By Gary Blankenship
Senior Editor

Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, made it very clear.

At a December 7 meeting of the Senate Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations Committee, Fasano, who chairs that panel, continually criticized the cost of the First District Court of Appeal’s new courthouse in Tallahassee. He had toured the building the day before the meeting.

Fasano, who acknowledges he unwittingly voted for its construction, called the building way too expensive and ornate for a structure that will rarely be used by the public. During the meeting, he called for a comparison of the facility with those used by other DCAs and also suggested that the Supreme Court might want to take over the new building. Plus, the senator said there was also an additional $4 million expense related to selling construction bonds that has not been figured into the total cost of the building. That brings the final cost to more than $52 million, not the more than $48 million reported earlier.

He noted the building has two courtrooms, along with related robing and conference rooms, which make extensive use of African mahogany. The mahogany also is used throughout the building.

“I’d like to know how often do they meet in one [courtroom] to hear arguments instead of just reviewing briefs,” Fasano said. “I’d like to know if there’s a necessity for two courtrooms and two robing rooms and two conference rooms.”

He also said that the courthouse was built to accommodate 18 judges, even though the court currently has only 15 (which makes it the largest DCA in the state), adding it’s unlikely the Legislature will approve any new judges for the court anytime soon.

Most of the financing for the courthouse came in a 2007 appropriation that was part of a bond issue and provided $33.5 million for the construction. But Fasano said costs related to issuing the bonds means the state had to sell $37.5 million of bonds to get the $33.5 million in construction funds — an expense overlooked in other analyses of the building’s cost.

Built With Bonds
In response to questions from Fasano, Claude Hendon, a staffer for the committee, said this is the only appellate facility in the state in memory that has been built with bonds instead of being directly funded by the Legislature through the courts’ capital projects budget. And other than the Second DCA’s branch office in Tampa, it’s the only facility the courts will pay rent to use. It will also be managed by the Department of Management Services, not the court system.

Fasano noted the $17 per square foot rent paid by the First DCA (the rate is set by DMS at an amount needed to pay back all the bonds in its building program) won’t cover the actual borrowing costs for the First DCA, and that’s despite getting $5.5 million in cash from the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund to help pay the construction costs. (That expenditure was justified at the time because the First DCA has exclusive jurisdiction to hear workers’ comp appeals.)

Can it House Other Court Employees?
Fasano said he wants all options considered on using the building, including finishing the unoccupied extra judicial offices to house other court staff. At one point he suggested asking “the Supreme Court if they’d like to move over there.”

“I think all options should be on the table and I think it’s important that we use every square foot of that building to the betterment of the taxpayer and the tax dollar,” Fasano said. “I think the key right now is to make sure it never happens again and to make sure we are using that building to the best advantage of the taxpayers.”

Sen. John Thrasher, R-Jacksonville, asked who managed the construction and who would be overseeing the building. Hendon said that would be DMS in both cases.

Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, said he wanted to look at the engineering and architectural costs for the project, which exceeded $2 million. “The architect and engineer have zero reason to bring the cost down because they get paid a percentage of the total cost,” he said.

The committee meets again early in January and Fasano said he plans to take testimony from those knowledgeable about the project, although he noted the committee cannot compel anyone to appear.

Fasano said he wanted to see a comparison between the new First DCA courthouse and other DCA courthouses around the state in terms of size, number of employees, amenities, and other features. He noted that the First DCA building has about 1,000 square feet of space per employee — far exceeding the state guidelines.

How the DCAs Stack Up
A comparison with other DCAs shows that the new building is by far the largest. But its amenities are not unknown in the other appellate courthouses, although those in the First DCA tend to be larger and more ornate.

Here’s how the courthouses stack up:

• The new First DCA courthouse has 106,000 square feet, 105 employees, and 15 judges. (Its former home had 50,000 square feet.) The Second DCA has 47,300 square feet in its Lakeland headquarters and rented annex in Tampa, 96.5 employees, and 14 judges. The total square footage does not include the Tampa courtroom which the court shares with the Stetson Law School (where it rents its office space), or the shared law library there and some shared common areas. The Third DCA has more than 49,000 square feet, 63 employees, and 10 judges. The Fourth DCA has 41,000 square feet, 65 employees and 12 judges. The Fifth DCA has 59,000 square feet, 72 employees and 10 judges.

Fifth DCA Marshal Ty Berdeaux said it can be misleading to compare courtrooms to other state buildings in terms of square footage per employee. He noted that the courthouses must have a courtroom and need extensive storage for records and case files, and have to house a law library and a lawyers’ lounge. “It’s not like other government buildings,” he said. “There’s a lot of space an appellate courthouse has to have.”

• The new First DCA courthouse has two courtrooms, a large one on the third floor and a smaller one on the second floor. Every other DCA courthouse has one courtroom, except for the Second DCA which has one at its Lakeland headquarters and a shared one at its (rented) Tampa branch office.

• The First DCA has covered parking under the building for judges, something that Fasano questioned although it has been defended as a security issue. The other DCAs also have covered parking, although it ranges from carport-type structures at a some of the courthouses to in-building parking at others.

• Fasano was critical of a rubber-floored exercise area in the new First DCA, which he referred to as a gymnasium. But other DCAs also have exercise areas. But all are ad hoc, set up in storage areas or mechanical rooms and using donated equipment. Second DCA Marshal Jo Haynes Suhr noted the Lakeland courthouse has a donated treadmill in a storage area — which used to be part of the law library until budget cuts forced the court to reduce the size of its library.

• Fasano also noted that the First DCA “gymnasium” had an attached shower room and wondered how common that was. All of the other DCAs reported having showers although they were part of restrooms. Most reported one or two showers for each gender, with the exception of the Third DCA, which has separate showers in seven of its judicial suites.

• The private bathrooms for judges at the First DCA also have garnered attention. They include a toilet, a mahogany medicine cabinet, and a marble-topped small vanity with sink, in a space about the size, or perhaps a little larger, of a bathroom in a typical home. Every other DCA, with the exception of the Second DCA’s Tampa branch courthouse, also include bathrooms for judges, although smaller. Suhr noted the Second DCA’s bathrooms are four by six feet — less than half the size of the First DCA’s. Third DCA Marshal Al Sadowski said the small judicial bathrooms there each have a toilet and a sink bolted to the wall.

• Fasano also criticized the kitchens in each judicial suite, which feature a sink and a long, marble-topped counter over painted cabinets. The Second and Third DCAs do not have kitchens in the judicial suites. The Fourth and Fifth DCAs do have kitchen “areas.” Berdeaux noted that at the Fifth DCA the kitchens amount to a nook with a small microwave and a sink and cabinet purchased from a supplier of those amenities for recreational vehicles.

• In appearance, there is little in common between the new First DCA courthouse and other DCA courthouses. Those are one or two story structures where any columns appear to be almost symbolic, while the First DCA features large columns inside and outside of its three-story home. None of the others include domes, which is an architectural highlight of the First DCA structure. Second DCA Marshal Suhr joked that part of the Lakeland headquarters’ security plan is that the building is so nondescript that no one notices it or remembers where it is.

The new First DCA courthouse does have something in common with another state appellate building — the Supreme Court. It also apparently endured a controversy over cost when it was built in 1948. A section of the Supreme Court’s website reports:

“The price of the building in 1948 was a mere $1.7 million, which was considered ‘steep’ at the time. In fact, there was public controversy about the amount at the time. Today it is doubtful whether the marble columns alone could be commissioned for that amount.”