POA Court Facilities--Long Term Accommodation Needs. That POA court operations be consolidated into a single court facility and

Transcription

1 REPORT TO: Co-Chairs and Members of the Corporate Services Committee SUBJECT: POA Court Facilities--Long Term Accommodation Needs RECOMMENDATION That this Committee recommends to Regional Council: That POA court operations be consolidated into a single court facility and That staff be directed to expedite planning and development to enable consolidation of all POA courts not later than EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As agent for the twelve area municipalities, the Niagara Region operates three permanently staffed POA courts located in Niagara Falls, St. Catharines and Welland as well as a satellite court in Fort Erie. In administering multiple court facilities the Region, and the NRPS who are responsible for provision of court security, incur additional operating expenses beyond those which would arise from the operation of a single, consolidated court facility. Support for a single, consolidated court facility has been expressed by major stakeholder groups including the Joint Board of Management, provincial and local judicial officials, senior representatives of the Niagara Regional Police Service and the local detachment commander for the Ontario Provincial Police. The consolidation of POA court operations to a single facility would be the most cost effective and operationally efficient approach over the long term. Reduced operating expenses and efficiencies achieved would further ease the burden on Niagara s taxpayers through the sharing of potentially larger amounts of net revenue.

2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As discussed in this report. PURPOSE This report is to update Committee and Council on the current status of POA court accommodations and to obtain direction from Council on long term accommodation plans for POA court facilities. BACKGROUND When it assumed responsibility for the courts on January 29, 2001, the administration of Provincial Offences courts was a new line of business for the Region. Given the as is nature of the transfer, the Region entered into a rental sub-lease arrangement for the use of an existing POA court facility in Niagara Falls. Similarly, a per diem rental arrangement was entered into for the use of an existing POA court facility in Fort Erie. In both instances, the Region assumed turn key facilities. In St. Catharines, plans to utilize space within the existing Provincial court house failed to materialize and staff secured alternate space in the downtown core area. In Welland, appropriate space adjacent to the existing Provincial Court House was leased. While the Welland location required relatively minor renovations, the St. Catharines location required substantial renovations prior to becoming operational. In reports JBM , dated June 14, 2005 and CSD , dated October 24, 2006, staff reported on the challenges related to the condition and operation of three permanently staffed POA court facilities. No definitive action related to POA facilities was taken by Council at that time. The landscape of challenges facing the POA courts has broadened and become better defined over the past six years. Given the trends experienced, it is timely to update Council on the current state of POA court facilities and to request that Council consider this issue and provide direction to staff with respect to the long term accommodation goals for the POA courts. REPORT Based on information provided by provincial officials prior to the transfer of the POA court, Regional planning efforts focused on staff resources and facilities deemed sufficient to service a projected volume of forty thousand charges per year. While the volume projections were appropriate at the time, growth experience and trends over the past six years clearly demonstrate the need to recognize current workload issues and to address long term accommodation needs. 2

3 A review of Ministry of the Attorney General data for the period confirms that, when compared to all municipally operated courts in the province, Niagara s POA courts have experienced the second largest percentage growth rate (+104%) in charges filed with the court. When compared with 14 other municipally administered POA courts which have moved, or are in the process of expanding their facilities, Niagara s percentage growth rate was significantly larger than its nearest competitor and was over four times greater than the 24% provincial total increase. POA Court Niagara Region Oxford County Durham Region City of Toronto York Region City of Peterborough Provincial Average Grey County City of Thunder Bay % Increase/Decrease in Charges Filed with the Court ( ) Moved/Expanded to Larger Facilities Since Transfer Request at Council Planned for 2010 Request at council n/a Planned for 2010 City of Barrie +15 Lambton County Town of Caledon City of Mississauga City of Guelph City of Ottawa City of Brampton Increased Work Volume The following chart illustrates percentage increases in workload volume experienced over the past six years as staff attempt to satisfy demands for service from the judiciary, members of the public, enforcement agencies, members of the local bar associations and agents. 3

