<DOC>
[DOCID: f:2910460.wais]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator DeWine.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS
STATEMENTS OF:
ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHAIR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DOUG NELSON, DIRECTOR, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, PUBLIC
BUILDINGS SERVICE, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
RUFUS KING III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, AND MEMBER, JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANNE WICKS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, D.C. COURTS AND SECRETARY, JOINT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DEWINE
Senator DeWine. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order. Today we are convening a second hearing regarding the
fiscal year 2004 budget for the District of Columbia Courts. At
our first hearing last month, there was some confusion as to
capital funds required for fiscal year 2004.
My understanding is that since that hearing the courts have
worked closely with GSA to determine their actual capital
requirements for the next 2 years. According to the court's
written testimony, $244.8 million is being requested for fiscal
year 2004. This is an increase of $38.5 million above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted budget, and $36.6 million more than
the President's budget request.
We would like to hear the witnesses today as to how they
plan to use these additional resources and how this increase
would work, including the success of the Family Court, as well
as the operations of the Superior Court. We are also interested
to learn how the court's facilities plan will be implemented in
a time line for completion of these important capital projects.
These capital projects will play a key role in providing a
safe family friendly environment as is required by the Family
Court Act.
Today our GSA witness will describe the important role his
agency will have as a project manager for the renovation and
construction of court facilities.
I'm also curious to hear how the time lines of the D.C.
Courts' construction plans compare to other courthouse
constructions in other jurisdictions.
Given the constraints of the recently passed budget
resolution, frankly, it's going to be difficult for this
subcommittee to provide the increases above the President's
request for the courts. I would like to hear from Judge Wagner
how the President's proposed budget level, which is $36.6
million below the court's request is going to affect the
court's operations.
Also, I recognize that the most significant construction
costs will occur in fiscal year 2005. I urge the courts to meet
with officials from OMB as soon as possible to ensure that the
capital costs are requested in the President's fiscal year 2005
budget request.
The witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for opening
remarks, and copies of your written statements will be placed
in the record in their entirety.
Senator Strauss has submitted a written statement to be
included in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
As the elected United States Senator for the District of Columbia,
and an attorney who practices in the family court division of our local
courts I would like to state for the record that I fully support the
fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the District of Columbia Courts. As
an elected Senator for the District of Columbia, I stand by the Court
System of District of Columbia. It is vital that the District of
Columbia Court System be fully funded in the amount asked for today.
I respect the positions of all of the witnesses that are here today
and especially know that Judges King, Wagner, and their staff have
worked hard on their budget proposal. I know that the fiscal marks that
he is testifying in support of today are what we need in order for the
D.C. Court System to continue to operate at full capacity. Since, as
the D.C. Senator, I myself cannot vote on this appropriation I am
limited to merely asking you to support his proposal.
In this hearing, the witnesses have presented the fiscal marks that
they request regarding capitol improvements requirements of the D.C.
Courts in fiscal year 2004. With the cooperation of and significant
input from General Services Administration, the D.C. Courts have come
up with a Master Plan for Facilities. This plan incorporates
significant research, analysis, and planning. I support this plan and
am happy that this subcommittee supports it as well.
However, as much as I appreciate having the support from this
subcommittee on the Master Plan for Facilities, I respectfully state
that this matter is not in the Office of Management and Budget or the
President's hands. I know that I need not remind you that Congress has
the final say over how much money is spent and it is very unlikely that
the President will veto the entire bill if more money is appropriated
on this project than is written into the President's budget. Of course,
that does not mean that Judges Wagner, King, and their staff should not
take the advice of Chairman DeWine and strongly advocate for this
project to OMB. It is still very important to have this project written
into the President's fiscal year 2005 Budget. Having it in there will
of course make it more likely that the money will be appropriated for
the project.
The District of Columbia Courts' fiscal year 2004 request is a
fiscally responsible budget that continues to build on past
achievements to meet current and future needs. Some of the needs that
will be met by the budget proposal submitted by the D.C. Courts are
enhancing public security, investing in human resources, investing in
information technology, expanding strategic planning and management,
and strengthening services to families.
Moreover, having stated the importance of fully funding the
District of Columbia Court System, I would like to emphasize the
importance of fully funding the Court's Defender Services line item. In
order to provide adequate representation to families in crisis we need
to fully fund Defender Services. All of this Committee's good work on
Family Court reform is in jeopardy without the resources to back it up.
The Family Court is an institution that must protect the District's
most vulnerable citizens--its children, as well as provide countless
other, more mundane yet important, legal functions common to every
jurisdiction. The safety of children should not and will not be
compromised due to political agendas or simple lack of funding.
Although the budget provides training for new attorneys, these children
are best served by experienced advocates. We are in danger of losing
our most experienced child advocates due to budget cuts.
Once again this year the D.C. Court System asked for an increase in
the hourly rate paid to attorneys that provide legal services to the
indigent including those attorneys that work hard to represent abused
and neglected children ad guardia and ad litems in Family Court. The
first fee increase in nearly a decade was implemented in March of 2002
when it was increased to the present rate of $65 per hour. In the
fiscal year 2004 request the Courts recommend an incremental increase
from the current $65 an hour to $75 per hour and eventually to $90 per
hour. The reason that this adjustment is so important is that the
Federal court-appointed lawyers, literally across the street already
get paid $90 an hour to do very similar work. Therefore, the disparity
in pay between the two positions creates a disincentive amongst the
``experienced'' attorneys to work for Defender Services in D.C. Court.
I call on this Subcommittee to once again eliminate this disincentive.
It was unfortunate that the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Bill that
came out of Conference and was signed into law by the President did not
include this raise that this Committee, and full Senate rightly
included into their mark up of the bill. I urge this Subcommittee to
fully fund the requested increase in the defender services line item in
the bill for fiscal year 2004 just like they did for fiscal year 2003,
and then fight vigorously to defend that mark if a conference becomes
necessary.
Senator Landrieu has stated that the District of Columbia Family
Court should be a ``showcase'' for the whole country. I firmly agree
with that statement and add that as an attorney who practices regularly
in the D.C. Family Court, I believe that it is thankfully on its way
toward being that ``showcase''. However, there is continued need for
improvement. I know that this Subcommittee has been firmly committed to
the D.C. Family Court. On behalf of my constituents I thank you for all
your hard work and dedication and I look forward to your continued
cooperation. There has been strong bipartisan support in this
Subcommittee for the D.C. Family Court. In particular, I commend
Senators DeWine and Landrieu for all the great work that they have done
on this important issue. Both of them have treated the D.C. Family
Court as if it were a court in their own States.
