VILLAGE AND TOWN OF RED HOOK

JUSTICE COURT SHARED SERVICES/CONSOLIDATION DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY

ag. re~ Siarane ot = y ‘ nS) J ae N || Sete se eioad —- — _. Pla ameim a rz Py See ii s he eer Ss i mn fi . ¥/ \O = lo RED HOOK, Ny TOWN AND VILLAGE OF RED HOOK June, 2021

VILLAGE AND TOWN OF RED HOOK JUSTICE COURT SHARED SERVICES & CONSOLIDATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

==> picture [95 x 110] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Prepared by: asfp.GS Drive West + Albany, New www.labergegroup.com ----- End of picture text -----

This report was prepared with funds provided by the Dutchess County Municipal Consolidation and Shared Services Grant Program

© 2021 Laberge Group 4 Computer Drive West Albany, New York 12205 Laberge Group Project Number 2019095

Table of Contents

I. SUMMARY............................................................................................................................1 Why Consider Consolidation or Sharing of Facilities and Services in the Justice Courts? ............ 1 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................ 2 Summary of Fiscal Analysis .............................................................................................................. 7 II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................8 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Municipal Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 8 How do Town and Village Justice Courts Share Services? .............................................................. 9 What is the Process of Dissolving a Village Court in New York State? ........................................... 9 Study Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 10 Overview of the Justice Court System ............................................................................................ 11 Domain and Case Activity of the Justice Courts in NYS ................................................................ 11 Justice Court Governance and Finance .......................................................................................... 12 Pertinent Restructuring Law and Procedures .................................................................................. 14 Changes in the Justice Court System ............................................................................................. 14 III. COURT OPERATIONS REVIEW .................................................................................. 16 Court Functions............................................................................................................................... 16 Court Locations ............................................................................................................................... 16 Local View on Justice Court Restructuring Options ..................................................................... 17 Types of Cases and Caseloads ......................................................................................................... 18 Court Justices and Staff .................................................................................................................. 20 Court Session Schedules .................................................................................................................. 23 Justice Court Office Access and Operations .................................................................................. 24 Justice Court Stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 26 Electronic File, Docket and Receipts Management System and Records Management................ 27 Justice Court Security ..................................................................................................................... 29 Consolidated Justice Court Model - Village Justice Court Activities Post Abolishment .............. 29 IV. FISCAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 30

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page i

Table of Contents

Justice Court Revenues and Costs .................................................................................................. 30 Revenues ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Expenditures ................................................................................................................................. 31 Net Cost of Justice Courts to Property Taxpayers .......................................................................... 31 Fiscal Impact of Co-location/Shared Services and Consolidation of the Justice Courts ............... 32 V. COURT FACILITIES ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 35 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 35 Court Facility Observations and Improvement Considerations .................................................... 36 VI. GRANT OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................. 40 Grant Opportunities........................................................................................................................ 40 Key Dates ......................................................................................................................................... 41

TABLES & FIGURES Table 1: Summary of Fiscal Impact of Consolidated Court and Shared Services Courts. .......................... 7 Table 2: Municipal Characteristics Summary ........................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Justice Court Cases for the Town and Village by Type of Case ................................................ 19 Table 4: Justice Court Staff.................................................................................................................... 20 Table 5: Justice Court Office Hours ....................................................................................................... 24 Table 6: Justice Court Revenues ............................................................................................................ 30 Table 7: Justice Court Expenditures ....................................................................................................... 31 Table 8: Current Net Cost of Town and Village Justice Courts ............................................................... 32 Table 9: Budget Comparisons for Shared Services and Consolidation Options ....................................... 32 Table 10: Summary of Impact of Consolidation on the Town and Village .............................................. 33 Table 11: Preliminary Facility Budget .................................................................................................. 37

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page ii

I. Summary

Why Consider Consolidation or Sharing of Facilities and Services in the Justice Courts?

