The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 09-14-1999 - 1ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 14,1999 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: Court Issues; Update and Approval of Master Plan of Hillsborough court campus site DEPARTMENT: Purchasing & Central Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Report Letters of support from Judicial officials 1995 Justice Facilities report (under separate cover) INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Jones extension 2652 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive information regarding various issues associated with the Orange County Courts facility; and to consider authorizing the Manager to negotiate a contract with Grier-Fripp Architects to conduct a master plan of the Hillsborough court campus to determine the possibilities of future development; and to endorse the measures proposed for enhancing security in the Hillsborough courthouse facility. BACKGROUND: County Commissioners have charged several groups since 1994 to review and assess facility needs of the various Court functions in the County. The attached report is intended to provide the following information: • Historical information regarding the efforts of Court officials, County officials and others in the planning and development of future court facilities • Results of Justice Facility Study Group (JFSG) Validation Committee • Recommendations regarding proposed security enhancements to the Hillsborough court facilities and options regarding how they might be developed • Proposed development of a site master plan for the Hillsborough court campus • Chapel Hill Court Facility • Future steps In order to make an informed decision regarding future site development, the Board is being requested to authorize a master plan to be conducted on the Hillsborough court campus site. Court facilities in Hillsborough face acute space issues. Therefore, it is proposed that a process be implemented to identify development possibilities on this campus as quickly as practicable. The master plan produced through the action requested in this abstract would not only. identify possibilities for proposed buildings and parking facilities, it would also explore potential development obstacles, such as limitations of the soil, site utility challenges, etc. The information created by this plan could materially impact future discussions about Chapel Hill court facilities as well, by identifying limitations of development in Hillsborough that might need to be accommodated by the Chapel Hill site. The master plan of the Hillsborough court campus can be completed in approximately six weeks at a cost not to exceed $12,000. - - --- .~' FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds are included in the 1999-2009 Capital Investment Plan to cover the $12,000 cost of preparing the master plan. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board endorse the measures proposed in the attached report for enhancing security in the Hillsborough facility; and authorize the Chair to sign a contract as negotiated by the Manager with Grier-Fripp Architects to include the following stipulations: • Scope of work shall be: • To develop an illustrated Facility Master Plan for future expansion of the existing courts building in Hillsborough, with particular focus on how a security checkpoint could best be integrated into the long-term development of the facility. • The study area shall extend between the existing court facility to the Government Services Center. • The master plan shall include multi-level additions, parking, circulation (pedestriaNvehicular) and building points of access/egress. • The Master Plan shall include a Phasing Plan, based on the projected needs for Hillsborough court facilities as cited in the 1995 Justice Facility Study Group report, as revalidated by the 1998 committee. • Cost shall not exceed $12,000 (funds are available in the 1999-2009 Capital Investment Plan); • Report shall be completed and presented for Board consideration by the end of the calendar year. Report on Courthouse Facility Development and Security September 14, 1999 This report includes the following informational elements and is intended to provide information to the Board of Commissioners as they pursue deliberations regarding future development of Justice Facilities in Orange County: • Historical information regarding the efforts of Court officials, County officials and others in the planning and development of future court facilities • Results of Justice Facility Study Group (JFSG) Validation Committee • Recommendations regarding proposed security enhancements to the Hillsborough court facilities and options regarding how they might be developed • Proposed Site Master Plan for Hillsborough court campus Chapel Hill Court Facility • Future steps Action requested of the Commissioners: • The Board is being asked to: • Endorse the security enhancement measures for the Hillsborough courthouse as cited herein; and • Approve the services of Grier-Fripp Architects to conduct a master plan of the Hillsborough court campus, with a particular focus on how the security checkpoint could best be integrated into the long-term development of courthouse facilities. The cost of the master plan shall not exceed $12,000. Please note: Due to the many options that may be exercised in the development of Orange County Court facilities, no attempt has been made to provide cost estimates at this time. Preliminary cost estimates will be presented as part of the previously mentioned master plan, should it be authorized b the Board to pursue. Historical Information:. The County Commissioners have long realized the need for providing adequate court facilities in the County, while also acknowledging the complicated nature of doing so. The Commissioners have charged several groups over the past few years to review and analyze the present and future needs of the court system. The attached Justice Facility Study Group report, published in July 1995 outlined anticipated facility needs through the year 2020 in both Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. Participation in the JFSG was intended to include all stakeholders in the development of justice facilities and included: • County Commissioners • All elected Court officials (Judges, Clerk, District Attorney), • Public Defender • Orange County Sheriff's Department • .County Attorney • County Manager and other County staff • Representatives from: • Probation and Parole • Guardian ad Litem • Juvenile Services • Orange County Child Support Enforcement • Orange County Bar Association • The Violent Crime & Drug Abuse Council ~~ The report explored such issues as: • Methods of service delivery (e.g. centralized/decentralized, citizen. focused) • Existing service priorities vs. future service priorities • Existing activities vs. desired future activities • Location issues Space requirements • Existing space • Deficiencies in existing space • Projections of future requirements Options for Development (concept discussions only), primarily for the Hillsborough facility The report indicated that there was in 1995 a space deficit of around 28,000 S.F. in various Hillsborough and Chapel Hill court functions. Since 1995 the County has constructed an approximately 3,800 S.F. courtroom addition to the New Courthouse in Hillsborough and approximately 17,500 S.F. addition to the Jail Further, in 1997, the County executed a lease with the Hillsborough Savings Bank for approximately 3,500 square .feet of leased space to accommodate the critical need for support space in the Clerk's office. Results of the JFSG Validation Committee In March 1998, asub-group of the JFSG was requested to review the report and determine what impact the additional square footage might have had on the recommendations as presented in 1995. This group verified that the additional space had provided much needed relief in the Hillsborough facility, but that the positive effects were quickly diminishing with the increased caseload being experienced by the Court system. The group recommended that future justice facility development be aggressively pursued. Security in the Hillsborough Court Facilities The September 1998 incident, in which a woman was assaulted in the New Courthouse in Hillsborough, highlighted the need for enhanced security measures in that facility. Court and county officials convened to determine the most effective manner in which this could be accomplished. Their final analysis indicated that the following measures were advisable in this Hillsborough courthouse: • Install cameras and monitors such that activities in the courthouse and parking lot could be observed from a single location; and • Permanently assign two security persons to the building. These individuals would be under the direct control and supervision of the Sheriff.. (Note: Since the incident previously referenced, two deputies have been assigned to the New Courthouse to provide additional security during normal business hours); and • Establish a single point of entry into the New Courthouse and equip it as a security checkpoint for all individuals coming into the facility. ft was determined that no existing entrance was of sufficient size or was configured appropriately for the security checkpoint. Analysis of the best location for the single point of entry revealed that the logical choice was the east entrance at the elevator. Since the existing space is insufficient to allow the security checkpoint to be established, however, it may be necessary to construct an addition to the building. Options for development of security checkpoint The discussion regarding what the security checkpoint A.) should do, and B.) should look like, raised a number of more complicated issues. There was significant discussion among the group about whether the security checkpoint should be single purpose, or whether it was possible that it could be structured in a manner to address multiple issues that presently exist in the building. For example, the area in front of the large courtroom on the main floor stays congested because there is no waiting area for those coming in and out of the courtroom. As a result,. people use the steps to sit and wait, thereby causing a safety issue for people trying to move about the building. In addition, the present "waiting area" makes it difficult to maintain an acceptable noise level to allow the court's business to be conducted without intrusion. If the security checkpoint addition were to be a multiple story structure, the design could alleviate this issue. Further, should the Board so direct, the multiple story structure could be designed to include office space. As earlier referenced, the. most pressing space issue in the Hillsborough courthouse is in support space. Presumably, the Clerk's office staff could then be relocated to .the main courthouse from their leased offices in the old Hillsborough_ Savings Bank. The annual lease payments for that facility are approximately $61,000 at this time, which according to Ken Chavious, the County' Finance Director, would cover approximately $600,000 in annual debt service payments. While construction costs of the proposed structure would exceed this amount, it does represent a significant reduction in new money needed to cover debt service