HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-4-09Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 9, 2014
4:00 P.M., ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: Courts Project. Bill Letteri, Assistant County Executive, Trevor
Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning
3. Consent Agenda (on next page).
4. Budget Work Session: FY 2014/2015 Operating and Capital Budgets. Lori
Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
7. Adjourn to April 15, 2014, 9:00 a.m., Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
3.1 Fontana Subdivision - Additional $200 Fine Sign Request.
3.2 B2014-00455TWR – Verizon Wireless “Owensville Road 2/Correll Property Zoning Ordinance
Waiver.
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0409/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/6/2020 10:54:32 AM]
Tentative
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0409/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/6/2020 10:54:32 AM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Courts Project
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session with key stakeholders to discuss Courts
Project options
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Graham and Henry
PRESENTER (S):
Trevor Henry, Bill Letteri, Wayne Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 9, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 5, 2014, staff presented to the Board background information regarding the September 2012 Courts Master
Plan Study completed by PSA-Dewberry, Inc. (Attachment A), the Board’s prior discussions on the Courts Project options,
and a status report on the project. After reviewing and discussing the information presented, the Board directed staff to
schedule a work session on April 9, 2014 with stakeholders from the Courts (Judges of the County Circuit and General
District Courts and the City General District Court), the County Sheriff, the County’s Commonwealth’s Attorney, the County
Circuit Court Clerk, and a member of City Council and the Charlottesville Albemarle Bar Association.
Attachment B provides minutes from and background information regarding a March 28, 2013 meeting staff held with the
consultants and key Courts stakeholders (Judges, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, the Sheriff, the Court Clerk, the County
Executive, representatives from the Bar Association and the Public Defender’s Office, and others). The discussion from
and results of the March 28th meeting were presented to the Board on May 1, 2013.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this work session is to discuss the two basic Courts Project options under consideration by the Board
(Downtown Renovation/Expansion, County Courts Complex Concept). During the work session, staff will present
primary factors and considerations associated with each option. In addition, there will be an opportunity for the Board
to hear from stakeholders from the court system.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The total CIP request for the Courts Project is approximately $43-Million over a 7-year period, based on the Downtown
Renovation/Expansion option.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board schedule a further discussion at the earliest opportunity to consider the information
presented on options and “Courts Complex” stakeholder feedback prior to providing final direction, including any
desired opportunities for other stakeholders and the public to provide input.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Albemarle County Courts Master Plan Report
B. Minutes from the 28 March 2013 Stakeholder Meeting
Return to agenda
Courts Master Plan Study
FINAL REPORT Courts Master Plan Study
September 2012
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
Courts Master Plan Study
Table of Contents
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
TOC-1
Table of Contents
Section 1 ‐ History and Overview _____________________________________________________________ 1‐1
Circuit Courthouse ______________________________________________________________________ 1‐1
The General District Courthouse ___________________________________________________________ 1‐2
The Levy Building _______________________________________________________________________ 1‐3
Existing Conditions ________________________________________________________________________ 1‐4
Circuit Courthouse ______________________________________________________________________ 1‐4
General District Courthouse ______________________________________________________________ 1‐10
Levy Building (Town Hall – Levy Opera House) _______________________________________________ 1‐11
Projected Maintenance ____________________________________________________________________ 1‐12
Section 2 ‐ Population and Case Filing Analysis __________________________________________________ 2‐1
Historic and Projected Population Estimates __________________________________________________ 2‐1
Future Caseload Estimates ________________________________________________________________ 2‐3
Future Staffing Requirements _____________________________________________________________ 2‐8
Summary of Estimated Future Staffing ________________________________________________________ 2‐13
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program _______________________________________________________ 3‐1
Overview ________________________________________________________________________________ 3‐1
Grossing Factors __________________________________________________________________________ 3‐1
1.000 Building Entrance and Lobby _________________________________________________________ 3‐4
2.000 Clerk Areas _______________________________________________________________________ 3‐4
3.000 – Court Sets _______________________________________________________________________ 3‐6
4.000 – Security and Holding _____________________________________________________________ 3‐10
5.000 Court Services/Probation ___________________________________________________________ 3‐11
6.000 Commonwealth’s Attorney _________________________________________________________ 3‐12
7.000 – Building Shared _________________________________________________________________ 3‐13
Section 4 – Option Development _____________________________________________________________ 4‐1
Downtown Option _________________________________________________________________________ 4‐2
Overview ______________________________________________________________________________ 4‐2
Historic Courthouse _____________________________________________________________________ 4‐2
Levy Building ___________________________________________________________________________ 4‐7
Design Challenges ______________________________________________________________________ 4‐11
Costs ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐11
Pros _________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐11
Cons ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐12
COB‐McIntire Option ______________________________________________________________________ 4‐13
Design Challenges ______________________________________________________________________ 4‐15
Costs ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐15
Courts Master Plan Study
Table of Contents
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
TOC-2
Pros _________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐15
Cons ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐15
Green Field Site Outside City Limits Option ____________________________________________________ 4‐16
Design Challenges ______________________________________________________________________ 4‐17
Costs ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐17
Pros: ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐18
Cons: ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐18
Section 5 – Recommendations _______________________________________________________________ 5‐1
Court Storage Report ______________________________________________________________________ 5‐1
Urgency for Determining Long‐Term Direction for Courts __________________________________________ 5‐1
Additional Information Gathering Steps _______________________________________________________ 5‐2
Timeline to Action _________________________________________________________________________ 5‐3
Section 6 – Appendix _______________________________________________________________________ 6‐1
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-1
Section 1 ‐ History and Overview
The Albemarle County courts complex consists of the Circuit Courthouse, the General District, the Levy
Building and the recently renovated/expanded Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Located in the
Court Square area of Charlottesville, the courts complex is roughly bounded by High Street to the north,
Jefferson Street to the South, Park Street to the east and 4th Street to the west. Organized around a public
park or green and surrounded by 19th century brick structures, the complex is a part of the Charlottesville
Albemarle Courthouse Historic District and is listed by the National Park Service on the National Register of
Historic Places. These court facilities are also proximate to the City of Charlottesville’s Circuit and General
District courts, which are located in separate facilities on the other side of Court Square.
The first court was organized in 1744 with Joshua Frye as president and with five magistrates and
continued as a magistrate system until roughly 1850. In 1761, Dr. Thomas Walker offered a 50 acre parcel
of land for the site of a new courthouse. In 1762, the General Assembly passed a law establishing this 50
acre site as a new town, Charlottesville. Work on the new courthouse, located approximately where the
Confederate monument is sited, was completed in 1763. Construction of the courthouse stimulated other
economic activity, and soon the Eagle and Swan taverns were soon constructed nearby. The court square
was enclosed in 1792, establishing the general boundaries of the current precinct. It is interesting to note
that in addition to being the site where three United States Presidents served as magistrates or practiced
law, the courthouse served as the only polling place for over 100 years.
Circuit Courthouse
By order of the court, it was determined that a new courthouse was necessary and the core of the current
historic courthouse was constructed in 1803, replacing the 1763 wood frame structure. Modeled on the
Henrico County Courthouse, the new courthouse served as a community meeting space and was shared by
local denominations as a church (until the construction of Christ Episcopal in 1825) in addition to providing
space for legal proceedings. Jefferson attended church services in this structure and is said to have coined
the term “common temple” to describe its civic role. The courthouse is said to have served as a meeting
place for the University of Virginia Board of Visitors until the Rotunda was ready for use in 1826. The cost
for the new courthouse was five thousand dollars. The courthouse was upgraded with various
improvements, such as bars on the office windows (1807), cupola repairs (1815), lightning rods (1818) and
a new tin roof (1825) and an interior renovation in 1849.
In 1859, George Spooner contracted for the construction of an addition to the courthouse. The addition
was designed by William A. Pratt, the former Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds at UVA and
consisted of a two storey structure oriented at right angles to the existing structure. The addition was
flanked with towers and was similar in appearance to structures at the Virginia Military Academy with its
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-2
exterior clad in stucco and with door and window detailing of similar design. It appears that the original
structure was painted presumably to more closely coordinate with the new stucco addition. The cost for
this addition was nine thousand four hundred dollars.
In the 1870s the towers and much of the detailing were removed and the current portico and Ionic
columns were constructed. The stucco finish and the detailing around the entry and the window directly
above were still retained at this time and appear in historic photographs of the courthouse
The courthouse remained in this configuration until 1938, when Grigg & Johnson undertook a renovation.
The stucco exterior was covered with a brick veneer closely matching the brick of the 1803 structure,
detailing around the entrance and the window above were modified to more closely match the 1803
structure. The paint was removed from the 1803 structure and the courthouse achieved its current
appearance. During this renovation, some renovations and upgrades were made to the interior including
new seating and wall and floor finishes.
In 1940 Milton Grigg undertook renovations to the north (1803) structure although the scope of that effort
is not clear. The courthouse was renovated in 1964 by the firm of Johnson, Craven, Gibson and again in
1986. The 1986 renovation included the construction of a sallyport at the lower level of the General
District Courthouse and a connecting hyphen between the Circuit Courthouse and the General District
Courthouse.
Currently the Circuit Courthouse contains the Main Courtroom (Courtroom No. 1), Judge’s Chambers, Jury
Assembly Room, Lawyers’ Conference room, Bailiff’s Office, Conference rooms (2), Security Station, and
restrooms on the first floor and Alternate Court Room (Courtroom No 3), Judge’s Chambers, Jury Assembly
and Jury restrooms on the second floor.
Vertical circulation in the Circuit Courthouse is by means of a single stair.
The General District Courthouse
Constructed as part of the 1938 renovation of the Circuit Courthouse the General District Courthouse is a
three storey structure with a basement level opening up onto High Street. The courthouse was renovated
in 1986 into its current configuration with smaller modifications made as various needs developed.
Currently the General District Courthouse contains the Commonwealth’s Attorney offices, holding cells and
mechanical equipment rooms at the basement level, General District Courtroom (Courtroom No 2),
Judge’s Chambers, a small Hearing room (previously the Witness Room and Lawyers’ conference room),
the Clerk of the General District Court, Public Lobby, Security Station, restrooms and vestibule/airlock on
the first floor.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-3
A hyphen connector between the General District Courthouse and the Circuit Courthouse opens onto the
lobby outside the General District Courtroom. This space provides access from the sallyport and holding
cells on the lower level of the general District Courthouse to either the Circuit or General District Courts.
This space also serves as a communicating corridor between the two buildings. The second floor contains
the Clerk of the Circuit Court offices and provides facilities for historic and current record storage, Deed
Index, Law and Chancery Files, service counters and research areas as well as restrooms and support
spaces. The third floor contains Judge’s Chambers and associated library, clerk and secretarial spaces as
well as restroom, storage and mechanical spaces.
Vertical circulation in the General District Courthouse is by either a stair or a single elevator, both of which
are accessible to the public. The stair also opens to the exterior on the west side of the building at the
courtroom level.
The Levy Building
The 1850 session of the General Assembly authorized construction of a Town Hall to be located northeast
of the courthouse. Constructed 1851, this tall Classical Revival building was designed to seat 600 on
movable benches and had a balcony. The Town Hall was the center of cultural entertainment, association
events, and meeting for the area and its proximity to Richmond by rail facilitated a wide range of
entertainment. The first documented opera was held in the building in 1861.
In 1887, Jefferson M. Levy, then the owner of Monticello, purchased the Town Hall, renovated it and
opened it as the Levy Opera House in 1888. The renovated opera house featured a new larger stage with
rigging to fly sets, an orchestra pit with dressing rooms below, a sloping “theater style” floor and a
horseshoe gallery accessed by a pair of stairs on each side of the entrance. The Opera House continued
serving as an entertainment facility until approximately 1912.
The Opera House apparently stood vacant for some time as other theaters took over its place as an
entertainment venue and motion picture technology replaced stage performances. The Opera House
changed ownership and at some time was renovated and became the Parkview apartments. Paralleling
the decline of the urban center of Charlottesville the apartments were converted into rooms to be rented
to men on subsistence.
In 1972, the Perry Foundation acquired the structure, ostensibly to prevent its demolition for the
construction of a service station. In 1977, a group of civic leaders formed the Town Hall – Levy Opera
House Foundation with the intention of purchasing the Opera House and undertaking its adaptive re‐use.
At this time the federal courts were housed in the Post Office Building on Market Street and the County
was seeking to purchase the Post Office for the Jefferson Madison Library causing the General Service
Administration to seek quarters for the courts. Discussions proceeded between GSA and the Town Hall ‐
Levy Opera House Foundation, and architects were retained to develop renovation plans. Complications in
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-4
the planning and financing ultimately led to the GSA seeking other accommodations for the growing
federal office needs, and the Perry Foundation demanded return of the property.
In 1981, the Hedgerow Corporation purchased the Opera House from the Perry Foundation and
announced plans to renovate and add to the building to create a data processing center for
Michie/Bobbs/Merrill. The project was completed and dedicated in 1987.
The Opera House was subsequently purchased from the Hedgerow Corporation by the City and the County
for $5.38 and has served a variety of uses. In 2002 the Opera House was renovated to provide temporary
facilities for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts during the renovation of their facility on High
Street. Currently a portion of the modern addition is being used for document storage by the Clerk of the
Circuit Court. The remainder of the building is “mothballed” until a suitable use can be identified.
Existing Conditions
The team visually inspected the Circuit Courthouse, General District Courthouse, and the Levy Building
during the course of this planning effort. As the County had recently (2011) commissioned a facilities
survey and evaluation for the Circuit and General District Courthouses, the inspection was general in
nature and did not involve detailed physical inspection or testing. As a result, the inspection focused more
on operational issues and their relation to the physical plant.
Circuit Courthouse
The 2011 survey noted that the general condition of the exterior envelope was good with some
degradation of brick consistent with the age of the structure. The existing roof system was noted as
generally being in good condition as well. The report noted that limited provisions for the mobility
impaired were available which, again, is not surprising given the age of the structure, upgrades to the
restrooms were recommended. Life safety systems were found to be basic but some attention was
needed in terms of the operation and maintenance of fire rated doors and frames, again since these
systems are over 25 years old some maintenance/replacement should be expected. In terms of building
systems, the general observation was that most of the 1986 era systems are approaching the end of their
designated service life and planning for replacement should be given consideration. Notable among those
systems was the recommended replacement of the air handler unit and distribution ductwork serving the
courthouse. Presumably the control systems would be upgraded simultaneously with the air handler
replacement. Interior painting and replacement of carpet were also recommended.
Operationally, deficiencies noted were generally grouped around circulation, building security, and space
allocation. While each of these may be considered a separate element, the relationship between them is
significant.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-5
In terms of circulation, it was noted that there is only the basic separation between defendants, judges and
the public circulation paths. Currently the judge must travel from the chambers on the third floor of the
General District Courthouse through the hyphen connector and into the Circuit courtroom. This path
utilizes a public stair or elevator, crosses the public circulation path in the General District Courthouse as
well as the inmate circulation path coming up from the sallyport or holding cells. Security for the judge is
provided by an escort team from the Sheriff’s Department. Recommended practice is to separate each of
these users into distinct and secure circulation systems for the safety and security of each group.
Building security presents another issue. The primary public entrance opens into a vestibule which is
staffed by security officers and is equipped with a magnetometer for metal detection. Side doors on the
east side of the building appear to be secured in a manner to prevent entry from the outside and still allow
the doors to be used for emergency egress. On the west side of the building, a door provides access for
the mobility impaired by way of a ramp system and also serves as access for potential jurors assembling for
jury selection. Given that the first floor jury assembly room is small, potential jurors must line up outside
as they are checked in creating a congestion point. Once inside the door, access is available to the corridor
leading to the hyphen (inmate and judge access) as well to the stair and the courtroom and jury room on
the second floor.