In the long term, a family-friendly showcase state-of-the-art
Family Court with its own identity and a separate entrance is included
in the Master Plan that the D.C. Courts and GSA have compiled. I am
also happy to see that the Master Plan takes into account the
transition from the Family Court of today to the Family Court we will
see in the future. The two-pronged approach that includes the
transition, the final step means that this plan is well thought out,
and they are ready for the money to be appropriated for this important
project.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for holding
this important hearing and Judges Wagner and King as well as Mr. Doug
Nelson, Director-Property Development, GSA for working hard on the
Master Plan for Facilities and testifying today. I urge this
Subcommittee to take the budget proposals submitted today into strong
consideration. Finally, let me take this opportunity to thank Matt
Helfant of my staff for his assistance in preparing this statement. I
look forward to further hearings on this topic and I am happy to
respond to any requests for additional information.
Senator DeWine. Judge Wagner is, of course, the Chief Judge
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. We are also
joined by Mr. Doug Nelson, Director of the Property Development
Division, Public Building Services, National Capital Region,
General Services Administration. And of course also on the
panel is Judge King, who we welcome back again as well.
Mr. Nelson, why don't we just start with you, and just tell
us where you think we are, what do we need to know.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS NELSON
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. Thank you
for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004 capital
budget request for the District of Columbia Courts. I'm Doug
Nelson and I am appearing here in my capacity of the Director
of the GSA National Capital Region's Property Development
Division. The Property Development Division is part of the GSA
Public Building Service, and we provide program and project
management services for major new construction, modernization,
lease construction, renovations, and repair and alteration
projects for Federal facilities.
Development of large, complex and technically challenging
projects of historical significance is not only part of our
Nation's legacy, but also GSA's. Our projects stand as a
testimony to the outstanding level of quality and service we
deliver to our customers.
GSA is pleased that the D.C. Courts have turned to us to
provide project management services for their projects arising
from the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. GSA has
been supporting D.C. Courts' projects ranging in scope from
planning to minor repairs and alterations to major renovation
and new construction. We are now directly involved with
projects encompassing three existing buildings and a new
parking garage, all of which are located in and around
Judiciary Square.
The projects consist of the Family Court Interim Plan,
interior renovation of Building B to house, among others, the
Small Claims Court, the Landlord-Tenant Court, and
administrative offices. It also includes the partial renovation
of approximately 30,000 occupiable square feet of the Moultrie
Courthouse John Marshall level to house part of the Family
Court; the renovation and adaptive reuse of the historic 1820's
old D.C. Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals,
including the new construction of the underground parking
garage; and expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse to meet the
space needs of the Superior Court to provide state of the art
facilities for the Family Courts.
These projects are related to one another, since room for
the Family Court is being created within the Moultrie
Courthouse by a combination of relocation of the Court of
Appeals to the Old Courthouse, the movement of the current
Moultrie occupants to Building B, and the Moultrie John
Marshall level renovation. Presently, all projects that I have
identified are underway, although each are at different stages
of completion.
The current status of each project: An 8(a) contractor has
been awarded a design-build contract for the Building B
interior renovations. The project is in the demolition phase of
construction and occupancy is scheduled for December of 2003.
The Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level renovation and
creation of new courtrooms for the Family Court is being
designed by the architectural firm Oudens and Knoop.
The architectural firm of Beyer, Blinder, Belle, architects
and planners, has recently been selected for the Old Courthouse
and the parking garage, and we are using GSA's Design
Excellence program for that selection.
The architectural firm of Gensler has been recently
selected for the Moultrie Courthouse expansion utilizing the
Design Excellence program.
For your information, I have provided individual fact
sheets for the Building B project, the Old Courthouse and
garage project, and the Moultrie Courthouse expansion project.
These fact sheets provide more detailed information on each of
the projects.
In addition to the construction projects I have described,
GSA is also working with the D.C. Courts to prepare a master
plan for Judiciary Square at the request of the National
Capital Planning Commission. A draft of this plan is scheduled
for presentation to the Commission early this summer, and
approval of this plan is essential for continued progress of
the projects.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and Senators, we look forward to working with
you throughout the appropriate appropriations process, and I
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004
capital budget request of the Courts as it relates to these
projects. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doug Nelson
Mister Chairman, Senators, thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the fiscal year 2004 capital budget request of the District of
Columbia Courts. I am Doug Nelson, and I am appearing in my capacity as
the Director of the GSA National Capital Region Property Development
Division. The Property Development Division is part of the GSA Public
Buildings Service and we provide program and project management
services for major new construction, modernization, lease construction,
renovations, and repair and alteration projects for Federal facilities.
Development of large, complex and technically challenging projects
of historical significance is not only part of our Nation's legacy, but
also GSA's. Our projects stand as testimony to the outstanding level of
quality and service we deliver to our customers.
GSA is pleased that the D.C. Courts have turned to us to provide
project management services for their projects arising from the
District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. GSA has been supporting
D.C. Courts' projects ranging in scope from planning to minor repairs
and alterations to major renovation and new construction. We are now
directly involved with projects encompassing three existing buildings
and a new parking garage, all of which are located in and around
Judiciary Square.
The projects consist of:
--Family Court Interim Plan:
--Interior renovation of Building ``B'' to house, among others, the
Small Claims Court, the Landlord-Tenant Court, and
administrative offices;
--Partial renovation of approximately 30,000 occupiable square feet
of the Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level to house
part of the Family Court;
--Renovation and adaptive reuse of the historic 1820's Old D.C.
Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals, including the
construction of a new underground parking garage; and
--Expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse to meet the space needs of the
Superior Court and to provide state of the art facilities for
the Family Court.
These projects are related to one another, since room for the
Family Court is being created within the Moultrie Courthouse by a
combination of the relocation of the Court of Appeals to the Old
Courthouse, the movement of current Moultrie occupants to Building
``B'', and the Moultrie John Marshall level renovation. Presently, all
of the projects that I have identified are underway, although each is
at a different stage of completion.
The current status of each project is:
--An 8(a) contractor has been awarded a design-build contract for the
Building ``B'' interior renovations. The project is in the
demolition phase of construction and occupancy is scheduled for
December 2003;
--The Moultrie Courthouse John Marshall level renovation and creation
of new courtrooms for the Family Court is being designed by the
architectural firm Oudens and Knoop;
--The architectural firm Beyer Blinder Belle has recently been
selected for the Old Courthouse and the parking garage
utilizing GSA's Design Excellence program; and
--The architectural firm Gensler has recently been selected for the
Moultrie Courthouse expansion utilizing the Design Excellence
program.
For your information, I have prepared individual fact sheets for
the Building ``B'' project, the Old Courthouse and garage project, and
the Moultrie Courthouse expansion project. These fact sheets provide
more detailed information on each of the projects.
In addition to the construction projects I have described, GSA is
also working with the D.C. Courts to prepare a Master Plan for
Judiciary Square at the request of the National Capital Planning
Commission. A draft of this plan is scheduled for presentation to the
Commission early this summer. Approval of this plan is essential to the
continued progress of the projects.