The Town and Village of Red Hook both operate municipal justice courts and want to determine if working together to share court services or to consolidate the courts can result in meaningful court performance improvements and/or elimination of duplication of services, increased efficiencies and potentially reduced costs. The Town and Village Justice Courts have the same programmatic jurisdiction and are located in close proximity to each other. The Town and the Village have jointly agreed to a feasibility study to evaluate the opportunities and benefits as well as the challenges related to co-locating/sharing services or fully consolidating the justice courts. This study was made possible through funding from the Dutchess County Municipal Consolidation and Shared Services Grant Program.

The purpose of the study is to summarize the potential impacts of both paths – shared services and consolidation – so that local officials and the public can better understand, systematically explore and ultimately make informed decisions on the future direction of the Town and Village Justice Courts.

• Co-locate the Town and Village Justice Courts in one facility and share staff, other services and equipment. General Municipal Law of New York State authorizes municipalities to share facilities and services.

• Consolidate the Town and Village Courts. This would be accomplished by dissolving the Village Justice Court and creating a town-wide court. Villages, pursuant to New York State Law, are not required to have a local justice courts; whereas towns are in fact mandated to operate a local justice court.

Town and Village officials identified a number of the study questions that helped frame the discussion and the study. Key study questions included:

• Does sharing or consolidating justice court services facilitate performance improvement?

• Can we create greater efficiencies in the system and eliminate duplication of functions?

• Can we improve customer and stakeholder services?

• Can we achieve cost savings that result in property tax savings and/or enable reinvestments in improved service delivery?

• Can we eliminate duplication of court space?

• Can we improve justice court safety and implement court security enhancements?

• Are there court facility improvements that can be achieved more cost effectively through a shared court facility or consolidation?

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 1

I. Summary

• Are grant opportunities available to support this potential consolidation/shared service initiative?

Summary of Findings

The Summary of Findings synthesizes the potential impacts of the two options independently so that the reader can quickly gain a holistic understanding of each option. The Justice Court Operations Review and Fiscal Impact Sections of the report provide a comparative analysis of the options by subject area. It is important to note that this study was conducted during COVID-19. It was agreed that the analysis would use pre-COVID 19 Justice Court operations as the baseline for comparisons throughout the study process.

OPTION 1: CONSOLIDATION OF JUSTICE COURTS

CONSOLIDATION MODEL

In New York State, the legal process to consolidate Town and Village Justice Courts is through the dissolution of the Village Court by the Village Board of Trustees. All cases previously handled by the Village Court, including violations of Village ordinances and local laws, shall be handled by the Town Justice Court.

IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY AND CUSTOMER SERVICE

A consolidated court with one facility and a full time justice court office operation will provide improved services to the general public and key stakeholders. The current proximity of the courts and the similarity of the court names and addresses leads to confusion and miscommunication as to dates, times and location of court.

This elimination of the confusion and miscommunication will reduce missed court dates and times, reduce time spent by court clerks fielding phone calls, clarifying court dates and times, and rescheduling missed court dates.

The consolidation of the staff enables office hours to be extended with no additional staff or cost.

STREAMLINED COURT SESSIONS

The Town and Village Justice Courts currently hold 60 regularly scheduled justice court sessions per year in facilities that are located within one mile of each other. Based on input from Justice Court personnel and a review of other New York State municipal courts operating with similar caseloads, a consolidated court could streamline the court sessions and meet the demand with approximately 48 regularly held courts sessions per year.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 2

I. Summary

IMPROVED PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS

• Improved performance and effectiveness results from:  Reduced number of court sessions.  Increased and consistent office hours.

  • Ability to have back up staff and coverage during absences.

  • Increased opportunity for enhanced internal control systems.  Reduced time spent on rescheduling missed appointments and fielding questions.