As noted above, space allocation is also an issue, particularly as it relates to spaces for jury assembly and
access for the mobility impaired.
Circulation paths in the circuit and general district courthouses are shown in the images on the following
pages. Public or open access circulation is indicated in blue; secure (judge and prisoner) circulation is
indicated in red. No color is applied to areas which can be accessed equally by anyone. These images
illustrate the fragmented nature of the paths of circulation, the limited public waiting areas, and the
distinct operations at the two separate buildings.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-6
Figure 1 – Historic Courthouse – Basement (Circuit Court)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-7
Figure 2 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Second Floor (General District [L] and Circuit [R])
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-8
Figure 3 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Second Floor (General District [L] and Circuit [R])
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-9
Figure 4 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Third Floor (Circuit Court)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-10
General District Courthouse
As with the Circuit Courthouse, the 2011 survey noted that the general condition of the exterior envelope
was good with some degradation of brick consistent with the age of the structure. The existing roof
system was noted as generally being in good condition. The report noted that limited access and
provisions for the mobility impaired were available which, again, is not surprising given the age of the
structure, upgrades to the restrooms were again recommended. Life safety systems were found to be
basic and some attention was needed in terms of the operation and maintenance of fire rated doors and
frames, again since these systems are over 25 years old some maintenance/replacement should be
expected. Additional issues of impaired operations were noted such as flammable items stored in egress
corridors and in mechanical spaces, knob style latching devices on fire rated doors, and deficiencies related
to the HALON fire suppression system. In terms of building systems, the general observation was that
most of the 1986 era systems are approaching the end of their designated service life and planning for
replacement should be given consideration. Notable among those systems was recommended
replacement of the air handlers, ductwork distribution, and air intake systems serving the courthouse.
Presumably the control systems would be upgraded simultaneously with the air handler replacement.
Interior painting and replacement of carpet were also recommended.
Operationally, deficiencies noted were generally similar to the Circuit Courthouse, i.e., circulation, building
security, and space allocation. Given the additional operations of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the
Clerk of the General District Court, a higher level of use by the public tends to exacerbate circulation and
security issues.
In terms of circulation, there is little separation between judges and the public circulation paths. Currently
the judge must travel from the chambers on the third floor of the General District Courthouse through the
hyphen connector and into the Circuit courtroom. This path utilizes public stair or elevator, crosses the
public circulation path in the General District Courthouse as well as the inmate circulation path coming up
from the sallyport or holding cells.
Building security presents another issue. There are multiple access points to the courthouse either
through the High Street entrance to the Commonwealth’ Attorney offices, at the south (main) entrance, or
on the west side of the building accessing the public stair. The High Street and south entrance open onto
public corridors each of which has access to the public stair or elevator. There are no security provisions at
any of the exterior entrances. Security for the General District Courtroom is provided by a security station
equipped with a magnetometer at the entrance to the courtroom.
With the higher level of public traffic, space allocation is more of an issue particularly in the General
District Courthouse than in the Circuit Courthouse. For the public, there is very little space available for
people waiting for their case in the courtroom. These people must either wait in the courtroom or gather
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-11
in the public corridor. For the public transacting business with either of the Clerks, the path to the service
counters crosses the public waiting for their case. For the Clerks and their staff there is a real shortage of
archive storage space. This seems to be less of an issue with the Clerk of the General District Court, where
a purging protocol allows the volume of records in long term storage to be managed. For the Clerk of the
Circuit Court, the need for archiving of records is much greater. Additionally, the historic nature of some
of the documents to be archived places an enhanced need for storage with proper environmental controls
and enhanced security.
Levy Building (Town Hall – Levy Opera House)
As noted in the discussion above, the Levy Building has undergone a variety of modifications in its trip from
an entertainment venue, to an apartment building, to an office/data center to a temporary facility for the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts. Currently, most of the building is “mothballed” awaiting a
determination of a suitable re‐use for the structure and site.
Basically, the Levy Building consists of two structures, the historic structure at the corner of Fifth Street
and High Street (circa 1851), and the addition completed in 1987 for the Michie/Bobbs/Merrill data
processing center located east of the historic structure and extending perpendicular toward the south.
As noted above the Levy Building was renovated in 2002 to provide temporary facilities for the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Courts (JD&R). This renovation included creation of hearing rooms, waiting
spaces, offices and associated support spaces. It also involved the creation of secure holding facilities
including a vehicle sallyport constructed on the south side of the historic structure at the connection to the
1987 addition. Once the JD&R Courts were completed, it appears that a portion of the 1987 addition may
have been used for offices for city or county departments. Once these occupants left, the building was
essentially closed and the environmental systems were either shut off or reduced in operation,
presumably to save on operational cost.
Recently, a portion of the lower level of the 1987 addition has been utilized for the storage of records from
the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s office. This effort essentially involved the installation of metal shelving and
the transfer of files in bulk to these spaces. At the time of our inspection, no environmental control
systems or environmental monitoring were in place and the files appeared to be in the process of being
organized and cataloged. At some recent point, the fire sprinkler system developed a leak and a good
portion of the 1987 addition was soaked. The leak was repaired and portions of the gypsum board walls
were removed to open up the wall cavities in an effort to aid in the drying of the building.
In terms of building condition, the building envelope and basic structure of the historic structure appears
to be sound, with no evidence of settlement or failure. The building systems are of a similar vintage as
those in the Circuit and General District Courthouse and may be assumed to be near the end of their
projected services life. The 1987 addition likewise may be expected to have systems that could be
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-12
approaching the end of their service life. Additionally, with the inundation from the sprinkler system,
there may be additional environmental issues requiring remediation before the addition could be put back
into service. It is also our understanding that some deferred maintenance is still outstanding on the
building.
Projected Maintenance
Based on information provided by the County projected maintenance costs for the Circuit and General
District Courthouses for the years FY13/14 through FY21/22 are as follows:
FY 13/14 $198,511
FY 14/15 $381,076
` FY 15/16 $ 82,756
FY 16/17 $105,003
FY 17/18 $143,911
FY 18/19 $484,965
FY 19/20 $100.084
FY 20/21 $385,755
FY 21/22 $128,987
FY 22/23 $ 0
These costs total to $2,011,012 and average $201,101 per year. On an annual basis per square foot the
maintenance costs for both buildings would be approximately $6.70 per year per square foot.
The Levy Building is currently in a “mothballed” status with operational costs reduced to a minimum.
County projections for costs are as follows:
Foundations $141,831
Exterior Enclosure $732,736
Roofing $74,259
Interior Construction $325,543
Stairs $194,622
Interior Finishes $530,371
Conveying $413,528
Plumbing $131,977
HVAC $545,504
Fire Protection $129,513
Electrical $787,990
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-1
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Population and Case Filing Analysis
Staffing and space needs for the courts are strongly related to the staff workloads, therefore historic and
projected County populations as well as historic case filing trends in the Circuit and General District Courts
were analyzed to establish a possible future range of new case filings being entered into the court by year
2030.
Historic and Projected Population Estimates
The 16th Judicial District is composed of nine court locations – Albemarle, Culpeper, Fluvanna, Goochland,
Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, and Charlottesville, with Albemarle County physically surrounding the
city of Charlottesville. Because Albemarle County surrounds the city of Charlottesville, there is a possibility
of city residents affecting the number of new cases being entered into the county and subsequent court
staff workload. Because of this, the project team will look at two population sets – Albemarle County only
and the combination of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville‐ and the possible relation these
two populations have had on historic case filings and possible future case filing estimates.
Historic Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville populations were obtained from the U.S. Census, and
future population projections from the V.E.C. published in 2007 and the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority’s Regional Water Demand Forecast as prepared by AECOM in August 2011 were reviewed.
During the review process, it was determined that the population estimates as published by the V.E.C. in
2007 are not an accurate population estimate source, as the projections were completed prior to the most
recent 2010 U.S. Census data release, which estimates both Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville at higher levels of population than is reported in the V.E.C. estimates. The project team will
use the population projections as prepared by AECOM in the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority’s
Regional Water Demand Forecast.
Table: Albemarle County Pop. and Combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville Pop. 1992‐2010
Year
Albemarle
County
Population
Albemarle County
Population Annual
Growth
Albemarle County
Average Annual
Growth Rate
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Population
Albemarle County
Population and City
of Charlottesville
Annual Growth
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Average Annual
Growth Rate
1992 69,977 110,185
1995 75,744 4.38% 113,538 0.99%
2000 84,196 5.05% 124,285 6.26%
2005 90,376 1.85% 131,203 1.33%
2010 98,970 4.28% 1.95% 142,445 3.88% 1.45%
Total
Growth
from year
1992
41.43% 29.28%
Source: U.S. Census
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-2
Between years 1992 and 2010, Albemarle County had an average annual population growth rate
0.5% higher than that of the combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville average
annual growth rate; at 1.95% and 1.45% respectively.
This difference in annual growth rates may be attributed to the fact that the City of Charlottesville
is surrounded by the County of Albemarle, and therefore, the City is much more limited in its
ability to expand.
Table: Projected Albemarle County Population and Combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
Population 2010‐2030
Year
Albemarle County
Population
Albemarle County
Population Annual Growth
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Population
Albemarle County Population
and City of Charlottesville
Annual Growth
2010 98,970 142,445
2015 107,445 1.60% 152,629 1.35%
2020 115,919 1.48% 162,813 1.27%
2025 124,394 1.38% 173,132 1.21%
2030 132,868 1.29% 183,451 1.14%
Total Growth
from Year 2010 34.25% 28.78%
Source: 2010 population: U.S. Census Bureau; 2015‐2030 populations: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority: Regional Water Demand Forecast,
August 24, 2011.
Projected Albemarle County population, as published by the Regional Water Demand Forecast,
indicate that the County will continue to grow but at a slower annual rate than has been seen in
the past; slowing to 1.29% annually by year 2030. Total growth from year 2010 to year 2030 is
estimated to be 34.25%.
Projected Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville combined populations, as published by the
Regional Water Demand Forecast, indicate that both the County and the City will continue to grow
annually at slower rates than have been seen historically. Total growth from year 2010 to 2030 is
estimated to be 28.78%; an average annual growth of 1.44%.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-3
Future Caseload Estimates
Three projection models were used to develop forecasts of case filing trends through year 2030, as used in
2010 County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville: Feasibility Study for the Use of the Levy Building as a
General District Court Facility by Moseley Architects. Historic case filings were obtained from the Virginia
Supreme Courts for the years 1992‐2010.
1. Linear Regression – This approach uses a formula to project a linear trend of future case filings
based upon the actual trend as seen in the past. This approach is based on the assumption that
the historical trend in case filings will continue into the future. City and County populations are not
factored into this model.
2. Fixed Ratio of Case Filings to Population – This model projects future case filings with the
assumption that they will change in proportion to changes in the populations with the number of
filings per population will remain constant over the time frame examined. There are two ratios
examined for this analysis, the first is the average number of filings per 1,000 Albemarle County
population for the years 1992‐2010, the second is the average number of filings per 1,000
combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville populations for the years 1992‐2010.
3. Exponential Smoothing and Dynamic Regression Average – This model calculates the annual
changing ratios of number of cases in relation to yearly population and projects that changing
average forward. For this project, two projections were created, the first with the Albemarle
County population, the second with the combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
populations.
Court caseloads can be affected not only by population, but also by changes in law enforcement staffing or
priorities, new legislation and other demographic trends. Such factors are not entirely predictable and
their analysis is beyond the scope of this study. The case filing projections for all three models for the
Albemarle Circuit Court, General District Court and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court are as follows.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-4
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE FILINGS
Actual Projected
Growth from
2010‐2030 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Albemarle County Population 75,744 84,196 90,376 98,970 107,445 115,919 124,394 132,868 34.25%
Albemarle County and City of
Charlottesville Population 113,538 124,285 131,203 142,445 152,629 162,813 173,132 183,451 28.79%
Case Filings
Linear Trend 1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,433 2,628 2,824 3,019 34.65%
Fixed Ratio to County Population 1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,393 2,582 2,733 2,960 32.02%
Fixed Ratio to County and City Population 1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,297 2,450 2,606 2,761 23.15%
NCSC Exponential Smooth and Dynamic
Regression Average with County Population
1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,438 2,599 2,763 2,928 30.61%
NCSC Exponential Smooth and Dynamic
Regression Average with County & City
Population
1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,411 2,557 2,707 2,858 27.49%
From year 2010, the Albemarle County Circuit Court could expect new case filing growth to be within
the range of 23.15% and 34.65% by year 2030.
‐100.00%
‐80.00%
‐60.00%
‐40.00%
‐20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
3,000
3,250
199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Albemarle County CIrcuit Court Case Filing Trends 1992‐2030
Linear Extension Total New Circuit Court Case Filings Albemarle County Population Fixed Ratio Projected Case Filings
Combined Population Fixed Ratio Projected Case Filings NCSC Exponential Smooth and Dynamic Regrssion Average with County Popualtion
NCSC Exponential Smooth and Dynamic Regrssion Average with County and City Popualtion Historic Total Circuit Court Case Filings
Projection Begins
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-5
ALBEMARLE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT CASE FILINGS
Actual Projected
Growth from
2010‐2030 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Albemarle County Population 75,744 84,196 90,376 98,970 107,445 115,919 124,394 132,868 34.25%
Albemarle County and City of
Charlottesville Population 113,538 124,285 131,203 142,445 152,629 162,813 173,132 183,451 28.79%
Case Filings
Linear Trend 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 40,526 45,074 49,623 53,506 39.25%
Fixed Ratio to County Population 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 35,894 38,725 41,556 44,387 15.52%
Fixed Ratio to County and City Population 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 34,427 36,724 39,052 41,379 7.69%
Changing Ratio to County Population 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 41,373 46,647 52,244 58,224 51.53%
Changing Ratio to County and City
Population 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 41,910 47,334 53,192 59,496 54.84%
From year 2010, the Albemarle County General District Court could expect new case filing growth to
be within the range of 7.69% and 54.84% by year 2030.
‐60.00%
‐40.00%
‐20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Albemarle County General District Court Case Filing Trends
Linear Extension Total New District Court Case Filings Albemarle County Population Fixed Ratio Projected Case Filings
County and City Combined Population Fixed Ratio Projected Case Filings Changing Ratio to Albemarle County Popualtion
Changing Ratio to City and County Population Historic Total District Court Case Filings
Projection Begins
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-6
ALBEMARLE COUNTY J & DR COURT CASE FILINGS
Actual Projected
Change from
2010‐2030 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Albemarle County Population 75,744 84,196 90,376 98,970 107,445 115,919 124,394 132,868 34.25%
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
Population 113,538 124,285 131,203 142,445 152,629 162,813 173,132 183,451 28.79%
Case Filings
Linear Trend 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 3,838 3,839 3,839 3,840 7.53%
Fixed Ratio to County Population 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 4,864 5,247 5,631 6,015 68.43%
Fixed Ratio to County and City Population 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 4,678 4,990 5,306 5,622 57.44%
Changing Ratio to County Population 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 3,868 3,889 3,907 3,923 9.87%
Changing Ratio to County and City Population 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 3,910 3,940 3,970 3,996 11.91%
From year 2010, the Albemarle County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court could expect new case
filing growth to be within the range of 7.53% and 68.43% by year 2030.
