Pierce County Justice Center Recommendations Report

Pierce County

About this INITIATIVE

As a result of Executive Pat McCarthy’s directive that ensures departments are using strategies and initiatives to work toward common countywide goals, new performance measures were developed in 2012. Through the strategic objectives of ‘’Improve Service Delivery’, we are still moving Pierce County forward.

Vision: A livable Pierce County where people choose to live, work, and play.

Mission: Pierce County delivers essential, customer-focused government services with innovation and passion.

Service Delivery: Identify and optimize processes, tools and teams to deliver high quality and efficient services.

Initiative: Engage Law and Justice Programs to identify efficiency and effectiveness improvements, particularly with a reconfiguration of the County City Building tenants and other facility reconfigurations.

delivers essential customer-focused government services with innovation and passion.

Executive Summary

A new General Services Building that shifts programs and services out of the County-City Building would create an opportunity for a single source, fully supported and centrally located Pierce County Justice Center. It is the first time since before construction of the original CCB that justice services could solely occupy one building.

Over its 55-year (and counting) life, the CCB has stretched and evolved through expansion and renovations to accommodate various uses. Moving to a new General Services Building would provide an opportunity to replace outdated systems, improve operational efficiencies and boost customer service in law and justice programs through organizational adjacencies and improvements.

Many of the building’s systems have reached or exceeded their life spans. We must respond to these critical needs. The value is added by phasing in operational improvements and upgrades in a way that ensures the CCB remains a viable Pierce County asset for decades to come.

For the past year, the focus has been upon potential streamlining of County services and associated programming requirements including:

Team Leadership

Kevin Phelps, Team Sponsor

Kevin Stock, Team Co-Chair

Chuck Ramey, Team Co-Chair

Executive’s Office: Kevin Phelps, Deputy Executive

Al Rose, Justice Services Executive Director

Danni Colo, Executive Secretary

Facilities Management: Bret Carlstad, Director

Mike Poier, Construction Division Manager

Kirt Neal, Project Manager

Stefanie Dyer, Project Manager

County Council: Councilmember Connie Ladenburg

Councilmember Stan Flemming

Hugh Taylor, Council Staff

Prosecuting Attorney: Dawn Farina, Chief of Staff

Melody Younglove, Legal Services Manager

Department of Michael Kawamura, Director Assigned Council

Superior Court Judge Stanley Rumbaugh

Judge Elizabeth Martin

Judge Ronald Culpepper

Andra Motyka, Court Administrator

Clerk of the Superior Court Kevin Stock, Clerk of the Superior Court

District Court Judge Margaret Ross

Chuck Ramey, District Court Administrator

Juvenile Court T J Bohl, Administrator

Sheriff Undersheriff Rob Masko

Tacoma Municipal Court Judge Elizabeth Verhey

Michelle Petrich, Court Administrator

City of Tacoma Jean Hayes, Tacoma City Attorney

Budget & Finance Gary Robinson, Director

Community Connections Helen Howell, Director

Creative & Collaborative Justice Center | Efficiency | Modernization | Safety

Justice Center Planning Study

Planning Study MEMBERS

Planning Study CHARTER

In January 2014, the Executive invited leadership from the law and justice agencies within the County City Building to study what would be needed to transform the 50+ year old facility into a Justice Center. This study team, Justice Center Planning Committee (JCPC), drafted a project charter including project scope, guidelines and team member responsibilities.

The study team conducted bi-weekly meetings starting in February of 2014 and additionally participated in sub-committees, department tours and off-site planning workshops.

Team Goal:

To submit a report to the County Executive in December 2014 that provides recommendations for program placements, necessary renovations, building modernization, operational efficiencies, service delivery enhancements, and project funding mechanisms.

Questions the planning team evaluated included:

How can the customer experience and quality of judicial services be improved through program and building changes within the CCB?

Are there operational efficiencies that can be realized and documented in bringing justice program departments together into the CCB?

Are there positive economic benefits that could be implemented that may include:

▶ Reduced lease expense

▶ Maximized space utilization

▶ Shared common or program spaces

▶ Lower operating costs

▶ Lower technology costs through improved infrastructure

▶ Shared functions

▶ Enhanced service delivery

▶ Planning for flexibility and growth in service level demand

▶ Reduced staff

County-City Building

Then & Now

The County City Building was constructed in 1959 at a cost of $9.5 million. Upon completion it housed 272,900 square feet of County and City government program space. There were 9 courtrooms included in the original design. The building footprint expanded in 1988 adding 5 additional courtrooms and increasing its available area to the current size of 336,500 square feet. Various interior renovations throughout the years have increased the number of courtrooms to 39, including 22 Superior Court, 4 Superior Court Commissioner, 8 District Court and 5 Municipal Court. The County City Building experienced 560,038 visitors in 2013, excluding staff.