Court clerk staff are currently all part time. Local officials indicated that court operations would improve with at least one full time court clerk to provide ongoing consistency and stability. The relatively small size of the both courts, has made this investment cost prohibitive. A consolidated court presents a potential opportunity to address this issue. INCREASED EFFICIENCY The court office will function more efficiently; enabling staff to process cases more productively.  The number of court sessions will be reduced.  A number of administrative functions are streamlined and reduced from three sets to two for many of the required activities. Examples include: maintenance of cashbook of receipts and disbursements, bank statements, monthly reconciliation of bank accounts and cashbooks, monthly and annual reporting to NYS Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) and monthly reconciliation of OSC reports to docket deposits, cash receipts and disbursements.  Extended office hours and increased access to staff by the public and stakeholders will reduce missed appointments, rescheduling and will lesson phone calls.  Increased ability to pay fees and fines through expanded access to court office staff.

COST SAVINGS A consolidated justice court can operate more efficiently and cost effectively than separate Village and Town courts. The preliminary estimate of savings is approximately $26,000 per year, reflecting a 12% savings. The savings is primarily captured through the reduction in Justice Court salaries and fringe benefits. OFFICE OPERATONS Town Justice Court office hours are currently provided two and one-half days per week and the Village office hours are held part time two days per week. It has been difficult to provide expanded office coverage in the two small courts. A consolidated town-wide court model enables expanded office coverage with no additional staff or costs.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 3

I. Summary

IMPACT ON KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Key stakeholders including the Dutchess County District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s prisoner transport detail, the Public Defender’s Office, law enforcement agencies and private defense attorneys will have one court operation with which to interface resulting in improved service and increased efficiency.

• Increased access to justice court staff through expanded office hours.

• Less court sessions to cover.

• Reduced missed court appearances by clients and stakeholders.

• Reduced communications clarifying location, date and time of court appearances.

• Reduced confusion as to where and when to pay fees and fines.

• Less trips to court.

OPTION 2: CO-LOCATION/SHARED SERVICES

CO-LOCATION/SHARED SERVICES MODEL

Unlike the consolidation model, in the co-location/shared services model, the Town and Village would continue to maintain independent Justice Courts; however, the Courts would share court facility space, non-judicial staff, equipment and services.

The Town Court facility was identified as the preferred site due to its larger size and greater seating capacity. The shared facility would serve the existing two Town Justices and one Village Justice and the non-judicial staff. IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY AND CUSTOMER SERVICE

Co-location and sharing of staff will provide the opportunity to regularly schedule expanded office hours. This provides the public and stakeholders with increased access to staff which will improve customer service. Shared court staff will be able to coordinate responses and mitigate confusion that exists between the courts that have similar names and addresses. However, there will continue to be two distinct courts with separate court sessions and proceedings held on different dates and/or times. COURT SESSIONS Currently, the Town and Village Justice Courts combined hold 60 regularly scheduled justice court sessions per year in separate facilities that are located within one mile of each other. In the co-location model, the court sessions will be located in the same justice court facility; however, the courts will operate independently from one another and hold court at different times. The court calendars cannot be integrated. In the co-location model, the number of Town and Village court sessions will each remain the same as currently provided.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 4

I. Summary

IMPROVED PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS

Improved performance and effectiveness results from:

• Increased and consistent office hours.

• Ability to have back up staff and coverage during absences.

• Increased potential for internal control systems and monitoring of receipts can be established.

• Reduction in time spent on rescheduling missed appointments and fielding questions.

• Local officials indicated that there would be value in having at least one full time court clerk to provide ongoing consistency and stability; however, the relatively small size of the both courts has made the investment cost prohibitive. Through co-location and the sharing of staff, the Town and Village may have an affordable opportunity to address this issue.

INCREASED EFFICIENCY

Operating two distinct courts has some but limited opportunity for increasing efficiencies. The number of functions and reporting requirements remain the same as are currently performed. The limited efficiency gains will be obtained through increased access to court staff, anticipated reduction in missed court dates and increased ease in paying fees and fines.

COST SAVINGS A co-located/shared services option has limited the potential for limited cost savings (approximately $6,000) related to shared staffing, equipment and other resources. The court sessions, staffing and functions will remain essentially the same. OFFICE OPERATONS

A co-located/shared services model enables extended office coverage for the public and stakeholders to access without adding any staff or corresponding cost increase. Currently Town Justice Court holds office hours two and one-half days per week. The Village Court has office hours part day twice per week. It has been difficult to provide expanded office coverage in two separate facilities given the other demands facing the Town and Village.