‐110%
‐90%
‐70%
‐50%
‐30%
‐10%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Albemarle County Juvenile and Domestic Court Case Filings
Linear Extension Total New J & DR Court Case Filings Albemarle County Population Ratio Projected Case Filings
Combined Population Ratio Projected Case Filings Historic Total J and DR Court Case Filings
Changing Ratio to County Population Changing Ratio to Combined City and County Population
Projection Begins
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-7
TOTAL 16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT J & DR COURT CASE FILINGS
Actual Projected
Change from
2010‐2030 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
16th Judicial District Total Population 248,231 274,729 307,163 334,887 373,051 411,214 447,731 484,247 44.60%
Case Filings
Linear Trend from Year 1992 16,504 21,044 20,048 20,292 24,250 26,051 27,853 29,654 46.14%
Linear Trend From Year 1997 16,504 21,044 20,048 20,292 21,385 21,747 22,108 22,470 10.73%
Fixed Ratio to Judicial District Population 16,504 21,044 20,048 20,292 25,170 27,744 30,208 32,672 61.01%
Changing Ratio to Judicial District Population 16,504 21,044 20,048 20,292 25,144 27,707 30,156 32,604 60.68%
From year 2010, the Total 16thJudicial District J & DR Court case load could expect new case filing
growth to be within the range of 10.73% and 61.01% by year 2030.
‐65.00%
‐55.00%
‐45.00%
‐35.00%
‐25.00%
‐15.00%
‐5.00%
5.00%
15.00%
25.00%
35.00%
45.00%
55.00%
65.00%
6,000
11,000
16,000
21,000
26,000
31,000
16th Judicial District Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Case Filing Trends
Historic Total J & DR Cases Total J & DR Cases Linear Projection
Total J & DR Cases Fixed Ratio to Population Total J & DR Cases Changing Ratio to Population
Linear Projection from Year 1997
Projection Begins
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-8
Future Staffing Requirements
Once population and court caseload projections are developed, they can be used to determine future
staffing requirements. Staffing projections are to be used solely for long‐range planning purposes, as they
are estimates of the likely needs that might be expected over the planning time span, based largely upon
historical trends and qualitative assessments of the future. These estimates should not be construed as
being the sole justification for funding additional staff positions. It is assumed that before any personnel
or staff are added to any court or court‐related office, whether they are judges, clerks, or administrative
personnel, a thorough staffing analysis will be done by the Court and County and that staff will be added
only if the additional positions can be justified.
It is important to recognize that NCSC’s prognosis about judicial officer and court staff position growth is
largely based on current realities and business practices. It is presumed that the existing workforce has
been scrutinized over many years through the politics of the court’s budgetary process. Quantitative case
filing projections and qualitative planning elements are then synthesized to assist in projecting future
staffing requirements. The projections consider current staff workload and future court workload increases
with the assumption that the current staff has reached their full workload capacity. Future efficiencies will
need to be studied on a case by case basis to determine the individual effect on the required staffing.
Resultantly, the projected staffing growth will increase in proportion to the workload increase.
The following tables indicate the number of judges and clerical staff that can be anticipated through year
2030 for each of the Courts using the following scenarios:
Circuit Court and General District Court
Scenario 1 – 2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Judge. This scenario assumes that the number of
cases that will be filed annually for each full time judge will not exceed the current year 2010 District‐
wide average.
Scenario 2 – 2010 State‐wide Caseload per Judge. This scenario assumes that the number of cases that
will be filled annually for each full time judge will not exceed the current state‐wide average.
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Scenario – This scenario assumes that the percentage of the district’s
total number of judges allocated to the Albemarle County J & DR Court and the City of Charlottesville J
& DR Court will remain the same and applies this ratio to the future growth of the court.
Clerical Staffing
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-9
Clerical staffing is forecasted for each of the three Courts based upon projected total case filings in the
respective court, regardless of caseload per judge ratios.
Albemarle Circuit Court Judicial FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/ High
Case Filings
2,242 Cases
2,761 / 3,019
Cases
23.15% / 34.65% Albemarle Circuit Court Case Filings
FTE Need
2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Judge 1,825 cases/ Judge 1.23 FTEs 1.51 / 1.65 FTEs
2010 State‐wide Caseload per Judge 1,843 cases/ Judge 1.22 FTEs 1.50 / 1.64 FTEs
Albemarle Circuit Court Clerical FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/High
Case Filings
2,242 Cases
2,761 / 3,019
Cases
23.15% / 34.65% Albemarle Circuit Court Case Filings
FTE Need
2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Staff 249 cases/ Staff 9 FTEs 11.08 / 12.12 FTEs
The 2010 caseload per judge for both the 16th Judicial District and the state‐wide average are
within 1% of each other; therefore creating nearly identical projection results.
Corresponding to the projected Circuit Court caseload increase between 23.15% and 34.65% by
year 2030, it is estimated that the judicial FTE requirement will be within the range of 1.51 and
1.65 FTEs by year 2030.
Circuit Court clerical staff FTEs need, correspondingly, could grow to be within the range of 11 and
12 by year 2030.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-10
Albemarle District Court Judicial FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Case Filings Low/ High Low/ High
Albemarle District Court Case Filings 38,424 Cases
41,379 / 59,496
Cases
7.69% / 54.84%
FTE Need
2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Judge 30,298 cases/ Judge 1.27 FTEs 1.37 / 1.96 FTEs
2010 State‐wide Caseload Per Judge 25,716 cases/ Judge 1.49 FTEs 1.61 / 2.31 FTEs
Albemarle General District Court Clerical FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/High
Case Filings
38,424 Cases
41,379 / 59,496
Cases
7.69% / 54.84%
Albemarle District Court Case Filings
FTE Need
2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Staff 5,123 cases/ Staff 7.5 FTEs 8.08 / 11.61 FTEs
General District Court Judicial Officer and clerical staff projections correspond to the projected
District Court caseload increase between 7.69% and 54.84% by year 2030. To determine the
possible future judicial officer requirements for the General District Court, the 2010 caseload per
judge for both the 16th Judicial District and the State‐wide average were examined.
Using the 16th Judicial District 2010 caseload per judge of 30,298 cases per judge, results in a year
2030 FTE need within the range of 1.37 and 1.96 judicial FTEs.
The state‐wide 2010 caseload per judge is slightly lower that the 16th Judicial District ratio at
25,716 cases per judge. This lower ratio results in a year 2030 FTE need within the range of 1.61
and 2.31 judicial FTEs.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-11
General District Court clerical staff FTEs need, correspondingly, could grow to be within the range
of 8.08 and 11.61 FTEs by year 2030.
Albemarle J & DR Court Judicial FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/ High
Case Filings
22,470 / 32,672
Cases
10.73% / 61.01% 16th Judicial District J & DR Case Filings 20,292 Cases
Albemarle County J & DR Case Filings 2,242 Cases
City of Charlottesville J & DR Case Filings 2,834 Cases
FTE Need
Total 16th Judicial District J & DR Judges 4 FTEs 4.43 / 6.44 FTEs
Percent of Total 16th J.D. Judges Allocated to
Albemarle County J & DR Court 15.00% 0.60 FTEs 0.66 / 0.97 FTEs
Percent of Total 16th J.D. Judges Allocated to
City of Charlottesville J & DR Court 32.50% 1.30 FTEs 1.44 / 2.09 FTEs
Albemarle J & DR Court Clerical FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/ High
Case Filings
20,292 Cases
22,470 / 32,672
Cases
10.73% / 61.01% 16th Judicial District J & DR Case Filings
Albemarle County J & DR Case Filings 2,242 Cases
City of Charlottesville J & DR Case Filings 2,834 Cases
FTE Need
Clerical Staff Allocated to Albemarle County J & DR Court 5.00 FTEs 5.54 / 8.05 FTEs
Clerical Staff Allocated to City of Charlottesville J & DR Court 4.00 FTEs 4.43 / 6.44 FTEs
The 16th Judicial District currently has four Judicial Officer FTEs allocated to handle all J & DR cases
for the entire District. Based upon the current staffing allocation, 0.60 FTEs (15% of total District
FTEs) are allocated to the Albemarle County J & DR cases and 1.30 FTEs (32.5% of total District
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-12
FTEs) are allocated to the City of Charlottesville. For the purposes of future planning, these
percentage allocations will remain constant.
The J & DR Court is expected to grow within the range of 10.73% and 61.01% by year 2030. This
growth represents a Judicial Officer need within the range of 0.66 and 0.97 FTEs allocated to the
Albemarle County J & DR Court and within the range of 1.44 and 2.09 Judicial Officer FTEs for the
City of Charlottesville J & DR Court by year 2030.
J & DR Court clerical staff ratios will also remain constant for the purposes of space planning.
Albemarle County J & DR Court could expect the need for clerical staff to be within the range of
5.54 and 8.05 FTEs by year 2030. The City of Charlottesville J & DR Court could expect the need for
clerical staff to be within the range of 4.43 and 6.44 FTEs by year 2030.
Albemarle Commonwealth’s Attorney Office
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/ High
Case Filings
8.54% / 53.33% Combined Albemarle Circuit Court and General District Court Cases 40,666 Cases 44,140 / 62,354
Cases
FTE Need
Commonwealth’s Attorney Office Staff 9.00 FTEs 9.76 /13.79 FTEs
The Albemarle Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office handles the caseload from both the Circuit and
General District Courts. The combined growth of the two courts from year 2010 is expected to be
within the range of 8.54% and 53.33% by year 2030.
Correspondingly, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office should expect future staffing needs to be
within the range of 9.76 and 13.79 FTEs by year 2030.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-13
Summary of Estimated Future Staffing
The final summary of future staffing begins with a forecast of Judicial Full Time Equivalencies (JFTEs), which
drive the anticipated number of courtrooms and chambers in the courthouse.
According to the forecast completed, there will be a need for two circuit courtrooms in 2030, either two or
three general district courtrooms, and one J&DR courtroom plus a hearing room (for overflow and some
specific cases). These needs would be the same in 2040, with the confirmation of the third general district
courtroom. The space program in Chapter 3 was completed based on these forecasted numbers of
courtrooms.
Summary of Future Courtroom Needs
Current JFTEs
Forecast (2030)
low‐high JFTEs
How many
court sets?
(2030)
How many
court sets?
(2040)
When do we
need another
court set (est.
at .x.5 JFTEs)?
What if
population
reaches 150,000?
Circuit 1.22 to 1.23 1.50/1.51 1.64/1.65 2 CR 2 CR Approx. 2070 1.81 in 2030
NO CHANGE
General
District
1.29 to 1.49 1.37/1.61 1.96/2.31 2 or 3 CR 3 CR Approx. 2060 2.55 in 2030
PLAN FOR 3 CR
J&DR 0.66 to 0.97 0.66 0.97 1 CR plus
1HR
1 CR plus
1HR
Approx. 2080 1.0 CR plus 1 HR
NO CHANGE
Staff needs are summarized as follows:
Current FTEs 2030 FTEs ‐ low/high
Circuit Court Clerk’s Office 9.0 11.08/12.12
General District Clerk’s Office 7.5 8.08/11.61
J&DR Clerk’s Office 5.0 5.54/8.05
Commonwealth’s Attorney 9.0 9.76/13.79
TOTAL 30.5 34.46/45.57
Future space and parking estimates in Chapter 3 were based on these total numbers.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-14
This page intentionally left blank
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-1
Section 3 ‐ Architectural Space Program
This architectural space program summarizes the space requirements into the future for all functions
currently located within the historic Albemarle County Courthouse. The contents of this program were
created based on user interviews; plan reviews; tours of the spaces currently occupied by these groups;
and were based on national best practice standards for similar spaces. The nature of space planning is that
a space program is typically a bit more generous and flexible than design, as the level of detail has not
been as completely refined at this stage. Additionally, each group was programmed independently of the
others, and although each department was “assembled” programmatically, the manner and space
assumed in this program is based on ideal operations.
Once a final concept is selected, design will be undertaken. At that stage, consolidation of shared spaces
(conference rooms, equipment closets, work/photocopy rooms) can occur and may result in adjustments
up or down for the various components. Staff restrooms were included at a rate of one per functional
area in this draft, with the idea in mind that when the building is pulled together conceptually, adjacencies
will likely permit two staff restrooms to be co‐located and designated for males and females.
The summary table in this section shows the total preliminary space needs for a new or renovated
Courthouse for the functional components included. According to this preliminary estimate, a maximum
of 94,990 Building Gross Square Feet will be required for the functions shown.
Grossing Factors
Spaces are programmed in the order in which they are likely to occur within the building(s), and areas
within each space are similarly organized with the front entrance to the suite or area listed first, and other
spaces listed and grouped in the order one would encounter them while walking through the suite.
Three measures of space are used in this program – Net Square Feet (NSF), Departmental Gross Square
Feet (DGSF), and Building Gross Square Feet (BGSF). Spaces are included in the tables in NSF, which equals
the area from interior wall‐to‐wall area within each room.
To account for interior wall thicknesses, hallways, and/or other circulation within a functional area made
up of a number of rooms, a departmental grossing factor is added to estimate the Departmental Gross
Square Footage (DGSF) of an area. This factor can range from 15% (for large rooms with few interior
divisions, such as gymnasiums, courtrooms, or auditoriums) to 45% (for correctional facilities where cells
are small and support services must be plumbed through adjacent chases). The typical departmental
grossing factor for a standard office area comprised of 85% workstations and 15% private offices is 35%.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-2
The departmental grossing factors used in this program are those which have proven applicable to the
courthouse function in question.
Building Grossing is added to account for the exterior wall thicknesses, building shared circulation, and
various mechanical and other areas within the building which occupy space, and which are shared by all
building occupants. This final grossing factor ranges from 15%‐50%, depending on the level of detailed
programming that has accounted for spaces which would typically be included in the building grossing.
The main building entrance, lobby, public restrooms, security screening stations, and vertical circulation
(elevator, stairs, and escalator) will drive a building circulation close to the 50% range, if they are not
programmed separately. A building program with building grossing of 15% is one which typically has all
spaces programmed, including mechanical chases, electrical closets, and janitorial spaces. The building
grossing factor used for this facility was 35%, because some shared areas have been programmed and
others have not.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-3
Program
Summary - Court Program - Long-Term Buildout, All Court Components
Number Space NSF
Departmental
Grossing DGSF Total (DGSF) BGSF (35%)
25%3,331 4,497
1.100 Entrance 2,665 666 3,331
2.000 - CLERK AREAS 35%16,085 21,715
2.100 Circuit Court Clerk 6,230 2,181 8,411 11,354
2.200 General District Court Clerk 3,260 1,141 4,401 5,941
2.300 Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Clerk 2,295 803 3,098 4,183
2.400 Support Spaces 130 46 176 237
3.000 - COURT SETS 30%No. 30,451 41,109
3.100 Circuit Court Set 8,773 2,632 11,405 1 2 Ct Rms
3.200 General District Court Set 9,567 2,870 12,437 1 2 Medium and 1 small ct rms
3.300 Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Set 5,084 1,525 6,609 1 One Ct Rm, 1 Hearing Rm
3.400 Hearing and Mediation Set - - - -
4.000 - SECURITY AND HOLDING 35%2,917 3,938
4.100 Intake and Holding 1,365 546 1,911
4.200 Security Staff Areas 745 261 1,006
5.000 - COURT SERVICES/PROBATION 35%3,017 4,073
5.100 Public Areas 765 268 1,033
5.200 Court Services Office 1,470 515 1,985
6.000 - COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 35%4,797 6,475
6.100 Entrance/Lobby 480 168 648
6.101 Staff Work Areas 2,443 855 3,298
6.102 Shared Staff Areas 630 221 851
7.000 - BUILDING SHARED 35%9,765 13,182
7.100 Shared Public Areas 800 280 1,080
7.200 Jury Assembly 1,030 361 1,391
7.300 Shared Staff Areas 200 70 270
7.400 Loading Dock/Warehouse 3,984 1,394 5,378
7.500 Trash Removal 225 79 304
7.600 Building Maintenance 844 295 1,139
7.700 Janitorial 150 53 203
Summary 53,135 17,228 70,363 70,363 94,990
1.000 - BUILDING ENTRANCE AND LOBBY
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-4
1.000 Building Entrance and Lobby
The building entrance will include queuing and security screening for all building visitors. Two screening
stations are included for this purpose. The entrance area also includes the central control for the building,
which is the security and life‐safety center for the building. Public restrooms are sized here as
placeholders; final size will be determined by anticipated building occupancy and visitors in the design
phase.