costs for the entire new addition. Site Master Plan for Hillsborough Court Facilities To ensure that any money spent for building expansion is not lost in any future building additions to the New Courthouse, it is advisable that it be constructed in a manner that would complement and tie together future development on the site. In order to accomplish this, it seems prudent for the County to have a site master plan for Hillsborough court facilities developed. While the 1995 report included some observations about the site, a fully developed master plan is needed before making any long term commitments to construction on the site. The master plan of the Hillsborough court campus would not only identify possibilities for proposed buildings and parking facilities, it would also explore potential development obstacles, such as limitations of the soil, site utility challenges, etc. According to a proposal from the architectural firm who designed the recent additions to the Jail and courthouse, a master plan could be completed and prepared for Board review in approximately six (6) weeks at an approximate cost of $12,000. Chapel Hill court facilities The 1995 JFSG report indicated that there should be a satellite facility developed to meet court needs in Chapel Hill. The report cited the County's property on Homestead Road as one potential location. At the time the report was written it was believed that the long-term lease with the Post Office at the Franklin Street court facility would preclude any expansion on that site in the foreseeable future. However, during the security issues discussion, Town officials indicated that this might not be the case. County and Court officials will continue dialogue with Town officials (Chapel Hill and Carrboro) to determine what options are best for the long-term development of Court facilities in Chapel Hill. For your information, court facilities encompass not only courtroom facilities, but also much needed support space. As the Board is aware, the County expends considerable funds each year to lease space to accommodate court functions. The 1999-2000 lease payments for court functions in the southern part of the County is approximately $90,000. Court facility development in Chapel Hill would most certainly need to include sufficient support space for long-term court needs. 6 Future steps As stated in the August 5, 1999 letters to the Board (see attached), Court officials stand ready to support the County and assist in any manner possible to move forward the expeditious development of court facilities. The most acute space needs lie in the Hillsborough court facilities. It is therefore recommended that we move forward as soon as practicable in developing substantive information upon which Commissioners can base decisions about future development in Hillsborough. The first step in this process would be to obtain accurate and reliable information about the capabilities of the Hillsborough site. We would suggest that the Board authorize the Chair to sign a contract as negotiated by the Manager with Grier-Fripp Architects to include the following stipulations: • Scope of work shall be: • To develop an illustrated Facility Master Plan for future expansion of the existing courts building in Hillsborough, with particular focus on how a security checkpoint could best be integrated into the long-term development of the facility. • The study area shall extend between the existing court facility to the Government Services Center. • The master plan shall include multi-level additions, parking, circulation (pedestrian/vehicular) and building points of access/egress. • The Master Plan shall include a Phasing Plan, based on the projected needs for Hillsborough court facilities as cited in the 1995 Justice Facility Study Group report, as revalidated by the 1998 committee." • Cost shall not exceed $12,000 (funds are available in the 1999-2009 Capital Investment Plan); • Report shall be completed and presented for. Board consideration by the end of the calendar year. Completion of the master plan would provide the Board with essential information necessary to support their decisions on site development in Hillsborough. Based on decisions made by the Board, a detailed action plan regarding the development of Hillsborough court facilities would be formulated. The action plan would include specific tasks (e.g. endorsement of site, architect selection, regulatory approvals, programming project, etc.) along with timetables and preliminary cost estimates for the various development components. A similar process would be initiated for Chapel Hill court facilities at such time as we have been able to determine the extent of future development possibilities in Hillsborough. Should you have questions or comments regarding the content of this report, please contact Pam Jones at (919) 732-8181, extension 2652. .. .. . .~~~. estate of eNo:Ea~ eatvClna ~e~~^^nezaC //~~~ ouz(E~~ of aus~t~~iae WADE BARBER GJUhESIOi C.OIITE :l.)ZSE2lCE lg~ RESICENT SUrERIOR COURT JUDGE 104 EAIT KINQ $TREFT ORANGE ANO CHATHAM COUNTIES Hllli90R000N. N.C. 27278 August 5, 1999 The Honorable Joseph M. Buckner Chief District Court Judge Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 TEIi-NONE' 1919) 7J2.6161 (919) 987.9231 FA%: 19 191 644.3026 Re: Your proposed letter of August 5, 1999 to the Orange County Board of Commissioners Dear Judge Buckner: I have reviewed your letter of August 5, 1999, and agree that the improvement of our courthouse facilities should be a top priority for court and county officials. As court officials, we are especially aware that the courthouse and the work that goes on there are central to ensuring a just society. Court facilities are also ~an important symbol of the integrity of our local justice system. Iwhole-heartedly support our ongoing effort to work with. the county commissioners in improving our facilities in a way that will enhance the court's mission. Indeed, my office as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge as well as my personal commitment to facility improvement requires that I not delegate my responsibility. I intend to continue to work with you, the Commissioners, and other county officials in the plan and design of facility improvements. I am confident that our cooperative effort will result in the improvements that will benefit both the public and~the staff' I agree that we need to present a unified effort and work on this project together. WB/mhr Sincerely, ade Barber cc: .The Hon. Charles Anderson The Hon. Joan Teny The Hon. Alonzo Coleman Lunsford Long The Hon. Patricia Devine James Williams The Lion. Carl Fox 8 ^ t'ate Two The Hon. Margaret Brown ongoing effort to improve our facilities in a way that will enhance the court's mission. Chief t~istrict Judge Joe Buckner and I would be pleased to address the Commissioners and work with you in this important matter. Sin ere , Wade Barber cc: Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners The Hon. Charles Anderson The Hon. Joseph Buckner The Hon. Alonzo Coleman The Hon. Patricia Devine The Hon. Carl Fox The Hon. Joan Terry Mr. Lunsford Long Mr. James Williams Mr. John Link Ms. Pam Jones JOSEPH MOOOYBUCKNER C/IIEF DISTRICT JUDGE ,.i. S-AIF7~ ~~; . ~'rr.r~~ ~tRtE Uf ._~.'VU2tR CciTULLl2Q C/en~za~ ~'ouzE o~ ~ustlcE ~_,~ Liatziat Lvuzt Li~tu:et Orange County Board of Commissioners PO BOX 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278-8181 Dear Commissioners, August 5, 1999 DISTRICT COURT JUDG[S GHAR4E3 T. L. ANO[R80N ALONZO BROWN COLEMAN M. PATRIt;IA OEVINE We sincerely appreciate the efforts Orange County has made on behalf of our justice facilities. And we are confident you are aware of the remaining short tam and long term sxurity and space issues we still have to face. This letter is to voice our unified support for Orange County to move forward with action to address these immediate and prospective capital needs. Without action we will soar face multiple and perhaps insurmountable problems delivering timely and safe justice to the tens of thousands of citizens who use the Orange County justice facilities every year. Joe Buckner has volunteered to be our spokesperson to provide any information you or your representatives may need in making these important decisions. Of course, we all are willing to serve this process in any way the Commissioners deem appropriate. We are anxious to work with you, the staff and the planning professionals involved to achieve a safe. efficient and economical justice facility for the people of Orange County. Sincerely, The Hon. Charles T.L. Anderson District Court Judge e h M. uckna Ch' District Court Judge Distri.v .. Dart Judge Vv.Y1 `..• ~- Lunsford Long District Bar Counselor .~'` ~ Go L .rr.,• ./ The Hon. Alonzo B. Coleman, Jr. DistticE~outt"Ju~-~ ~---> Tb on. Carl Fox "District Attorney The on. loan Terry Clerk of Superior Court w ~~~~~,~~,~ J es WilliamsC~ "`"'"- Public Defender The Status of Court Facilities in Orange County September 14, 1999 Elements of report: Historical perspective Results of JFSG validation committee efforts Security enhancements to Hillsborough facility 2 Proposed site master plan for the Hillsborough court campus Court facilities in Chapel Hill Future steps Requested BOCC action: Endorse security enhancement measures at Hillsborough court facility Authorize Manager to negotiate contract with Grier-Fripp Architects to conduct a site master plan of the Hillsborough campus _~ . Cost estimates 5 What you will not find in this eport: Historically speaking... Justice Facility Study Group (JFSG) outlined anticipated facility needs in Hillsborough and Chapel Hill through 2020. JFSG included... Commissioners All elected Court officials Public Defender Sheriff s office County Manager and other County staff County Attorney • AND Representatives from... Probation and Parole Juvenile Services Child Support Enforcement Guardian ad Litem Orange County Bar Association Violent Crime & Drug Abuse Council Report explored... 21st Century Service delivery methods Existing vs. future service priorities Present activities in court facilities vs. desired future activities AND... Location options Space analysis present and future needs Options for future development (conceptual only) la Result of validation group Relief provided by new additions Increasing caseload creates increasing urgency for long term development of court facilities ,~ Security Measures Security committee: Court officials, County Commissioner and County Staff -z Recommendations of Committee Cameras and monitors at stategic points Deputies permanently assigned to facility Single point of entry security checkpoint ~3 Security Checkpoint Development Options Single-story, single use Multi-story ~~ Two-Story Addition • Alternative access to big courtroom • Waiting area i5 Three-Story Addition Additional office space ,~R''lXE; ,~ I. _` . ~~ Annual rent for Court Annex=$61,000 $61,000 would make payment on $600,000 of debt service ,~ Master Planning the illsborough Court Campus ~~ Goals of Site Plan ... • tools for Board decisions • security checkpoint addition compatible with future development • identify obstacles to future development on the site ~~ Site master plan... Cost $12,000 Completed in approximately six weeks 20 Chapel Hill Court Facilities Zl Findings of the 1995 JFSG Report Satellite facility in Chapel Hill Potential location on Homestead Road 2~ Chapel Hill Court Facility needs... ..include courtroom space and also... ..support function space Z3 Support functions... Clerk's office (courthouse) District Attorney (previously in courthouse) Probation and Parole (Moody Building) Guardian ad Litem (Moody Building) Juvenile Services (Moody Buidling) Community Service (Moody Building) Public Defender (Carr Mill Mall) Z~ SZ + 000`06$ OOOZ-666~ ~A•~ ui }soy asea~ ~enuud Looking to the future We'11 need more than a crystal ball z~ Ne need a solid plan upon which to build 27 Future Steps... ..develop site master plan Z~ Site Master Plan Scope of Study: to identify possibilities for future court facility expansion focus on security checkpoint and how that best integrates into longer-term plans study area extends between existing court facility and Government Services Center zy includes parking, circulation for pedestrians and vehicles includes Phasing Plan for development 30 Future Steps... develop Hillsborough site master plan determine impact of Hillsborough development on Chapel Hill facility develop action plan based on data obtained through site master plan 3~ develop time line for each phase of development develop funding options begin implementaion 3Z ~~ suo!