Alpine County, New Markleeville Courthouse

Facts
Courtrooms: 1
Square footage: 14,841
Estimated total cost: $26,372,000
Current status: Canceled

Documents
Feasibility Report

The Superior Court of Alpine County operates out of the historic Alpine County Courthouse in Markleeville. The court occupies about half of the building, which is owned by the County and shared with the sheriff and probation department. The courthouse, built in 1928, does not meet modern operational and security requirements. For example, the building lacks security screening and has no holding cells for in-custody defendants. Alpine County does not operate a jail, so in-custody defendants are held in South Lake Tahoe 30 miles away, transported daily over Luther Pass to the court, and held in the courtroom to await proceedings. There is no jury assembly room, so juries are assembled in the hallway. The building is not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its aged systems inadequately heat the building in winter and cool it in summer.

The proposed project would provide Alpine County with a modern, secure, adequately sized courthouse. Security improvements would include entrance screening, separate hallways for the public, staff, and in-custody defendants, in-custody holding, and secured parking for judges. The proposed project would also give the court much-needed space to provide basic services currently unavailable to court users, including jury assembly and deliberation rooms, a self-help center, family court mediation, a children's waiting room, and attorney-client meeting rooms. The proposed project also includes 45 parking spaces for staff, visitors, and jurors.

On December 12, 2011, the Judicial Council approved a recommendation to cancel this project.  Improvements to the existing courthouse by facility modifications will be evaluated in future years.

August 2011

Who owns the Markleeville Courthouse?

The existing courthouse is owned by Alpine County.

Who is the AOC and why are they managing the new Markleeville courthouse project?

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is the staff arm of the Judicial Council of California. The Judicial Council is the policymaking body for the California court system, including the trial courts, known as “Superior Courts,” based in each county. Among other responsibilities, the AOC is responsible for planning, acquisition, design, and construction of court facilities.  The new courthouse will be owned by the judicial branch.

Why is a new courthouse needed?

The current courthouse does not meet modern operational and security requirements. The building is not up to current seismic standards. It also does not meet current security standards, as it lacks security screening and has no holding cells for in-custody defendants. Alpine County does not operate a jail, so in-custody defendants are held in South Lake Tahoe 30 miles away, transported daily over Luther Pass to the court, and held in the courtroom to await proceedings. There is no space to assemble jurors, so juries are assembled in the hallway. The building is not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its aged systems inadequately heat the building in winter and cool it in summer.

How big a courthouse is being planned?

The state’s initial feasibility review of the project included a preliminary space plan based on current state standards and developed in collaboration with the Court. This preliminary space plan estimated a need for nearly 15,000 square feet. This would include one full-size courtroom, separate circulation for in-custody defendants, staff and the public, secure holding areas, and adequate space for jury assembly, a deliberation room, a self-help center, family court mediation, a children's waiting room, and attorney-client meeting rooms. The project also estimated the need for 45 parking spaces for the public and staff.
 
However, the project team is taking a second look at the building’s size. After the selected architectural and engineering team—Siegel & Strain Architects—is under contract, the space plan for a new courthouse will be validated; and efforts will be made to develop a smaller building plan that is more efficient and less expensive. The architects will also study the feasibility and cost of renovating the existing building for continued court use, including the costs associated with temporarily relocating the court from the building while it is renovated. Both options will then be reviewed prior to moving forward with the project.

Is renovation of the existing building being considered as an option?

When the project’s feasibility was initially studied by the state in early 2010, reuse of the existing building did not appear to be feasible, primarily because the building is owned by the County. Since April 2010, when the project’s funding was authorized by the State Public Works Board, the AOC has been searching for a site. There are very few available sites in the area, and consequently, the Court and the AOC have discussed with the County the possibility of state ownership and renovation of the existing building. The County has agreed to explore this option.

Why is money being spent on a new courthouse when there are so many other local needs and there is a state budget crisis?

This courthouse was identified by the state as being a “critical need” project based on security, accessibility, and structural considerations. The courthouse work will be funded without reliance on the state’s General Fund. The project is funded and managed by the judicial branch, which is a separate branch of state government, now independent of the County administrative structure.

How is the new courthouse being funded?

The courthouse will be funded from statewide increases in court user fees, authorized by Senate Bill 1407, which passed in 2008. This bill approved the issuance of up to $5 billion in lease revenue bonds to fund this project and 40 others throughout the state, to be repaid by court fees, penalties, and assessments.

How did the state arrive at its budget for the project?

The AOC develops each project budget by first determining the building size, site size, and number of parking spaces. Then it provides this information to a professional cost estimating firm that creates a hard construction cost for the building and site work. To this, the AOC adds all project soft costs, which includes all costs associated with evaluating, selecting, and acquiring a site, analysis required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, the fee for the architecture and engineering team, geotechnical testing, project management and construction management fees, commissioning fees, and the cost of furniture, fixtures, and equipment. The AOC develops a project schedule, which provides a basis for estimating escalation to the mid-point of construction, which is then added to the project budget This was the process used to arrive at the initial budget for this project.

The project is now being re-scoped. As noted earlier, the project team is exploring ways to reduce the building size, and both new construction and renovation are being evaluated. Once this re-scoping is completed and a decision made about new construction vs. renovation, the AOC will review the project’s revised scope, schedule, and budget with the state Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee before seeking approval by the State Public Works Board. This process is expected to take several months.