2.000 Clerk Areas
This program groups the clerk areas for the three court divisions (Circuit, General District, and Juvenile &
Domestic Relations) together. Ideally, all clerk areas should be located low in the building near or adjacent
to the lobby, and while it is uncertain at this time which and how many of the divisions of the Albemarle
County Courts will be located together, this program assumes some efficiency of shared facilities (see
2.400 Support Spaces). Because it is likely there will be some separation of divisions in different buildings
(at least in the short run), the program has included staff restrooms with the individual clerk areas.
A total of 16,100 DGSF will be required to accommodate all three divisions of the court. Approximately
half of that space (8,400 DGSF) is required by the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, which includes the land
records and archives areas (open to the public for research). The archives are not currently staffed
separately from the clerk’s office, and could be separated in the building, but doing so would imply
separate staffing.
Another 4,400 DGSF would be required for the District Court Clerk’s Office and 3,100 DGSF for the J&DR
Court Clerk’s Office. The remaining 200 DGSF would be for shared areas, in this case janitors’ closets.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
1.100 Entrance
1.101 Vestibule 1 1 200 200
1.102 Lobby 1 1 800 800
1.103 Security Screening Station w/ Queuing 1 2 220 440
1.104 Building Central Security Control 1 1 200 200
1.105 Building Administration 1 0 150 0
1.106 Elevator Vestibule 1 2 90 180
1.107 Vending 1 2 10 20
1.108 Information/Directory Display 1 1 100 100
1.109 Public Restrooms 1 2 240 480
1.110 Janitors' Closet 1 1 45 45
1.111 General Storage 1 1 200 200
2,665
666
3,331 TOTAL AREA
1.000 - BUILDING ENTRANCE AND LOBBY
Total Area (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 25%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-5
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
2.100 Circuit Court Clerk
2.101 Clerk of Court 1 1 250 250
2.102 Deputy Clerk of Court 1 1 120 120
2.103 Courtroom Clerk 1 0 80 0
2.104 Deputy Clerk Office Workstation 1 10 80 800
2.105 Cashier Station 1 1 30 30
2.106 Service Counter Workstations 1 2 30 60
2.107 Active File Storage 1 1 1000 1,000 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.107 Public Counter Waiting Area 1 3 90 270
2.108 Archived Storage (Land Records) 1 1 1200 1,200
2.109 Archived Storage (Vault) 1 1 1600 1,600
2.110 Work Counter/Work Room 1 1 150 150 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.111 Supply/Form Storage 1 1 120 120 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.112 Staff Toilet 1 2 65 130 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.113 Staff Break Room 1 1 250 250 Staff break room with chairs, table, sink, and refrigerator
2.114 Public Microfiche/File Viewing Area 1 1 250 250 Adj. to service counter, microfiche viewer
6,230
2.200 General District Court Clerk
2.201 Clerk of Court 1 1 250 250
2.202 Deputy Clerk of Court 1 1 120 120
2.203 Courtroom Clerk 1 0 80 0
2.204 Deputy Clerk 1 10 80 800 total staff projection is 12 FTE, including management staff
2.205 Cashier Station 1 1 30 30
2.206 Meeting Room 1 1 200 200 Connects to the District Courtroom
2.207 Service Counter Workstations 1 2 30 60
2.208 Intern Workstation 1 1 80 80
2.209 Active File Storage 1 1 600 600 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.210 Work Counter/Work Room 1 1 200 200 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.211 Supply/Form Storage 1 1 150 150 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.211 Staff Break Area 1 1 250 250
2.212 Staff Toilet 1 2 65 130 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.213 Public Waiting at Service Counter 1 3 90 270 Public side of service counters
2.214 Public File Viewing Area 1 1 120 120
3,260
2.300
2.301 Clerk of Court 1 1 180 180
2.302 Deputy Clerk of Court 1 0 120 0
2.303 Courtroom Clerk 1 0 80 0
2.304 Deputy Clerk 1 6 80 480 Staff estimate is 7 positions, including clerk
2.305 Cashier Station 1 0 25 0
2.306 Service Counter Workstations 1 2 30 60
2.307 Intern Workstation 1 1 80 80
2.308 Active File Storage 1 1 800 800 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.3XX Staff Break Area 1 1 180 180
2.309 Work Counter/Work Room 1 1 150 150 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.310 Supply/Form Storage 1 1 120 120 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.311 Staff Toilet 1 1 65 65 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.312 Waiting/Service Counter 1 2 90 180 Public side of service counters
2,295
2.000 - CLERK AREAS
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Clerk
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-6
3.000 – Court Sets
Court sets include not only the courtrooms, but all adjacent spaces required to make the courtroom
operate as it should. Spaces which comprise a court set include the following:
Public Waiting (can be shared with adjacent courtrooms)
Soundlock vestibule at entrance
Attorney/Client interview/meeting rooms (sometimes also used as Victim/Witness waiting)
Victim/Witness waiting rooms
Equipment Storage
Trial Evidence Storage (usually in the courtroom)
Jury Deliberation Room (optional for some case types, otherwise adjacent to the courtroom, with
restrooms and beverage station)
Judge’s Chambers (which typically include a suite of associated spaces)
Staff Restroom (can be shared with other functions along the secure corridor).
The sizes of the courtrooms and whether or not jury deliberation rooms are required are features which
are determined by the type of action to be heard in the courtroom. In this courthouse, a total of two
Circuit courtrooms (large), three General District courtrooms (two medium and one small), and two J&DR
courtrooms (one small and one hearing room) are forecasted to be needed. An additional
hearing/mediation suite is recommended, as an alternative venue where caseload can be handled. Used
for alternate dispute resolution, this suite has one large room where all parties can meet, and smaller
adjacent breakout rooms for private discussions to occur. Having a suite like this in the courthouse can
help facilitate resolution of some cases outside of the courtroom, which in turn improves the efficiency of
processing caseload.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
2.000 - CLERK AREAS
2.400 Support Spaces
2.401 Video Instruction Room 1 0 150 0
2.402 Staff Break Area 1 0 200 0
2.403 Staff Toilet 1 0 100 0
2.404 Janitors' Closet 1 2 65 130
130
11,915
4,170
16,085
Total Area (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 35%
TOTAL AREA
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-7
Although in this program the courtrooms and chambers are programmed together, it is increasingly
common for chambers to be separated from the courtrooms, sometimes by vertical circulation (i.e. the
chambers are on one floor; the courtrooms on another.) In the design phase examination should occur to
determine if the traditional courtroom‐chambers pairing results in the most efficient and flexible
alignment of space, or if the Albemarle County standard of a more flexible assignment of courtrooms
should be encouraged through creation of a separate (i.e. not adjacent to the courtrooms) collegial judges’
floor or area.
The programmed sizes and spaces required are approximately 5,700 DGSF for a circuit court Set; 4,535
DGSF for a large general district court set; 4,145 DGSF for a small general district court set; and
approximately 6,500 DGSF for a combined J&DR courtroom/hearing room pair similar to what is provided
in the new J&DR courthouse. Some efficiencies can be achieved (and are indicated in the general district
court set program through reduced numbers of certain spaces) when courtrooms are paired, or where
there are three or more of a similar type of courtroom.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
3.100 Circuit Court Set
3.101 Courtroom 1 2 2,100 4,200
3.102 Vestibule 1 2 80 160
3.103 Attorney/Client Meeting Room 1 4 100 400
3.104 Equipment Storage 1 2 60 120
3.105 Evidence/Attorney File Storage 1 2 45 90
3.106 Holding Cell - Small 1 2 100 200
3.107 Holding Cell - Group 1 1.0 150 150
3.108 Secure Interview Room 1 2 80 160
5,480
3.109 Jury Deliberation Room 1 2 300 600
3.110 Jury Deliberation Vestibule 1 2 55 110
3.111 Jury Toilets 1 4 55 220
3.112 Jury Beverage Station 1 2 20 40
970
3.113 Public Waiting in the Hall 1 2 200 400 Pro-Rata Share
3.114 Victim/Witness Waiting 1 2 120 240
640
3.115 Judge's Chambers 1 2 350 700
3.116 Judge's Secretary 1 2 150 300 Provision for a support staff space.
3.117 Judge's Bailiff's Station 1 1 60 60 Provision space
3.118 Storage 1 2 60 120
3.119 Court Reporter 1 - 120 - Contract employee works in courtroom
3.120 Law Clerk's Office 1 - 150 -
3.121 Staff Toilet 1 1 55 55
3.122 Conference Room 1 2 224 448
1,683
8,773
1 8,773 For two courtrooms and two chamber sets.
3.000 - COURT SETS
Subtotal (NSF per Court Set)
Number--Subtotal NSF
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-8
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
3.000 - COURT SETS
3.200 General District Court Set
3.201 Courtroom - medium 1 2 1,824 3,648 Medium, GDC non-jury courtroom, seats 100 spectators.
3.202 Courtroom -small 1 1 1,524 1,524 Small GDC non-jury courtroom, seats 50 spectators.
3.203 Vestibule 1 3 80 240
3.204 Attorney/Client Conference Room 1 4 100 400
3.205 Equipment Storage 1 3 60 180
3.206 Evidence/Attorney File Storage 1 3 45 135
3.207 Holding Cell - Small 1 3 70 210
3.208 Holding Cell - Group 1 2 150 300
3.209 Secure Interview Room 1 2 80 160
6,797
3.210 Public Waiting 1 3 200 600
3.211 Victim/Witness Waiting 1 2 120 240
840
3.212 Judge's Chambers 1 3 350 1,050
3.213 Judge's Secretary 1 2 150 300 Provisional space
3.214 Judge's Bailiff's Station 1 - 60 -
3.215 Storage 1 3 60 180
3.216 Court Reporter 1 - 150 -
3.217 Clerk's Office 1 - 150 -
3.218 Staff Toilet 1 - 65 -
3.219 Conference Room 1 2 200 400 Two judges share a conference room
1,930
9,567
1 9,567
Subtotal (NSF per Court Set)
Number--Subtotal NSF
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
3.300
3.301 Courtroom 1 1 1,624 1,624 Seats 60
3.302 Vestibule - Courtroom 1 1 80 80
3.303 Attorney/Client Conference Room 1 3 100 300
3.304 Equipment Storage 1 1 60 60
3.305 Hearing Room 1 1 1,040 1,040 Seats 25
3.306 Vestibule - Hearing Room 1 1 60 60
3.306 Evidence/Attorney File Storage 1 2 60 120
3.307 Holding Cell - Small 1 2 100 200
3,484
3.308 Public Waiting 1 2 200 400
3.309 Victim/Witness Waiting 1 2 120 240
640
3.310 Judge's Chamber 1 1 350 350
3.311 Visiting Judge's Office 1 1 350 350
3.312 Judge's Secretary 1 - 150 -
3.313 Judge's Bailiff's Station 1 - 60 -
3.314 Storage 1 1 60 60
3.315 Court Reporter 1 - 150 -
3.316 Clerk's Office 1 - 150 -
3.317 Staff Toilet 1 - 65 -
3.318 Conference Room 1 1 200 200
960
5,084
1 5,084 1 judge, 1 courtroom, and 1 hearing room.Number--Subtotal NSF
Subtotal (NSF)
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Set
Subtotal (NSF per Court Set)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-9
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
3.000 - COURT SETS
3.400 Hearing and Mediation Set
3.401 Hearing Room 1 0 600 0
3.402 Vestibule 1 0 80 0
3.403 Mediation Room 1 0 200 0
3.404 Secure Room 1 0 70 0
3.405 Secure Room Vestibule 1 0 35 0
3.406 Waiting 1 0 200 0
3.407 Interview Room 1 0 80 0
3.408 Equipment Storage 1 0 60 0
0
0
1 0
23,424
7,027
30,451 TOTAL AREA
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF per Court Set)
Number--Subtotal NSF
Total Area (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 30%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-10
4.000 – Security and Holding
The security and holding areas in the building are those dedicated to the Sheriff’s Deputies and the
prisoner movement. From the point at which they enter the courthouse to the point at which they enter
the courtroom, prisoner movement should be secure and restricted, in other words completely separate,
from all other paths of circulation taken by staff and the public. These spaces comprise the Intake and
Holding areas of the building, as well as the courtroom holding cells adjacent to the courtrooms (included
in 3.000 Court Sets). Separation from “sight and sound” must be provided for male and female prisoners,
and between adults and juveniles. This separation implies that four distinct populations (adult males,
adult females, juvenile males, and juvenile females) may potentially be held in a full‐service courthouse.
Security Staff areas are the administrative and muster areas for Sheriff’s Deputies, who oversee building
security and prisoner movement. In this scenario it is assumed that at a minimum, the program must
provides a muster room for deputies at shift change, locker/changing rooms, and one shift commander
office. Sheriff’s Office administration is assumed to remain at its current location.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number of
Areas
NSF Space
Standard Square Feet Comments
4.100 Intake and Holding
4.101 Vehicle Sallyport 1 1 600 600
4.102 Security Vestibule 1 1 120 120
4.103 Deputy Station/Fingerprint and ID 1 1 100 100
4.104 Drug Testing Holding/Waiting 1 0 100 0
4.105 Drug Testing Toilet 1 0 65 0
4.106 Staff Toilet 1 0 65 0
4.107 Inmate Toilet 1 1 65 65
4.108 Single Cells 1 0 70 0 Single wet cells, total capacity of 10
4.109 Medium Group Holding 8 2 25 400 Holds 8 to 12 individuals per cell
4.110 Large Group Holding 15 0 25 0 Holds 15-20 individuals
4.111 Isolation Cell 1 1 80 80 dry cell, camera
Subtotal (NSF) 1,365
Dept. Gross @ 40% 546
TOTAL AREA (DGSF) 1,911
4.200 Security Staff Areas
4.201 Deputy Muster Room 15 1 15 225 Classroom style
4.202 Mailbox/Mail Room 1 0 200 0 Mailboxes to hall side; sorting tables to inside
4.203 Male Locker Room 12 1 12 144 2' wide lockers with 2' in front and 1' bench
4.204 Female Locker Room 8 1 12 96 2' wide lockers with 2' in front and 1' bench
4.205 Male Restroom 1 1 65 65
4.206 Female Restroom 1 1 65 65
4.207 Shift Commander Office 1 1 150 150 Private Office
4.208 Fingerprint Room 1 0 100 0 Sink, counter
Subtotal (NSF) 745
Dept. Gross @ 35% 261
TOTAL AREA (DGSF) 1,006
4.000 - SECURITY AND HOLDING
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-11
5.000 Court Services/Probation
The Court Services Unit provides probation supervision and aftercare, investigations, and intake services
for youth and juveniles associated with the J&DR courts. Currently located in leased space near the new
J&DR courthouse, this component would need to move to retain its adjacency to that court if the J&DR
court function were to move.