~sanDls}ua~~o~ 1 Justice Facilities Study Committee Hillsborough, North Carolina July .1995 Facilitators Grier-Fr~pp Architects Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee A Recording of the Process for Identifying Options July 1995 Facilitators: Grier-Fripp Architects 8001 Arrowridge Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28273 ~~ TABLE OF CONTENTS ~9~ List of Exhibits i Orange County Justice Facilities Study Group ii Facilitator and Planning Team iii INTRODUCTION iv CHAPTER 1 Meeting One -Mission 1-1 Meeting Focus Mission Statement CHAPTER 2 Meeting Two -Service Delivery Models 2_1 Mission Statement Service Delivery Models "Citizen Focused" Design CHAPTER 3 Meeting Three -Space Service Relationships 3-1 Services Ranking Location Issues Accessibility CHAPTER 4 Meeting Four -Space Requirements 4-1 Meeting Preparation Completed Tasks Immediate Need for Additional Adjacency Space Agency Projected Space Requirements Non-Agency Space Requirements for AncillaryBusiness Services Meeting Four: Space Needs Verification Adjacencies Land Requirements. Massing Conclusion CHAPTER 5 Meeting Five -Options for Development 5-1 Meeting Agenda Projected Space Requirements Estimated Construction Costs Mission Statement Financing Options Single vs. Three Stories r 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .;,; CHAPTER 6 Meeting Six - Selling the Vision: 6-1 "Making ft Happen" Meeting Agenda Mission Statement Concept Financing Immediate Tasks Action Plan Schedule Selling the Vision Location CHAPTER 7 Summary and Recommendations 7-1 LIST OF EXHIBITS Pie Pat Figure Table 1 Charge 1-3 1 Existing Space Inventory 4.4 2 The Process 1.4 2 Projected Space Requirements 45 3 Mission Statement 1-5 3 Projected Space Requirements 4~ 4 ~~~ 1-6 - AncillaryBus. Services 5 Barriers 1 _7 4 Projected Space R~uirements 5-5 6 Expectations 1-8 5 Estimated Building 5-6 7 "The Bridge" 1-9 Construction Costs 5-7 8 Mission Statement 2-3 6 Estimated Building 5_7 9 Traditional Concepts 2-5 . Construction Costs 5-8 10 Conxxpt Modeling 2-6 7 Estimated Total Project 5-8 "Citizen Focused° Costs 11 Departmental Adjacenry 4-7 8 Departmental Location 5-15 Regwrements Preferences 12 .Land Area Reqmnts 4~ Single Level 13 Land Area Regmnts 4-9 Two Level 14 Land Area Regmnts 4-10 'Three Level 15 Massing Illustrations 411 16 Massing Illustrations ~ 412 17 Massing Illustrations 4-13 18 Massing Illustrations 4-14 19 Agenda 5-4 20 Phased Concept Options 5-9 21 Phased Concept Options 5-10 22 Financing Options 5-11 23 Mission Statement 5-12 24 Map 5-14 25 Agenda g.4 26 Mission Statement 6-5 27 Concept g-7 28 Map g~ 29 Financing 6-9 30 Immediate Tasks 6-10 31 Schedule for Action-Plan 6-11 32 Selling the Vision 6-12 33 Steering Group Form 6-15 34 The Plan 6-16 35 .Timing 6-17 36 Public Perceptions 6-18 37 Public Relations 6-19 i ORANGE COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITY STUDY GROUP Judge Gordon Battle Judge Patricia Love (to 12/1/94) Judge Joe Buckner Carl Foz, .District Attorney Lindy Pendergrass, Sheriff Joan Terry, Clerk of Court Moses Carey, Jr., Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis, Commissioner Verla Insko, Commissioner (to 12/1/94) James E. Williams, Jr., Public Defenders Office John M. Link, Couaty Manager ~, Pamela Jones, Director of Purchasing and Central Services George P. Doyle, Attorney, Orange County Bar Association Janet Sparks, Child Support Enforcement Josn Jackson, Probation Parole Officer, NC Department of Connection Karen Rose, Human Services Coordinator, Violent Crime & Drug Abuse Council Gretchen Aylsworth, Guardian Ad Litem Donnie Phillips, Juvenile Services Archie Daniel, Deputy, Orange County Sheriffs Department Geof Gledhill, County Attorney ii FACILITATOR AND PLANNING TEAM Grier-Fripp Architects 8001 Arrowridge Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28273 Facilitators Steve Allan -Programming and Operations Alan Baldwin -Planning Presenter Rod Autrey -former Chair, Mecklenburg County Commissioners iu INTRODUCTION Prompted by the dramatic growth experienced by the Orange County Courts and Law Enforcement agencies and the challenges that growth creates for the Courts system to operate efficiently; the Orange County Boazd of Commissioners established, The Criminal Justice Facilities Study Committee on January 4, 1994. Committee. • Conduct a needs assessment for Court system functions, to Charges include, but not be limited to, Superior Court, District Court, District Attorney, Clerk of Court, Juvenile Services, Probation and Pazole, Guazdian ad litem program, Public Defender, as well as to assess the needs of the Sheriff's - Department, including the Jail function; and • Conduct an inventory of existing facilities available for use by the Court system and the Sheriff s Department; and - • Analyze the adequacy of the identified facilities; and • Explore alternatives to traditional methods of service delivery by the Court system and Sheriff s Department as it respects facility use; and • Provide twenty yeaz growth projections of anticipated space requirements for each agency; and • Make recommendations regarding future facilities needs. Process The Criminal Justice Facilities Study Committee began meeting in July of 1994 to discuss the chazges, the committee's resources and methodology. In August, the committee began identifying the magnitude of the impact of increased caseloads on the courts system and heard from presenters that discussed court and related transportation costs. In order to effectively address the chazges of the committee, a decision was made to hire a facilitator with the ability to conduct an outcome oriented process that would present data to the Committee for discussion, document conclusions and assist in defining final options identification. The strategic, planning and criminal justice design firm of Grier-Fripp Architects was hired. iv INTRODUCTION T., Workplan A worlcplan and .agenda were developed for a series of .six Committee meetings. A synopsis of each of these meetings and pertinent data for discussion is included in the chapters that follow. Major topics and meeting dates are summarized below; SESSION ACTIVITY ONE MI ION (10/7/94) • Expectations • Barriers • Philosophical Direction re: Services Facilities TWO SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS (11/18/95) • Mission Objectives • Concept Modeling Centralized/De-centralized "Citizen Focused" Service Diversi THREE SPACE SERVICE RELATIONSHIP (1/2095) • Activity Service Priorities Existing Activities Desired Activities & Services • Location Issues FOUR. SPACE REQUIREMENTS (3/24/95) • Existing Space • Deficiencies • Future Requirements • Massin Illustrations FIVE OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT (4/21/95) • Phased Concept Options • Construction Costs • Project Costs • Financin O tions SIX THE VISION• "MAKING IT HAPPEN" (6/16/95) • Proposed Concept • "Selling the Concept" Information/Communication Public Relations Public Perce tions v INTRODUCTION Summary Chapter 7 includes the summary and recommendations that aze the direct result of the options identification process used in the six committee meetings. Most importantly, .the recommendations outline the "next steps" in the process that will most effectively address the ever increasing caseload that taxes the Orange County Courts system's ability to operate efficiently. NOTE: The handouts used for identification of options and discussion aze included after the meeting synopsis for each chapter. vi CHAPTER 1 -MISSION Meeting One Meeting FOCUS Meeting One focused on two primary issues. First, was the presentation of the study process to be undertaken, including a Workplan detailing session .topics and activities. This workplan was formatted to address the Resolution, passed by the Boazd of Commissioners in January 1994, establishing the Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee assigning the following responsibilities: 1. Conduct a Needs Assessment of Court and related system functions. 2. Inventory existing Court and Sheriff s facilities available for use. 3. Analyze adequacies of existing/identified facilities. 4. Explore alternatives to traditional methods of service delivery. 5. Provide 20 yeaz growth projections of anticipated space requirements. Make recommendations regarding future facility needs. Mission Statement The second issue dealt with the group's expressed concerns, purpose, philosophy and expectations for a new justice complex and/or structure; i.e. a Mission Statement. Criteria for Mission Statement development were addressed and an interactive group discussion process followed. Barriers to effectiveness and service delivery (currently) were identified, as well as expectations for the future. All comments and discussion points were recorded and organized into the group's four (4) primary areas of concern: 1. Public Safety 2. Accommodating & Efficient 3. Economical 4. Community Interest A draft Mission Statement would be prepared for .the next meeting formatted around these key points. All comments and discussion points were recorded and organized in the group's four (4) primary azeas of concern (elaboration on each point begins on page 2-3). NOTE: Meeting handouts aze attached as Figures 1-8. 1-1 i Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee Grier-Fripp Architects 7 October 1994 ........ ............ 