The Judicial Committee responsible for selecting a design for the new Duval County Courthouse met last week to discuss proposed changes to that design. In a letter dated May 21 from Chief Judge Donald Moran to Mayor John Peyton, they detailed their concerns about the changes and why the original design decisions were made.
Dear Mayor Peyton:
We take this opportunity to express our immediate concerns regarding the proposed options for reducing the cost of construction of the new Duval County Courthouse (Scenario 5). We were asked for our input, and after review of the Value Engineering proposals presented to us on Tuesday, May 11, 2004, we are providing our response to the recommendations we feel produce dramatic results which it is our duty to bring to your attention. This response does not address each and every problem we see in the current value engineering proposal, but rather those items which we feel seriously compromise the safety, functionality and durability of the courthouse.
For several years now, the judges of this county have devoted a substantial amount of time working with the administrations of two mayors, and the consultants for the city (Dan Wiley, Jacobs, Cannon and Skanska) to develop a plan which we were assured was within budget. In doing so, as the result of the two prior value engineering proposals, we agreed to and even suggested substantial reductions to meet that goal. Now we are told again that major changes must be made.
Our current courthouse, completed in 1958 for $8 million, is without question at full capacity without room for further expansion.
Because of the county forefathers’ vision ensuring that quality and durability were not sacrificed for for short term savings, the building has served this community well for almost a half century.
The City of Jacksonville in the design competition also selected a new courthouse which would accommodate the needs of Jacksonville until 2020 and beyond. It was planned to be so functional and durable that it would at least equal if not surpass the lifespan of the current courthouse. The Committee also selected a design that would be architecturally and publicly significant. Everyone traveling north or south, east or west through our city would see the illuminated building at night and it would be the focal point and anchor of the downtown Jacksonville civic complex and serve as an impetus for continued development in the surrounding LaVilla area.
In addition, the design of the interior of the courthouse was carefully selected to instill a confidence in all who enter that important matters are decided in the building — whether it is a decision regarding the placement of children — the fracture of families, claims for serious personal injury or matters of life and death. The building would reflect that these decisions would be made with the utmost dignity, respect and integrity.
These were the ideals written into the design competition program and carried out in the Cannon proposal selected by the PESAC Committee of the City of Jacksonville.
As previously stated, this new courthouse was to serve the community’s needs to at least the year 2020, if not decades later. Under Scenario 5 of the value engineering proposal the new courthouse will be at full capacity within 3-7 years of completion. When that date arrives, it is estimated an additional $27.9 million to $37.2 million will be needed to expand the capacity of the building for only an additional 5-7 years of service. During the presentations made to the judiciary on May 11 by Cannon Design, the lead architect on behalf of the City noted the last time he designed a courthouse at the price per square foot currently proposed in Scenario 5 was more than 18 years ago in Arizona.
The members of the Use Committee: the judiciary, the clerk of the court, court administration, security, court technology, and others spent numerous hours working with the City’s consultants to design a building that met the needs outlined in the City’s program and provided a functional, durable and safe building for the more than 7,000 City employees and visitors who will use the building daily. In proposing the nine pages of value engineering cuts the necessary security, the long term savings of durable materials and most importantly the functionality of the building are gone and with them the building that met the needs programmed by the City.
The following is a brief outline of the reductions proposed in Scenario 5 that are of most immediate concern and their impact on the building.
1. Security, one of the buildings most crucial elements: In a memorandum dated April 7, 2004, the City’s expert security consultant, Buford Goff noted the following:
“The revised systems have not been reviewed with the user organizations but are the result of a charge by the program manager to reduce the total division 17 systems cost to no greater than $1,500,000. This reflects a significant reduction in the budget for the security electronic systems.
Based on experience with similar facilities, the budget of $1.500 million will not support systems other than the bare minimum. A budget of $4 million has been deemed more reasonable and would support security technology applications typically realized with a court facility the size of Duval County.”