This office consists of a public waiting/reception area and a staff office area, indicated below with space
needs of approximately 3,000 DGSF.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number of
Areas
Space
Standard
Square
Feet Comments
5.100 Public Areas
5.101 Waiting Room 1 1 300 300
5.102 Children's Alcove 1 1 100 100
5.103 Victim's Waiting 1 1 150 150
5.104 Receptionist 1 1 80 80
5.105 Toilet 1 1 100 100
5.106 Janitor's Closet 1 1 35 35
765
5.200 Court Services Office
5.201 Director's Office 1 1 150 150
5.202 Senior Secretary Office 1 1 120 120
5.203 Supervisor Office 1 1 120 120
5.204 Probation Office 1 4 100 400
5.205 Intake Officer 1 0 100 0
5.206 Clerical Workstation 1 0 80 0
5.207 Drug Screening Room 1 1 80 80
5.208 File Room 1 1 600 600
1,470
2,235
782
3,017 TOTAL AREA (DGSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
5.000 - COURT SERVICES/PROBATION
Total Area (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 35%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-12
6.000 Commonwealth’s Attorney
The Commonwealth’s Attorney has a close relationship in Albemarle County with all three divisions of the
court, and as such, should retain co‐location as much as possible with all divisions of the courts they serve.
Currently co‐located with the circuit and general district courts in the historic courthouse, the
Commonwealth’s Attorney requires an estimate of 5,000‐6,000 DGSF of space for full anticipated future
growth.
Depending on the solution selected for housing the court functions in the long term, the Commonwealth’s
Attorney may be located in the courthouse, in adjacent renovated space, in newly constructed space, or in
nearby leased space. If leased space is considered, the departmental gross square footage should be used
as the rentable square footage required.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number of
Areas
Space
Standard
Square
Feet Comments
6.100 Entrance/Lobby
6.101 Lobby 0 1 120 120
6.102 Reception Desk 1 1 120 120
Office adjacent to the entrance and the visitor
lobby.
6.103 Beverage Station 1 0 10 0
6.104 File Review/Small Conference 0 0 150 0 For defense attorney file review
6.105 Conference Room 0 1 240 240 12 person conference room
480
6.200 Staff Work Areas
6.201 Commonwealth Attorney's Office 1 1 300 300 Seating for four at a table
6.202 Ass't Com. Attorney Offices 1 8 140 1,120 Lockable, file storage in offices
6.203 Administrative/Paralegal Workstations 1 4 80 320 Oversized workstations
6.204 Galley 1 1 25 25
6.205 Closed File Storage - 0.5 500 250 Closed records storage, lockable
6.206 Active File Storage - 1 300 300 Active records storage, lockable
6.207 Intern/Volunteer Workstation 1 2 64 128 Shared
2,443
6.300 Shared Staff Areas
6.301 Work/Storage Room 1 1 200 200
6.302 Toilet 1 2 65 130 Individual toilets
6.303 Equipment Storage 1 1 100 100
6.304 Break Area 1 1 200 200
630
3,553
1,244
4,797
Subtotal (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 35%
TOTAL AREA (DGSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
6.000 - COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-13
7.000 – Building Shared
The following areas are spaces within the building which enhance or support all functions, either directly
or indirectly. These are the areas which, if not programmed today, are accommodated in the building
grossing factor. Most would be designed into the lower floor(s) of a building for delivery or access
purposes.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number of
Areas
Space
Standard
Square
Feet Comments
7.100 Shared Public Areas
7.101 Building Shared Conference Room 1 0 800 0
7.102 Storage Closet 1 2 100 200
7.103 Beverage Station 1 1 100 100
7.104 Public Restroom 1 2 250 500 six stalls/urinals, six sinks
800
7.200 Jury Assembly
7.201 Jury Assembly check in and waiting 1 1 900 900 Capacity for 60 jurors @ 15 NSF each
7.202 Toilet 1 2 65 130
7.203 Toilet w/Shower 1 0 80 0
1,030
7.300 Shared Staff Areas
7.301 Work/Storage Room 1 1 200 200
7.302 Toilet 1 0 50 0
7.303 Toilet w/Shower 1 0 80 0
200
7.400 Loading Dock/Warehouse
7.401 Loading Dock - 1 120 120
7.402 Staging Area - 1 150 150
7.403 Old Record Storage - 1 2,000 2,000
7.404 Building Storage - 1 1,500 1,500
7.405 Commissary Storage - 1 150 150
7.406 Inventory Workstation - 1 64 64
3,984
7.500 Trash Removal
7.501 Dumpster Area - 0.5 300 150 Near loading dock, est. @ 50% (exterior space)
7.502 Recycling Area - 0.5 150 75 Near loading dock, glass, paper, plastic; @50%
225
7.600 Building Maintenance
7.601 Maintenance Leader 1 1 100 100
7.602 Maintenance Spec. 1 1 64 64
7.603 Staff Toilet - 65 -
7.604 Maintenance Equipment Storage - 1 250 250
7.605 Workshop - 1 350 350
7.606 Chemical Storage - 1 80 80
844
7.700 Janitorial
7.701 Janitor Storage - 1 150 150 Storage room with fixed shelving, mop holders
7.702 First Aid Station - - 10 - Eye wash, shower, wall supply cabinet
7.703 Chemical Mixing - - 60 - Well-ventilated, wall sink and counter, shelving
150
7,233
2,532
9,765
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
7.000 - BUILDING SHARED
Dept. Gross @ 35%
TOTAL AREA (DGSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-14
This page intentionally left blank
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-1
Section 4 – Option Development
Three options were explored, to give a spectrum of solutions and determine a range of viable solutions.
The three options were studied for massing, operations, and fit on the site(s) in question. Of particular
interest was future expansion beyond the period of the planning study (through 2030). Although the
conceptual plans only required massing and an understanding of how the facilities would be organized on
the proposed sites, the proposal for the re‐use of existing buildings for the downtown option required
digging deeply into the ability of existing facilities to accommodate the three paths of circulation required
for secure court operations. As such, the downtown scenario provides a great deal of detail about the
internal layout of spaces. The other two options provide simple blocking on a site, as more of a site test‐fit
than a conceptual building design.
The three options were as follows.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-2
Downtown Option
Overview
The downtown option focused on maintaining all Albemarle County court components on or near the
current courthouse complex, within the Court Square area of downtown Charlottesville. This option also
examined the possibility of maximizing re‐use of the historic courthouse for court use, to determine
whether or not that facility could be used for modern court functions. The resulting solution makes use of
County‐owned (or partially owned) facilities within the City of Charlottesville, and attempts to maintain
the closest proximity possible between court functions in the downtown context. This option included a
massing study of the Levy Building site, a site proximal to the historic courthouse site, to determine the
maximum size of court facilities which could be located there long‐term.
Some assumptions included in development of this option were that the Juvenile & Domestic Relations
(J&DR) court will remain in the recently completed J&DR Courthouse, along with the Sheriff’s Office
administration. Court Services will remain in its current location adjacent to the J&DR courthouse. The
components left for inclusion in the exploration of a solution were
Circuit Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office, including land records/archives)
General District Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Commonwealth’s Attorney
Sheriff (holding and court security only)
The downtown reuse concept developed for this study proposes to dedicate the existing Historic
Courthouse and Annex for the use of the Circuit Courthouse, with supporting Sheriff’s office functions
associated with in‐custody defendant holding being the only other function located within the building.
This solution requires the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office and the District Court to vacate the existing
facility. It is proposed that both these components would be located on the present site of the Levy
Building. To accommodate their needs the present day addition to the rear of the Levy Building is
proposed to be demolished and a more appropriately designed structure to house new courtrooms would
be built in its place. The new structure housing the courtrooms would support the district courts while the
historic Levy building would be used in its entirety to house the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office.
Historic Courthouse
In approaching the renovation of the Historic Courthouse complex, the team sought to meet the projected
space needs, enhance safety and security for the judiciary, the public and the defendants and to respect
the historic qualities of the existing buildings and grounds. Particular attention was paid to the Circuit
Courthouse as Jefferson’s “Common Temple”. .
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-3
Figure 1 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Basement
Starting with the Basement level of what is now the General District Courthouse, three distinct circulation
paths will be established for the judiciary, the public and the in‐custody defendants. Secure vertical
circulation for the judiciary is provided by a stair and elevator located on the west side of the building,
essentially in the location of the current stair and elevator. For in‐custody defendant circulation, the
existing sally port is enlarged to provide vertical access to an anteroom adjacent to the courtroom. The
existing secure corridor to the holding cells and the cells remains.
Public access to the basement level Land Records area will be directly from High Street. This public area
will be connected to the rest of the building only by a public elevator.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-4
Figure 2 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ First Floor
The first floor of the courthouse contains the main public lobby and public circulation elements.
On this level, the main public entrance is established at what is now the General District Courthouse, with
security screening for all court visitors. Access to the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office customer service area is
directly off the public lobby from this entrance, as are the public restrooms for the complex. The historic
courthouse (including the courtroom) is renovated to re‐establish the proportions of the Jeffersonian
courtroom. New adjacent chambers and jury deliberation room are provided in an addition to the north of
the historic courtroom, directly contiguous to the courtroom with restricted access.
A secondary public building entrance and security screening area is provided in the portico addition, which
also contains vertical access to the jury assembly room on the level above. The existing hyphen connector
between the two buildings has been enlarged to provide a large public stairway from the second floor to
the first floor.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-5
Figure 3 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Second Floor
The second floor of the existing General District Courthouse contains the jury assembly room as well as the
upper level of the Jeffersonian courtroom. An elevator has been added to mitigate accessibility issues.
The original courtroom balcony has not been restored; however, it could be if desired.
At the hyphen connector between the buildings, the stair from the second floor of the current General
District Courthouse leads to the building entrances below.
In the existing Circuit Courthouse space, a new Circuit Courtroom is created with contiguous chambers and
jury deliberation room on the north end of the building. On the south end, a jury assembly room has been
created to support the court room in this building. Public access to the second floor lobby is by either
public elevator or public stair. Judiciary access is to the second floor secure spaces is by secure stair from
level above or by secure elevator from the lower levels.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-6
Figure 4 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Third Floor
The third floor of the Circuit Courthouse contains the upper portion of the courtroom to the north and a
judicial suite to the south, which provides two additional chambers for a total of four chambers in the
building. The suite is composed of two private offices with a shared library/conference room as well as
secretarial and reception space.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-7
Levy Building
The addition proposed as a part of this option is a five story structure (four stories plus a basement) with
Central Holding and Judicial Parking being located on the Basement Level (which would be partially
underground). Level One would be the main public entry and would support the District Court Clerk with
Levels Two and Three designed to accommodate two courtrooms each. The District Court requires three
courtrooms. The fourth courtroom and associated chambers shown in this concept could be built now (as
indicated in this plan diagram) or shelled out for construction at a later date.
Level Four of the building provides additional future expansion. It is shown in this concept as
accommodating additional judicial chambers. As a result, the addition to the Levy Building is sized to
accommodate future expansion beyond the planning horizon of this study. This is proposed as a part of
the initial construction associated with this project, as there will be no way to expand this facility in the
future, leaving the courts land‐locked when they eventually need more space. This additional space will
provide additional long term expansion for the District Courts beyond the planning horizon of this study.
Figure 5 ‐ Levy Building ‐ Basement
The Basement Level includes the building Sallyport and some limited holding for in‐custody defendants. In
addition secure parking for the judiciary is also located on this level. The Basement level is partially below
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-8
grade taking advantage of the sloped grade of the site which allows for vehicular access to the rear of the
building at the Basement Level while allowing public entrance to the building on Level One.
Figure 6 ‐ Levy Building ‐ First Floor
The First Floor of the Courthouse addition provides the main public entrance to the proposed District
Courts/Commonwealth’s Attorney courts building. A central security screening area is provided in the
Lobby to screen both public and staff as they enter the building. The new entry faces the existing courts
complex working to create a campus like feel for the courts family. The entry level would be raised above
grade to provide a strong civic presence to the building and to align the first floor of the new addition with
the existing first floor of the Levy Building. The District Court Clerk’s Office would be housed on this Level.
The Levy Building would house the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office. The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s
space requirements will back‐fill all three levels of the Levy Building.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-9
Figure 7 ‐ Levy Building ‐ Second Floor
The Second Floor of the proposed District Court/Commonwealth’s Attorney courts building houses two
courtrooms and associated meeting rooms/ chambers for the District Court. Courtroom holding for in‐
custody defendants, and courtroom associated conference/witness waiting rooms are also provided. A
communicating stairway linking the lobby with the Second Floor is proposed to take some pressure off of
the elevators.
The Third Floor of the proposed District Court/Commonwealth’s Attorney courts building repeats the
functions housed on the second floor. This includes two courtrooms and associated chambers for the
District Court. As in the Second Floor, courtroom holding for in‐custody defendants, and courtroom
associated conference/witness waiting rooms are also provided. The communicating stairway linking the
lobby with the Second Floor is proposed to extend to this floor.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-10
Figure 8 ‐ Levy Building ‐ Third Floor
Figure 9 ‐ Levy Building ‐ Fourth Floor
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-11
The Fourth Floor of the District Court/ Commonwealth’s Attorney Court building provides for additional
future expansion of Court functions beyond the planning horizon of this study. It is shown as potential
judicial chambers for the purposes of this report. Alternatively, this space could be shelled out in the
interim until the time this space is needed by the courts. This would provide flexibility for the use of this
space in the future.
Design Challenges
Circulation
Separability
Accessibility
Preservation
Restoration
Footprint
Costs
Estimated Cost (pre‐SD): $526 per SF
Estimated Total Construction Cost: $46.3M (includes a fourth finished general district courtroom,
estimated at approximately $500,000 to $600,000 over shell cost)
Pros
Maintains the historic location of the courts in downtown Charlottesville and continues a viable
use of the historic courthouse complex and Levy Building/Jail Building.
Reuse of Levy Building or jail building for Commonwealth Attorney’s Office offers proximal, yet
separate operation from the courts and mitigates accessibility issues at the front of the Levy
Building.
Infill of underutilized site behind Levy for new facility for General District courthouse offers
expansion possible beyond the 2030 planning window.
Redesign of Levy or jail building offers opportunity to preserve historical scale and relationship
between buildings and the street, continuing park context and feel across Park and High Streets.
Provides maximum space needs beyond the 20‐year planning horizon for all components.
Optimizes existing downtown locations for Sheriff’s Office, Court Services, and J&DR Court.
Leaves future open for potential long‐term consolidation of either J&DR or Circuit Court
operations with General District Courts in new Levy General District Courthouse.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-12
Renovation costs must acknowledge a range of unknowns at this pre‐design stage, including
hazardous materials and outdated MEP infrastructure. Further study is required to narrow the
range of costs.
Continued public reliance on existing downtown parking; new parking provided is for staff only.
Less than ideal layout for Circuit Court due to small floor plates and limitations of existing historic
structure.
Although future internal growth is possible, no future facility expansion is possible beyond this
build‐out.
Court operations are split in three locations, with potential future reconsolidation of General
District & J&DR.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-13
COB‐McIntire Option
The site of the County Office Building (COB) along McIntire has a vacant parcel which is currently used by
Parks & Recreation. This parcel was explored to determine how much of the court operations could be re‐
located to this site, and whether this site might offer an alternative to retaining all court components
downtown. At a minimum, the viability of relocation of the general district function was explored, as this
split would not require moving the County Seat. Maximum stacking and massing were also explored to
determine whether this site might offer a potential long‐term re‐location/co‐location of J&DR with general
district court. Circuit Court was assumed to remain downtown in the historic courthouse or other site for
this analysis.