Mister Chairman, Senators, we look forward to working with you
throughout the appropriations process, and I thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2004 capital budget request of
the Courts as it relates to these projects. I would be pleased to
address any questions.
fact sheet.--d.c. courts building ``b'' interior renovations
Background
This project is on behalf of the D.C. Courts in accordance with the
Family Court Act of 2001. The scope of work is the renovation of the
interior of Building ``B'', located on 4th Street, NW, between E and F
Streets. Building ``B'' has three above-grade floors and an occupiable
basement totaling 68,000 OSF. Renovation of the building is being
carried out in two phases, with the building remaining partially
occupied during each phase. When the renovation project is complete,
Building ``B'' will house the Landlord-Tenant Court and the Small
Claims Court, as well as other Superior Court offices.
Current Status
The first phase of the project is currently underway. A design-
build contract was awarded to Dalco, Inc., an 8(a) construction
contractor working in conjunction with the architectural firm of Leo A
Daly. The demolition portion of the first phase is nearing completion.
The design of the new work is scheduled for completion in April 2003,
with construction to commence immediately thereafter.
--Construction Manager.--A Construction Management (CM) contract was
awarded by GSA in February 2003 for the D.C. Courts projects,
including the Building ``B'' renovation. This contract includes
management of the design and construction phases of the
project.
--Design.--Design is scheduled for completion in April 2003.
--Construction.--Construction is ongoing, with the first phase new
construction scheduled to commence in April 2003.
Milestones
Award (Design-Build).--December 2002.
Design Complete.--April 2003.
Occupancy.--December 2003.
Cost
Design & Construction.--$13,500,000 (fiscal year 2003).
M&I.--$1,500,000 (fiscal year 2003).
Total Budget.--$15,000,000 (fiscal year 2003).
Contact
Doug Nelson, Director, GSA-NCR Property Development Division.
fact sheet.--d.c. courts old d.c. courthouse and parking garage
Background
This project is on behalf of the D.C. Courts and includes the
restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic Old D.C. Courthouse in
Judiciary Square in Washington, DC. The project also includes a new
underground parking garage adjacent to the Old Courthouse with space
for approximately 250 vehicles, which will be shared with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF). Designed in 1820, the
Old Courthouse currently comprises 96,000 SF. An additional 37,000 SF
addition to the Old Courthouse is planned as part of this project,
bringing the completed total square footage to 133,000. When complete,
the building will house the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Current Status
The project is currently in the design procurement phase. An
Architect/Engineer (A/E) has been selected utilizing GSA's Design
Excellence program, and it is anticipated that the design will commence
upon award in June 2003.
--Master Plan.--A D.C. Courts Judiciary Square Master Plan is being
developed at the request of the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC). The draft report is planned for a June 6,
2003 submission to NCPC. NCPC approval of this plan is critical
to the continued progress of the project.
--Construction Manager.--A Construction Management (CM) contract was
awarded by GSA in February 2003 for the D.C. Courts projects,
including the Court of Appeals and the parking garage. This
contract includes management of the design and construction
phases of the project.
--Design.--An A/E has been selected based on technical merit, and
cost negotiations are planned to commence in early May 2003. A
single design contract will be awarded, but the A/E will
produce separate sets of construction documents for the garage
and the Courthouse.
--Construction.--The parking garage and the Old Courthouse are to be
constructed utilizing separate construction contracts.
Construction of the parking garage is planned to commence in
September 2004, with completion planned in December 2005. The
Old Courthouse construction is scheduled to begin in March 2005
and is scheduled for occupancy in March 2007.
Milestones
Design Award.--June 2003.
Design Complete.--Garage: February 2004; Courthouse: August 2004.
Construction Award.--Garage: September 2004; Courthouse: March
2005.
Garage Complete.--December 2005.
Courthouse Occupancy.--March 2007.
Remaining Cost
GSA has received fiscal year 2003 and prior year funds from the
D.C. Courts for this project. In addition, part of the garage cost is
to be funded by the USCAAF. A summary of the total projected D.C.
Courts project costs is as follows, with the remaining funds required
from the D.C. Courts:
Design.--Courthouse & Garage $5.4M (fiscal year 2003).
M&I.--Courthouse & Garage $7.3M ($1.7M in fiscal year 2003; $0.7M
in fiscal year 2004; $4.9 in fiscal year 2005).
Construction.--Courthouse & Garage $66.5M ($8.8M in fiscal year
2004; $57.7M in fiscal year 2005).
Total Cost.--$79.2M ($7.1M in fiscal year 2003; $9.5M in fiscal
year 2004; $62.6M fiscal year 2005).
Remaining D.C. Courts Funding.--$74.1M ($2.0M in fiscal year 2003;
$9.5M in fiscal year 2004; $62.6M fiscal year 2005).
Contact
Doug Nelson, Director, GSA-NCR Property Development Division.
fact sheet.--d.c. courts moultrie courthouse expansion
Background
This project is on behalf of the D.C. Courts in accordance with the
Family Court Act of 2001. The scope of work is the expansion of the H.
Carl Moultrie I Courthouse building to provide more room for the
Superior Court's Family Court and to provide space for a new Family
Services Center. The Moultrie Courthouse is located on the south side
of Judiciary Square facing Indiana Avenue, NW. The project consists of
a 74,000 SF expansion of the building consisting of a 64,000 SF
addition along the building's south side and a new 10,000 SF pavilion
located on the north side. Related projects in Judiciary Square arising
from the Family Court Act include interior renovation of D.C. Courts
Building ``B'' and the partial renovation of the Moultrie Courthouse
John Marshall level.
Current Status
The project is currently in the design procurement phase. An
Architect/Engineer (A/E) has been selected utilizing GSA's Design
Excellence program, and it is anticipated that the design will commence
upon award in August 2003.
--Master Plan.--A D.C. Courts Judiciary Square Master Plan is being
developed at the request of the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC). The draft report is planned for a June 6,
2003 submission to NCPC. NCPC approval of this plan is critical
to the continued progress of the project.
--Construction Manager.--A Construction Management (CM) contract was
awarded by GSA in February 2003 for the D.C. Courts projects,
including the Moultrie Courthouse expansion. This contract
includes management of the design and construction phases of
the project.
--Design.--An A/E has been selected based on technical merit, and
cost negotiations are planned to commence in July 2003.
--Construction.--Construction is planned to commence in May 2005.
Milestones
Design Award.--August 2003.
Design Complete.--September 2004.
Construction Award.--May 2005.
Occupancy.--June 2009.
Remaining Cost
Design.--$3,600,000 (fiscal year 2003).
M&I.--$1,200,000 (fiscal year 2003).
M&I.--$4,800,000 (fiscal year 2005).
M&I.--$950,000 (fiscal year 2008).
Construction.--$44,000,000 (fiscal year 2005).
Construction.--$7,700,000 (fiscal year 2008).
Total Remaining.--$62,300,000 ($4.8M in fiscal year 2003; $48.9M in
fiscal year 2005; $8.6M in fiscal year 2008).
Contact
Doug Nelson, Director, GSA-NCR Property Development Division.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Nelson, thank you very much. You set a
new record. You only took 4 minutes to testify.