1-2 Figure 1 Charge 1. Conduct Needs Assessment 2. Inventory existing facilities 3. Analyze adequacy of identified facilities 4. Explore alternatives 5. Provide growth projections 6. Make recommendations regarding future needs Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A r e ~ t t e c t ~ 1-3 Figure 2 ~T The Process O Mission Statement O Space O Function/Service O Future Requirements O Options & Cost O Public Awareness/Education Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p Are 6 i t e c t^ 1-4 FiQUre 3 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mission Statement: A broad, general statement which defines: o Purpose of the Facility o Responsibilities of the Facility o Philosophical Direction Orange County. Justice Facilities Study Committee Grier - F r i p p A r e h i t e e t a 1-5 i=igure 4 ,~` ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Purpose O Defines the philosophy by which the facility(s) will operate. O Provides the foundation upon which building (agency) management, operations and policy can be developed. O Establishes operational and design criteria by virtue of the philosophy, goals and objectives expressed. O Gives a diverse group of community, government and system representatives acommon "statement" from which to work and communicate, ... ... ... ... ... ------- GETS YOU GROUNDED CONSENSUS Orange County Justice Facilities. Study Committee G r t e r -Fri p p Are h l t e¢ t• 1-6 Fi4ure 5 Barriers O Transportation O Money O Perceptions O Location O Data O Accessibility p Direction O Numbers O Parking O Technology O Disparate/Outside "Forces" Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee. G r i s r -Fri p p A r s 6 i t e e t ~ 1-7 i=igure 6 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ M ^ f ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Expectations O New (courts) facilities O One location O All related agencies included O Long term solution (2020) O -Safe & secure O Efficiency O Improve ~ualitX of justice O A rational decision O Incorporate technology O Answer „why„ o Public ownership O User friendly VISION Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A r e h i t a c t ~ ' 1-8 Figure 7 BRIDGE ViCION STRiT['TTiRF. Space Cost Time Location Function Orange County Justice Facilities Stndy Committee G r i e r -Fri p p Are h t t e c t ~ 1-9 CHAPTER 2 -SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS Meeting Two Mission Statement A Mission Statement draft, incorporating all comments and objectives expressed during the previous meeting, was prepared and distributed to Committee Members for review prior to the meeting. Contents were refined during further discussion to the form attached as Figure 8. Once the Mission Statement objectives were cleaz, the emphasis of the meeting became; "Okay, these objectives are great but what can we do that's different than before if all we do is build another building and just make it bigger?" Service Delivery Subsequently, extensive discussion followed re: traditional Models service delivery models; i.e., centralized and decentralized; as well as the stresses and problems with such models - stazk, sterile, expensive, stressful, (in)conveniences, etc. Non- traditional, non government/justice service models were discussed. The concept that began to emerge resembled more a shopping mall than a traditional courthouse. The key points of emphasis became: 1. Efficient delivery of services 2. Stress-free%nvironmentally friendly surroundings 3. Economical construction options 4. Convenience of related non-government/justice services "Citizen Focused" The concept model arrived at was characterized as "Citizen Design Focused". A list of the types of services that could be offered in conjunction with traditional justice agency functions is attached as Figure 10, This session introduced additional concepts for future sessions including: 1. Financing opportunities 2. Public-private partnerships NOTE: Meeting handouts are attached as Figures 9 and 10. 2-1 Orange County Justice. Facilities Studv Committee Grier-Fripp Architects 18 November 1994 .. 2-2 Figure 8 The mission of the Orange County (Justice Center) is/will be to provide all appropriate judicial, law enforcement and related public functions at a single complex, (later modified to include satellite courts), which will ensure public safety, is accommodating to all citizens and efficient in delivery of services, is economically responsive and consistent with the philosophy, goals and interests of the community. Public Safety • Court facilities which expedite the delivery of justice. • Public and restricted areas within the facility which permit the safe and secure movement of visitors, staff, security personnel and inmates simultaneously. • Detention facilities which securely detain inmates charged with criminal offenses. • Facility security systems which are effective, not offensive and which address public and staff requirements. Accommodating & Efficient • Conveniently located and accessible to public and outside user agencies. • Adequate public parking, convenient to facilities. • Adequate visitor waiting and circulation areas which permit efficient movement through facility without interfering with unrelated activities. • .Prioritize swift delivery of services. • Emphasize. personal contact. • Facilitate accessibility for handicapped staff and visitors. • Improve efficiency of intennaUinter-agency operation via single facility and careful consideration of location(s) within. • Staff efficient without compromising security or delivery of services. • Operating systems and equipment which are state of the art yet operator friendly. • Enable all facility employees to effectively and efficiently carry out the duties and responsibilities of their positions.. 2-3 Figure 8 ~_>. ; ;, Mission Statement continued) Economical • Economical to build. • Cost effective in its staffing requirements. • Facilitate economical and efficient building maintenance practices. • Utilize materials and construction methods to ensure building longevity. • Adequately planned so as not to limit possible long-term benefits of future development (i~)• • Environmentally sustainable. Community Interest • In appearance and operation provides a positive public impact (image) on the area immediately surrounding the facility as well as the entire County. • Physical structure is consistent with facility purpose and mission. • Provides a pleasant dignified atmosphere in public and staff areas. • Attends to all applicable life safety, building and ADA requirements in its design and operation. • Provides an environment that promotes high staff morale and job satisfaction. • Provides opportunities for the public to be kept informed of activities affecting them via provision of visitor facilities,. community bulletin boards, video presentations {public broadcast of meetings) media accommodations, etc. • Is attentive to longterm facility/system requirements and provides opportunities for expansion should it be required. 2-4 Fi4ure 9 Traditional Concepts Centralized (Single) Facility De-Centralized with Satellite Locations Or nge County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r1 e r -Fri p p A r c h 1 t e c t ~ 2-5 Figure 10 . The list below sununarizes the Committee's lengthy discussion that focused on non-traditional, ~` ~~ "user friendly" services that might/could be considered when programming a new facility. While the Committee supports the concept of a "citizen focused" - "user friendly" facility, the inclusion of any of these items must meet the test of being financially self supporting. Concept Modeling "Citizen Focused " e Single Location o Teaching/Learning Facility o Parking Convenience o-- ATMBank o Customer Service o McDonalds o PersonaURelationship o Computer Center e Catalogue Shopping a Library (Public) o Signage o Newsstand o Ease of Movement o Child Care Center e Options o Secretrial/Fax/Office o Variety of Services o Local Phone Access o Light o Seating -Indoor & Outdoor o Plants o Park-N-Ride o Water o Citizen Orieirted o Color o DMV - Lic. Plates, Hearing Offiicer o Finishes a Wellness Center e Mixed Uses to Accommodate Safety o Attorney Offices e Cleaners Orange County Justice Facilities Stady Committee G r l e r- F r i p p Arc Y i t e c t s 2-6 CHAPTER 3 -SPACE -SERVICE RELATIONSHIPS Meeting Three Services The. "citizen-focused" model for delivery of services, developed during meeting two, was reviewed and discussed in further detail. Use issues and services suggested in conjunction with traditional justice functions were applied and tested against stated Mission Statement objectives. Extensive discussion followed regazding additional services and activities that could be provided; i.e., Post Office, medical clinic,. caz service center, press room; as well as non-traditional uses of the facilities; i.e., evening and weekend hours of .operation, extensive multipurpose/mufti-use spaces within the building(s). Ranking All agencies and services discussed were provided a ranking as a means of prioritizing their inclusion in ,the facility/complex: This ranking included the following categories: Required: Superior Court, District Court, District Attorney, Public Defender, Clerk of Court, Adult Probation & Parole, - Sheriff, etc. Preferred: Computer Center, Child Caze, ATM, Restaurant (food services), Press Room, DMV, eta Convenient: Teaching Facility, Public Library, Wellness Center, Attorney (private use) Offices, Caz Service Center, Medical Center, etc. Location Issues Discussion then focused on location issues. Predominately; Site location (s) within the County relative to population centers; Appropriateness of individual agencies maintaining multiple locations. Accessibility Client and user accessibility was emphasized in each instance. The consensus reached was that for the foreseeable future, a Courts/Justice presence would be necessary in both Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. 3-1 CHAPTER 4- SPACE REQUIREMENTS eating Four Meeting Prior to meeting number four, an analysis of the existing. space Preparation requirements was made to determine the following; Completed Tasks • An inventory of all departmental space currently occupied by County agencies. • Interviews with key systems/department agency heads. • Develop, distribute and collect Data Collection forms for use by County. • Calculate and verify current space allocations via scaled building plans. • Document and outline all occupied existing space identify deficiencies • .Estimate 20 year space requirements for each agency. • Estimate Construction Costs and Total Project Costs. • Illustrate viable options based on previously agreed upon criteria. Immediate Need In order to meet today's needs, code and agency standards for all for Additional agencies, there was determined to be an immediate need for Agency Space 27,848 square feet of additional space. Agency Projected Space Requirements 1995 2005 2020 Total Requirements per Yeaz 117,544 s.f. 199,081 s.f. 298,392 s.f. Gross New Space Required per Yeaz 27,848 s.f. .81,537 s.f. 99,311 s.f. Non Agency A number of ancillary/business services were identified that Space would provide to the public non-traditional services normally not Requirements for found in governmental agency facilities. In an effort to make Ancillary/ future facilities more "citizen focused", it was determined that Business Services these services aze appropriate for a centralized governmental complex. These are outlined in Table 3. The additional costs to develop this space would be offset by lease income generated to provide these services. 