In 2006, the County initiated a multi-project construction effort consisting of 4 phases to address growth and functionality needs of the County’s judicial courts programs. These construction projects involved nearly 60,000sf spread between 5 floors. Phase one was completed in 2007, adding 5 Superior Courtrooms on the third and fourth floors and Superior Court’s Administration office space on the third floor. Phase 2, located in the C-wing of the second floor, provided three high security Criminal Division courtrooms, judicial chambers, court support areas, secure attorney-client conferencing, and enhanced prisoner transport, and holding areas that provide complete separation between inmates and staff/public. Phase 2 was completed in 2008.

Phase 3, designed to provide 3 District Courtrooms and administration space on the fifth floor, began in 2009 but was not completed due to decreased tax revenues resulting from the economic downturn.

1959

After demolition of the fifth floor east wing, the project was put on hold leaving most of the fifth floor empty for six years. Phase 4 was never designed, but planned to allow expansion and modernization of the Prosecuting Attorney space. Though the completed construction efforts resulted in greatly improved conditions of 48,000sf of Superior Court areas, the work was stopped short and the planning concepts never attempted to address the entire building layout, customer interaction, building systems and organizational efficiency for the full building.

Building Facts

Building Age: 55 years

Square Footage: 336,500

Departments Housed: 14

Courtooms: 39

Number of Employees: 640*

Annual Costs

2013 Utility Costs: $458,354

2013 Total Facility Operating Costs: $3,957,328

Pierce County population: 321,000

Smith-Corona makes a portable electric typewriter weighing 18.3 pounds

Xerox introduces the first commercial copier on Sept. 16, 1959

Fragmentation of Departments

County-City Building Current Conditions

560,038

Visitors

Distribution of Courtrooms

Public Points of Contact

Current Conditions

The Justice Center Planning Committee analyzed how the CCB has evolved over the decades. The building has certainly served its various purposes, but it functions differently today than it did when it opened in 1959 or even when it expanded in 1988. Internal configuration has changed, functional usage has evolved, building and energy codes have improved, and original building systems have exceeded their lifespans. Here are major programmatic challenges identified by the Justice Center Planning Committee.

Challenges: PROGRAMMING

Program Space

▶ Departments are spread across multiple floors and areas causing operational inefficiencies within and between departments

▶ Inadequate wayfinding for customers within the building leads to confusion, unnecessary staff interactions and unproductive travel through the building to locate proper points of contact for public and County staff

▶ Inmate transport pathways to courtrooms are, in some cases, unsecured and interaction between inmates, public, judges, lawyers and staff is common

▶ Inadequate space and systems for document storage reduces efficiency and results in poor space utilization

▶ Lack of available small meeting rooms leads to hallway counseling and unmet attorney-client privacy expectations

▶ Inadequate courtroom configuration and locations reduce the quality of justice services, limits peer interaction within departments and limits operational efficiencies

▶ Courtrooms and support spaces are not fully ADA accessible which affects judicial service

▶ Jury assembly room does not support need at peak demand which causes juror discomfort and overflow into public spaces

▶ Inadequate workspace

▶ Lack of small meeting rooms

▶ Inadequate file storage space

▶ Lack of privacy in current meeting spaces

▶ Inadequate secure workspace for employees

◊ Stairwells

◊ Restrooms

◊ Exiting and entering the building

◊ Parking

Challenges: SYSTEMS

Building Systems

▶ Primary structure does not meet current seismic requirements

▶ Secondary structural elements are potentially unsafe in a seismic event

▶ Heating, ventilation and air conditioning is noncompliant and beyond useful life

▶ Main electrical feeder backup system is not functional

▶ Electrical equipment, original to the 1959 building, is beyond its useful life

▶ Many building components are original, inefficient and non-functional

▶ Lighting fixtures are inefficient and lack energy saving features

▶ Portions of building do not have a sprinkler system

▶ Life safety systems need improvement

▶ Public restrooms are not fully ADA accessible

▶ IT, tele-data, and some security systems are outdated and inefficient

▶ Building envelope is not current energy code compliant

Making Progress

In 2009, annual energy usage for the CCB was 8,148,400 kWh at a cost of $388,262. Since 2009, with window glazing replacement, limited lighting upgrades, HVAC optimization and pump replacements, the County has seen a 17% reduction in energy use.

Energy Cost

Equipment renewal, HVAC modernization, full building lighting replacement/ upgrade, water reduction measures, and other sustainable measures associated with a major building renovation will additionally reduce energy usage up to 50% with up to 40% water reduction. This savings will be realized year after year of ongoing County building use.