The head of courthouse security for the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office has also completed a preliminary review of the proposed courthouse security cuts and believes elimination of communication, steep reduction of camera monitoring equipment, downgrading of quality in locks and cases, lack of adequate elevator space for prisoner transport and downgrading of emergency equipment will necessitate a staff of approximately 400 to safely provide for the needs of the courthouse. This number would be greatly reduced if more equipment and technology were placed back in the budget. The increased cost of additional personnel has not been deducted from any noted savings.
The proposal to remove the central antenna mechanism prevents communication by law enforcement within the building and between the Courthouse, the old Federal Courthouse structure and the new Federal Courthouse as planned between the various law enforcement agencies. Communication would be limited to telephone use. This very simply does not allow security personnel to perform their duties and plan their responses to problems in a safe manner.
2. Combining floors 6 and 7: This puts all court hearing rooms and offices on one floor resulting in numerous pro se and represented litigants, witnesses, friends and family members, and attorneys having to wait for hearings in a very confined lobby rather than dispersed into appropriate waiting areas throughout two floors. It is estimated more than 1,900 persons per day will be directed to this floor. The new waiting space planned for the combined circuit and county sixth floor has only a small waiting area for both circuit court and county court hearings. This is a safety and security risk and an increased and costly manpower issue for the sheriff. Circuit and county spaces on floors 6 and 7 were deliberately separated as they function quite differently. This was a very thought-out decision by all involved in planning this space. More importantly, there is not expansion room as required by the City’s program.
3. Delete two store wings (bustles): This eliminates the City’s required program for enclosed, shelled expansion space for the functions of the clerk of the court, court administration, court support and security and court holding through the year 2020 Great care was taken to ensure that all clerk functions resided side by side with other companion, appropriate clerk functions, and the same diligence was given to all court administration, court support and security and court holding functions. These have now been spread throughout the building, which will cause a very unfriendly experience for users and for staff as well as very inefficient operation of these offices. Please note also that security has been moved to the fifth floor. A deliberate decision to put this function on the second floor was made after consultation with the City’s security consultants, the federal marshals and the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. Security cannot respond effectively to emergencies on floors one and two from the fifth floor.
Of utmost concern, the high volume traffic functions were purposely designed for the first and second floors for ease of use, comfortable way-finding and particularly to lessen the need for more vertical transportation. Now that many of these high volume areas are on the fifth floor, more escalators and elevators will be needed to address longer wait times which adds high costs back into the building which are not calculated. Projects are that 7,000 City employees and visitors will be using this building each and every day and it is imperative that most of this traffic is directed to floors one and two.
Finally, massive construction to add back on the wings in the future will have to occur while the building is in use which is extremely problematic for the users and employees as well as the court functions. Security will be dramatically affected as well. The estimate to add these wings back in just 3 - 7 years is $27.9 million to - $37.2 million compared to $12 million today.
4. Move rotunda to east elevation: This feature as originally planned was one of the main reasons the Cannon proposal won the design competition and was chosen by the City’s PESAC committee. It serves multiple functions:
• Excellent traffic direction and control on all floors
• User friendly to all clerk of the court stations
• User friendly to all court administration functions
• User friendly to all courtrooms and hearing rooms
• User friendly for jurors
• Multipurpose use for community events involving scouts, school tours, government functions, and community functions as well as providing public space required by law for foreclosure sales and other required public clerk functions
• Allowed daylight to enter all areas of an extremely large building which is a security, electrical usage and health issue
• Facilitated the use of the entire building, similar to City Hall.
5. Programmed courtroom space: After years of study and input from the involved users the City’s expert, Dan Wiley determined 43 courtrooms would be necessary in the new courthouse through 2020. The City and the judiciary agreed in 2003 to the shelling of all courtrooms planned on the fifth floor to be built out as needed. The revised plan leaves no shelled space while still calling for the construction of only 31 courtrooms. The 31 courtrooms are assigned permanently to eight to 10 felony criminal divisions and four juvenile delinquency and dependency divisions, leaving only 17 to 19 courtrooms to be shared between the other approximately 40 judges and general masters. This will render the courthouse unusable for a substantial portion of the courts’ business within several years.