Judge Wagner, you do not have to follow that precedent. We
will give you his extra minute. Judge Wagner, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER
Chief Judge Wagner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and
Senators. Thank you so much for this opportunity to address
further our capital improvement requirements for the District
of Columbia Courts in fiscal year 2004. For the record, I am
Annice Wagner, and I am the Chair of the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia, which is
the policy-making body for the District of Columbia Courts.
With me is Chief Judge Rufus King III, who is a member of
our Joint Committee and who is the chief judge of our trial
court, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. We also
have other staff members present with us. We have Anne Wicks,
our Executive Officer, and secretary to the Joint Committee,
and Mr. Joseph Sanchez, the Courts' Administrative Officer.
They are here to provide detailed information to the committee.
The Courts' capital funding requirements are significant,
as we know. That is because they include funding for projects
critical to maintaining, preserving and building safe and
functional courthouse facilities which are essential to meeting
the heavy demands of the administration of justice in our
Nation's capital.
Since we appeared before you, we have held several, or a
series of productive meetings with the General Services
Administration, which as you know, is the program and project
manager for the Courts' construction and renovation projects.
As with any complex construction project, we are informed that
ongoing refinement of the design, acquisition, and construction
plans have led to changes in project approaches, which affect
the Courts' capital funding request for fiscal year 2004.
Two points should be emphasized about these changes at the
outset. First, these changes do not change the timing for the
completion of the adaptation of the Old Courthouse for use by
the D.C. Court of Appeals, the Moultrie Courthouse expansion,
or the interim and final Family Court plans which will be
discussed more fully later. And second, they merely shift
capital costs from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. The
shift in timing of funding has had no impact on the
construction time line, as you have heard, and all capital
projects remain on schedule, at least as of today.
Recent studies by GSA have shown the Courts' space needs,
which will occur over the next decade, and indeed show a
current shortfall in space. To meet these needs, we have three
major approaches.
First, renovation of the Old Courthouse for readaptive use
will provide space for the District's court of last resort, the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and this will free space
in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial court operations,
including our Family Court. Second, construction of an addition
on the Moultrie Courthouse, a major portion of which will be
developed as a separately accessible state of the art Family
Court facility. And third, the future occupation of Building C,
which is adjacent to the Old Courthouse.
The readaptive use of the Old Courthouse is critical to
meeting the space needs of the entire court system. Investment
will improve efficiencies by co-locating the offices and
support facilities and provide 37,000 square feet of critically
needed space in the Moultrie building. As you know, the
Moultrie building is uniquely designed to meet the needs of the
trial court particularly, because of its secure corridors
through which many many prisoners have to go each day to the
various courtrooms within the building. It's well suited to
that.
It is also well suited to the planned addition for the
Family Court, which will be facilitated through the master
plan. This addition allows for development on C Street of a
separate Family Court entrance, with its own name appearing on
the building, which will provide a welcoming facility for
families coming to the Court in the most difficult times of
their lives, no doubt.
The Moultrie building was built in 1978 for 44 trial
judges, and today it is strained beyond its capacity in order
to accommodate 62 trial judges and 24 magistrate judges, and 9
appellate judges, as well as senior judges and support staff
for the two courts.
I would like to take the time to mention the historical and
architectural significance of Judiciary Square, which lends
dignity to the important business conducted by the Courts. The
National Capital Planning Commission is requiring the Courts to
develop a master plan for Judiciary Square, essentially an
urban design plan, before construction can begin. The D.C.
Courts are working with several stakeholders on the plan,
including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, the National Law Enforcement Museum, the Newseum, and
the Metropolitan Police Department.
The Old Courthouse is the centerpiece of Judiciary Square
and is one of the oldest buildings in the District of Columbia.
The architectural and historic significance of the building,
which was built from 1821 to 1881, led to its listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. Since it has been
vacated, thanks to the support of Congress, we have been able
to take steps to prevent its further deterioration and to begin
planning for its readaptive use.
The project will not only meet the critical needs of the
Courts by serving as the new site for the Court of Appeals, it
will also impart new life to one of the most significant
historic buildings in Washington, DC. It will meet the needs of
the Courts and it will benefit the community through an
approach of strengthening a public institution, restoring a
historic landmark, and stimulating the neighborhood's economic
activities.
There are a number of other buildings such as Buildings A,
B and C, which are in our master plan. Work is underway to move
the Superior Court's two highest volume courtrooms, small
claims and landlord-tenant, into Building B by this year's end.
This move will free much needed space in the Moultrie building,
for the development of a Family Court, which will include three
new courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, a centralized intake
facility, a family friendly waiting area, and District of
Columbia government liaison offices for Family Court matters.
The Courts are pleased to be working with GSA on these
projects, and Mr. Nelson has explained some of them to you. As
we embark on projects of the large scope envisioned by the
Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, we are particularly
pleased to have GSA's expert guidance and the guidance of the
experts whom they have hired. The master plan incorporates
significant research, analysis and planning by expert
architects, engineers and design planning.
I know that my time is short here, but there are two key
features that I want to mention about the interim Family Court
plan. During 2002, the Courts constructed and reconfigured
space in the Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate the nine new
Family Court magistrate judges and their support staff. The
Court also constructed four new hearing rooms for Family Court
magistrates hearing child abuse and neglect cases, and
renovated space for the mayor's social services liaison office.
A key element of the Family Court interim plan is the JM
level construction in the Moultrie Courthouse of three new
courtrooms and three new hearing rooms, a centralized Family
Court intake center, a family friendly child waiting area, and
a new Family Court entrance on the John Marshall Plaza. The JM
level construction will be complete in the latter part of 2004.
We are pleased to be able to report that.
There is a long-term Family Court plan, as you know. I
won't get into it right now, but I will await your questions.
It is addressed in my written testimony to the committee.
Unless these infrastructure needs are addressed, the
functional capability of the Courts will decline and the
quality of justice in the District of Columbia will be
compromised. For fiscal year 2004, we ask for $52,889,000 for
capital projects, and as you know, the bulk of the funding
needed for the master space plan will come in fiscal year 2005.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Courts'
capital budget request, and we look forward to working with you
throughout the appropriations process. Chief Judge King and I
would be pleased to address any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annice M. Wagner
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, thank you for this opportunity
to address further the capital improvement requirements of the District
of Columbia Courts in fiscal year 2004. For the record, I am Annice
Wagner, and I am appearing in my capacity as the Chair of the Joint
Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia. The
Joint Committee, as the policy-making body for the District of Columbia
Courts, has responsibility, for, among other matters, space and
facilities issues in the District of Columbia's court system.
With me this morning are Chief Judge Rufus King III, a member of
the Joint Committee and the chief judge of our trial court, the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Ms. Anne Wicks, the
Executive Officer of the Courts and Secretary to the Joint Committee,
and Mr. Joseph E. Sanchez, Jr., the Courts' Administrative Officer.