4 Number of: % Change 05 to 10 Charges filed with the courts +104% Counter customers served +50% Payments received (including Paytickets) +51% Suspensions +12% Applications for Extensions of Time to Pay +33% Appeal applications +13% Re-openings +130% Trial requests (Part I & III) +36% Disclosure requests +84% Part I Appeal appearances +99% From 2005 to 2010, Council responded to the increasing demands for service by approving three additions to the POA staff complement (1 Prosecutor and 2 Court Administration Clerks) and the additional resources were appropriate, timely and assisted in addressing the workload. Given the trend in service demands, the present condition of our court facilities, the time remaining in current leases and the lead time required for determining and executing a facilities solution, it is timely and appropriate to bring the issue of long term accommodation of POA courts to Council for consideration and direction. Current Lease Arrangements POA court operations occupy 19,222 square feet of leased space in three permanently staffed sites located in Niagara Falls, St. Catharines & Welland. An additional 2,400 square feet is leased approximately 16 days per year on a per diem basis to serve Fort Erie matters. Total POA facility leasing costs for 2011 have been budgeted at $ 310,427. Each location has space utilized for public areas, the courtroom, the intake court, and secure areas reserved for the exclusive use of the judiciary and for prisoner detention. The following table summarizes current lease arrangements. Location Size Term of Lease Renewal Options Niagara Falls 7,024 sq. ft. Nov 1/08 Oct 31/11 St. Catharines 4,913 sq. ft. Nov 1/08 Oct 31/11 Welland 7,285 sq. ft. Nov 1/08 Oct 31/11 Fort Erie 2,400 sq. ft. Feb 1/07 Jan 31/10 Total 21,622 sq. ft. 4 2 additional one year terms 2 additional one year terms 2 additional one year terms Currently under negotiation

5 Space & Design Inadequacies The three permanently staffed locations were originally designed for uses other than a Provincial Offences court and were not purpose built. In order to minimize initial start-up costs, design modifications were minimized. All locations fail to meet Ministry of the Attorney General requirements to provide separate and secure areas for administration staff, prosecutors, the judiciary and enforcement officials. Both the NRP and judicial officials have commented on the need to address and update numerous security deficiencies in each of the three locations. The Niagara Falls office (8 staff) has virtually reached its maximum staff capacity. There is inadequate records storage space and limited room for future growth in this location unless additional space is leased and major renovations are undertaken. Based on a recent building condition report, major and costly maintenance work will be required on this building in the near future. Our accommodation needs are particularly critical in the St. Catharines office (9 staff) which is our busiest location. This office has numerous design deficiencies including insufficient public floor space, a lack of records storage space and inadequate staff lunch room facilities. This location has court scheduled 5 days per week and staff attend to approximately 48% of our total service counter volume. Staff in the St. Catharines office have vocalized concerns over working conditions and their ability to provide adequate customer service to the public. There is no space to accommodate additional staff to assist in serving the public or to assist with the workload. Simply put, this facility was not designed to accommodate current service volumes and we have outgrown the available space. The design of the Welland office is inefficient, wasteful and houses two office areas separated by a common area. The collections side (5 staff) has limited growth capacity. The administration side (3 staff) which includes the courtroom, the intake court, prosecutors offices and the judicial retiring chambers, has no growth capacity and lacks space to accommodate additional staff to assist in serving the public or assist with the workload. Aging and inefficient HVAC systems have periodic malfunctions which result in uncomfortable working conditions for staff and complaints from the judiciary. With ever increasing utility rates, the costs of operating and maintaining these aging systems are reflected in high utility expenses. When increasing demands for service, increased workload volumes, shortage of floor space, additions to the staff complement and the increasing need for on-site record storage are factored in, it is readily apparent that the building layout in each of the three sites contributes to inefficiency and result in higher operating costs. Delays in addressing POA facility issues will negatively impact all stakeholders utilizing the POA courts. 5

