget of more than $3 billion.

In Santa Clara County, that translates into a loss of $6.8 million this year and perhaps more than double that amount next year. San Mateo County’s courts will take at least a $2.7 million hit this year, while Alameda County’s court system will be cut by more than $6.7 million. Contra Costa County’s courts will absorb more than $3 million in cuts and will likewise be forced to cut even more from next year’s budget.

Shifting capital funds

Santa Clara County also must sweat out the prospect that plans to build a new family courthouse in downtown San Jose could be in jeopardy as a result of the latest round of state cuts. As part of the final budget deal, lawmakers ordered the courts to divert about $130 million from a courthouse construction fund to help pay for this year’s shortfall — and Santa Clara’s courthouse is among the projects moving forward through that fund.

Richard Loftus, Santa Clara County’s presiding judge, said he is “optimistic” the courthouse will not be impacted because it is relatively far along in the process. But the worry will be there until the state’s judicial leaders determine which projects get put on hold in the coming year.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Council is leaving it up to local courts to decide if they want to save money by closing courthouses on occasion, unlike two years ago, when the council provoked an outcry by ordering such closures once a month for every court. Santa Clara County has no current plans to close the courts, but other counties, such as San Francisco and Merced, have already warned the cuts will prompt closures, reduced court hours or layoffs.

The budget strife has again sparked division within the California judiciary over the council’s approach to dealing with the cuts. The Alliance of California Judges, a group formed in the aftermath of the court closures, is infuriated by the trial courts’ share of the cuts, arguing the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, the court bureaucracy, should be “cut to the bone” to salvage more money.

Administration costs

In addition, the group insists a controversial multibillion-dollar, statewide technology upgrade, which would overhaul and unify all of the courts’ computer systems, should be scrapped forever. As of now, the council is considering a plan to save close to $100 million by putting the project on hold for one year, according to reports from court officials. The AOC, under fire in recent years for its rapid growth in tight times, is losing about 12 percent of its $116 million budget this year.

Alliance judges insist the proposed cuts to those areas fall far short.

“The AOC is not as important as open courtrooms in the trial courts,” said Sacramento Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard, an alliance leader.

But the chief justice and other powerful groups, including the California Judges Association, defend the across-the-board cuts and say the bureaucracy and tech project are being unfairly targeted.

“It is an idea that doesn’t have a lot of support along the broad base of the judiciary,” said Keith Davis, president of the judges association. “We want to try and make cuts that are fair and appropriate.”

Meanwhile, the cuts are already hitting home. In Santa Clara County’s courts, the system has shed nearly 100 court workers in recent years, as the judges try to stave off layoffs and deal with tens of millions of dollars in cuts already in place. David Yamasaki, the court’s chief executive, said it already takes days for court employees to answer phone calls from the public and weeks to finalize court judgments that once took a matter of days.

Once the next two years of cuts take hold, the public can expect worse, according to California’s judicial leaders.

“I think they did this very thoughtfully,” Loftus said of the proposed cuts. “But I think it’s going to be painful in a lot of ways.”

Contact Howard Mintz at 408-286-0236.