4-1 CHAPTER 4-SPACE The total amount of program space anticipated is 14,450 square feet. Meeting Four: After a brief presentation of findings the Committee discussed Space Needs and verified the immediate space needs of their respective Verification agencies and, to the best of their knowledge, the projections for future needs. (See Table 2.) Adjacencies Adjacency requirements were discussed and their importance as it related to either a "centralized" or "decentralized" model. Strong adjacency relationships are shown on Figure 11. Land Pursuing both the "centralized" and "decentralized" concepts, the Requirements land necessary to support the long term space requirements for future growth in Orange County is a function of the height of the facility. Figures 12, 13 and 14 illustrate the amount of land required. A summary of land required is as follows. Year 2020 -Single Site Space Reqmnts 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 318,841 s.f. 28 Acres 24 Acres 22 Acres Massing Focusing on the amount of land required and possible configurations of how agencies might be combined into a single building, the Committee further debated the merits of a single level structure versus amulti-level central facility. These aze illustrated in Figures I b, 17 and 18. Conciusion The meeting ended with .consensus to have Crrier-Fripp explore in greater detail the costs associated with the projected future space requirements and develop further the two concepts presented; the single and three level concepts indicating each concept's ability to be expanded for future growth. NOTE: Meeting handouts are attached as Tables 1-3 and Figures 11-18 respectively. 4-2 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Orange County Justice Facilities Studv Committee Grier-Fripp Architects 241V~arch 1995 .. 4-3 Table 1 Existing Space Inventory F. iSTTN . CpA F. NVFNTORY CURRENT CURRENT AREA SPACE MAJOR DEFICIENCIES REQUIREMENTS Superior Court 9,095 Code Violatbns Re: Ralrooau, Esits, Poor 9,305 Secority; Poor Aeourties, Adjacency of Jury Delibentioa, )nmate Holding Dbtrict Conrt 9,036 Code Vbhtbas Rr. Exfb ®Upper Lerel; Poor 9,115 Seenr(ty; Basement Court Spau Inadequate; Inmate Holding, Adjacency of Space, Cireulatbn Clerk of Court 1,466 Inadegnate Ventilatbn; Adjacency of Space 1,663 w/fanctiou; Lack of Security; Evidence Storage; Vbitor Access d~ Fbw Dbtrkt Attoney 1,793 Lack of Scarify Q Chapel HIII; Inadegaate OBke 2,580 Space wlfunetfon; Lack of Privacy, Waiting, McNing Room, Seeun Stooge Pnblie Defeader t,612 Poor Clrcnlalba within Area; lasufflelent Office 2,303 Space; lack of Privacy; Proximity to related CJ AdJaeeneia; Meeting Rooms Sheriff S,SIO Code Violatba Re: ElevalorRnd FL Access and 7,130 Failing ®2ud P7; Inadequate Space for DetecNva; lack of Evidence Slonge; Shff Areas Jail 29,645 Lack Dlreet Observatba; Inadequate Kltehen, J9,07g Medial, Laundry & Mnlli-Purpose ; No Dedkded Admin. Or Stag Areas, InefBeient Visiting Adult Probation 2,976 Poor Scarify for Staff Re: Control of Publk 3,060 & Parole Movement; Insnffkiat Stonge/Copy Areas; No Adjacent Clkat Parkiag Juvenile Servkes 2,050 Ufe Safety Code Vblatfoes Re: Esping; l.aek of 2,160 Waiting Area; StaRSeeurity; Adjacenry to Adult Probatbn ~ Parole Magbinle Ito tnadequate Space to Address Pnbiie; Accessibility 1,225 to CJ Adjaeeacia; Waiting Ara; Haring Room Chill Sapport 2,664 Code Violatba Re: Elev. Access l0 2nd Floor, 2,923 Eoforeement Insnffkkat Circnlatioa & Slonge Space; Poor Seeuriq for Stag; IasnfBeient Support Arcas Guardian Ad 192 Layout & Circnlatbn Poor; No Privacy; Lack of 905 Item Approprhte Waiting Area, Intervkw Space and VolantcerlCnardiaa Office(s) Related Justke 528 .Related CJ/Sapport Adjaeacks or Individnab 1,200 Ageneia l.aek any Dediated Space when Servking the Courts Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee Grier-Fripp AreLitet:ta 4-4 Table 2 ,~~ . Projected .Space Requirements CURRENT 1995 ~ ZOOS 2020 AREA SPACE- REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS Superior Court 9,095 9,385 13,303 13,970 Distrkt Court 9,036 9,345 12,760 t6,S2.S Clerk of Coart 3,d66 4,665 6,720 IO,I95 Dbtrkt Atroraer 1,793 2,580 J,630 6,215 Publk Defender 1,612 2,J85 3,670 5,570 Sheriff S,SIO 7,150 10,015 15,685 Jnil - 29.643 39,078 78,162 123,077 Adult Prob. de 2,976 3,060 S,S65 9,225 Parole JuvenikSvts. 2,030 2,050 3,183 1,925 Ma86tnte IIO 1,225 1,640 2,133 Child Support Ent. 2,661 2,933 3,610 1.760 Gnardbn Ad Item 192 905 1,855 2,720 Related Ju~tke Aq. 328 1,200 1,400 1,600 Tohl Net S.F. 68,997 86113 145,847. 218,602 Totd SF ®1.3 89,6% 1 l 1,917 189,601 281,183 ContMBenry Q SS4 - 5,597 9,480 14,209 TOTAL 89,6% 117,541 199,081 298x92 Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee Grier -Fri p p A r c h f t e t t s 4-5 Table 3 Projected Space Requirements for AncillaryBusiness Services PRO ~EGT 5PACF. RBOUIRQM_F.NT:S (ANCILLARYlBUSINESSSERVKES) Orange Count y Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A r c h i t e t: t o BUSINESS/ACTIVITY ESTIMATED SPACE REQUIREMENTS(GSF) NOTES Dry Cleaners 800 S.F. Needs minimum I6 L.F. Frontage Classroom(s) S00 S.F. es. (Cap. 20) Need access to toilets ATM/Bank ATM SO S.F. Branch Bsnk mia.1500 S.F. Resnuront I SOO S.F. Computer Center 1500 S.F. Child Cerc Facility 2000 S.F.. For 20 children Newstand 400 S.F. Busincss Crnter 400 S.F. DMV-LIC. Plates 2400 S.F. OlTiees (PVT/ATTY) 1000 S.F. Per singk attomry We11MSS Center 2400 S.F. 60 person capacity 4-6 FiQUre 11 Departmental Adjacency Requirements ~ ° ,~ ~, as e 'o ~ a °~ ~ W 8 w a ~ ~ -Area o ~ ~ ° e ~ ~ o ;~ ~ ~ ~ .~ c ~ '~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ri A U A a° ~ ; d ti '"' U U" AG Superior Court ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Q Q Q ~ Q District Court ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ Q Q Clerk of Court ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ O Q ~ District Attorney Q ~ Q ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q Public Defender. ~ ~ Q Q Q Q O Q Q Q Sheriff ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Jail ~ ~ Q O Q ~ O Q • O O Adult Prob.&Parole 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 Juvenile Svcs. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O O O Magistrate Q Q ~ O Q Q ~ Q Child Support Eni~. Q Q O ~ Q ~ Q Q O Guardian Ad Ltem Q 0 Related Justice Agy. Major 0 Minor No Adjacency Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p Are h i t e c t ~ ;~ , 4-7 FiQUre 12 Land Area Requirements Single Level Facility d~ .Parking 30 25 20 Acres 15 ~ 10 5 0 so56 too 112. Aso 168 200 224 2so 280 soo 336sso Square Feet (1000's) Graph above represent 11,200 s.f. strnctnre + 56 parlong apaces/acn. Orange County Jastice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p Arc 6 i t e c t~ 4-8 Fi ure 13 Land Area Requirements Two Level Facility ~ Parking 30 2S 20 Acres is 10 5 0 so 67 too 134 rso Zoo201 2so 268 300 335sso Square Feet (1000's) Graph above represents 13,400 s.f. strat:tnre + 67 parking apaces/acre. Orange County Justice Facilities Stady Committee Grier - F r i p p Architect a 4-9 Figure 14 Land Area Requirements Three .Level Facility d~ Parking 30 25 _ _ ~ 20 Acres 15 10 5 0 so 70 too 1401so ~o0 210 Zso 280 soo 350 Square Feet (1000's) Graph above represent 14,000 s.f, siructnre +70 parking spaces/acre. Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee Grier-Bripp Archltect• 4-10 Fi ure 15 Massing Illustrations Urerdiss Ad Uem Srperior Corrt NalrteA Jrftiee Alf btrlet Ctwrt Arc/Brr Sues. lrll Clerk of Corrt Addt Prob.d hrols District Attornq lrvenils Sres. Prblfc Defender i Vert Cire - MsSistrets Skeri(( i i i - Ckild Srooort Enf. Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p A r e 6 1 t e e t to 4-11 Fi ure 16 Massing Illustrations THREE LEVEL 1 SINOLE LEVEL Orange Coanty Jastice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p Arc h l t e c t a 4.12 Figure 17 6^.. ~: Massing Illustrations SECOND LEVEL A Midi ntr Srperior Corr Relit J Jrrtiee A~~. SAeriff i Brr Sues Dislriel Corr1 Clerk of C rt 0.ST LEVEL Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- R r i p p Are 6 t t e c t s 4-13 Figure 18 Massing Illustrations Jdl Me= Crete Sheriff i Dirtriet Coart Separior Coert Jorsdl Srq: __- _--_ Adelt Prob Parole Dbtriet ttorner Peblie D ender C611 Stt~port Eof. Ane/Bee 5 a. Anc/Bee rer: Clerk of Co - Ret. ed brtke Air. t ~ i . 1 .. Oeerdiea d la m ' 1 r Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p Are h i t e e t s 4-14 CHAPTER 5- OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT Meeting ive Meeting Agenda Meeting five concentrated discussion on the estunated construction and projected space requirements and project costs associated with consolidating Orange County Judicial Agencies. In addition the mission statement developed at meeting one was reviewed and modified to reflect the Committee's decision for both. a primary and secondary location in order to best serve Orange. County. Financing and options for potential site locations were also examined. Projected Space County Government and AncillaryBusiness Services projections Requirements for immediate and future space requirements are illustrated in Table 4 and summarized below; 1995 2005 2020 Total Gross S. F. Required to Meet 117,326. 96,205 103,310. Requirements Estimated Two options were discussed for addressing the immediate needs Construction for space to meet the 1995 requirements; Costs • Renovate exiting space and construct additions for new ~ • Construct all new The costs to renovate and add new is shown in Table 5. All new construction is shown in Table 6. Summarizing the estimated project costs for both options are shown on Table 7 and summarized below; Option 1995 2005 2020 Renovate snd Addition $5,963,739 $18,264,372 $34,723,431 All New Construction $14,873,765 $18,214,362 $34,723,431 Total for Renovations and Additions $58,951,542 Total for ALL New Construction $67,861,568 5-1 CHAPTER 5-OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT Meeting Five " ` ~ , Mission Statement The mission statement was reviewed and discussed focusing on the pros and cons for consolidating all governmental offices to a single location or developing agency locations at a primary and secondary location. Financing Options Numerous financing options were discussed with respect to their applicability to finance future Orange County projects that will be required to meet the needs of judicial agency growth. (See Figure 22.) The Committee agreed that financing beyond the County pay-as-you-go capital funds would be necessary.. A more detailed discussion on this subject took place in Meeting Six. Single vs. ~ Two options were presented in more detail in order that the Three Stories Committee might visualize more clearly the functional and cost consequences of each. No clear direction was determined at this meeting, but this issue would be addressed. in meeting six as it relates to site location. NOTE: Meeting handouts are attached as Tables 4-8 and Figures 19-24. 5-2 Orange County Justice Facilities Studv Committee Grier-Fripp Architects 21 April 1995 ....................... 5-3 Figure 19 Agenda • Projected Space Requirements • ~ Estimated Building Construction • Total Project Costs • Phased Concept Options • Financing Options • Review of Mission Statement • Site Location(s) • Departmental Location Reference(s) Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p Are h l t e c t s 5-4 Table 4 Projected Space Requirements PROJECTED SPACE REQUIREMENTS Net S.F. Requited to Meet 1995 Requiremrnts Additional to Meet 2005 Requiremrnts Additional to Meet 2020 Requiremrnts Count 23,395 S.F. 9,390 SF. 9,905 S.F. Law Enforcement ?,ISO S.F. 2,865 SF. 5,670 S.F. Jail 39,078 S.F. 39,384 S.F. 44,615 S.F. All Other 16,330 S.F. 8,255 S. F. t2,S65 S.F. Total Net SF. 85,953 S.F. 59,894 S.F. 7Z,7S5 S.F. Total Gross S.F. Co. Government ~ 117,326 S.F. 81,755 S.F. 99,310 S.F. Ancillary/ Business Srvcs. 