6 Based on past experience, staff believes that leasing facilities to house POA courts is untenable over the long term given the lack of control over maintenance and repair costs which are then passed along to the Region as tenant. Staff supports building ownership as a more effective, efficient, controllable and preferred method for POA accommodations. Efficiency Issues The staffing operation of multiple sites results in higher operating costs for office equipment and related office support systems. It is necessary to purchase, maintain and support multiple pieces of office equipment (i.e. printers, photocopiers, and fax machines), maintenance agreements, high speed internet connections and telephone systems. As well as the direct costs of mileage and parking, there are the hidden costs related to loss of productivity as staff travel between sites. Supervisors must regularly visit each site to provide direction, oversight and guidance to staff. Prosecutors and court administration staff must travel regularly between locations as dictated by the court master schedule. Inevitably there is a need to transfer staff to other locations to cover unexpected or scheduled staff absences. The staffing of multiple sites often precludes the opportunities, enhanced working environment, synergy and personal interaction that results when larger numbers of staff are located on site. Training and work instruction for staff must be repeated in each location. Given the variations in service demands, staffing levels and court schedules, some activities and processes have, of necessity, been assigned to certain locations. The movement of court records and information between sites, and the processing delays which result, is a major cause of inefficiency for court administration staff. Co-location of all POA staff to a single, consolidated facility would eliminate these costly inefficiencies. Courtroom Utilization Court utilization is determined by the master court plan developed by the Local Administrative Justice of the Peace, and approved by the Regional Senior Justice of the Peace, having regard for the number of matters being set for trial, the availability of judicial resources and the availability of courtrooms. Over the past six years we have experienced a 36% increase in trial requests. These demands have led to a 65% increase in courtroom utilization and a permanent increase in the number of days on the master court schedule. In addition, we have experienced a significant number of additional (ad hoc) court days being scheduled. Notwithstanding the permanent increase in the master court schedule, the increased number of ad hoc court days being scheduled and the increased court utilization, Niagara is quickly approaching a point where the demand for court time may outstrip our ability to provide access to justice in a timely manner. 6

7 As this report is drafted, staff is currently scheduling trials late into the fourth quarter of 2011 and additional blitz court days are being scheduled to avoid scheduling trials into Case law suggests that delays beyond the 6-8 month range (from the date of the trial request to the trial date) may place matters at risk of a constitutional challenge for delay of process. Our courtroom utilization rates have escalated to a point where consideration must be given to securing additional courtroom space which would not only relieve pressure for setting additional trials in a timely manner but which could potentially be utilized for quasijudicial matters including OMB hearings. The following table illustrates the current courtroom utilization rate and confirms that Niagara s POA courts are approaching maximum courtroom capacity. Location Courtroom Utilization Rate Courtroom Utilization Rate as a % Niagara Falls 3 ½ days per week 70% St. Catharines 5 days per week 100% Welland 3 ½ days per week 70% Fort Erie* 16 days per year 100% *Per Diem rental from MAG for use by POA Court Major Stakeholder Support The Niagara Regional Police and the Ontario Provincial Police, collectively, lay in excess of 90% of all POA charges. Senior representatives of both enforcement agencies have confirmed their support for a single, consolidated court facility. In addition to laying the majority of charges in the POA court, the Niagara Regional Police are responsible for providing court security. A single, consolidated court facility would simplify scheduling of court security officers, elevate the current level of security being provided through the establishment of perimeter security and would reduce the costs related to the number of security deficiencies currently requiring attention. The Joint Board of Management has expressed support for consolidation of POA courts as a means of maximizing net revenue potential. The Regional Senior Justice of the Peace and the Local Administrative Justice of the Peace have both indicated their strong support and preference for a single, consolidated court facility. They note that a single facility would assist in relieving judicial scheduling pressures, would improve overall efficiency and reduce the number of security concerns. 7