What is the impact of the state’s current budget crisis on this project?
 
The state Budget Act for fiscal year 2011–2012 contained unprecedented cuts to the judicial branch budget in general and to the account that funds SB 1407 projects in particular. These cuts are expected to cause delays in certain projects. However, the specific impact on this project won’t be known for several months. In the meantime, the project is proceeding in its current phase.  This project web page will be updated with any changes as they are determined.

Why does it cost so much to build a one-courtroom courthouse?

The original construction-only budget per square foot for this project, based on its previously authorized budget, was roughly $700.  The average for the program statewide is $587. Courthouses are complex structures with special security needs and other features that drive the cost. They are important public buildings built to last – for the next 50 to 100 years. In addition, because single-courtroom buildings lack the economies of scale that make larger courthouses more efficient, they are generally more expensive on a square-foot basis. Geography also affects the projected cost – a courthouse in Alpine County must be designed for the snow load, and weather can create delays during construction. As noted earlier, the AOC is examining ways to reduce the size of the project, but the resulting impact on the project’s budget isn’t currently known. Regardless of whether new construction or renovation is ultimately chosen, any resulting savings would remain in the fund to benefit other courthouse projects.

What considerations would be required for renovation of a building on the National Register of Historic Places?

The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) recognizes the need for old buildings to function in today’s world. Those needs include accessibility for the disabled, security for the users, seismic safety, and the need to expand. Of all the ways an old building can be reused, the most attractive (and environmentally sustainable) reuse is the one for which it was originally designed. The OHP will look for preservation of historically significant elements of the building, the most obvious being the exterior stonework. Efforts would also be made to preserve the character and significant elements of the interior design as much as possible.

Where would Court and Sheriff’s functions be housed while work is being done on the historic building?

This question is among considerations that will need to be addressed as the state and County evaluate the feasibility of renovating the historic courthouse. Temporary housing for the Court would have to be provided by the state. At the end of May, the Sheriff’s Office moved out of the lower floor of the building for safety reasons, unrelated to this project.

How is the community being kept informed of progress on the project?

Updates will be posted to the project’s web page on the California Courts website.

An email announcement list is also available for those interested in receiving project updates; signup instructions are available on the project web page, or contact a member of the PAG.

How will the community have input on the project?

Members of the Project Advisory Group will be the main conduits for ongoing community input to the project, but we understand that the public may have questions about it as well. Questions about the project can be sent by email to occm@jud.ca.gov.

Who will design the courthouse?

The AOC’s request for qualifications for this project went out in August 2010. The AOC and the Court interviewed a short list of candidate firms. In January 2011, the architecture firm of Siegel & Strain Architects was selected for this project. Emeryville-based Siegel & Strain Architects brings expertise on civic and community buildings, education facilities, and other building types. The firm has a strong commitment to innovative green design and historic preservation, and has won more than 50 design awards since the early 1990s.  Sample projects include an environmental education center in Yosemite, city halls in Orinda, Yountville, and Portola Valley, and The Presidio Stewardship and Sustainability Center in San Francisco. Architectural design cannot begin until site selection and acquisition are complete.

Will the new courthouse be energy-efficient and sustainably designed?

Yes. All courthouse projects funded by SB 1407 are being designed to achieve a LEED Silver level as defined by the U.S. Green Building Council. This is a third-party certification program and the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high-performance “green” buildings.

Existing buildings need to be designed to a certification level under the special criteria of LEED EB, which would apply if the historic courthouse is ultimately reused.
More information on LEED

Who decides where a new courthouse would be located?

The AOC is working closely with the Superior Court and with a Project Advisory Group that includes judges and court staff, county officials, and community members. The AOC follows a standard site selection policy and process. The process involves objectively evaluating all potential sites and selecting at least two sites that meet agreed-upon criteria for the proposed new courthouse in providing access to justice for Alpine County, within the confines of the project’s budget and schedule. The Presiding Judge will sign off on a preferred and alternate site, and the site selection must also be approved by the state Public Works Board. Site selection and acquisition typically take a year or more.

What sites are currently being considered?

In addition to use of the existing courthouse site and renovation of the original courthouse, the feasibility of which will be studied when Siegel & Strain Architects is under contract, the AOC is considering two potential sites for a new courthouse. Both of these potential sites are currently privately owned. Each possible site has advantages and disadvantages, all of which are being considered as part of the evaluation process.

Whatever happened to the idea of expanding to the adjacent U.S. Forest Service property?

The USFS site was one of six properties initially considered. The Townsite Act application for this property stipulates that if the USFS were to abandon it, the County would have the first right to reacquire it. The County’s application to acquire the site specified that the property would only be used for open space, so it was not possible to consider this for a courthouse site.

How soon will decisions about site selection be finalized?

The current schedule calls for finalizing site decisions by fall 2011.  The AOC will be working with the County over the next several months to evaluate the feasibility of reuse of the existing building. 

What is the timeline for the project?

Funding was initially authorized in April 2010. The architect was selected in February 2011. Site selection and acquisition are scheduled to be completed by spring 2012. Based on the approved project schedule, architectural design is scheduled to be completed by fall 2013, and construction is scheduled to start in fall 2013 and be completed by the end of 2014.  The schedule is subject to change.

News Releases
Architect Selected (2/3/11)
Funding Authorization (4/12/10)