14,450 SF. 4,000 S.F. Total Cross S.F. 11726 S.F. 96,205 S.F. 103,310 S.F. Accumulated Total S.F. 316,841 S.F. LEGEND: -Courts - -Ancillary Business Services Superior Court .Dry Cleaners District Court Classrooms Clerk of Court ATM/Bank -SheriR Restaurant -,tail Computer Center -Other Child Caze Facility District Attorney Newsstand Public Defender Business Center Adult Probation dt Parole DMV-License Plates. Juvenile Services Private Attomcy Offices Magistrate Wellness Center -Child Support Enforcement Guardian Ad Litum Related Justice Agencies Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee Grier -Fri p p A r c L i t e c t s 5-5 Table 5 e- Estimated Building Construction Costs ESTIMATED BUII.DING CONSTRUCTION COSTS UTILIZING ALL EXISTING SPACE COMPARISON Renovate New Space Combined If All New Existing Space Requirements for 1995 Construction Conrb 51,080,850 5168,910 S1,Z49,760 53,033,746 Qa 550/595 Law 5110,200 5147,600 SZ57,800 5878,378 Enforcement (03 520/590 Jail 51,185,800 51,084,795 52,270,595 56,134,269 ~ 540/5115 Other 5550,125 5328,400 S878,525 51,783,236 (a3 545/580 - Total for 52,926,975 51,729,705 54,656,680 511,829,629 Co. Gov't Potential Building Construction . 57,172,950 Cost Savings Orange County Justice Facilities Stady Committee G r l e r- F rY p p Are L i t e e t ~ Note: Renovation square foot prices do not include any major changes in the structural, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, plumbing or electrical systems. 5-6 Table 6 Estimated Building Construction Costs ESTIMATED BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CU~~t~~ FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION All New New Additional New Additional 1995 2005 2020 Courts 53,033,746 51,217,648 51,284,430 (a3 595 Law Enforcement 5878,378 - 5351,965 5696,560 0.590 Jail 56,134,269 56,182,303- 57,003,440 (x35115 ' Other 51,783,236 5901,446 51,372,098 (a3 580 Total for 511,829,629 ~ 58,653,362 S10,356,528 County Gov't.. Additional for -0- 51,156,000 5320,000 Ancillary/ Business Srvcs. Total Const. 511,829,629 59,809,362 510,676,578 Cost for all New Construction Escalated for S11,829,629 SI4,520,246 SZ7,608,787 Inflation Qa 4%/Year Accumulated 511,829,629 526,349,875 553,958,662 Total Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee Grier -Fri p p Are 6 1 t e e t a 5-7 Table 7 Estimated Total Project Costs 1995 2005 2020 ]renovate All New All New All New New Construction Cotstruction Construction Base Facility 54,656,680 511,829,629 S14,320,24b S27,608,787 Construction (w/Infl. incl.) Site 5139,700 5334,888 5435,607 5828,264 Development Q 3°A SaseCortst. S4,796,380 512,184,517 S14,935,833 528,437,031 Cost Contingency .5479,638 51,218,452 SI,493,383 52,843,705 ®10% ' Total Coost. S5,276,018 513,402,969 516,451,438 531,280,736 Cost Design Fees 5422,081 S804,178 S987,086 51,876,843 ® b-8% Surveys/SoiU SIS,000 530,000 544,400 580,000 Testing (allowance) urnlFix/Equip. S21I,040 S336,118 Sb58,038 51,251,130 ~4% - Legal Financing S13,200 533,500 541,130 578,200 ~ 114% Owner SuppoR 526,400 567,000 582,260 5!56,400 ® 1/2Y. .Total 55,963,739 S14,873,763 S18,264,372 534,723,431 Project Cost" lccumulated Total: 558,931,54; ltilizing Esisting Space iccumulatcd Total: 567,861,56 111 New Construction •Lesa: Land Acquisition Puking Decks Off--Site Improvements Orange Connty Justice Facilities Study Committee G r t e r -.Fri p p A r e h l t e c t s 5-8 Figure 20 Phased Concept Options . ~ JAL STAFF/ R4iifQVO ~~ n ' /" I ~' 1 AVTAKE ~~ (~. /t SHERFF JJ"~~ ~ i~iAO~T ~' __-_~~ CLERK CT CT ~TP~%, Et- ~ ~ ' ~~ 3 I A ul.T FAOB a PAROLE O-'-~ PUBLIC FAwcNa ~ _~j- '~'~ PuttLK: pARKAV(i CHAD SUPPOR~E F ~ (~ EFEN fi ~Ui-- a n FiIBIIC PAFM(WO ~/ MULTI LEVEL CONCEPT Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A r c h i t e c t s 5-9 Figure 21 Phased Concept Options .~ -; - ~~ a-a t .~ ~ ~ .~ _J~-~~_-~ ~lII9~OI~C1. '~"°yar---f~ncrwssres~ ~----r ~iuos~ao~ 1--a I__ AAA A "'.~` °"Q-0" ApS~Pp SINGLE LEV CONCEPT Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p A r e 6 1 t o c t ~ 5-10 Fi ure 22 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Financing Options Issued by local government, secured by the issuer's ad valorem taxing power, constitute debt of the issuer and require approval by election prior to issuance. (`ertlflc~tK et PsrHct atinn ((, A~~e1 Certificates sold through an "independent" authority or NPC, set up by local government, to finance public construction; repaid by dedicated revenue sources other than property taxes; is considered public debt; voter approval of sale not required. Finance from rating CTndhi With early identification of long-term requirements and a phased schedule of implementation, fiords are set aside and allocated annually to pay for planning, design, construction as activities occur, "paY-as-You-go" va. singlereferendum/debt allocation before beginning project development. ev l ~+er Finan ed a Private entity provides financing for project development and leases space (buildings) back to government agenry user(s). ImLllment Parch=.. Method for local government to buy property+ with installment payments; government will typically not get clear title to property until it has completed payments which are sufficient to buy property and pay interest to leaders; similar to C.O.P.'s; unlike C.O.P.'s, these is no non-proSt corporation required, it is usually handled directly with a bank and a government body can vote%hoose not to continue the payments, i.e. "lease", at arty time. Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r l p p A r e h i t e c t a 5-11 Figure 23 ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ i ^ ^ ! i ^ ^ ^ i ^ i ^ ^ i Mission Statement The mission of the Orange County (Justice Cents) is/wiq be to provide all appropriate judicial, law enforcement and related public functions at a primary. and one satellite location which will ensure public safety, is accommodating to all citizens and efficunt m delivery of services, b economically respo^sive and consistent tvfth the phitaaophy, goals and interests of the community. Public Safety. - .Court facilities which expedite the delivery of justice. ® Public and restricted area within the facilities which permit the safe and secure movement of visitors, staff, security personnel and inmates simultaneously. ® Detention facilities which securely detain imnates charged with criminal offerises. ® Facility security systems which are effective, not offensive, and which address public and staff requirements. Accommodating ds EiIIcient o Conveniently located and access'ble to public and outside uses agencies m Adequate public perking, convenient to facilides. ® Adegiutte visitor waiting and circulation areas which permit efficient movement through the facilities without interfering with unrelated activities. o Prioritize swift delivery of services. m Emphasize personal contact. m Facilitate accessibility for handicapped staff and visitors. to Improve efficietty of internaVmter-agency operation via single facility and areful consideration of location(s) within ® Staff efficient without compromising security or delivery of services. A Operating systeena and equipment which are state of the art yet operator fiiendly: ® F.oable all facility employees to effectively and efficiently carry out the dirties and responsibilities of their positions. Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A r c h i t a' c t s 5-12 Figure 23 ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mission Statement -cont. Economical s~ Economical to build. ~ Cost effective in its staffing requirements, Facilitate economical and efficient building maintenance practices. ~ Utilize materials and cartstruction methods to ensure building longevity, ® Adequately planned to assure the potential for futtu+e development (expansion). ® Environmentally sustainable. Community Interest ® Tn appearance and operation, provides a positive public impact (image) an the area immediately siurounding the facilities as well as the entire County. ® Physical sttucttue is consistent with facilities purpose and mission. ~ Attends to all applicable life safety, building and ADA r<quirements in its desiga and ope~ion. ® Provides an environment that promotes high staff morale and job satisfaction. ~ .Provides opporhtoities far the public to be {rcpt informed of activities affecting them via provision of visitor facilities, commtmity bulletin boards, video presentations (public broadcast of meetings media accommodations, etc.. m Is attentive to long-term facility/system requirmtents and provides opportunities far expeosian when it is required. Orange County Justice Facilitiies Study Committee G r i e r- f r i p p A r c h i t e c t~ 5-13 Figure 24 f. ~1;g ,stt-tfs. •~t-'/~,~~k= iih.,~~~i~4'il~ ~~' I~ (f ~0~'~"~irti~iR'~~•,.,,ix~ .~:++:rik~\ ,~ !~ _ a • ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~' ` • ' J ., _ I \ f ~•~ ...-.. -~ ., ~ ~ SCE (~( ~.'~'r _ wr. `a, ~ ` t~r~-. r ! • . t~ ~f1 ~. ` - ~. '. I .~ -~ ~ ~~. ~'~ ~ ~ 1 ~..' ,,.,.,' ,~ - ~~~ it r •~ • 1 f t IZ ~j .. f rr., ~ ~. '• ~ i ~ ~ l • ~~ ..,,~.. ~~ ~ °--~ ~'~' .r ~ ~-max ~ ~ ~1~;' .LL ~. ~' ~ . J J °~ ..~- ~ ~ ` ! 111 ~' ' ~ J' 1 ~,. _ ..~:~ ~ cu _ _ - ' _ ~~~~ ~ '~ ! ' . `j r ' .(I ~ . - I~ III G I ~ ,. ~'~' ,'~ 1~! , °~` .. ~' l ~i. m~ ~ fl ~~ ` s~ ~'~ ,;. ,~ ,~, ~ 1. ,~ li; • I~~ •t ~.~~ I J///h t.1,~ r. I ~ ,~i'>t ~, , 1 V ', ~~~~ li i(i l~ ' i { ~ { II ; ~ ` ' ~. '' t .• r Y.`° f' a ` ', 5-14 Table 8 ..................... Departmental Location Preference(s) AREA SINGLE SITE LOCATION MULTIPLE STTE - LOCATION MOBILE DELIVERY SERVICES REMARKS Superior Court X. n/a District Court X Clerk of Court X District Attorney X annex Public Defende X annex SheriR X Jail X ---- holding facility Adult Prob. & Parole X " Juvenile Services X Magistrate X Chapel Hill Child Support Ent X Guardian Ad Litem X Related Justice Agy. X Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p A r e h l t e c t^ 5-15 CHAPTER 6-SELLING THE VISION: "MAKING IT HAPPEN" Meeting ix Meeting Agenda Meeting six focused on two topics; • "The Vision" and • "Selling the Vision" Mission Statement Given the Committee's conclusion that the best means of serving the citizens of .Orange County is by developing a primary location in Hillsborough and a secondary site in or neaz Chapel Hill, the Mission Statement wording was modified to reflect this decision. Concept Consolidate all governmental agencies in Hillsborough in a multi-level structure(s) on a site(s) to be determined by a site selection committee. Consolidate selected satellite governmental agencies on a secondary site to be located in or near Chapel Hill, N.C. Financing Financing methods beyond the County's pay-as-you-go capital funds will be necessazy. It is likely that one of the financing options listed on page 5-11 would be used to fund incremental development to meet the needs of projected space requirements. Immediate Tasks Figure 30 outlines a chronology of "next steps" the Committee determined as the process necessary to effectively address the needs of Orange County's future space requirements. Action Plan Figure 31 illustrates the Committee's "next steps" chronology Schedule outlined in Figure 30. The chronology is based on developing a construction completion date of January 2000. Selling the Vision A brief presentation on case studies that were and were not successful was presented by Rod Autrey, former Chairman of Mecklenburg County Commissioners. An excited discussion ensued regarding the .effort and support necessary to "sell" the concept to the voting public. Specifics regazding timing, education of the public, unified support and effectively getting the message out to the people were discussed. Outlines relating to some of these topics are shown in Figures 32-38. 