8 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS In 2011, the POA budget included $ 310,427 for leasing costs for all facilities and a contribution of $ 500,000 to the POA Facilities Renewal reserve fund. In total, $ 810,427 was budgeted for POA facility issues, which is more than the $ 800,000 which would be required to finance the capital necessary to construct a new court facility. Based on figures used in the NRP Master Plan and recent tenders for the Grimsby and Fort Erie police facilities, staff estimates the cost to construct a new court facility at $ 356 per square foot. Assuming construction of a 10,000 square foot facility, costs are anticipated to be in the vicinity of $ 3,560,000 (in 2011 dollars.) This estimate includes construction and soft costs (contingency, architects fees, furniture, permits, etc.) but does not include property costs. Given the increase in requests for trial, demands for service, and noting the many facility deficiencies mentioned earlier in this report, a replacement for the St. Catharines POA court is viewed as a high priority concern. A 10,000 square feet replacement facility for the St. Catharines court would allow the construction of a much needed second courtroom which would greatly assist in reducing time to trial and would also reduce the need to transfer matters to other court locations. The additional space would increase the size of areas allotted for both public waiting and service areas, allow more space for staff and provide much needed storage space. While a new 10,000 square foot court facility can be expected to generate some efficiency through lower operating costs, such efficiency would be offset by increasing operating costs in the remaining leased court facilities. Staff believe that a far greater level of efficiency can be anticipated through a model which would see all courts consolidated in a single, appropriately sized, purpose built and owned facility. A single facility should result in lower operating costs over the long term, will increase staff efficiencies due to a concentration of resources, will provide more effective supervisory oversight will allow one time delivery of staff training, will maximize the potential for process improvement opportunities, and therefore presents the greatest potential to contribute to higher net revenue. It is estimated that consolidation of the POA courts could result in direct operational savings in the range of $ 142,574 to $ 162,443 annually. Additional savings, which are more difficult to quantify, can be anticipated from the efficiencies gained by having all staff co-located in a single site. It is also anticipated that modest annual savings would also be achieved with the operation and maintenance costs due to the reduction in the number of facilities and a more efficient new building. Life cycle costs for the major building components are anticipated to be less than those associated with continued use of leased facilities. The following page provides an overview of capital requirements, reserves available as of the end of 2011, the estimated annual payment and years to pay off the debt. 8

9 The POA Facilities Renewal reserve fund will have an approximate balance of $ 1.7 million at the end of 2011, funds which have been specifically set aside to assist in offsetting the costs of a new court facility. The $ 800,000 annual payment required to finance a new, owned POA court facility is less than the $ 810,427 amount allocated for facility related costs (i.e. lease costs and contributions to the reserve fund) in the 2011 approved budget. A comparative overview of costs related to a 10,000 square foot facility and a 20,000 square foot facility is noted below. St. Catharines Only Consolidated Model (10,000 sq. ft) (20,000 sq.ft.) Capital cost 3,560,000 7,120,000 Less: Reserves 1,694,058 1,694,058 Debt incurred 1,865,942 5,425,942 Interest Rate * 5% 5% Annual Payment $800,000 $800,000 Years to pay off debt ** * The interest depends on the market and Regional debt acquisition strategy at the time of acquisition. This is an estimated average rate. ** The debt issue length is subject to the Regions total debt issue and can vary. This is a high level estimate of options. Currently the Region is reviewing debt issuance practices and in a few months would be able to better substantiate the impact to POA. If contributions to the reserve fund continue at the $ 500,000 level for the period (when construction of a new facility could be completed) an additional $ 1.5 million (for a total of $ 3.2 million) could be available from the reserve fund to offset costs. This would reduce the debt incurred amount to approximately $ 365,942 for a 10,000 square foot facility and to $ 3,925,942 for a consolidated 20,000 square foot facility, as well as reducing the years required to pay off the debt. The inclusion of this project in the Region s capital program will not negatively impact taxpayer affordability targets as the POA courts are self funding and do not rely on the tax levy. Since assuming responsibility for administration of the POA courts in 2001, the Region and the twelve area municipalities have shared net revenue totaling over $ 25 million. The sharing of net revenue proceeds has lessened the burden on local taxpayers. 9