The Impact of Doing Nothing

The work of the JCPC confirms that taking no action would leave the law and justice agencies in the CCB with ongoing facility constraints that significantly reduce their ability to provide (and improve) effective and efficient public service. Likewise, taking no action will leave every agency in the building in crowded, inadequate, dislocated conditions, and will continue to have a direct impact on the public we serve.

Community:

There is an impact to those who utilize the services in the CCB, including the jurors who are summoned to court. Improving building safety systems and realigning programs enhances citizen access and program function.

Victims and Witnesses:

There are impacts to victims and witnesses of violent crimes, including children, who are required to appear at the CCB only to find themselves in close proximity to defendants and their family members because of the lack of small meeting rooms. There are impacts to those individuals in cases where the potential for conflict and confrontation is great. There are also impacts to individual privacy and the sense of security and dignity.

CCB Employees:

There are impacts to the employees who deliver justice services every day in what are often extremely taxing circumstances both emotionally and physically. Taking no action leaves a facility that has outlived its effectiveness and fails to provide up-todate building safety systems, adequate and organized work spaces, and efficient programmatic layout of departments.

BUILDING SYSTEMS STATUS QUO

The Cost to Do Nothing

Total facility operating costs for the County City Building in 2013 were $3,957,328.

Yearly reductions will result from the renovation of building systems and department program areas.

Significant opportunities exist in these areas:

▶ Yearly CCB repair and maintenance cost (5 yr avg) is $1,466,200.

▶ Yearly CCB capital improvement costs (10 yr avg) is $2,629,150.

▶ Yearly CCB energy and water cost (2013) is $401,911.

“Most of the (mechanical) equipment in the building is past its expected service life which means it will likely fail in the very near future. The vintage of the equipment makes replacement parts difficult to find and expensive to obtain. Old and failing equipment also requires more maintenance. In the event of total failure of an air handling unit fan or the main cooling tower, replacement equipment could have lead times of 8-12 weeks – for the cooling tower, that could mean no cooling for the building; for a fan, no heating, cooling, or ventilation for large portions of the building.”

- Mechanical Engineering Report, CCB, 2014

“There are some significant structural concerns with the seismic performance of all three building sections (A wing, B wing tower, and C wing). The most significant concerns are focused on the B wing tower and the C wing. The design base shear at the time of construction is significantly less than required by current seismic design provisions... Based on a risk analysis of the B wing tower, the estimated Probable Maximum Loss (PML) is 12-30% of the building value.”

“There are two 15KV, underground electrical feeders originating at different Tacoma Public Utility substations (Hilltop and Nisqually) serving the CCB complex (Jail and CCB)... In an emergency if one of the two feeders stalled, the remaining feeder can serve the entire CCB complex by engaging the tie switch... The Nisqually feeder and switch have not been energized for over 10 years. If the Hilltop substation feeder should fail, the switch and feeder cannot be engaged… Restoring electrical service to the CCB complex could take 2-3 days in an emergency if maintenance and repairs are not made.”

- Electrical Engineering Report, CCB, 2014

- Structural Engineering Report, CCB, 2002

Study Team Summary

Attentive maintenance and innovative repairs have kept the CCB functional beyond expectations. Change is necessary, and unavoidable.

Study Team Process

Upon formation of the Justice Center Planning Committee, the team drafted a project charter including project scope, guidelines and member responsibilities. The charter encouraged participation, respect for all stakeholders, consensus building and group collaboration. Bi-weekly meetings began in February 2014.

During early meetings, Facilities Management presented information regarding the building’s planning history, existing CCB layout and new administration building impacts. Department representatives presented department briefings that included program information, departments needs and shortcoming of existing spaces. Each department also hosted tours through relevant areas of the building.

Facilities Management staff met with department representatives and reviewed briefings to develop an understanding of building program needs. Staff studied building systems required for long term use of the CCB.

Information from additional studies that impact program decisions of the Justice Center were also shared with the group.

The JCPC met for two extended planning sessions. A full-day September session was held to orient the group to the design goals of the master planning effort and to present three floorplan scenarios for discussion. A second meeting was held in November where two floor-plan scenarios were presented for discussion. The planning meetings allowed committee members to study the impacts of various scenarios working toward points of consensus regarding individual issues.

JCPC team discussions were very collaborative and investigatory. Participants were actively engaged in the stretch and rebound of discussion items relating to shared work in key function areas, including how the County could better deliver services into the future. Some limitations (RCW, WAC and County Code) do constrain predetermined function areas and service delivery. Brainstorming evoked a number of potential areas that still warrant further study.