6-1 CHAPTER 6-SELLING THE VISION: "MAKING IT HAPPEN" Meeting ix Location Figure 28 shows a map of Orange County and the options for the primary and secondary site locations. The three circles define generally the locations that the Committee felt met their criteria for best serving the public's needs operationally and geographically. NOTE: Meeting handouts-are attached as Figures 25-38. 6-2 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Orange County Justice Facilities Studv Committee wrier-Fripp Architects 16 June 1995 . . 6-3 ' ~ Figure 25 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Agenda • Summary: "The Vision" Mission Statement Concept Financing Immediate Tasks Schedule • Selling the Vision: "Making It Happen - A Prescription for .Success" Committee The Plan Timing Public Perceptions Public Relations - Information -Who, What, Where, Why, When, How" - Communications Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r 1 e r -Fri p p A r e 6 l t e e t i 6-4 Figure 26 Mission Statement The mission of the Orange County (Justice Center) is/will be to provide all appropriate judicial, law enforcement and related public functions at a single location which will ensure public ssfety, b accommodatlog to all citizens and el~t in delivery of aervicea, is economically responsive and cansiatent with the philosophy, goals and iatereats of tbeeommunlty. Public Safety €~ Court facilities which expedite the delivery of justice. m Public and restricted area within the facility which permit the safe and secure movement of visitors, staff, security personnel and imnatrs simultaneously. o Detention facilities which securely detain imnates charged with criminal offenses. o Facility security systems which ace effective, nat offensive, sad which address public and staff requirtatteats. Accommodating do Efficient c~ Conveniently located and accesstble to public and outside user agencies o Adequate public parking, convenient to fact7ides. o Adequate visitor waiting and circulation areas which permit efficient movement through the facility without interfering with unrelated activities. o Prioritize swift delivery of services. e Emphasize personal contact. o Facilitate accessibility for handicapped staff and visitors. p Improve efficiency of internal/uuer-agency opecatim via single facility and careful consideration of location(s) within. Stsff etPicient without compromising security or delivery of services.. o Operating systems. and equipment which are state of the art yet operator friendly. o Enable alt facility employees to effectively and efficiently carry out the duties and responsibilities of their positions. Orange County Justice Facilifiies Study Committee Grisr-Fripp Aret+iteeti 6-5 Figure 26 Mission Statement -cont. Economical Economical to build - a Cost effective in its staffing requiranents. o Facilitate economical and efficient building maintenance practices. Utilrze materials and ca~struction mdhods to ensure building longevity. Adequately planned so as not to limit possible long term benefits of future development (expansion). Environmentally sustainable. Community Interest o In appearance sad operation, provides a positive public impact (image) ar the area immediately surrounding the facility as well as the entiro County. Physical structure is consistent with facility purpose and missiar. o Attends to all applicable life safety, building and ADA requirements in its design and operation. a Provides an enviranmeat that promotes high stag' morale and job satisfaction. o Provides opportunities for the public to be lept informed of activities affecting them via provisiar of visitor facilities, community bulletin board4, video presentations (public broadcast. of meetings), media accommodations, etc. o Is attentive to long-term facility/system requirements and provides opportunities for expansion should it be required. Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p Are M l t e e t s 6-6 Figure 27 Concept • A Primary and Single Satellite Facility ~ Location of Primary Facility -Hillsborough Location of Satellite Facility - .Chapel Hill or in I-40/Hillsborough-Chapel Hill corridor • Occupy Primary and Satellite Facilities by January 2000. • Total Program Gross Square Feet - 213,530 (Designed to meet 2005 requirements) • Total Project Budget (Bid First Quarter 1998) - Renovate & New - $27,253,000 All New - $37,276,000 Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee - G r i e r -Fri p p A r e 6 1 t e c t ~ 6-7 Figure Z8 f es I /It Id 1 ` y .."'" . i r ( .i'.... » ~ ' I;/ , y I » ~ w 1yS 1 t yy w~• • , \\~r •~ +~sl~~ 1 1 ~t.. ,~ y ~'~ ~ pjs! ~ ; ~~ s ~ y rsr '-/~ 1 ! t` ,.( I F ~ r iI. ~,~. 1' /• ftI ` ~~5 I~ ~•ri a(~ j1. ~1 +~,1ti/t ~r ' a / •[ti ~ "~ ;'sue,+'1 ~ ' ..ti .. y( .'\ , s r 1_, . i ' .%f A.~'~. ( » M ,w~4o ~• ~i ,fit ,,.~ ~ - '_(±sv .• `t~•y ~'~1~~'~,.,:~f., i ~: _,,, ~. ,•~ .~ ,~ ~;, if ~ ~~ ; ~ `\••• ~-• ~\. \~ ~ ~,y , ~ w ,,..,,, i'"~. ~~~ r+.~r~*!, ~ ;..'' i !~~- -+•~ t+u lad. ~. ~~`! t ..~..,...~~r^~. 1 a r •_ ~ :, i:; 1 :1~\1~ ~`•I\4'~ , + j~ eut[~~ ~rw.,+.l '!1~-t y Y`IPS'` ~~' •'~l ~ r~ .1 ~ ''1 . \ ' ~~" ` •i» 1,'+u\,IM : "i~_•~' ~/ r j w.,l:l ~~ r ~ N~I ~yll r _ ~~ . ~ w.,i+F^- ~~ ~!C ~ \~ ' . II •~ .» It ..{~. 1' ~ _ ~•- _ ~I ~ /`1 ~~ •~ `til ,~ ~.. ' I• Iv i / 1 't ~ ryR~ rla Y./-°i~r,l`~+. a 4 • .'t.. ~ `/ ~ ~ rlw~r,~"»+.. ~ I N ~~ ~ t17,~1.. 6h / /<.~~~Y"~`~•:,e ~-:/wl~r/~~~` '~. J '"Y"`y~ "fi~:~/~~.1` . '~*w I~ • /•~ `s' ~~ {..-..-.a....,`,• 1 r....~ ~ M-fir ,r;. S» ~.. ~ f t. T •i " ~: I~.i:'~ at~~.; "4 ti -:~~Il.r_l, `.~~~;' ci;.t,~uySi}~ '~ ;,• ~~'~. ,(c~ :~- ~• •~ 't ~'~ ~ ~ ~.( +~•~ - ~ /'•r r.._ ~I 9 •f, r..~'.~•L 1 1" ^~::te ... 1»~~i`r~s+» ' ~ 1~ :'` tl ~ ~"-`l~~ rl ', t ~ r •j• t 1 ~~ ..~ /~.~. ~l~f. r;.Q ... ... '~"11 ~ '\\t .(+;i•Tl ~'2`~ • ~; 1 ~ ' ~ 11~I 1! • y... ~- ~, 1 /' 1 r { •J. ~.. i ... :~ ~'1 ul,:i ~i n ~ ~ 1.._11• 1 .. 6-8 Figure 29 Financing • Suggested Method of Financing - General Obligation Bonds Issued by local government, secured by issuer's ad valorem taxing power, constitutes debt of issuer and requires approval by election prior to issuance. • A portion of the Total Project Capital required could be budgeted for and Financed from Operating Capital wth early identification of long-term requirements and a phased schedule of implementation, funds are set aside and allocated annually to pay for planning, design, and partial construction as activities occur, "reduce" referendum/debt by escrowing monies before beginning development.. Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p A r c h i t e c t i 6-9 - - - Figure 30 ~. _, :; Immediate Tasks: "Defining the Steps" Based on the project budget, the method of financing will be determined using one or a combination of options as described in Figure 22, p.b-11. Then; • Coordinate with the Orange County Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for establishing a funding availability projection. Finalize Schedule for Action Plan • Create a Steering Committee - Identify Members and Their Roles - Prepare for Consensus Building - Create a Game Plan ® Contract for Needs Assessment - Inmate projections - Evaluate existing building systems ® Contract for Definitive Program Document ® Contract for Site Selection - Create a Site Selection Committee ® Contract for Schematic Design -Based on specific site, -needs assessment and program documents • Implement "Selling the Concept" Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A r c h i t e c t s 6-10 - Figure 31 Schedule for Action Plan Qtr. Years 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Tasks 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 41 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Orange County Justice Facility Study Group Needs Assessment ~„ Definitive Program Document s ~ Site SeleMion I I 6 ~ Schematic Plan(s) ~ ~ 6 Selling Concept 21 Bond Sale Vote A/E Design /Bids 9 ~• r Construction zs moody Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r t p p Arc 6 i t e c t s 6-11 Fi4ure 32 ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Selling. The ~siion "Making It Happen - A Prescription for Success" Committees} ® why ~ steering committee? - To assure coatiouity throughout the Process - To involve representatives of Users, Public and Staff; Proponents and Opponents ® How Many Committees? - Suggest two (2) ° Justice Facilities Steering Committee ° Citizat's Committee ® Roles of Committees - Justice Fsc~ities St~eerittg Committee ° Does "homea+Ork" for County Cammrssloners ° Active from beginning of process to completion of Protect ° Size - 8 to 10 members ° Make recommendations to County Commissio^ers far ~~ ° Gtdde the Process including Organizing and implementing the Action Plan for "Selling the Concept" - CYtizen's Committee ° Active during speciSc Tasks of the Process (cammittoe memberships may be differatt far each leek) ° Represent diverse interests among citizenry ° Make recommendations to Justice Facilities Steering Committee Orwge County Justice Facilit)'ies Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A r c h i t e c t 5 6-12 Fi ure 32 ^ i ^ ^ i ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Selling The Vsion - .Committees continued a Members: "Tapping into Orange County's Power Structure" - Determine composition and representation - Selection of Committee Members Leatkrs are neither always great orators not always in high positions. Leaders can simply bewell-respected and balanced individuals who have been instrumental in commtmity initiatives alt individuals with track records of success and achievements. ® A Process for Selecting Commttnity Leader Members; Step l: Liu the throe mou eiiti8ram couory projav - and the key ~a~oiatlom involved in each attham -mar ware compi~cea in me y~ sap z: Liu mrx matjor cower projatis there hrve faile4 alma win reason far the fitauta, and the key arpoaatioos thar were involved in these projects. Stop 3: Lbt the moo io9ues[id groups in the County. Step 4: Made up of the following eight subuepa: -List flue peopb who caddbe tecommmded to help build eYPpat 6ortha Onoae County luuix Fact' ied -Liu the Coumy's flue most succeas5d busioas owners. -List flue people aim me most political iotluooce in Orst^a Cauntyc -Lief one reoop~baad kadv in each of the following taofdsiwa: law, madiciK aocatauhq, academia -Liu ante paaon racaptiaed for a b~clcgratnd is qeh of the follotritg none: public relations, fimdnmina, -Ldat ale aetivitiae, and auppoR of the aRa Faeifitias~e (« apnvations) who could uap a hodca projxt -L'pt the five most wdtlry families o the Canty. -T.iu the five mat oRat mmtianed yaarg leadat The abject of role ezaese b b identify in6viduals mou involved win activities dut all affect the fltnaa of Orange County. 