IMPACT ON KEY STAKEHOLDERS Key stakeholders including the Dutchess County District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s prisoner transport detail, the Public Defender’s Office, law enforcement agencies, defense attorneys and other agencies will now interface with two separate but coordinated courts. Stakeholders will have better access to court clerks that will be able to provide reciprocal coverage for each other. This will result in less missed court appearances, less phone calls and anticipated improvement in fee and fine collections.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 5

I. Summary

CONSOLIDATION OR CO-LOCATION BENEFITS OF A SHARED FACILITY

COURT FACILITY, SECURITY AND TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS

Consolidation or co-location of the courts enables cost effective investments in a single court facility and its related security, equipment and technology systems. Both the Village and Town Court facilities provide adequate court room space; however separate court rooms require investments in two facilities and this can be avoided in a shared facility.

A consolidated or co-located court would enable cost effective investments in security enhancements such as interlocking seating and weapons check equipment.

The COVID 19 Pandemic experience identified the expanding role that technology can play in the operation of the local justice court system. The consolidated or co-located court model supports the emerging hybrid delivery system involving a combination of on-site and remote activity. Technology solutions will likely be a growing component of the court infrastructure improvement needs.

GRANT OPPORTUNITIES

Village and Town Justice Court consolidation or colocation with shared services presents an opportunity for the municipalities to apply for a Local Government Efficiency Grant funded by the New York State Department of State to support facility improvements including courtroom and office upgrades and security, technology and equipment investments.

Other grant opportunities include the NYS Office of Court Administration’s Justice Court Assistance Program and the New York State Education Department’s Local Government Records Management Improvement Funds present grant opportunities.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 6

I. Summary

Summary of Fiscal Analysis

Model budgets were developed for a consolidated town-wide Red Hook Town Justice Court and for co-located/shared service Town and Village Justice Court Operations. The Consolidated Court model has anticipated annual net savings of approximately $26,466 and the Co-located/shared services mode has anticipated annual net savings of approximately $6,142 as summarized in Table

1: Summary of Fiscal Impact of Consolidated Court and Shared Services Courts.

Table 1: Summary of Fiscal Impact of Consolidated Court and Shared Services Courts.

While the overall fiscal impact on the consolidation of the Town and Village Courts results in cost savings, the impact on the Town and Village governments is different. The following summarizes the impact on the Town and Village:

• The Village of Red Hook would experience an approximate annual reduction in net cost of $30,523.

• The Town of Red Hook would experience an approximate annual increase in net cost of $4,056.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 7

II. Introduction

II. Introduction

Purpose

The Town and Village of Red Hook both operate municipal justice courts and have identified justice courts as a service that may benefit from sharing services. The Town and Village Justice Courts adjudicate the same type of cases and are located in close proximity to each other. Villages, pursuant to New York State Law, are not required to have a local justice courts; whereas towns are mandated to operate a local justice court. The Town and the Village have jointly agreed to a feasibility study to evaluate the potential opportunities and benefits from shared services or consolidation of the courts including improved services and access for the public and key stakeholders, increased efficiencies, reduced costs and potential property taxpayer savings. The study will help local officials gain a better understanding of their court operations and provide an assessment of existing court facilities. This study was made possible through funding from the Dutchess County Municipal Consolidation and Shared Services Grant Program.

Municipal Characteristics

The Town and Village of Red Hook are located in Dutchess County, New York, twenty-two miles north of the county seat in Poughkeepsie. According to the 2010 Census, ACS 2018 5-year estimates, the Town of Red Hook has a population of 11,178 including the Village which has a population of 1,963. As illustrated in Table 2: Municipal Characteristics Summary , the Village has a significantly higher population density than the Town and the median household income of the Town is estimated at $77,460 and the Village median income is estimated at $62,000.