10 CONCLUSION The lease and operation of multiple POA court sites results in higher operating costs, inefficiencies and, over the long term, reduces the potential for the Region and area municipalities to share a larger base of net revenue. Appendix 1 (attached) provides an overview of the benefits and drawbacks of a consolidated court option compared to a multiple court option. As well as reducing time to trial for the public, consolidation of POA court facilities into a single, appropriately sized, purpose built and owned facility should result in reduced operating costs over the long term; increased staff efficiencies due to a concentration of resources and more effective supervisory oversight, staff training and process improvement opportunities. In addition, a consolidated facility could elevate the current level of security being provided through the establishment of perimeter security and would reduce the costs related to the number of security deficiencies currently requiring attention. Such changes may assist the NRP in reducing manpower costs for court security. Efficiency improvements will increase the potential to reduce operating expenditures and should result in higher net revenue available for sharing between the Region and area municipalities. In turn, higher net revenue will assist in reducing the need to rely upon the tax levy to provide local municipal services. Council will need to determine if money spent to lease multiple POA court facilities locations is money which could be better utilized to construct a new, consolidated court facility which would reduce operating expenditures, thus maximizing the potential for sharing larger amounts of net revenue. Submitted by: Approved by: Brian Hutchings Commissioner of Corporate Services/ Treasurer Mike Trojan Chief administrative Officer This report was prepared by Bill Bernard, Associate Director, Court Services and has been reviewed by Mike Kyne, Director, Legal Services 10

11 11 CSD Appendix 1 BENEFIT COMPARISON CONSOLIDATED VS. MULTIPLE SITES Financial Benefits Reduced costs of operating one facility (lease, utilities, armoured car services, etc.) Potential for increasing net revenue distributions due to reduced operating costs and efficiencies Reduction in duplication of space requirements (secure parking, holding cells, Intake Courts, meeting rooms, etc.) Reduction in travel costs and staff time required for travelling between courthouses Possibility of enhancing court security Reduction in duplication of equipment (photocopiers, IT servers, printers, etc.) and associated maintenance contracts Elimination of duplication of court forms and stationery to meet requirements of multiple court locations Operational Benefits Improved communication among staff and between Units Improved supervision during management absences Optimal court scheduling opportunities and ability to re-assign cases between courtrooms when required Improved court scheduling of various enforcement agencies due to attendance at one courthouse Increased flexibility and improved staff coverage during staff absences or sudden shift in work volumes Increased efficiency in workload distribution among staff in each Unit No requirement to fax/transport/duplicate court records on a daily basis between courts Increased capacity to re-align workloads and reassign staff according to special demands or projects Simplified staff scheduling Greater use of prosecutorial resources between courtrooms Less travel for local enforcement agencies when charges are assigned to a specific courthouse Customer Service Benefits Reduced confusion for general public/defendants regarding court location Improved service levels to the general public due to concentration of judicial and administrative services (intake court, access to prosecution staff, etc) Ability to offer services to local defendants in a geographically dispersed region recognizing that the region consists of more than one municipality Less travel for some defendants, counsel and witnesses CONSOLIDATED COURT OPTION MULTIPLE COURT OPTION

12 DRAWBACK COMPARISON CONSOLIDATED VS. MULTIPLE SITES Financial Drawbacks Increased costs of operating multiple facilities (leases, utilities, armoured car services) Duplication of court forms and stationery to meet requirements of multiple court locations Duplication of space requirements (secure parking, holding cells, Intake Courts, meeting rooms, etc.) Additional travel costs and impact on staff time for requirement to travel between courthouses Requirement for multiple NRPS officers to provide court security Duplication of equipment (photocopiers, IT servers, printers, etc) and associated maintenance contracts Operational Drawbacks Efficient communication impacted by separation of staff between courthouses Lack of on-site supervision during management absences Inability to re-assign cases between courtrooms when required Potential for increasing travel for some enforcement agencies Less ability to ensure sufficient staff coverage during staff absences or sudden shift in work volumes Limited ability to shift workload distribution among staff in each unit Requirement to fax/transport/duplicate court records on a daily basis between courts Limited ability to re-align workloads and reassign staff according to special demands or projects Not meeting local judiciary preference for a consolidated site to simplify the judicial schedule Greater impact on prosecutorial resources due to inability to provide assistance between courtrooms and travel time Customer Service Drawbacks Potential for increasing travel for some defendants, counsel and witnesses Potential concern about loss of court services in local municipalities where service has been provided since transition CONSOLIDATED COURT OPTION Appendix 1 MULTIPLE COURT OPTION J:POA Court Facilities Long Term Accommodation Needs April docx 12