- JCPC Report

Study Team Analysis

Department Briefing and Tours

The Justice Center Planning Committee completed a series of briefings by each department impacted by a reconfiguration of the County City Building. These briefings were presented to the Committee members and coordinated with a tour of each existing department space.

Areas of the building toured included:

▶ Superior Courts Courtrooms and Administration

▶ Superior Courts Criminal Court Wing

▶ District Court Courtrooms and Administration

▶ Municipal Court Courtrooms and Administration

▶ Juvenile Court Courtrooms and Administration

▶ Prosecuting Attorney Offices

▶ Prosecuting Attorney Offices at 955 Building

▶ Prosecuting Attorney, Family Support Division at 950 Building

▶ District Court Probation, Mediation and Day Reporting

▶ Department of Assigned Counsel at 949 Building

▶ Clerk of the Superior Courts Office

▶ Sheriff Headquarters Office, Criminal Investigation, Forensics and Property

▶ Tacoma City Attorney

▶ Sheriff Corrections Prisoner Transport

Existing Facility Evaluations

In concert with the ongoing planning for the proposed General Services Building, Facilities Management has undertaken a number of studies regarding anticipated changes in the CCB. In addition to programmatic master planning of the Justice Center, evaluation of building systems, evaluation of County owned buildings and feasibility studies for the relocation of County departments have given the JCPC valuable insight as to what may, or may not be possible within the CCB and nearby campus properties.

Recent studies conducted include:

▶ CCB Heating Boiler Replacement

▶ Central Campus Site Survey

▶ CCB Courtroom Accessibility, ADA

▶ Remann Hall Renovation Feasibility

▶ CCB Electrical Equipment

▶ Remann Hall Relocation

▶ CCB Structural Evaluation, Seismic

▶ 901 Building Renovation

▶ CCB Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Modernization

▶ 950 Building Renovation

JCPC Planning Workshops

Information gathered in JCPC meetings, department briefings, tours, sub-committee reports, and internal studies were developed into a multi-media presentation attended by the JCPC during a full day workshop on September 10. The group considered existing conditions while imagining possibilities that would address building shortcomings and program needs for a long term Justice Center solution. The JCPC met for a second workshop retreat on the evening of November 5. Consensus points from the prior workshop were reviewed along with two alternate floor plan Scenarios. Committee members again broke out into smaller groups to discuss the pros and cons of the two scenarios. Useful feedback was obtained from all team members giving the Facilities Management design team the direction needed to develop a plan that would organize programs, transform the image of the building and improve the interactive customer experience.

JCPC Sub-Committees

To address the impact of issues directly affected by departmental logistics and policy, sub-committees were formed. Each sub-committee was comprised of one JCPC co-chair and members of departments perceived to be affected by the issue. Each sub-committee met as determined necessary and reported their findings to the committee as a whole. JCPC Sub-committees included: Records Retention, Financial Payment & Jury System.

Team CONSENSUS

The development of master plan components and recommendations outlined in this report were derived directly from JCPC meetings, workshops and reports. Implementation of the master plan will result from an understanding of the overall project goals, concepts receiving full committee consensus, and exploration of concepts that have significant merit that will be included in ongoing study.

Objectives

▶ Combine justice related programs for creation of a centralized justice center

▶ Improve customer experience and delivery of justice services

▶ Thoughtfully locate high traffic areas and public points of service

▶ Modernize existing County City Building for long term use including decreased operation costs and enhance visitor and occupant comfort

▶ Obtain efficiencies within departments, operations and building systems

Concepts Receiving Full Consensus

▶ Improve department floor locations to increase efficiency

▶ Centrally locate customer access points

▶ Expand both the first and second floor lobbies

▶ Provide interactive kiosks at public lobbies

▶ Improve day-lighting at public spaces

▶ Improve circulation with new stair connections

▶ Relocate Jury Assembly near second floor lobby

Concepts with Significant Merit to be Included in Ongoing Study

▶ Retain the Sheriff as a central presence in Justice Center campus

▶ Co-locate District Court courtrooms within a common floor/area of the building

▶ Co-locate Municipal Court courtrooms within a common floor/area of the building

▶ High traffic programs/functions should be located on lower floors

▶ Move sheriff’s property room off the Justice Center campus

▶ Improve prisoner transport routes

▶ Unified Family Court needs further study by Superior Court

▶ Juvenile Court functions located on or near campus needs further study

▶ Modernize Law Library function and evaluate program location needs

▶ Additional conference/meeting rooms are needed

▶ Improve wayfinding

Themes & Design DRIVERS

Where did they come from?