The Courts' capital funding requirements are significant because
they include necessary funding for projects critical to maintaining,
preserving and building safe and functional courthouse facilities
essential to meeting the heavy demands of the administration of justice
in our Nation's Capital. Since appearing before you on March 12, 2003,
the Courts have had a series of productive meetings with
representatives of the General Services Administration (GSA), the
agency serving as program and project managers for the Courts'
construction and renovation projects. As with any complex construction
project, we are informed that on-going refinement of the design,
acquisition and construction plans have led to changes in project
approaches which affect the Courts' capital funding requirements in
fiscal year 2004 for these multi-year projects. Two points should be
emphasized about these changes at the outset. First, these changes do
not change the timing for the completion of the readaptation of the Old
Courthouse for use by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the
Moultrie Courthouse expansion, or the interim and final Family Court
plans, which will be discussed more fully later. Second, the changes
provided to us by GSA for fiscal year 2004 merely shift some capital
costs from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. The total cost of
these projects and the GSA requirement for full funding at the
beginning of construction remain. The shift in the timing of funding
requirements has had no impact on the construction timeline, and all
capital projects remain on schedule.
facilities overview
Let me begin by outlining an inventory of the Courts' major
facilities and key features of our Master Space Plan for their use. To
administer justice in our Nation's Capital, the D.C. Courts presently
maintain 645,000 occupiable square feet of space in Judiciary Square.
Specifically, the Courts are responsible for four buildings in the
square: the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue, the Moultrie
Courthouse at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., and Buildings A and B, which
are located between 4th and 5th Streets and E and F Streets, N.W. In
addition, when the District government's payroll office vacates
Building C, the old Juvenile Court, we anticipate that it will be
returned to the Courts' inventory. Recent studies by the General
Services Administration have documented the D.C. Courts' severe space
shortage. In 2002, the Courts were short approximately 48,000 square
feet for operations, with a shortfall of 134,000 square feet projected
in the next decade.
A recently completed Master Plan for D.C. Court Facilities secured
by the GSA defined the 134,000 square foot space shortfall facing the
Courts and proposed to meet that need through three mechanisms: (1)
renovation of the Old Courthouse for readaptive use by this
jurisdiction's court of last resort, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, which will to free space in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial
court operations; (2) construction of an addition to the Moultrie
Courthouse, a major portion of which will be developed as a separately
accessible Family Court facility; and (3) the future occupation of
Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse.
The restoration and readaptive use of the Old Courthouse for the
District of Columbia's highest court, the Court of Appeals, is pivotal
to meeting the space needs of the court system. Investment in the
restoration of the Old Courthouse will improve efficiencies by co-
locating the offices that support the Court of Appeals and by providing
37,000 square feet of critically needed space for Superior Court and
Family Court functions in the Moultrie Courthouse. The Moultrie
Courthouse is uniquely designed to meet the needs of a busy trial
court. It has three separate and secure circulation systems--for the
judges, the public, and the large number of prisoners present in the
courthouse each day. Built in 1978 for 44 trial judges, today it is
strained beyond capacity to accommodate 62 trial judges and 24
magistrate judges in the trial court and 9 appellate judges, as well as
senior judges and support staff for the two courts. Essential District
criminal justice and social service agencies also occupy office space
in the Moultrie Courthouse. It is needless to say that the Courts have
outgrown the space available in the Moultrie building. The space is
inadequate for this high volume court system to serve the public in the
heavily populated metropolitan area in and around our Nation's Capital.
The Courts require well-planned and adequate space to ensure efficient
operations in a safe and healthy environment.
The historical and architectural significance of Judiciary Square
lends dignity to the important business conducted by the Courts and at
the same time complicates somewhat any efforts to modernize or alter
the structures. Judiciary Square is of keen interest to the Nation's
Capital. The National Capital Planning Commission is requiring that the
Courts develop a Master Plan for Judiciary Square--essentially, an
urban design plan--before construction can be commenced in the area.
The D.C. Courts are working with all stakeholders on the Plan,
including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the
National Law Enforcement Museum, the Newseum, and the Metropolitan
Police Department.
The Old Courthouse, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary
Square, is one of the oldest buildings in the District of Columbia.
Inside the Old Courthouse, Daniel Webster and Francis Scott Key
practiced law, and John Surratt was tried for his part in the
assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The architectural and
historical significance of the Old Courthouse, built from 1821 to 1881,
led to its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its
designation as an official project of Save America's Treasures. The
structure is uninhabitable in its current condition and requires
extensive work to meet health and safety building codes and to readapt
it for use as a courthouse. Since it has been vacated, thanks to the
support of Congress, we have been able to take steps to prevent its
further deterioration. This project will not only meet the critical
needs of the Courts by serving as the new site for the Court of
Appeals; it will also impart new life to one of the most significant
historic buildings in Washington, DC. It will meet the needs of the
Courts and benefit the community through an approach that strengthens a
public institution, restores a historic landmark, and stimulates
neighborhood economic activity.
Buildings A, B, and C, dating from the 1930's, are situated
symmetrically along the view corridor comprised of the National
Building Museum, the Old Courthouse, and John Marshall Park and form
part of the historic, formal composition of Judiciary Square. These
buildings have been used primarily as office space in recent years,
with a number of courtrooms in operation in Building A. Work is
underway to move the Superior Court's two highest volume courtrooms,
Small Claims and Landlord and Tenant, into Building B by year's end.
This move will free much needed space in the Moultrie Building for
development of the Family Court, which will include three new
courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, a centralized intake facility, a
family-friendly waiting area and District liaison offices for Family
Court matters.
The H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse, built in the 1970's, while not
historic, is also located along the view corridor and reinforces the
symmetry of Judiciary Square through its similar form and material to
the municipal building located across the John Marshall Plaza.
Currently the Moultrie Courthouse provides space for most Court of
Appeals, Superior Court, and Family Court operations and clerk's
offices, as previously described.
The Courts have been working with GSA on a number of our capital
projects since fiscal year 1999, when we assumed responsibility for our
capital budget from the District's Department of Public Works. In 1999,
GSA produced a study for the renovation and readaptive use of the Old
Courthouse. Later, in 2001, GSA prepared Building Evaluation Reports
that assessed the condition of the D.C. Courts' facilities. These
projects culminated in the development of the first Master Plan for
D.C. Courts Facilities, which delineates the Courts' space requirements
and provides a blueprint for optimal space utilization, both in the
near and long term.
As we embark on projects of the large scope envisioned by the
Master Plan for Facilities, we are particularly pleased to have the
General Services Administration and its teams of construction and
procurement experts working with us. We appreciate GSA's presence and
participation this morning to provide detailed information on these
projects that are so important to the administration of justice in our
Nation's Capital.
master plan for facilities
The Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities incorporates significant
research, analysis, and planning by experts in architecture, urban
design and planning. During this study GSA analyzed the Courts' current
and future space requirements, particularly in light of the
significantly increased space needs of the Family Court. The Master
Plan examined such critical issues as: alignment of court components to
meet evolving operational needs and enhance efficiency; the impact of
the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law Number 107-114);
accommodation of space requirements through 2012; and planning to
upgrade facilities, including, for example, security,
telecommunications, and mechanical systems. The Plan identified a space
shortfall for the Courts over the next decade of 134,000 occupiable
square feet, and proposed to meet that need through three approaches:
(1) renovation of the Old Courthouse for readaptive use by the D.C.