6. Dramatically change finishes and surfaces in public spaces: All synthetic finishes and surfaces were carefully chosen to be durable, sanitary, as indestructible as possible, and low maintenance to cut future upkeep costs. While an initial glance at the value engineering sheets might reflect savings in various types of finishes, many of these finishes were rejected due to the high costs of upkeep, repair, maintenance and replacement.
Many of the proposed finish changes will result in constant repainting and repair. This cannot be done while courts are in session and is a major manpower cost as well. This is an extremely high traffic building and therefore the choice of finishes is very important. Sheet rock and paint rather than hard surface materials in public spaces will require repair or replacement on a regular basis. The architects selected a hard, synthetic tile which would cost an estimated $1.15 million to install in the 87,081 square feet now proposed to be carpeted. At first blush, the carpet seems to cost less at an estimate of $236,800.00. However, it would need to be replaced at least every three years and over only 20 years the carpet would cost a total of $2,621,300, three times the cost of installing tile now. By way of example, the hard flooring (terrazzo) and hard wall finishes in the current courthouse have never needed replacement in almost 50 years.
7. Eliminate one elevator in each of the three holding areas: There are three distinct pods of courtrooms on floors, 2, 3, and 4 (and originally planned for the future on floor 5). Each pod stack had two elevators to service up to 12 (and if floor 5 courtrooms are built in the future, 16) courtroom holding areas. If one of the two elevators from each of the three pod stacks is removed it will mean 12-16 courtrooms will be without the ability to transport prisoners back and forth. If the elevator is not working for more than a few minutes, prisoners from those 12-16 courtrooms would have to be walked through the public areas and down the public elevators, taking public elevators out of use and raising heightened security concerns.
It would delay all court proceedings daily as each time a female or a juvenile needs to be transported on the one remaining elevator, no other elevator would be available for movement of any other prisoners in the 12-16 courtrooms serviced by that elevator. By law, females and juveniles must be transported separately from each other and separately from males.
The size of each of the remaining three elevators would need to be increased, adding back in any perceived savings.
8. Additional immediate concerns: The new plan calls for changing the main electrical service secondaries from copper to aluminum. At the meeting with Cannon we were advised this would significantly reduce the life span of the wiring and require quicker replacement. It is also not as safe as copper.
According to the architect, changing cell doors from sliders to swing doors would require wider corridors and would still have some safety risk, as a swinging door can become a weapon. Adding square feet for wider corridors in all holding cell areas to compensate would cost as much as or more than any savings.
Changing elevator doors and frames to a painted surface presents substantial maintenance problems in the future. Every effort was made to ensure all surfaces would be as long lasting and low maintenance as possible.
Taking out window blinds and double pane glass could increase the cost of electricity and outweigh any initial savings. These were selected due to the extremely strong sun and heat in Florida, a very deliberate decision by all participants due to our location and weather.
Elevator 13, now eliminated, was for use by court clerks to transport files and evidence securely. Without it, court clerks would be required to use public corridors and elevators which affects the ability to keep evidence and confidential files secure as required by law.
Eliminating half of the air and heat handling units above courtrooms and chambers would cause functionality problems as the additional noise affects the ability to operate court.
Deleting the first floor courtyard would mean jurors and city employees will be entering and leaving the courthouse numerous times during the day rather than remaining in the building and using the courtyard. This affects the security personnel staffing at the entrances to the building. This was a decision made by all participants due to security and functionality concerns.
The budget calls for the elimination of $834,000 in audio visual equipment for jury trials and staff training. This will result in a new courthouse with little or no modern technology. The raised flooring, allowing for access for substitution of wiring and equipment has also been removed meaning technology cannot be added back in without substantial cost.