Drawing from past committee feedback, sound design guidelines, and facility program needs, a set of Design Drivers was developed to focus design on critical issues. Design drivers were organized into three categories:

THEME 1: EFFICIENCY

Design Drivers: Functional Organization, Wayfinding, Public Interaction, Elevator Use, Co-located Services, Courtroom Standardization, Juvenile Court, Waiting & Queuing, Shared Amenities, and Jury

THEME 2: MODERNIZATION

Design Drivers: Campus Circulation, User Comfort, Operational Cost, Daylight & Quality of Light, Building Systems, Sustainable Strategies, ADA Accessibility, Office Space, and Building Image

THEME 3: SAFETY

Design Drivers: Campus Security, Building Users, Inmate Circulation, Exterior Lighting, Courtroom Security, Parking, Physical Security, Building Egress, Public Safety (Law Enforcement), and Code Compliance

Study Team Recommendations

County-City Building Reconfiguration

The Justice Center Planning Committee members feel there is opportunity for better customer service and gained efficiency by reconfiguring the programmatic layout of departments located in the Justice Center.

Renovation of the building would also allow for better access, improved safety and modernization as well as updated infrastructure and technology for those who work at and visit. Committee members feel the recommended program placements, along with associated reconfiguration of internal circulation, security elements, public entrances and lobbies will improve customer experience, departmental efficiency, overall building usage and operational efficiency.

Recommendations for major program placements, design features, system upgrades and project implementation are listed below.

These recommendations begin to define a long term Pierce County Justice Center Master Plan. Adjustment and refinements are anticipated as design study progresses.

Layout of Key Programs

Basement:

Facilities Management

Security Operations Center/Data Center

Shared Staff Support

First Floor: Public Entrance Lobby

Public Information and Points of Service

Clerk of Superior Court

Super Court Commissioner Courtrooms and Courtroom 100

Sheriff’s Department

Municipal Courts

Municipal Court Administration

Law Library

Public Support Services

Second Floor: Public Entrance Lobby

Public Information and Points of Service

Criminal Courtrooms

Superior Courts

Jury Assembly

Superior Court Administration

District Court Administration

Public Support Services

Third Floor: District Courts

Fourth Floor: District Courts

Fifth Floor: Superior Courts

Sixth Floor: Superior Courts

Seventh Floor: Superior Courts

Eighth –

Eleventh Floors: Prosecuting Attorney

City Attorney

Programmatic Design Features

▶ Improve department floor locations to increase efficiency

▶ Include offsite programs essential to justice services

▶ Expand first and second floor lobbies for improved flow and security

▶ Centrally locate customer access points

▶ Improve security checkpoints at building entrances

▶ Improve wayfinding systems throughout building

Centralization of Departments

▶ Locate Jury Assembly on second floor near entrance

▶ Provide interactive customer kiosks on first and second floors

▶ Improve day-lighting at public spaces

▶ Improve circulation with new public stair connections

▶ Co-locate District Court courtrooms within a common area of the building

▶ Co-locate Municipal Court courtrooms within a common area of the building

▶ Locate high traffic functions on lower floors

▶ Locate low traffic office functions on upper floors

▶ Move Sheriff’s Property Room and Forensics off the Justice Center campus

▶ Improve prisoner transport routes

▶ Modernize Law Library function and evaluate program needs

▶ Include additional staff and attorney meeting rooms

Building System Improvements

▶ Modernize building HVAC equipment, distribution and controls system

▶ Repair and update electrical distribution system

▶ Replace existing lighting with high efficiency fixtures and controls

▶ Provide structural seismic upgrades

▶ Remove or restrain secondary structural elements

▶ Update fire suppression where needed

▶ Provide ADA accessible Courtrooms and support areas

▶ Update restrooms to current ADA accessible standard, reconfigure as needed

▶ Update IT, tele-data and security systems

▶ Evaluate energy efficiency of building envelope with area renovations

▶ Re-configure and update building life safety systems

▶ Explore energy efficient and sustainable strategies in coordination with renovations

▶ Develop an elevator use plan to facilitate improved program functions

Future Expansion

The committee members understand that the expansion within the CCB is limited and sometimes inflexible within the current building envelope. The renovation recommendation does not include space for future expansion of programs or additional courtrooms. In some cases, ideal layout and functionality of courtrooms are constrained by existing building components and envelope.

At this time, the committee members feel that this study should focus on the existing CCB building with extensions of first and second floor entrances while raising the lobby roof elevation to allow for more window-light refraction into the core.

The committee members recognized a need for additional square footage in the future. With months of study, the members feel the ideas and recommendations included in this report are inclusive to address future use of the CCB.