Court of Appeals, which will free space in the Moultrie Courthouse for
trial court operations; (2) construction of an addition to the Moultrie
Courthouse, to meet the needs of the Family Court; and (3) reoccupation
of Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse. In addition, the Plan
determined that other court facilities must be modernized and upgraded
to meet health and safety standards and to function more efficiently.
family court in the master plan
Interim Family Court Space Plan
The Master Plan incorporates an Interim Space Plan for the Family
Court that provides the facilities necessary to fully implement the
Family Court Act, as well as a long term plan that optimizes space and
programmatic enhancements for the Family Court. The Interim Space Plan
for Family Court will be complete in the fall of 2004. As this Interim
Space Plan proceeds towards completion, procedural changes have been
implemented within the Family Court to meet the requirements of the
Family Court Act. I believe Mr. Nelson from GSA plans to describe the
status of the Interim Plan, which was detailed in the Family Court's
April 5, 2002 Transition Plan. Therefore, I will mention only briefly
the essential components of the Interim Plan.
--During fiscal year 2002 the Courts constructed and reconfigured
space in the Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate the nine new
Family Court magistrate judges and their support staff. The
Courts also constructed four new hearing rooms for Family Court
magistrate judges hearing child abuse and neglect cases, and
renovated space for the Mayor's Services Liaison Office.
--A key element of the Family Court Interim Space Plan is the JM-
level construction in the Moultrie Courthouse of three new
courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, the Mayor's Services
Liaison Office, a Centralized Family Court Filing and Intake
Center, a family-friendly child waiting area, and a new Family
Court entrance from the John Marshall Plaza to the Moultrie
Courthouse. In addition, the corridors and hallways along the
courthouse's JM-level will be redesigned and upgraded to create
family-friendly seating and waiting areas.
As stated previously, the JM-level construction will be complete in
the latter part of 2004, marking the implementation of the Interim
Plan. When the renovation of the first floor of Building B is complete
(fall 2003), the Small Claims and Landlord & Tenant courts and clerk's
offices will be relocated from the JM level of the Moultrie Courthouse
to Building B, and Family Court construction will begin on the JM
level.
Long Term Plan
The long term plan includes expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse.
Once complete, it will provide a state-of-the-art, family-friendly
facility for Family Court operations, with its own identity and
separate entrance, which will be a model for the Nation. We envision a
safe facility designed to alleviate the inevitable stresses on the
families who come to the courthouse seeking justice. We want the Family
Court to be inviting and welcoming to families with small children, to
families with teenagers, to all families. We envision a customer-
friendly facility that incorporates the ``one-stop'' concept by
locating all related court units in one place and making it easier for
families to access needed social services from D.C. government
agencies. The interim Family Court plans are designed to transition
smoothly into this long term plan and to maximize the efficient use of
time and money.
capital funding in fiscal year 2004
To permit the Courts to continue to meet the needs of the community
and the demands confronting the District's judicial branch, adequate
resources are essential. The most critical issue we face today is
sufficient capital funding to address the Courts' severe space shortage
and aging infrastructure. Only by investing in these critical areas
will the Courts be in a position to ensure that the type of security
necessary to protect our citizens and our institution is in place, and
that our facilities are in a safe and healthy condition and reasonably
up-to-date. Unless infrastructure needs are addressed, the functional
capability of the Courts will decline and the quality of justice in the
District of Columbia will be compromised.
Based on figures from GSA, which reflect the current approach to
our major construction projects, the Courts' capital budget request for
fiscal year 2004 is $52,889,000, comprised of the following projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtrooms and Judges Chambers........................ $1,950,000
HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades................ 16,220,000
Restoration of Old Courthouse (complete garage 4,519,000
construction)........................................
Restroom Improvements................................. 1,100,000
Elevator and Escalator................................ 2,000,000
Fire and Security Alarm Systems....................... 6,500,000
General Repair Projects............................... 7,740,000
Moultrie Courthouse Expansion......................... 1,200,000
Master Plan Implementation--Development Studies....... 550,000
Integrated Justice Information System................. 11,110,000
-----------------
Total........................................... 52,889,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA has been working with us on the two major, multi-year projects
to provide the majority of the additional space needed to meet the
134,000 occupiable square feet deficit identified in the Master Plan
for facilities: Restoration of the Old Courthouse and Expansion of the
Moultrie Courthouse. Over the next 2 fiscal years, 2004 and 2005, these
projects will require $117 million. As both projects are currently in
the design procurement phase, GSA will require the majority of these
funds in fiscal year 2005, when the major construction contracts are
finalized. In addition, to implement future projects required by the
Master Plan, development studies will be needed in fiscal year 2004;
these have been added to our capital budget request. I understand that
Mr. Nelson from GSA plans to provide more detail on the current status
of these projects.
Restoration of the Old Courthouse will provide space for the D.C.
Court of Appeals, the District's court of last resort. Restoring this
historic landmark will help meet the urgent space needs of the
appellate court and the entire court system and will preserve the rich
history of this building for future generations. When the Court of
Appeals vacates its current space in the Moultrie Courthouse,
approximately 37,000 square feet will become available for Superior
Court and Family Court operations. The Old Courthouse project includes:
restoration of the Greek Revival building; construction of additional
underground office and courtroom space, and a new entrance to the north
on E Street; and, as authorized by Public Law 106-492, construction of
a secure parking facility to be shared with and connected to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which is adjacent to the Old
Courthouse.
The Moultrie Courthouse Expansion is comprised mainly of additions
presently planned for the south side (C Street) and Indiana Avenue
entrance of the courthouse. The C Street addition will result in the
expansion of five floors in the Moultrie building. The ground level
floors of the addition will enhance the Family Court by providing a new
courthouse entrance solely for Family Court, additional child
protection mediation space, increased Child Care Center space, and safe
and comfortable family-friendly waiting areas. The C Street addition
also will permit the Courts to consolidate family-related operations in
one central location, including juvenile probation functions and
District government social service agencies that provide needed
services to families and children in crisis. The upper level floors of
the addition will meet critical space needs for other Superior Court
operations.
The remainder of the Courts' fiscal year 2004 capital budget
request includes funding to: continue the implementation of the
Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS); enhance the security,
health and safety of the public using court facilities; and maintain
our deteriorating infrastructure. These important projects were
discussed in my March 12th testimony, and their funding requirements
remain as originally submitted.
conclusion
Mister Chairman, Senators, again, thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the Courts' capital budget request. We look forward to working
with you throughout the appropriations process. Chief Judge King, Ms.
Wicks, Mr. Sanchez, and I would be pleased to address any questions.
Senator DeWine. Judge, thank you very much. Let me start by
asking, to carry out this plan, you've got a real spike up in
costs next year, 2005, and this is just not going to happen,
frankly, unless the President puts it in his budget. We all
know that. What has been your communication with OMB about
this?