The components which were included in the COB‐McIntire analysis included the following:
General District Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Commonwealth’s Attorney
Sheriff (holding and court security only)
J&DR Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Court Services Unit
In this scenario, the Circuit Court remains downtown in the historic courthouse, using the same scenario
for that component as the downtown option.
The proposed concept for the COB McIntire site developed for this study utilizes both the present parking
area and the ball parks along McIntire Road, with the new courthouse proposed to be sited to the eastern
side of the property with the public parking located to the west, where it can be shared with the County
Office Building. The foot print indicated in the concept site plan for the courthouse is approximately
25,000 square feet, which is an efficient footprint for a courthouse, yet can allow for up to four court sets
to be accommodated on a floor. The concept anticipates a three‐story court facility with the district court
clerk’s functions on the first level and the courtrooms and chambers on the upper levels. The
Commonwealth’s Attorney could be located in this new structure, or could be located closer to the circuit
court, either in newly constructed space or in leased space.
The new courthouse building would have a prominent civic presence along McIntire Road which would run
parallel with the building’s main entrance. Public parking is accommodated by a two level parking
structure which makes use of the natural grade to offer an extended tray of on‐grade parking for the
County Office Building at the top of the hill, and a lower level of on‐grade parking for the courthouse
below. A total of 195 spaces would be available to support the public parking needs for the new
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-14
courthouse facility while maintaining (or expanding) parking for the COB by approximately 195 spaces on
the higher deck.
Staff parking is located to the north and east of the new courthouse, providing separate and secure
parking for the staff. The conceptual site plan provides the 83 spaces estimated as needed for staff
parking. It is proposed that parking for the judges would be provided within the footprint of the
courthouse in a level below the main entry level to the facility. Building service, and access to the judge’s
parking would all occur along the north (or back) side of the courthouse. The sheriff’s in‐custody
defendant delivery is proposed to be provided on the east side of the courthouse. This location effectively
screens all these back‐of‐house functions from the public and completes the three separates access points
to the building for public, staff, and prisoners.
Future expansion of the facility beyond the planning horizon of this study is accommodated through the
physical expansion of the facility to the west at some point in time. The allotted expansion space is
proposed to be used as interim surface parking until the point in time when expansion of the facility is
required. 53 parking spaces are indicated in this area.
Figure 10 ‐ COB‐McIntire Option
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-15
Design Challenges
Site Access
Orientation
Separability
Staffing (Security, Commonwealth’s Attorney)
Parking
Costs
Estimated Cost (pre‐SD): $555 per SF
Estimated Total Construction Cost: $43.4M + $3M structured parking + $2.78M new
Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office (5,000 SF).
Pros:
Small Green Field Site allows for customized design for General District court.
Provides maximum space needs beyond the 20‐year planning horizon for General District Court.
Relocation not required for Sheriff’s Office Administration or Court Services.
Circuit Court remains operational in the historic courthouse, with long‐term growth and security
issues addressed through improved circulation and layout. All courts remain downtown.
Potential Co‐Location is possible for General District and J&DR in the long run, with expansion
possible beyond the 2030 planning window.
Parking is ample and can advantage the County Office Building as well as the high volume General
District Court.
Cons:
The COB‐McIntire site is the last buildout on that portion of County property. Building the site out
for courts precludes any other future County facility expansion on that site and requires
abandonment of the existing ball fields.
No underground parking (secure parking for Sheriff or staff) is included in this option.
Four options are available for the Commonwealth’s Attorney, with a potentially wide range of
costs.
No parking solution is included for the Circuit Court, unless tied to the Commonwealth’s Attorney
solution (Levy or Jailer’s House).
This solution provides the same combinations of new and renovated space as the Downtown
Scenario, but with greater implications for long‐term separation of court components.
Court operations are split in three locations, with potential future reconsolidation of General
District & J&DR.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-16
Green Field Site Outside City Limits Option
The third option which was explored was a hypothetical green field site, owned by the County, outside the
City of Charlottesville limits. This solution assumed that in the long run, all County court components
would be relocated to this location in one consolidated justice center. For cost estimate and massing
purposes, a new custom‐designed building was assumed.
Because this hypothetical site was not limited by the sizes or shapes which characterize actual land parcels,
the ideal site was assumed.
Components included in the massing exercise for this option were:
Circuit Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office, including land records/archives)
General District Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Commonwealth’s Attorney
Sheriff (holding and court security only)
J&DR Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Court Services Unit
The conceptual plan for this option assumes a site large enough to accommodate both future expansion
and all surface level parking with adequate green space and storm water retention to avoid any parking
decks or structured storm water retention facilities. A building foot print of approximately 30,000 square
feet is indicated. This is slightly larger than shown for COB McIntire as it is anticipated the actual site
selected for this option would allow for a larger first floor foot‐print. As at, COB McIntire this would
accommodate up to four courts per floor on the upper levels of the courthouse. Dependant on the actual
design and final size of the building footprint it is anticipated that a building ranging anywhere from three
to five stories (dependant on the foot‐print of the first floor) could support the needs of the courts.
A surface public parking area sized for 250 spaces is located to the front of the courthouse. 100 Staff
spaces are located to the rear of the facility. Parking for the judiciary is proposed to be located within the
footprint of the new courthouse in a lower level. Staff, judicial, sheriff’s in‐custody defendant and service
entrances to the building are all located to the rear of the courthouse to provide both visual and physical
separation of these functions from the public. The concept design also provides for an 80 foot vehicular
stand‐off distance around the courthouse for anti‐terrorist/ force protection measures, which is
recommended where it can be provided.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-17
Expansion for the facility is shown as a free standing annex dedicated for the use of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Courts on space set aside for this purpose. Expansion could also be accommodated by
an addition to the courthouse. A decision in regards to the best method to provide for needed space
beyond the planning horizon of this study would be made at a later date. In either case the concept
diagram accommodates expansion beyond the initial construction of the proposed courthouse.
Figure 11 ‐ Green Field Option
Design Challenges
Site Access
Separability
Staffing (Security, Commonwealth’s Attorney)
Parking
Preservation
Restoration
Costs
Estimated Cost (pre‐SD): $557 per SF
Estimated Total Construction Cost: $52.1M
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-18
Pros
Ample Green Field Site allows for customized design with few site or footprint limitations.
Potential Co‐Location is possible for all court components in the long run, with expansion possible
beyond the 2030 planning window.
Provides maximum space needs beyond the 20‐year planning horizon for all components.
Potential to be a catalyst for economic development in the surrounding area. Additional research
is needed to confirm/quantify this assumption.
Setbacks from roadways allow for optimal blast protection distances.
All new construction offers ease of state‐of‐the‐art technological integration.
Cons
The Existing Courthouse and Levy Building are left vacant, abandoning the historical court context
and all existing infrastructure. The Circuit Court Judge has indicated a preference for not moving
the Circuit Court out of the Jefferson Courthouse.
Long‐term, this scenario also abandons the recently constructed J&DR Court.
A referendum is required to approve moving the courts outside the County Seat.
Relocation is required for Sheriff’s Office Administration and Court Services, both in relatively new
space downtown.
Interim solutions assume up to 20 years or more of split court operations, with J&DR downtown
and Circuit and General District Courts at the new facility.
Construction costs must acknowledge a range of unknowns at this pre‐design stage, including site
development costs, finishes, and the operational costs associated with courts separated by
physical distance. Further study is required to narrow the range of costs.
Court operations are split in two locations, with potential future reconsolidation of
Circuit/General District & J&DR
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 5 – Recommendations
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
5-1
Section 5 ‐ Recommendations
A number of recommendations have emerged during the course of this study. The recommendations
range from simple suggestions to implement in the short‐term to broad scope recommendations for a
long‐term courthouse solution. This chapter is an attempt to summarize the consultant team’s
recommendations to Albemarle County for moving forward, both short‐ and long‐term, and to proceed in
making the best informed decisions on behalf of the citizens of Albemarle County.
Court Storage Report
A court storage report was conducted concurrent to this study for the circuit court, general district court,
and Commonwealth’s Attorney to determine short‐term space mitigation strategies to improve the
constraints currently affecting court operations. This report produced some short‐term recommendations
which can be implemented immediately, and which will hopefully help to improve conditions in the
interim, while decisions are made and phasing is determined for a more long‐term approach.
Urgency for Determining Long‐Term Direction for Courts
Current space shortfalls and quality of that space determine the urgency of need for implementing a
solution.
The analysis of current caseload per judge/courtroom indicates that the Circuit Court needs 1.25 full‐time
courtrooms right now. They are currently using one courtroom (with questionable circulation, no holding,
and inadequate jury facilities) and one approximately 600 SF “hearing” type room (on the third floor, in a
location that does not meet accessibility or life safety standards, and which cannot accommodate a jury or
large groups). The forecast shows the need growing to between 1.5 and 1.65 courtrooms by the year
2030.
Current General District Court caseload indicates a need for 1.27 to 1.49 courtrooms right now. This
division is currently using one courtroom and one “hearing” type room, which is approximately 400 SF in
size. As with the circuit court, the general district court set offers little or no separation of circulation, and
little or no holding. The hearing room is located across a small public waiting area from the main
courtroom, forcing the judge and all parties to matriculate through the same open area to enter the room.
Although the cases processed in this division are limited jurisdiction cases, in‐custody defendants and
witnesses are common, and the lack of secure holding adjacent to the courtroom is a concern. The
forecast shows the need for general district courtroom space growing to between 1.37 and 2.31
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 5 – Recommendations
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
5-2
courtrooms by 2030. Project leadership has opted to use the higher number for the purposes of this
planning study.
Fractions of courtrooms are rounded up to the nearest whole courtroom when sharing is not possible.
With both divisions in one building, the current need totals approximately three full‐time courtrooms (1.25
circuit + 1.27 general district = 2.52, rounded to 3.0). If circuit and general district divisions continue to be
housed in the same building (Green Field Site Outside City Limits Option), it could be possible to design and
build uniform courtrooms which could be used for all case types, so that courtroom sharing can continue.
These courtrooms would need to be uniformly designed as large trial courtrooms, but efficiencies may be
achieved through sharing. In this case, the need totals approximately four full‐time courtrooms by 2030
(1.65 circuit + 2.31 general district = 3.96, rounded up to 4.0). Beyond this growth window, there is no
additional courtroom time available, so if the assumptions behind this forecast hold, it can be anticipated
that more courtrooms will be required shortly after 2030. Note that the solution which was developed and
priced in this study did not assume this type of sharing, in order to provide equal comparison of price and
space with the other two scenarios.
If, however, the two divisions are separated (Downtown Option, COB‐McIntire Option), sharing cannot
occur, and circuit and general district courtroom needs must be assessed separately. Circuit will require
two full time courtrooms by 2030 (1.65 rounded up to 2.0) and general district will require three full time
courtrooms by 2030 (2.31 rounded up to 3.0) for a total of 5.0 courtrooms. In this case, the two circuit
courtrooms must be designed as large trial courtrooms, but the general district courtrooms can be
designed for their purpose, and can be slightly smaller. There is also available dark time beyond the 2030
window (0.35 of a circuit courtroom and 0.69 of a general district courtroom) to absorb future growth.
Security and life safety conditions at the courthouse, combined with current courtroom space shortfalls,
press for a rapid decision about a future path forward. The decision must determine which of the three
options presented in this study is right for Albemarle County, and the issue of courtroom sharing is just
one of several subordinate pre‐design decisions which will need to be made to hone in on the scope of
work to follow.
Additional Information Gathering Steps
Some steps have been identified, which could be undertaken to further inform the group prior to making a
final decision. These include:
o Conduct community involvement meetings to assess the values and priorities of the
citizens
o Conduct a broader cost analysis of three options
Bring on economic impact analysis specialists
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 5 – Recommendations
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
5-3
Bring on life‐cycle analysis specialists to enhance the cost estimate beyond
construction/project costs
o If new construction, work to create a vision for the whole complex. Bring on a developer
team‐mate and establish a clear vision and steps forward.
It is strongly recommended that as many of these steps be taken as possible, so that the decision‐makers
can rest comfortably in their selection, knowing they have tapped all relevant information prior to
selecting a future path.
Timeline to Action
This report has documented the existing security and capacity issues which exist at the historic courthouse,
and which can only be fully resolved through renovation of the existing facility or moving at least a part of
the courts elsewhere. The concurrent court storage needs study has documented record storage and
archival concerns which can only be completely resolved through a long‐term strategy.
Although the forecasted space needs are not pushing for immediate action, current space shortfalls and
compromised security press for immediate steps to be taken toward a long‐term solution. While it is fair
to expect such a solution to take years to completely implement, it is reasonable to expect steps to be
taken from this point forward to move toward some alleviation of current problems.
Some issues which should be considered pressing include the following:
o Security, infrastructure, life safety, and capacity issues at the historic courthouse
o Circuit court archives are un‐searchable at Levy
o The Commonwealth Attorney’s office is in a poor location, split by public corridor, with no
security
o Some costly infrastructure needs will occur shortly – such as elevators in the historic
courthouse.
o The courts are implementing operational compromises to the space limitations which affect
security.