Committee members agree that Remann Hall facilities are inadequate and do not meet current needs or best practices. The group studied relocating Juvenile programs to the central campus, including the possibility of additions west of the A wing or east of the C wing. However, the committee strongly recommends further study to determine the best options for the location of Juvenile programs.

Remann Hall

Executive Recommendations

The Justice Center Planning Committee did an outstanding job of studying the future needs of the County-City Building, which I requested in concert with ongoing analysis of a new general services building. I accept the committee’s findings and recommend implementing them in a phased approach as funding permits. This report provides a road map to more specific program refinements and renovation costs.

INITIAL PHASING

My proposal to shift general government services to a new building creates an opportunity for a singularly focused, centrally located Pierce County Justice Center. It would be the first time since before construction of the original CCB that justice services solely occupy one building. Critical to this review was the full values-based participation by the law and justice agencies.

Maintaining building occupancy during renovations would require project phasing. Vacating floor space at the end of 2016, along with existing vacant space, provides opportunity for phase planning. To limit the number of phases required, additional transitional space would be preferred. Large amounts of transitional space could be identified in one of the lower level building wings or in nearby county-owned buildings. Shell space from future expansion space could also be used as transitional space for the CCB renovation prior to relocation of that building’s end user. Each step of project phasing, despite timing and funding constraints, must support the programmatic master plan and the JCPC recommendations included.

Some areas will require only minimal upgrades or no significant work. (However, all areas may be affected by systems modernization.) Significant areas that may not require renovation include the second floor Superior Court Criminal Division wing, the third and fourth floor courtroom areas, and large portions of the second floor Superior Court courtroom areas.

A Balanced APPROACH Master PLAN

A Master Plan for CCB renovation into a longterm Justice Center will provide for design continuation in support of a unified vision. This JCPC report provides an excellent foundation for the Master Plan. Using funding allocated by the County Council in the 2015 budget, staff will spend the next year drilling deeper into these issues to determine costs and add detail to the phasing plan.

Early phases of the Justice Center renovation would focus on vacated space in the tower supporting relocation of programs from currently leased spaces. Moving from the upper part of the tower downward several floors at one time or sequentially would allow HVAC and other system renovations to be coordinated concurrently, minimizing compounded costs.

SECONDARY PHASING

Secondary phases of renovations would focus on lower level floors. These floor renovations, which encompass a very large footprint, could be completed in steps or simultaneously depending on available transitional space.

FINAL PHASING

Final or later phases would focus on primary public entrances and lobby space. With other building phases already completed, modernization and expansion of the first and second floor lobbies with additions of open circulation and day-lighting would allow opening of a refreshed public space to mark the completion of a fully renewed Justice Center.

Pat McCarthy Pierce County Executive

NEXT STEPS

Based on the information provided in this report, we will utilize the planning funds provided in 2015 by the County Council to move ahead with plan and program refinements, project scope definition, space programming, design and construction for renovations necessary to assure long term use and conversion of the CCB to a fully modernized Pierce County Justice Center. Primary steps to be implemented short term to maintain progress toward the stated goal include, but are not limited to:

With the guidance of the JCPC and department leaders, continue refinement of all program areas to meet the long term need of the Justice Center and its supporting programs.

Identify the full scope of building system improvements needed to provide the County with a long term code compliant, efficient and functional building.

Explore the County’s capacity to support the recommendations while identifying steps as necessary to promote movement toward the defined master plan.

Study options for Juvenile programming, including what to do with Remann Hall.

In-Depth Findings

The following pages contain the findings of this study.

Reconfiguration/Remodel FINDINGS | SPACE

The Justice Center Planning Committee feels there is opportunity for better customer service and gained efficiency by reconfiguring the programmatic layout of departments who would be located in the new Justice Center building and a remodel of the building to allow for better access, provide improved safety and modernize both the infrastructure and technology for those who work at and visit.

The committee members understand that there is a fixed space limitation to the current building and explored the possibility of adding square footage by either an addition to the A Wing or the C Wing, but feel at this time the reconfiguration/remodel would focus on the existing space with the possibility of extending the entrances and raising the lobby roof elevation to allow for more window-light refraction into the core.