Chief Judge Wagner. Good question. While I have not have
had any recent communication with OMB about this, what I was
told was, it is not a question of whether funding will be
recommended for one of the first phases, which is the
readaptive use of 451 Indiana Avenue, the Old Courthouse, but a
question of when. We have shared our master plan in a full
briefing in May, I mean our staff has done that. In terms of
the principals meeting with the leadership of OMB, that's a
different matter. They are always made aware of our budget
requests and what the purpose of the capital funding is, and
our staff briefed them in a full briefing in May.
Senator DeWine. What kind of reaction did your staff get?
Chief Judge Wagner. Well, that's a good question, and I
might ask Ms. Wicks to respond to that. But the reaction that
I've gotten has always been it's not a question of if, it's a
question of when, and we know that the country has other needs,
but this country always preserves its historic treasures, its
symbols of its democracy, and in this case it can be used for
that purpose. So if that phase gets off the ground, we have the
Family Court support, I think that we can all accomplish this
if we work together over the next few years.
Senator DeWine. Why don't you step up and identify yourself
for the record.
Ms. Wicks. I am Anne Wicks, the Courts' Executive Officer.
We briefed the Congressional staff in May, a full briefing of
our plans. We also, in October, did our fiscal year 2004 budget
submission to OMB, and did a full briefing.
Senator DeWine. That was when?
Ms. Wicks. In October of this past year. At that time, OMB
felt that we weren't quite far enough along in the planning and
study for the capital projects. Since that time, as you all are
aware, we have completed the D.C. Courts' Master Plan for
Facilities, at the first of this year, which has been provided
to OMB. We are now at the point where we are nearly complete
with the Judiciary Square Master Plan, the first draft of that
plan will actually be presented in part tomorrow to the
National Capital Planning Commission.
So we're at the point now where OMB should have information
so that they feel we are very far along, and we are setting up
a meeting with OMB and GSA representatives to go through and
show them that we do have detailed plans at this point.
Senator DeWine. That's going to be at what level?
Ms. Wicks. Well, we will be meeting with Mark Schwartz, who
is the branch chief, and then after we brief him, I would hope
that he would help us set up something, as far as meetings
which will help us with this.
Senator DeWine. Well, I can't say this in--there aren't
strong enough words for me to urge you, Judge Wagner, Judge
King, you're going to have to go sell this. It is not going to
happen unless OMB is on board. It does not make me particularly
happy that they have that much power, but that is what the
facts are. If the Administration does not come forward next
year with this in their budget, it will not happen. This is a
chunk of money.
Now, I happen to support it, I think it's very important, I
think you have a plan, I think it's a viable plan, I think it's
essential for the future of the District of Columbia, the court
system. But if you don't sell it to OMB and sell it to the
Administration, it will not happen. Would you like to comment
on that?
Chief Judge Wagner. That's an excellent reminder, Senator,
and I appreciate that, and I guess my experience in the past
has been consistent with what you just stated, and we will make
every effort to make that happen at the executive branch.
Senator DeWine. Okay. I mean, it's just not going to
happen, GSA can't make it happen, and unless it comes up to the
level in that budget, it's just not going to happen. So, it
needs to come up here with the Administration strongly behind
it for it to have any chance of being done.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
And you know, that's where we have a major thrust on this,
I believe is 2005, isn't it? We're talking about how much money
in 2005, Mr. Nelson?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, in fiscal year 2005 for the D.C.
courthouse project, we're looking at $62.6 million, and for the
Moultrie Courthouse expansion, we're looking at $48.9 million,
for fiscal year 2005.
Senator DeWine. Now if you don't get that, what happens?
Chief Judge Wagner. For the capital budget request?
Senator DeWine. Right, what Mr. Nelson just said.
Chief Judge Wagner. Well, I don't think that, if you're
talking about for 2004, I'd like to----
Senator DeWine. I'm talking about 2005. I mean, what I'm
saying is you have to be worried, I'm worried about 2004, but
I'm also saying, they're thinking about 2005 now. They have
already submitted 2004. You know, you need to be on dual
tracks, you need to be worried about 2004, but you also need to
be worried with OMB about 2005, and unless you start to make
the case with people at OMB who are going to be ultimately
deciding your fate and unless somebody--you know, you need to
get out there, you need to be traveling around with them, you
need to be showing them around. You need them to see your
vision and unless they get it, it's pretty easy to say well,
that's just a lot of money and we can't do it.
Chief Judge Wagner. Senator, we're going to work on that,
and I'm glad you reminded us. We have done this type of
strategy before, and I think that we can get support from the
White House and OMB.
Senator DeWine. Well, I pray that you can but I just want
to put it into perspective. $118 million would be one-fourth of
the entire District of Columbia Subcommittee, our
subcommittee's allocation. Now think about that. Now I'm for
you, I am for it. You don't have to sell Mike DeWine and I
don't think you have to sell Mary Landrieu. Don't spend your
time worrying about us.
Go talk to the Administration. Go talk to OMB. Spend a lot
of time talking to them.
Chief Judge Wagner. We will do that, and we appreciate your
support.
Senator DeWine. I'm for you, it has to get done. If it
doesn't get done now, it will have to get done later. We have
kids to worry about, we have projects to deal with, it has to
get done, but you have to go sell them.
Let me move to a more immediate problem, and that is soon
enough, but let me move to a more immediate problem. Given that
the President's budget request is $36.6 million less than what
you are requesting, what are we going to do, or what are you
going to do if we can't deliver that money for you and if you
end up with, this subcommittee and this Congress ends up giving
you exactly what the President has requested? And that, let me
just tell you, is a distinct possibility. I'm not happy to tell
you that.
Judge King, Judge Wagner, let's just assume that you get
what the President says you should get. So that's 36, by my
calculation, $36.6 million less than you want, or maybe a
better way of saying that is less than you requested. I'm sure
you want more than that, but less than you requested. So what
gets cut?
Chief Judge Wagner. Well, I am saying it would have a
significant impact on some critical areas.
Senator DeWine. Well, tell me what.
Chief Judge Wagner. The Moultrie building has about 10,000
people coming through it every day. Since September 11th
everyone has been concerned about safety and security, as we
have. A part of the funding that we have requested, which we
would not be able to do if the President's numbers were enacted
would be to increase the number of court security officers for
our court building. We would not be able to finance other
facilities, security improvements, which are detailed in our
study, that is the monitors, the audio-video devices, the types
of things that you need to upgrade security in these kind of
uncertain times.
We need to invest in our implementation of the IJIS system,
Integrated Justice Information System, and some $4 million we
would not have in order to do that. We wouldn't be able to
enhance our strategic planning which is going to guide our
progress over the next 5 years. We wouldn't be able to invest
further in accurately creating trial records, which is critical
to a court of record. We asked for $1,624,000 to improve the
record of court proceedings. Those are just some of the items
that we have requested that I think are critical to our
functioning in the next fiscal year.