a. Judge walks in public space to CR
b. Tiny hearing room off of public space for general district hearings
c. Prisoner movement is not restricted
d. No holding in courthouse to speak of
e. Multiple entrances so just secure the courtrooms
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 5 – Recommendations
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
5-4
All of these factors push toward immediate action of some kind. Even if a built solution is the long‐term
fix, design and interim mitigating strategies will need to occur during the intervening 2‐3 years prior to
groundbreaking, and the 5‐7 years prior to completion of construction.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-1
Appendix A – Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville Historic and Projected Population 1992‐2030
Year
Albemarle
County
Population
Albemarle County
Population Annual
Growth
Albemarle County
Average Annual
Growth Rate
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Population
Albemarle County Population
and City of Charlottesville
Annual Growth
Combined
Average Annual
Growth Rate
1992 69,977 110,185
1993 71,340 1.95% 111,419 1.12%
1994 72,569 1.72% 112,425 0.90%
1995 75,744 4.38% 113,538 0.99%
1996 76,935 1.57% 114,544 0.89%
1997 77,615 0.88% 115,445 0.79%
1998 79,417 2.32% 116,405 0.83%
1999 80,145 0.92% 116,960 0.48%
2000 84,196 5.05% 124,285 6.26%
2001 85,666 1.75% 126,416 1.71%
2002 86,366 0.82% 127,537 0.89%
2003 87,341 1.13% 128,071 0.42%
2004 88,736 1.60% 129,481 1.10%
2005 90,376 1.85% 131,203 1.33%
2006 92,007 1.80% 133,046 1.40%
2007 92,751 0.81% 134,014 0.73%
2008 94,287 1.66% 135,905 1.41%
2009 94,908 0.66% 137,126 0.90%
2010 98,970 4.28% 1.95% 142,445 3.88% 1.45%
2011 100,665 1.71% 144,482 1.43%
2012 102,360 1.68% 146,519 1.41%
2013 104,055 1.66% 148,555 1.39%
2014 105,750 1.63% 150,592 1.37%
2015 107,445 1.60% 152,629 1.35%
2016 109,139 1.58% 154,666 1.33%
2017 110,834 1.55% 156,703 1.32%
2018 112,529 1.53% 158,739 1.30%
2019 114,224 1.51% 160,776 1.28%
2020 115,919 1.48% 162,813 1.27%
2021 117,614 1.46% 164,877 1.27%
2022 119,309 1.44% 166,941 1.25%
2023 121,004 1.42% 169,004 1.24%
2024 122,699 1.40% 171,068 1.22%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-2
2025 124,394 1.38% 173,132 1.21%
2026 126,088 1.36% 175,196 1.19%
2027 127,783 1.34% 177,260 1.18%
2028 129,478 1.33% 179,323 1.16%
2029 131,173 1.31% 181,387 1.15%
2030 132,868 1.29% 1.48% 183,451 1.14% 1.27%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-3
Appendix B – Albemarle Circuit Court Case Filings, 1992‐2010
0
500
1,000
1,500
1992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Number of New Case FilingsYear
Albemarle County Circuit Court Case Filing Trends by Case Type
1992‐2010
Total Civil Cases Total Criminal Cases
Civil Cases Criminal Cases
Total
Circuit
Court
Cases Year
GD
APLS/REM
Other
Law Divorce
Other
Equity
J&DR
Appeals
Total
Civil
Cases
1&2
Felony
Other
Felony Misdemeanor
Total
Criminal
Cases
1992 33 473 297 132 18 953 21 366 194 581 1,534
1993 35 473 336 128 16 988 12 451 187 650 1,638
1994 29 441 326 103 35 934 12 308 202 522 1,456
1995 37 447 309 156 30 979 36 339 310 685 1,664
1996 35 327 307 126 48 843 20 516 294 830 1,673
1997 34 375 307 141 34 891 32 508 371 911 1,802
1998 20 444 291 136 44 935 6 587 358 951 1,886
1999 33 400 325 123 44 925 12 709 380 1,101 2,026
2000 24 402 276 115 45 862 7 710 353 1,070 1,932
2001 36 392 244 118 47 837 8 666 292 966 1,803
2002 27 292 232 139 34 724 10 791 270 1,071 1,795
2003 27 290 268 115 42 742 18 761 255 1,034 1,776
2004 23 405 234 165 40 867 4 723 232 959 1,826
2005 22 560 220 142 33 977 0 699 258 957 1,934
2006 24 738 150 29 37 978 0 928 279 1,207 2,185
2007 15 619 217 25 28 904 9 744 335 1,088 1,992
2008 21 706 209 26 40 1,002 5 947 390 1,342 2,344
2009 31 746 221 18 39 1,055 9 908 347 1,264 2,319
2010 17 782 225 23 62 1,109 3 862 268 1,133 2,242
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-4
Appendix C – Albemarle General District Court Case Filings, 1992‐2010
New Case Filings
Year
Criminal
Cases
Traffic
Cases
Civil
Cases
Total New
District Court
Case Filings
1992 3,196 10,207 9,206 22,609
1993 3,302 11,367 10,526 25,195
1994 3,241 9,388 10,190 22,819
1995 3,440 10,566 9,623 23,629
1996 3,377 11,306 6,789 21,472
1997 3,540 12,007 7,381 22,928
1998 3,388 12,436 8,871 24,695
1999 3,627 12,654 8,545 24,826
2000 3,150 11,618 10,661 25,429
2001 3,408 13,007 11,698 28,113
2002 3,400 13,042 13,466 29,908
2003 3,204 10,781 12,175 26,160
2004 2,954 11,790 13,217 27,961
2005 2,952 13,671 16,313 32,936
2006 3,388 13,013 16,729 33,130
2007 3,510 16,987 18,278 38,775
2008 3,161 17,627 17,993 38,781
2009 3,348 18,131 16,932 38,411
2010 3,136 18,635 16,653 38,424
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
1992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Numebr of New Case FilingsYear
Albemarle County General District Court Case Filing Trends by Case Type
1992‐2010
Criminal Cases Traffic Cases Civil Cases
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-5
Appendix D – 2009 State‐Wide Circuit Court Case Filing Workloads
*Note: Currently the Albemarle County Circuit Court new case filings for year 2010 are 2,242.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-6
Appendix E – 2009 State‐Wide District Court Case Filing Workloads
*Note: Currently the Albemarle County General District Court new case filings for year 2010 are 38,424.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-7
Appendix F – Comparable County Populations to Albemarle County
District/
Circuit
Counties Within
District
Total Number of
Judges In
Circuit/District
Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Counties of Virginia
Geographic Area Population Estimates Census
2009 2005 2000
23 Roanoke County 6 Circuit Court
5 General District
Court
.Roanoke County 91,011 88,483 85,776
Roanoke City .Roanoke City 94,482 92,506 94,912
Salem
27 Bland
5 Circuit Court
5 General District
Court
.Montgomery County 91,023 87,020 83,631
Carroll
Floyd
Giles
Grayson
Montgomery
Pulaski
Wythe
Radford
Galax
16 Albemarle
5 Circuit Court
4 General District
Court
.Albemarle County 94,908 90,376 84,196
Culpeper (2010 Census:
Fluvanna 98,970)
Goochland
Greene
Louisa
Madison
Orange
Charlottesville
3 Portsmouth 5 Circuit Court
3 General District
Courts
.Portsmouth City 99,321 100,783 100,566
15 Caroline
8 Circuit Court
6 General District
Court
.Hanover County 99,933 96,473 86,320
Essex
Hanover
King George
Lancaster
Northumberland
Richmond County
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Westmoreland
Fredericksburg
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-8
Appendix G – Comparable County Populations to Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
District/
Circuit
Counties Within
District
Total Number of
Judges In
Circuit/District
Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Counties of Virginia
Geographic Area Population Estimates Census
2009 2005 2000
15 Caroline
8 Circuit Court
6 General District
Court
.Spotsylvania County 120,977 114,909 90,395
Essex .Stafford County 124,166 116,672 92,446
Hanover
King George
Lancaster
Northumberland
Richmond County
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Westmoreland
Fredericksburg
16 Albemarle
5 Circuit Court
4 General District
Court
Albemarle and City of
Charlottesville
137,126 131,203 124,285
Culpeper
Fluvanna (2010 Census:
Goochland 142,445)
Greene
Louisa
Madison
Orange
Charlottesville
8
Hampton City
4 Circuit Court
3 General District
Court
.Hampton city 144,236 147,051 146,437
18
Alexandria City
3 Circuit Court
2 General District
Court .Alexandria city 150,006 137,602 128,351
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-9
Appendix H – Albemarle Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Case Filings, 1992‐2010
New Cases Hearings
Year
Juvenile
Cases
Domestic
Relations
Cases
Total New
Juvenile & DR
Cases
Juvenile
Hearings
Held
Juvenile
Hearings
Per case
Domestic
Hearings
Held
Domestic
Hearings
Per case Judges Clerks
1992 1,600 1,625 3,225 2,810 1.76 2,752 1.69 0.6 5
1993 1,734 1,844 3,578 3,388 1.95 3,346 1.81 0.6 5
1994 1,677 1,843 3,520 3,556 2.12 7,327 2.08 0.6 5
1995 2,087 1,898 3,985 4,944 2.37 4,454 2.35 0.6 5
1996 2,114 1,694 3,808 5,118 2.42 4,342 2.56 0.6 5
1997 2,595 1,538 4,133 6,185 2.38 3,906 2.54 0.6 5
1998 2,705 1,687 4,392 7,226 2.67 4,297 2.55 0.6 5
1999 2,927 1,734 4,661 7,089 2.42 7,702 2.54 0.6 5
2000 2,502 1,596 4,098 7,478 2.99 4,180 2.62 0.6 5
2001 2,251 1,535 3,786 5,667 2.52 3,781 2.46 0.6 5
2002 2,247 1,567 3,814 5,268 2.34 4,068 2.60 0.6 5
2003 2,316 1,529 3,845 5,567 2.40 3,649 2.39 0.6 5
2004 1,864 1,591 3,455 4,725 2.53 3,742 2.35 0.6 5
2005 2,137 1,562 3,699 5,256 2.46 3,854 2.47 0.6 5
2006 2,159 1,465 3,624 6,155 2.85 4,000 2.73 0.6 5
2007 2,539 1,579 4,118 6,773 2.67 4,012 2.54 0.6 5
2008 2,381 1,567 3,948 6,546 2.75 4,203 2.68 0.6 5
2009 2,022 1,622 3,644 5,598 2.77 4,013 2.47 0.6 5
2010 2,003 1,568 3,571 5,169 2.58 4,190 2.67 0.6 5
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Number of New Case FilingsYear
Albemarle County General District Court Case Filing Trends by Case Type
1992‐2010
Juvenile Cases Domestic Relations Cases
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-10
Appendix I – 16th Judicial District Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Case Filings, 1992‐2010
Year
Historic
Juvenile
Cases
Historic
Domestic
Relations
Cases
Historic
Total J &
DR Cases
Juvenile
Hearings
per Case
Domestic
Relations
Hearings per
Case
Number
of
Judges
Number
of J&DR
Clerks
1992 6,436 6,865 13,301 1.88 1.86 4 9
1993 6,833 8,064 14,897 1.95 2.01 4 9
1994 7,158 7,955 15,113 2.09 2.32 4 9
1995 8,348 8,156 16,504 2.28 2.49 4 9
1996 9,090 8,261 17,351 2.36 2.64 4 9
1997 10,692 8,688 19,380 2.39 2.57 4 9
1998 11,195 9,356 20,551 2.45 2.58 4 9
1999 12,295 9,377 21,672 2.37 2.44 4 9
2000 11,971 9,073 21,044 2.58 2.57 4 9
2001 10,666 9,236 19,902 2.42 2.37 4 9
2002 10,959 9,135 20,094 2.28 2.41 4 9
2003 10,390 9,476 19,866 2.43 2.39 4 9
2004 9,392 9,434 18,826 2.41 2.31 4 9
2005 10,490 9,558 20,048 2.38 2.36 4 9
2006 10,836 9,866 20,702 2.48 2.33 4 9
2007 11,529 10,640 22,169 2.48 2.42 4 9
2008 11,416 10,458 21,874 2.48 2.42 4 9
2009 10,888 10,439 21,327 2.51 2.51 4 9
2010 10,126 10,166 20,292 2.55 2.64 4 9
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Number of New Case FilingsYear
16th Judicial District Juvenile and Domestic Relations Case Filing Trends by Case Type
1992‐2010
Historic Juvenile Cases Historic Domestic Relations Cases
1
Trevor Henry
From:Trevor Henry
Sent:Monday, April 08, 2013 2:27 PM
To:Diane Mullins; Cheryl Higgins; Denise Lunsford; wgb8329@comcast.net; J. E. "Chip" Harding;
Debra Shipp; T.D. Layman; 'jbeard@cha.idc.viginial.gov'; 'jlsnook@snookandhaughey.com'
Cc:pstewart@courts.state.va.us; Stacey Trader; Tom Foley; Bill Letteri; Larry Davis; Marsha
Davis; Bower, Meg; Doug Walker; Montie Breeden; Beight, Jim L.; 'David Puckett'
Subject:Court Study Update Mtg. - March 28th - MINUTES
Attachments:Albemarle_Courts_Study_stakeholdermtg_28March13_Presentation.pdf
Importance:High
Categories:[Local Inbox/Work/Projects/Local Gov/Courts]
Tom, et al.
Thanks again for adjusting your schedules to meet on March 28th to discuss the future of the courts. As mentioned by
Bill in a previous email I’m providing a summary of the meeting below and have attached a .pdf of the PowerPoint
presentation used by Staff and the consultants to walk through the study results. Also, we have the architects
conceptual test fit boards at our office for future reference.
The following personnel attended at the meeting:
Representing the Court: Judge Higgins, Judge Barkley, Commonwealth Attorney Lunsford, Debbi Shipp (Clerk of the
court), TD Layman (Sherriff’s Office)
Representing Court Functions: James Beard (Public Defenders Office), Lloyd Snook (Bar Association)
Representing County staff: Tom Foley (County Exec), Bill Letteri (Assistant County Exec), Larry Davis (County Attorney),
Trevor Henry (OFD), Montie Breeden (OFD)
Study Consultants: Jim Beight (PSA-Dewberry), Meg Bower (PSA-Dewberry), Dave Puckett (FPW Architects)
AGENDA
1.Purpose of Meeting/State of Affairs
2.Process/Findings
3.Options/Test Fits
4.Potential Phasing
5.CIP Process/Potential Timeline
6.Discussion/Comments
7.Wrap up
Notes from the Meeting:
Mr. Foley led off the meeting stating the overall purpose was to ensure the Courts key stakeholders and Staff were
operating off the same assumptions regarding urgency of action for the courts planning. Tom provided a summary of
why the county commissioned the study, which has provided an assessment of current conditions, a forecast of future
needs and potential site options to meet the long-term vision of the Courts. Tom noted some BOS members had
communicated to him a sense of less urgency in the timeline and need for action after our Feb BOS meeting based on
feedback by Courts staff during that work session. Tom relayed direction from the BOS, which is to better determine
urgency of the decision while working with the city to reach an acceptable agreement on the disposition of the Levy
Building and providing some relief to the current parking conditions downtown. Tom did note the BOS also is keeping
the split option on the table staff in the event the City is unable to meet some of the BOS specific requirements.
Meg Bower from PSA-Dewberry lead a discussion on the process the consultants went through to analyze current
conditions and a brief description of the methodology of caseload forecasting that drove the space needs. The analysis
included some additional sensitivity analysis that looked beyond 2030 and analyzed a population growth to 150K. Needs
2
were described in terms of “court sets” (courtroom, chambers, courtroom holding, jury deliberation, and any other
requisite areas) instead of simply courtrooms, and the judicial time was clarified to include both resident judges and
visiting judge time. The forecast concluded a need for two Circuit Court sets both now and into the future. The General
District Court was determined to need two court sets now, with the future forecast either staying at two (with higher
utilization) or growing to three.
Jim Beight from PSA-Dewberry walked through the “test fit” process of the Downtown and Split Options. Due to some of
the constraints of the existing conditions of the Historic Court House, the consultants conducted a deeper analysis of the
site as part of the test fit process to ensure all components of the Court sets and three paths of circulation could be met.
Their findings confirmed the Historic Court house and existing annex could contain the necessary functions for two
Circuit Court sets, Clerk’s office and proper separation of uses (Judiciary, Public, Defendants).
In either scenario (Remain Downtown option or Split Option), the Historic Courthouse and existing annex are planned to
be renovated for two Circuit Court Sets. In the downtown option, it is envisioned the Levy Building (Old Opera House)
would be renovated to Support the Commonwealth Attorney’s office and its rear addition would be demolished with a
new wing constructed for adding two to three court sets for the General District Court. The study assumed full build out
which included shell space for a future court set. After some discussion it was agreed on Two Court sets would likely be
needed at the 2030 timeframe (one resident and one to be used by visiting judge(s) as currently done), with the
potential of needing one additional court set in the long-term future. There was doubt state funding would support the
third Judgeship through a dedicated resident judge; regardless, if caseload increases, the courtroom would be needed.
The Split option has the same renovation of the Historic Court for Circuit Court needs and assumes a new construction
project at the county’s Millcreek property for the General District Court and Sherriff’s office. The Split option would need
further analysis of where to locate the Commonwealth attorney.
David Puckett (FPW Architects) – led a discussion of potential phasing for the two options.
The first option would be an Incremental Phasing of the Downtown scenario which provides the most immediate relief
to the most taxed groups (CA, Circuit Ct Clerk, Land Records), but may have issues related to adjacent construction
activities requiring either tolerance to noise or premium construction at night. The phasing scenario is as follows:
First step requires design and renovation of the Levy Opera house for the relocation of the Commonwealth
Attorney. Once the CA office is vacated and relocated, the basement of the Historic courthouse could be
renovated to allow the relocation of the Circuit Court Clerk and records to their permanent location.
Second step is the demolition of the Levy rear addition and construction of the new General District court and
Clerk’s office.
Third step is the renovation of the Historic Court house and annex, and re-occupancy by Circuit Court.
The second option proposed is essentially two big projects, Dave presented the split option.