The committee members did not rule out a possible need for additional square footage in the future. With months of study, discussion, research and draft concept models, the committee members feel the following ideas should be included in the recommendation:

Primary Recommendations

▶ Improve department floor locations to increase efficiency

▶ Centrally locate customer access points

▶ Expand both the first and second floor lobbies

▶ Provide interactive kiosks at public lobbies

▶ Improve day-lighting at public spaces

▶ Improve circulation with new stair connections

▶ Relocate Jury Assembly near second floor lobby

Secondary Recommendations

▶ Retain the Sheriff as a central presence in Justice Center campus

▶ Co-locate District Court courtrooms within a common floor/area of the building

▶ Co-locate Municipal Court courtrooms within a common floor/area of the building

▶ High traffic programs/functions should be located on lower floors

▶ Move sheriff’s property room off the Justice Center campus

▶ Improve prisoner transport routes

▶ Unified Family Court needs further study by Superior Court

▶ Juvenile Court functions located on or near campus needs further study Modernize Law Library function and evaluate program location needs

▶ Additional conference/meeting rooms are needed

▶ Improve wayfinding

FINDINGS | RECORDS

The Justice Center Planning Sub-committee on Records Retention feels there is an opportunity for gained efficiency and economy by considering a centralized format for imaging documents for the purpose of records retention for some of the departments who will be located in the Justice Center. Further, this sub-committee feels there is an opportunity for gained equity by the development of a similar format in the new administration building for the departments who will be located in that building.

The committee members also see potential for gained effectiveness by creating the centralized scanning division within a full Records Retention – Public Records Request Department allowing for staff to be trained as subject matter experts for the County. The committee members recommend further detailed research on drafting a pilot project plan including (but not limited to):

Centralized Imaging

▶ Housed in building for Justice Center departments

▶ Housed in building for New General Services Building

Records Retention – Public Records Request Department

▶ Developing a designated team of subject matter experts for the County

▶ Develop a funding mechanism format to support these services

Security – The discussion focused on the area of records management/archiving.

▶ Records archiving is ruled by law to some degree for all justice departments. Currently, records are archived and stored in a variety of locations within a department:

◊ Vacant office space

◊ A variety of storage rooms

◊ A central location at Annex West

▶ Storing records within office space is an expensive and inefficient use of space designed for other functions (office/staff work). Storage requirements, such as environment can best be achieved in a designed/designated location. Some records have specific requirements, such as chain of possession that rule some storage location decisions.

Access – There is both an internal and external element to the subject of ‘access’. Internal access is in reference to Pierce County department/division staff. External can be divided into public records requests, as well as access for other jurisdictions and legal community members.

▶ Several departments saw potential opportunities for a centralized model of County resources in this function area. With that said, further analysis would need to be completed regarding the unique situation of both the County and City of Tacoma conducting business at this location.

▶ Public records requests also have judicial requirements. A Public Records designated division could provide an opportunity for subject matter experts in legal requirements, best practices for storage and searching of data, IT tools to come together into a standardized, consistent and predictable process.

Shared Resources - Departments reported on their current equipment / staff; most not having any dedicated staff assigned to this function within their department, rather they fractionalize their staff to provide limited ability to complete this work. All departments have archiving backlog work and see benefit from moving those files to an electronic format but lack fiscal resources to do so.

▶ Departments identified a definite opportunity for gained efficiency and economy by providing shared equipment/staff model. With that said, further analysis would need to be completed regarding security / authorization / union requirements and/or limitations.

FINDINGS | TRANSACTIONS

The Justice Center Planning Subcommittee on Financial Transactions feels there is an opportunity for gained efficiency in customer service by offering: a payment kiosk format for simple payment transactions, and a ‘Quick Payment’ service window in departments experiencing high volumes for simple/ predictable transactions in coordination with the standard window service customers experience currently.

There are several complex issues needing further research and problem solving in the area of offering a ‘centralized’ payment center across the departments of 2 jurisdictions whose current work process is not aligned. That is not to say it can never be accomplished, however in our given timeframe for making a recommendation on a feasible approach forward the committee members feel there are opportunities to improve the customers’ experience in regards to their contact with both the County and the City when entering, contacting, communicating with staff in the County City building to make payments for all transaction types.

Training Knowledge – Staff from the varying courts do not process payments received using the same format or electronic tools.

If a centralized payment window format was implemented, cross training among staff would need to include not just across departments but also across jurisdictions between Pierce County and City of Tacoma as both entities receive payments currently in the County City Building (future site of the Justice Center). Courts utilize separate state mandated accounting systems.

Union/Staff Structure – Bargaining Unit Agreement language regarding job classifications/descriptions, cross training, temporarily working out of classification, etc. would need to be reviewed so as not to create an unintended consequence.

If a centralized payment window format was implemented, bargaining unit agreement language would need to be reviewed for possible issues not just across departments but also across jurisdictions between Pierce County and City of Tacoma as both entities have several bargaining unit agreements in place.

AOC / Security System – Staff designated by their department director to receive and record payments are provided security access to JRS (Justice Receipting System) / JIS (Justice Information System) for their respective department customers.