Senator DeWine. Well, I think it would be helpful for this
subcommittee if you prepared--I know we have just hit you with
this orally, but I think today--well, you have obviously seen
the President's budget before today, but we're going to need
from you, and if we are able to see if this is what you end up
with, we need to see a more detailed description of where
you're going to go.
Chief Judge Wagner. I'm sorry?
Senator DeWine. I need to see a more detailed description
of where you want to go, assuming that's what you end up with.
Chief Judge Wagner. We will be glad to submit that.
Senator DeWine. Why don't you submit that for us please.
What were your discussions with OMB in regard to your, the
2004 budget preparation? I'm looking at this pretty significant
cut. What were your discussions with OMB?
Chief Judge Wagner. I think Ms. Wicks could answer that.
Senator DeWine. I would be interested in what kind of input
they had from you.
Ms. Wicks. We provided them with a full budget submission
as we provided to Congress, detailing all of our budgetary
needs. We also provided them with studies and reports that
supported various parts of our budget request.
Senator DeWine. Did you have face-to-face contact with
them? Did you do interviews with them? I'm interested in the
process.
Ms. Wicks. I understand. I can't recall specifically this
past October, whether we did sit down with and meet with them
and walk through the budget. We had done face to face meetings
with them over the summer for the capital request and the space
planning. I can't recall, once we hit the fall and submitted
the full request. I believe at the time OMB had already started
the process; I think the President had speeded up the process
for them this year because of other issues, and so I think they
were very far along by the time we met with them.
Senator DeWine. Who would they have dealt with, you?
Ms. Wicks. They would have dealt with me and our Fiscal
Officer and staff in our offices.
Senator DeWine. Well, you would have remembered if they had
talked to you, wouldn't you?
Ms. Wicks. Well, I have so many meetings in a day, I don't
recall sitting down face to face with them at the time we
submitted the budget, but I do recall face to faces prior to
that.
Senator DeWine. Do you recall talking to them on the phone?
Ms. Wicks. Absolutely.
Senator DeWine. What were they interested in?
Ms. Wicks. They were interested in more detailed plans and
reports on the facilities issues. We had several telephone
conversations in October trying to appeal the President's
budget and talking through what we felt were priority issues
for the year for reconsideration on appeal. Our focus was
security issues, facility issues primarily, for the courthouse.
We sent over security studies, the U.S. Marshals Service had
done surveys and studies of our building because they provide
primary security in the building. And we provided as much
information as we could--we sent over a box of reports and
information during the appeal process. We tried to talk through
with them what we felt about the importance of the issues.
And we actually, I recall being advised by them that the
Courts should consider themselves lucky because we did get a
slight increase in the President's budget compared to the 2003
level, where other agencies got nothing or got cut, so that was
their response to us.
Senator DeWine. Well, as I said, Judge, I'm interested in
getting from you a summary, at least, of where you would make
your cuts in regard to your proposal versus the President's
funding level.
Chief Judge Wagner. We will submit that for you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The information follows:]
D.C. COURTS CAPITAL REQUEST, FISCAL YEAR 2004--PRELIMINARY ADJUSTMENTS FROM COURTS' REQUEST TO PRESIDENT'S
RECOMMENDATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courts' Preliminary President's
Request Adjustments Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtrooms and Judges Chambers.................................. $1,950,000 .............. $1,950,000
HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades.......................... 16,220,000 ($7,450,000) 8,770,000
Restoration of Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue............. 4,519,000 .............. 4,519,000
Restroom Improvements........................................... 1,100,000 .............. 1,100,000
Elevator and Escalator.......................................... 2,000,000 (1,000,000) 1,000,000
Fire and Security Alarm Systems................................. 6,500,000 (6,500,000) ..............
General Repair Projects......................................... 7,740,000 .............. 7,740,000
Moultrie Courthouse Expansion................................... 1,200,000 (1,200,000) ..............
Master Plan Implementation--Development Studies................. 550,000 .............. 550,000
Integrated Justice Information System........................... 11,110,000 (5,088,000) 6,022,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 52,889,000 (21,238,000) 31,651,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPARISON OF COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Senator DeWine. Thank you. Mr. Nelson, let me ask you, if
you look at construction plans for the Courts in the District
of Columbia, how does that compare with the courthouse
construction plans in other States or other cities? Is that
possible to compare them? I know this is kind of maybe in some
respects more complex, at least to me it looks complex.
Mr. Nelson. That's a good question, and it depends how
complex the courts projects are, but in the size that we're
dealing with, a design time frame for court projects usually is
about 14 to 18 months, and then construction depending on the
size, is about 24 months to 36 months, 2 years to 3 years for
construction.
This is complex for the Moultrie Courthouse because of the
additions that we're doing. You have an occupied building that
we will be dealing with. We tried to work on the schedules for
the projects so we could fine tune them where we get them done
as quickly as we could, because they were stressing the need
that they needed for the project, and I think we have a
realistic schedule for the design for the Old D.C. Courthouse
and for the Moultrie Courthouse.
PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
Senator DeWine. So the summary, though, would be what? This
doesn't look out of the ordinary?
Mr. Nelson. No, it does not look out of the ordinary. For
the renovation work for D.C. Courts, it looks like it fits in
line with what we would be doing for a renovation projects. And
then for the additions that we're doing for Moultrie, they look
in line with the time frame for other projects.
Senator DeWine. This looks like a big chunk in one year.
Why is that? Why is there such a big chunk in 2005? Can that be
dealt with in some other way or is that just the way, is that
the way that it's preferred to deal with? Explain that to me.
Who prefers to deal with it that way, is that the courts or is
that you?
Mr. Nelson. I think it's how the master plan has been laid
out.
Senator DeWine. But why was it laid out that way, is my
question. Whose preference is it?
Mr. Nelson. Well, it's the Courts' preference for how
they're going to be moving people while the renovation gets
completed, and then when the work gets done in Moultrie
Courthouse, so there is a domino effect between those two
buildings for moving people around.
Senator DeWine. Maybe I wasn't clear. Could you spread that
money out over time, is my question. For budget purposes, could
you spread that out?
Mr. Nelson. For awarding construction projects, you have to
have all your construction funds in the fiscal year that you
make the award. And right now, both of those projects are
scheduled.
Senator DeWine. Is that your rule?
Mr. Nelson. It is a requirement in OMB Circular A-11,
insstructions for preparing the budget.
Senator DeWine. OMB's rule.
So that's what we're dealing with?
Mr. Nelson. Yes.
Senator DeWine. So you have to have funds before you start
the project?
Mr. Nelson. Yes.
Senator DeWine. That's not your problem, it's our problem.
Mr. Nelson. Yes.
Senator DeWine. And then they have to live with that
basically.
Mr. Nelson. Yes.
Senator DeWine. All right, thank you all very much. Does
anybody have any other comments? Judge Wagner.
Chief Judge Wagner. I just want to thank you again for your
support, for holding this hearing, for working with us on this,
and we will try to work on that other branch to get help.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator DeWine. Well, you work on them. Go sell.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]