1Lo aepoizesions and individuals whose nonce appar fraqumtty in the answer b the aacie quauions would likely be candidtbs far the inititl steering grasp, Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A r r h i t e c t s 6-13 -- Figure 32 s ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • Selling The Vision -Committees continued m Consider "Terms" for Committee Members Once steering group membership has been determined, consideration should be given to how each individual should serve. Even the most careful. selection process cannot foresee conflict among personalities. Should the initial group not work well together, short tams in office would allow earlier review of the leadership and discussions of alternatives. ® Committee's Composition Doublo-check the composition of the group to ensure that it is balanced. Figure 3 shows how the members of one staring committee were categorized according to social and professional relationships, areas of expertise, geography, fields of professional endeavour(s), ethnicity, age, gender, and lengths of term in office. Such a breakdown could prove a useful tool in obtaining an accurate overview of the group. Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A r c h i t e c t s 6-14 Fi ure 33 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Suggested Form to Identify Composition of steering Group Background Nama o! Steerh~ Grorp Memben ReLtfo~e t]41ra.n NdMY6oeYNe MNb p~~jn PdNe ael~tler rlueer ~a~rW ~KV ~P4 te~ree~..e ~4' At BM~eiOlY Sector ~~ NWrB~nler A Baia SW R~WI OMIT gbh A6feue..eka. c,.e.r.. auk r.M..rtue. NNh AwWe OMw ~e f!r ~~ 7fae ~ 1e~Y ~4b lbrv N~: dYnn w e~wd 'M~ ~ (~ Other Orange County Justice Facilities Study Comnuttee G r i e r- F r i p p A r e h t t e e t^ 6-15 Figure 34 ~~ The Plan "Creating the Road Map" • The key to a successful plan - "Groundwork, Groandworlc, Groandwork." • .The elements of a successful plan: o A clear vision -must respond to real and perceived needs that benefit Orange County, be flexible, economical, user friendly aad lasting. o Have your act together - no changes, "mixed signals" are deadly o Develop a time line and stick to it - "Don't Procrastinate" o Involve the commanity -have balanced representation on committees o Develop a Public Relations Strategy that will get the message to ail voters Coordinate date for Referendum Vote to avoid conflicts with other bond projects • Orange County Officials MiL~T publicly endorse the Concept -and aggressively speak favorably for its support. Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p A r e 6 I t e c h 6-16 Figure 35 Timing • Coordinate. the project funding with the Orange County Improvements Program. • If a referendum is required, avoid "competing" bond issues of more "popular" projects, e.g. schools. Orange County Jastice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r -Fri p p A r e h i t e c t^ 6-17 Figure 36 Public Perceptions (Particularly important to assess when all or part of financing is derived from General Obligation Bonds.) • Conduct Market Study to determine Public Perceptions : "Know the Issues" - By personal interview - By telephone - By focus groups - By questionnaire • Address Perceptions /Educate Public Misconceptions Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee Grier - F r i p p A r c h l t e e t i 6-18 Figure 37 ~'ublic Relations "Telling the story" Information - "The Who, What ,Where, Why, When and How" • Who does the selling? - Designate spokesperson to publicly. tell the story - Train and make knowledgeable on Concept - Spokesperson needs to represent full range • .What are we selling? - Data and Ysion must be clearly depicted and clearly understood • When • can information on Concept be found for those interested i.e., direct mai{, grocery stores, Real Estate magazines and free press locations? • Why is the Project necessary? - Craft a clear explanation articulating benefits i.e., more efficient, more effective, how improvement will positively affect other Orange County Systems, etc. • When will the concept be ready for use; When do we vote? • How can this project be viable? - Clearly present and compare existing costs, fimue needs and their projected costs to taxpayers if: Nothing it done Concept is constructed - Show how financing is ACHIEVABLE and the financial impact to the Orange County Taxpayer - Describe benefit in financial terms as well as increased effectiveness and efficiency for both public and staff Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee G r i e r- F r i p p A e e h l t e e t s 6-19 Fi ure 38 ~..,. Public Relations "Telling the Story" Communications - "The Vehicles for Delivering the Message Above all else: Be prepared to share with the community ALL the facts • Effective vehicles for delivering the Message: - The newspapers and other media editorials o Establish relationships -Letters to the editor - Radio/TV. talk shows - TV/radio local Public Service Announcements - Speeches to Civic/PTA/other groups - Public Hearings for Site Selection o Final Bond Referendum - Chamber of Commerce - Public Interest stories for newspapers, TV and/or radio • Be Organized -Identify master list of daily, weekly and biweekly newspapers; trade publications; TV stations; radio stations - List to include; o Each media outlet o Address o TelephonelFAX number o Name of contact person Orange County Justice Facilities Study Committee Grier -Fri p p Are h i t e e t s 6-20 CHAPTER 7 -SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY To use a process that outlines a vision and develops a mission statement for long range planning is a unique opportunity for Orange County. The Justice Facilities Study Committee has set the course for sound and efficient planning to meet the future judicial and related agency service needs for the benefit of its citizens. Key to this effort has been the diverse representation of the membership comprising the Justice Facilities Study Committee. Each committee member represents one of the county government agencies addressed in this planning process. Each brought to the discussions his or her department's perspective of future needs necessary to deliver effective and efficient services to .the citizens of Orange County. Mission and Master It is envisioned that the mission statement developed will Plan serve as the measure for ,all subsequent discussions for planning focused on meeting the needs of the existing and. future requirements of the Judicial system. The master plan for the overall implementation of the projected phased construction plan responds to the mission statement, identifies current and future needs of the respective departments, is "citizen focused" in design and meets the strategic, geographic and demographic needs of the public. Concept Location The facilities that will. house the Judicial and related services will be in two locations. The Primary Facility will be located in Hillsborough to take advantage of the capital investment in existing facilities and the opportunity afforded by available land strategically located between the New Courthouse and the Government Services Center. There is sufficient. land to accommodate the projected facility needs through the yeaz 2020 including the required pazking. This concept assumes the continued reuse of the Old Courthouse and existing jail on the opposite sides of Mazgaret Lane. The Primary Facility will be a multi-level structure with an accompanying pazking structure located off of Margazet Lane. It will be connected to and between the New Courthouse on Churtin Street and the New Government Services Center. Here there is the opportunity to combine existing facilities of judicial, law enforcement, detention and related services for "one stop shopping" at a central 7-1 CHAPTER 7 -SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ~- related services for "one stop shopping" at a central governmental complex. There is also the added challenge of creating an azchitectural design that projects a "citizen friendly" image while developing anaesthetic that is sympathetic and responsive to the Historical Chazacter of Hillsborough. Incorporating the existing courts and detention facilities into this future complex will realize significant savings for the overall cost of construction. The Secondary Facility will be a single story facility located in Chapel Hill possibly on land owned by the County on Homestead Road or along the I-40 comdor between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough (see Figure 1). This facility is envisioned to be a satellite facility providing limited duplicative services to the population center in the southern end of Orange. County. The selected site will need to meet criteria that addresses ease of access to public transportation, availability to utilities, buildability and size with respect to being able to accommodate future expansion. Time Schedule for In order to address the identified 1995 deficiencies of space Occupancy (approximately 28,000 gross square feet) and construct facilities sufficient to meet the space needs through the yeaz 2020, it is the Justice Facilities Study Committee's recommended goal to occupy both site locations by the yeaz 2000. This means that initial steps towazds achieving that goal need to be started immediately and following the outline in Figure 31. Scope of Project The projected gross squaze footage required for the yeazs 2005 and 2020 aze; 213,530 and 312,840 square feet respectively. The estimated total project costs for the yeazs 2005 and 2020 are $24,228,100 and $34,723,400 respectively. These estimates include escalation for inflation and assume a phased construction building plan to be completed in the yeazs 2005 and 2020. The total project costs spent for construction by the yeaz 2020 would be $58,951,500.. 7-2 CHAPTER 7 -SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS If the optional plan is to complete all construction by the yeaz 2000 such that the facility is large enough to meet the space requirements up to the yeaz 2020, the total estimated project cost would be $51,961,230. This option would require only one construction period and a single financing effort as compazed to a multiphased construction plan requiring multiple financing efforts. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations were made by the Justice Facilities Study Committee in order of priority; • Work together with the Orange County Commissioners to either adopt or modify the recommended action plan of this Committee. • Finalize Schedule for Action Plan. • Coordinate with the Orange County Capital Improvements Program for establishing a funding timeline. • Create a Steering Committee Identify Members and Their Roles Prepaze for Consensus Building Create a "Game Plan" • Contract for Needs Assessment Inmate projections Evaluate existing building systems • Contract for Definitive Program Document • Contract for Site Selection Create a Site Selection. Committee • Contract for Schematic Design Based on specific site, needs assessment and program documents • .Implement "Selling the Concept" Public Information Meeting Multi-Media and Event Exposure • Obtain financing through bonds or other financing mechanisms identified in this report. 7-3 CHAPTER 7 -SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS • Contract for Design and Engineering • Bid and Award Construction Contract • Complete Construction • Occupancy by January 2000 r~ ~a ,.. 7-4