Design and construction of new General District courthouse at the proposed Millcreek site. Move the Gen Dist
Court, Clerk and Sherriff’s office to Millcreek. A solution to keep the CA downtown will need to be determined,
possibly renovation of the Levy Opera House, other leased space or relocate to the now vacated Sherriff’s office
Renovate the historic Court for Circuit court use as described above.
Trevor provided a review of the CIP process and stressed the importance of getting the BOS to a decision point to all
direction to staff to initiate the CIP request. Trevor reviewed a potential timeline that showed the major design efforts
and construction efforts taking four + years to get the first phase of the project completed and up to 8 years to complete
all phases.
Discussion points:
Unanimous consensus among the Courts stakeholders to remain downtown as the only viable option without significant
disruptions to all court functions and efficiencies if any portion of the courts were to be located off-site.
3
Lloyd Snook suggested the possibility of exploring a collaborative solution with the City for ensuring full utilization of
whatever is built. He mentioned that the City is likely to be exploring options for expansion during the same 20-year
window. It was commented that the City Circuit Court has expansion capabilities on their current site.
Judge Barkley commented and questioned about the ability to share resources with the City Gen Dist court. He also
strongly recommended staff look at short-term solutions, such as temporary renovation of space in Levy, to alleviate
current space constraints at the Historic Court Complex. . He also emphasized the simplicity of providing space for his
operation during a “swing” period.”
Judge Higgins and CA Lunsford expressed surprise the BOS left the Feb 6th meeting with any thought of lack of urgency
to move the project forward.
CA Lunsford also expressed displeasure over the delay in seeing the preliminary draft report, which was dated late Aug
2012, and the general lack of communication by staff. Although not discussed, it should be noted the report was not
finalized until Jan 2013 in preparation for the Feb BOS meeting. Several of the chapters were not finalized until the Dec
timeframe.
Judge Higgins discussed the need for better communication from Staff on the project, especially when materials will be
going back to the BOS.
Debbie Shipp questioned the need for the full renovation and wondered if less costly options might be discovered
allowing for relief of current operational conditions but not the full $40Mil +project or at least consider phasing it over a
longer period.
Deputy Layman said from the Sherriff’s perspective one location is the preference, whether downtown or in the county
to maintain more efficient Sherriff operations in support of the courts operations.
Tom ended the discussion confirming that Staff will be working with the City to resolve the issues related to parking and
Levy disposition per the direction of the BOS but felt that we had accomplished the purpose of the meeting to confirm
the urgency of action with Key stakeholders. He emphasized the desire for collaborative teamwork moving forward
between the County and the court family.
Next steps will include continued discussions/negotiations with the City and providing an update to the BOS at an
upcoming meeting (Date TBD) confirming the urgency of action to move forward.
Respectfully submitted,
Trevor
Trevor Henry
Director, Office of Facilities Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road, Room 228
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
T (434) 872-4501 ext. 7942
F (434) 972-4091
C (434) 284-1112
thenry@albemarle.org
4
From:Diane Mullins [mailto:DMULLINS@albemarle.org]
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:36 AM
To:Cheryl Higgins; Denise Lunsford; wgb8329@comcast.net; J. E. "Chip" Harding; Debra Shipp; T.D. Layman
Cc:pstewart@courts.state.va.us; Stacey Trader; Tom Foley; Bill Letteri; Larry Davis; Trevor Henry; Marsha Davis; Bower,
Meg
Subject:REMINDER: Court Study Update Mtg. - March 28th
Importance:High
Reminder: Court Study Update Meeting w/consultants:
Date: Thursday, March 28th
Time: 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Location: Circuit Court Jury Room
Agenda: Attached
Diane B. Mullins
County Executive'sOffice
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Phone: (434)296-5841, ext. 3402
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Enhanced Speeding Fines in Fontana Subdivision
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of Resolution requesting VDOT to install signs to
establish maximum penalty for exceeding posted speed
limit on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive and Olympia Drive
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Henry, and Kelsey
PRESENTER (S): Jack Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 9, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The residents of the Fontana Subdivision have expressed concern about speeding in the subdivision since 2006.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff and various County staff have worked with Fontana Owners
Association, Inc. (FOAI) since 2008 in an effort to evaluate and resolve speeding issues in the subdivision, and have
recently established a list of actions to pursue, including requesting that VDOT install signs on Fontana Drive (Route
1765), Verona Drive (Route 1771) and Olympia Drive (Route 1770) alerting motorists that there will be a fine of up to
$200 for exceeding the established speed limit pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-878.2.
Virginia Code § 46.2-878.2 (see Attachment A) provides that “Operation of any motor vehicle in excess of a maximum
speed limit established for a highway in a residence district of a county, city, or town, when indicated by appropriately
placed signs displaying the maximum speed limit and the penalty for violations, shall be unlawful and constitute a traffic
infraction punishable by a fine of $200, in addition to other penalties provided by law.”
It is the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s policy (Attachment A) that VDOT, upon a formal request from the local
governing body, will install signs on local residential streets, collector streets, and minor arterial streets with a posted
speed limit of 35 miles per hour or lower advising motorists of a maximum punishment of $200, in addition to other
penalties provided by law, for exceeding the speed limit in certain residence districts.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
5. Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
The history of traffic issues and pedestrian conflicts in Fontana dates back to July 2006. The roads were designed
and built as “rural” sections, with shoulders and ditches, and no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. The roads have a speed
limit of 25 m.p.h. and were intended to be “shared space” with bicycles and pedestrians. Staff from VDOT and the
Albemarle County Police Department (PD) and Planning Department worked with FOAI between 2008 and 2011, and
the PD conducted speed studies in 2009 and 2010. The results indicated speeds exceeding the 25 m .p.h. speed limit
and 85th percentile speeds of at least 30 m.p.h., but average speeds did not exceed the VDOT threshold of 30 m.p.h.
(5 m.p.h. over the speed limit) required to be eligible for traffic calming. In 2013 staff from VDOT, the County’s PD and
Office of Facilities Development (OFD) became re-involved and have been working with FOAI. Speed studies were
conducted by the PD in July 2013 and by VDOT in November 2013 to evaluate whether the roads would qualify for
VDOT’s “traffic calming” and/or “residential cut-through traffic” measures. The studies indicated speeds exceeding the
25 m.p.h. speed limit and 85th percentile speeds of at least 30 m.p.h., but based on VDOT’s criteria, only Fontana
Drive was eligible for traffic calming.
At the conclusion of a February 2014 FOAI meeting, VDOT, PD and OFD staff acknowledged that the traffic issues
experienced by the Fontana Subdivision residents are a result of a combination of vehicle speeds and the lack of
pedestrian facilities along the neighborhood streets, and agreed to pursue the following solutions:
1. Resident Administrator of VDOT will work with VDOT Traffic Engineering Division to find traffic control
options that VDOT can implement to address the issue of pedestrian safety.
AGENDA TITLE: Enhanced Speeding Fines in Fontana Subdivision
April 9, 2014
Page 2
2. OFD staff will coordinate a request to VDOT to install signs alerting motorists that exceeding the
speed limit constitutes a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of $200 on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive
and Olympia Drive.
3. OFD staff will coordinate the development and implementation of a traffic calming plan for Fontana
Drive.
4. OFD staff will coordinate a request to VDOT to allow a through-truck restriction on Verona Drive and
Olympia Drive.
The VDOT Resident Administrator and Traffic Engineering Division have now developed a Step 1 plan to provide
traffic controls to address pedestrian safety. VDOT is currently formalizing the plan and will provide a copy to the
Board and to County staff upon completion. VDOT advised that some of the other options may also be pursued by the
County concurrently, but care must be taken to not implement so much that staff cannot determine whether any
measures are ineffective and should be removed.
County staff concurs with FOAI’s request to install signs establishing an additional fine of $200 for exceeding the
established speed limit on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive and Olympia Drive as shown on the attached map
(Attachment B).
To qualify for sign installation, a highway must meet the following criteria:
1. Meet the definition of local residential, collector, or minor arterial street as defined by VDOT (see
Attachment A); and
2. Have a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour or lower.
Staff believes that the above criteria have been met. To initiate this procedure, the County must request, by Resolution
of the Board, that VDOT install the appropriate signs as required by Virginia Code § 46.2-878. The Resolution
(Attachment C) and the following supporting data would then be submitted to VDOT:
1. Identification of the neighborhood and specific highway(s) where the signs are requested to be installed;
2. Confirmation that the highway(s) meet the definitions of local residential, collector, or minor arterial
streets as defined by VDOT; and
3. Notification that a speeding problem exists and that the increased penalty has community support.
The requested signs would be installed within 60 days of VDOT’s approval.
BUDGET IMPACT:
VDOT will pay for providing and installing the signs. The PD will be responsible for enforcement, and PD staff
estimates that this will have no impact on PD’s staffing or budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) requesting that VDOT install signs to
establish an additional maximum $200 fine for exceeding the established speed limit on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive
and Olympia Drive pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-878.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – VDOT Policy
B – Subdivision Map
C – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
ADOPTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD JUNE 17, 1999
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
APPLICABILITY OF §46.2-878.2 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
INSTALLATION OF SIGNS ADVISING OF MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR EXCEEDING POSTED MAXIMUM SPEED
LIMIT IN CERTAIN RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy and attendant procedures is to provide guidelines for addressing the issue of
exceeding the maximum speed limit on local residential streets, collector streets, and minor arterial streets
with residential characteristics in certain residence districts and installing signs as prescribed in § 46.2-
878.2 of the Code of Virginia.
POLICY ON INSTALLATION OF SIGNS IN CERTAIN RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
It is the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s policy that the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT), upon a formal request from the local governing body, will install signs on local residential streets,
collector streets, and minor arterial streets with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour or lower advising
motorists of a maximum punishment of $200, in addition to other penalties provided by law, for exceeding
the speed limit in certain residence districts.
INTRODUCTION
This policy and attendant procedures identify the specific responsibilities and requirements of VDOT and
that of the affected counties and towns in addressing concerns relating to motorists exceeding the speed
limit in certain residence districts.
VDOT and the counties and towns are partners in the administration of these processes and procedures. A
good working relationship between VDOT and the counties and towns is important for this partnership to
function effectively.
DEFINITIONS
"Residence district" as defined in §46.2-100 means the territory contiguous to a highway, not comprising a
business district, where 75 percent or more of the property abutting such highway, on either side of the
highway, for a distance of 300 feet or more along the highway consists of land improved for dwelling
purposes, or is occupied by dwellings, or consists of land or buildings in use for business purposes, or
consists of territory zoned residential or territory in residential subdivisions created under Chapter 22 (§
15.2-2200 et seq.) of Title 15.2.
“Highway as defined in §46.2-100 means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or
place open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel in the Commonwealth, including the
streets and alleys, and, for law-enforcement purposes, the entire width between the boundary lines of all
private roads or private streets which have been specifically designated “highways” by an ordinance
adopted by the governing body of the county, city, or town in which such private roads or streets are
located.
For purposes of this policy a Local Residential Street is a highway built as part of a residential development
or a highway where residential development has taken place resulting in a neighborhood or community
resembling a residential development. Further, a local residential street must have the residential units
facing the street and provide driveway connections or curbside parking for a majority of the residential
units.
For purposes of this policy Collector Streets and Roads are highways exhibiting the residential
characteristics listed above for local residential streets as well as serving traffic movements between
residential areas and major roadways.
For purposes of this policy Minor Arterial Streets and Roads are highways exhibiting the residential
characteristics listed above for local residential streets. These roads and streets also serve trips of
moderate lengths at a somewhat lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials, provide access to
geographic areas smaller than those served by the higher system, and provide intra-community continuity.
Note: The definitions of local residential streets, collector streets, and minor arterial streets shown above
are for administration of this policy only and do not necessarily apply to any other VDOT policies and
programs.
CRITERIA
To qualify for sign installation, a highway shall meet the following criteria:
1. Meet the definition of local residential, collector, or minor arterial street as indicated above.
2. Have a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour or lower.
COUNTY/TOWN RESPONSIBILITIES
To initiate these procedures, the county or town shall request, by resolution of the local governing body,
that VDOT install the appropriate signs as stipulated in §46.2-878.2 of the Code of Virginia. This request
shall be submitted to the local VDOT resident engineer in the form of a resolution, along with the following
support data.
Support Data Requirements:
1. Identification of the neighborhood and specific highway(s) where the signs are requested to be
installed.
2. Confirmation that the highway(s) meet the definitions of local residential, collector, or minor arterial
streets as described above.
3. Notification that a speeding problem exists and that the increased penalty has community support.
VDOT RESPONSIBILITIES
It is the responsibility of VDOT to provide, install, and maintain the signs. The following procedures will be
observed:
1. The VDOT resident engineer, upon receipt of the adopted resolution and support data, will review the
assembly and submit it to the VDOT district administrator.
2. The district administrator will have the signs installed.
3. Sign installation under §46.2-878.2 will take place within 60 days of the date the request is approved.
Note: These procedures assign certain action items to the district administrator. A district
administrator has the prerogative to assign any or all of these action items to be handled by the
regional traffic engineer.
FUNDING
Signs installed in accordance with this policy will be fully funded from countywide traffic services in the
secondary or primary road allocations to the respective counties.
RESOLUTION TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL MAXIMUM $200 FINE
FOR SPEEDING IN THE FONTANNA SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Fontana Drive (Route 1765), Verona Drive (Route 1771) and Olympia Drive
(Route 1770) are local residential streets as defined by VDOT with a posted spe ed limit of 25 m.p.h.;
and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has received a request from the Fontana Owners
Association, Inc. to request that VDOT install signs on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive and Olympia
Drive to establish pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-878.2 an additional maximum fine of $200.00 for
exceeding the speed limit, in addition to other penalties provided by law ; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Albemarle County Police
Department collected speed data on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive and Olympia Drive and have
acknowledged that there is a speeding problem and that it is impacting pedestrian safety and quality
of life for Fontana Subdivision residents; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors finds that a speeding problem
exists on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive and Olympia Drive and that it creates a potential hazard for
pedestrians and residents in the Fontana Subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation install signs to establish
an additional maximum $200 fine for exceeding the speed limit on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive and
Olympia Drive.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to
_____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
B201400455TWR – Verizon Wireless “Owensville Road
2/Correll Property Zoning Ordinance Waiver
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for a Special Exception for a waiver of the
following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(ii)-antenna offset
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish, Ms. Baldwin
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: April 2, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This is a request to add antenna to an existing 150 foot tall power tower located on a 22 acre parcel located south of
Tillman Road on tax map 58-65A. Dominion Power has a high tension power line easement on this parcel and has
agreed to allow Verizon Wireless to locate an antenna array containing 4 panel antennas on the structure. The antennas
will meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance, with the exception of flush mounted. The applicant is requesting a
special exception to allow the antennas to project more than 12 inches from the structure.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
Special Exception
This is an existing power tower which will consolidate antennas from another facility onto this tower. This request would
normally require only a building permit; however it does not meet ordinance standards. The ordinance requirements state
that “…in no case shall any point of the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from a facility.” The
Applicant states that due to the nature of this tower and to meet Dominion Power’s safety r equirements, the antenna will
not meet the ordinance requirements and have requested a modification to this section. The Applicant has submitted an
application plan which depicts the proposed antennas which will be at a maximum 7.5 feet from the pole (Attachment A).
Staff has reviewed the request and does not belie ve that the proposed antenna will provide for any additional negative
visual impact to the existing power tower and is recommending approval of this modification.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the special exception to modify the requirements of Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(ii).
Attachment: Application Plan
Return to consent agenda