If a centralized payment window format was implemented, department directors would need to provide authorization for access to their respective departments’ payment / records process to staff who are not part of their department or under their oversight.

County / City Cross-over – Although co-located in the County City Building, Pierce County and City of Tacoma are two separate jurisdictions conducting similar work but under different policies and procedures.

If a centralized payment window format was implemented, it may require the County and City to enter into an agreement regarding cross over staff receiving payment on the other’s behalf and recording such transactions.

Number / Type of Transactions – A variety of payment types (including full or partial payments) are received on a varying day/week/month timeframe. Other duties can include scheduling hearing dates, filing documents, copying documents, reviewing forms for completeness, etc.

Payments received can be broken out into a variety of types; the most predictable or simple of those types is Fines & Fees. Along with the variety of types, there is also the consideration of partial payments, and/or payments made on a schedule, or payments made on behalf of another (ie: family member or client). However, payments are not the only transaction that occurs at the ‘window’. Staff also schedule hearing dates, receive documents to file, receive requests for document copies, review forms for completeness, provide verbal assistance to customers.

FINDINGS | JURY

The Justice Center Planning Sub-committee on Jury feels there is potential to improve the jury system process and in turn the citizen’s experience in completing their civic duty of serving on a summons.

As stated above, not all summoned citizens may serve on an actual trial during their service cycle. However, they are an integral part of a greater Justice System and provide an economic benefit in part simply by their participation, reducing the number of cases moving through the courts

to a conclusion. Further, with an appropriately sized assembly room that has flexibility to expand in space for peak need day/hours, appropriately sized jury deliberation rooms and jury boxes functionally designed for jury use and all areas to be aesthetically designed for comfort and ease of use and access, there is the potential for these improvements to reduce stress points and facilitate an easier process flow and increased satisfaction.

Jury Availability – A prescribed number of citizens are notified for a given 2 week cycle to serve as a potential juror. The number of citizens notified however does not directly correlate with the number of citizens who actually are available to serve. For those citizens who are available to serve, not all are actually seated on a trial, but need to remain available.

On average, for the total number of juror summons per year (2014 numbers used):

• 14% are undeliverable

• 26% are not responded

• 7% are not qualified

• 12% are postponed

• 27% are excused

• 14% are available to serve

The jury system has been adjusted in recent years to provide for a prescribed number to call per jury panel (35) with some judges self prescribing to require a lower number (as few as 30). However, major case trials may require a larger jury panel be available such as capital murder or several defendants in a case. Jurors are normally asked to report in on a Monday for a 2 week cycle. A staggered cycle is not preferred.

Jury Assembly Room – Serves as the main gathering place for jurors on their first day of service to receive an orientation provided to them by the court administrator’s staff

and as a holding area until they have been assigned to a courtroom for consideration to serve on a particular trial. There are 22 Superior Court judges, 15 of whom are available to conduct jury trials along with 11 District and Municipal Courts judges. On any given week, 10 – 15 jury trials conducted has the potential of 350 to 525 citizens coming to the County City Building on their first day of a summons cycle.

Currently, the jury assembly room has a capacity size identified for fire / life safety purposes of 349 people. However, the furniture arrangement only allows for approximately 210 people to occupy the room comfortably. Although not always used at peak capacity, the room should be flexible with the ability to expand for use during peak capacity days / times of day. The jury assembly room’s proximity to the courtrooms should also be a consideration to allow perspective jurors to move from assembly room to a courtroom, back to the assembly room if dismissed, then reassigned to another potential case in another courtroom. The recent re-location / remodel has provided for improved physical aesthetics with windows adding increased natural lighting and increased square feet.

Jury Deliberation Rooms – Are used for jurors who have been selected to serve on a particular case being tried. These rooms are normally attached to or in close proximity to the courtroom in which the case is being tried. Some of these deliberation rooms have inadequate space for the number of jurors who occupy the room.

Current jury deliberation rooms vary in their size, aesthetic, proximity to restrooms, etc. During a trial, there are restrictions placed on jurors regarding potential visual or verbal proximity to the defendant and witnesses. During defendant transport, these restrictions can cause jurors to have to reside in relatively small contained spaces with limited access to facilities.

Jury Boxes within Courtrooms – Are used to seat jurors who are serving on a particular case being tried. These areas allow for a defined space for jurors, who may need to move in an out (to the jury deliberation room) of the courtroom depending on the information being discussed during the trial.

Current jury boxes in courtrooms vary in their size, sightlines and ADA accessibility. Jurors who have mobility concerns cannot always be accommodated in all courtrooms. This can slow the pace of a case being tried if the jury needs to move in and out of a courtroom several times during the duration of the trial.