Signage to help guide people has been significantly reduced and eliminating the lobby information desk will further complicate usage of the building for visitors; additionally there will be no informational assistance for the public.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires a design allowing all persons to use the courtroom spaces the same way. The users and consultants spent numerous hours designing the courtroom and juror space so it would result in identical use by handicapped and non-handicapped jurors, judges, clerks, etc. The proposed change results in handicapped persons having different access or all jurors using the space differently due to the presence of a handicapped juror. Sliding ramps would need to be installed in all halls behind all courtrooms (a cost not calculated). In addition, as now proposed, all jurors would have to enter and exit the jury room directly in front of spectators who are frequently members of the accused’s family. This was a usage strongly discouraged due to the potential for fear and intimidation amongst jurors.
All seating for public use has been removed from the halls of the courthouse and from the front plaza landscaped area. The Plaza seating was designed on the top of reinforced concrete planters which also had the dual purpose of blocking vehicles from entering the plaza which would be a very problematic safety concern.
The removal of the water softening system for all plumbing and mechanical, we are told, will result in the need for major repair and replacement within a few years due to damage that will occur from hard water flowing through all systems. Based on the need for additions to the new courthouse within 3-7 years, the question must be raised whether the City should spend $232 million on this building. Success in this project is not measured by completing this public building at a number regardless of the resulting project. Rather, in years to come this project will, in reality, be judged a success if it is functional, safe, durable, meets the needs of the growing community for the next 50 years, and is a positive reflection on the City. We are aware that the unforeseen rise in the price of concrete and steel has affected the budget for this project.
However, this building’s lack of efficiency and long term durability as now proposed is not in the best interest of the citizens of Duval County as it does not meet their needs. As currently proposed, this building would be a long-term, continuing financial liability. It is also not the building selected by PESAC and approved by the City Council.
The 2003 design (pre-Scenario 5) approved by the administration meets the needs, safety, durability and functionality concerns of all users. The current proposed building simply does not. When we agreed to the cuts that lead to the 2003 plan the users of the building and the City Council were assured by your administration and the consultants retained by the City that it could be built for $232 million. The same consultants and your staff now say it cannot.
Although we understand your administration is working to renegotiate Skanska’s contract, the current agreement in which Skanska will receive 50 percent of any savings on the contracted price of the building does not assure that the contingency fund monies will be available for use for the courthouse.
The judiciary design committee has consistently tried its best to work within a budget and we have been assured at every turn that we did so. We will continue to work with all involved to reach a price of $232 million on the 2003 building.
As you may know, the Florida Legislature recently passed a new bill effective July 1, 2004, allowing each county to impose a $15 fee on civil tickets. This fee can be used only for court facilities. All other major metropolitan counties have already adopted this non-tax user fee to fund their courthouse facilities. This option is available to Duval County to use for this purpose.
Our clerk of the court has carefully analyzed the effect of this legislation and conservatively estimates it will raise $4,5 million per year. We need only have the measure adopted by our City Council to put it into effect in Duval County July 1, 2004.
Therefore, I propose the following:
Authorize Cannon to finish the 2003 (pre-Scenario 5) plans to the point where they can be bid on by any responsible general contractor, including qualified local contractors. Once competitive prices have been received, determine if the courthouse can be built with available funds. If it can, then we will have the courthouse selected by PESAC and approved by the administration that all can be proud of in this county. If it cannot, then we stand ready to develop an alternative for our citizens’ needs.
It is clear, however, the latest design changes are not acceptable as they do not meet the needs of the citizens of Duval County for safe and prompt resolution of the judicial matters to be determined therein.
As stated in our letter to you on Aug. 4, 2003, the Judicial Committee, including judges A.C. Soud, Jr., Charles Arnold, Lance Day, Mallory Cooper and myself, are always available to discuss these and any other matters to insure the courthouse is not only functional at opening but will service the expanding needs of the public for years to come.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Moran Jr.
Chief Judge, 4th Judicial Circuit of Florida