Table 2: Municipal Characteristics Summary

||Town of Red Hook|Village of Red Hook| |---|---|---| |Total Population|11,178|1,963| |Land Area|36.20|1.1| |Population Density|308.8|1834.6| |Median Household Income|$77,460|$62,000|

* Total Town Area is 40 sq. mi of which 36.2 is land Source: US Census 2010, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 8

II. Introduction

How do Town and Village Justice Courts Share Services?

In the Co-location and/or sharing services model, it is important to remember that each Court remains separate and retains its own identity and only has jurisdiction over cases arising within its municipality.

The report reviews the opportunities for sharing services in the context of what is permissible under New York State law. Article 5-G of the New York State General Municipal Law, grants municipalities the power to enter and terminate agreements for the performance of functions either one for the other or for shared services between the municipalities.

The New York State Office of Court Administration Justice Court Manual[1] states, “Municipalities considering a shared-facility agreement should remember that it would not change the “identity” of the Justice Courts. Each Justice Court would maintain its separate identity, justices and staff, which would separately administer the judicial business of each Justice Court as if each court continued to meet in separate facilities. Each Justice Court, for instance, would be required to keep separate books, records, dockets, and bank accounts, and would have jurisdiction only over cases arising within the municipality. Because each Justice Court would continue to hear its own cases, a shared-facility agreement would not change the flow of revenue arising from the Justice Courts’ operations. The fines and fees received in each Justice Court would continue to be disbursed among each court’s respective municipality, the county, and the State as if there were no shared-facility agreement at all.”

The study went on to state, “A shared-facility agreement may create opportunities for savings arising from shared facility and overhead costs, as well as potential opportunities to share nonjudicial staff. A shared facility, however, can raise questions about the provision of court security and liability insurance that need to be taken into consideration.”

What is the Process of Dissolving a Village Court in New York State?

The Village of Red Hook Board of Trustees has the legal authority to dissolve the Justice Court by resolution or local law, and the action is subject to a permissive referendum. It is important to note, that a dissolution may only take effect at the end of the justice’s term of office. Thus, it is

1 New York State Office of Court Administration (2015), Justice Court Manual, p. 81.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 9

II. Introduction

necessary to plan in advance should the Village chose to dissolve its Justice Court and avoid intruding on the justice’s term of office.

In New York State, if a village dissolves its justice court, the Town takes over jurisdiction of the Village cases and this includes responsibility to hear and adjudicate any violations of Village local laws or ordinances. (Village Law §3-301[2][a]). The Town becomes responsible to provide the facilities, staff, equipment and all other resources to necessary to manage and operate a combined town and village caseload.

Revenues historically retained by the Village become the revenue of the Town with a few exceptions. Specifically, the Village will continue to retain fees and fine revenues from violations of Village local laws and ordinances. The most common are animal control and parking violations. It is important to note that all revenues related to vehicle and traffic violations including speeding tickets would become Town revenues.

After the dissolution of a Village Court, any active cases would be transferred to the Town Court within which the village is located. Any records of closed cases would remain Village property, unless the Village enters into an inter-municipal agreement with the Town that enables the Town Justice Court to manage the records on behalf of the Village. If no arrangement is made with the Town for custody of the records, the Village would remain responsible for storage, access to, and maintenance of these closed files in the manner prescribed by the Unified Court System. Arrangements would need to be made to allow Town Court personnel access to the records if necessary for the conduct of court business.

Study Methodology

In order to determine feasibility of the shared service and court restructuring options, the consultant team examined local justice court issues and conditions, gathered information about specific costs and operations, and discussed the needs of the courts with town officials and justices. The following data sources were used to provide baseline information for the study:

• Source data and Document Review: The source of the data reviewed included the Town and Village Government, the Village and Town Justice Courts, the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC). The Office of Court Administration and U.S. Census. The types of data collected and/or reviewed included legal memoranda, annual financial and budget documents, staffing levels and court schedules, court caseload data, annual reports and documents that provide the statutory framework for justice courts.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 10

II. Introduction

• Interviews/Surveys: Interviews/Surveys were conducted with the Town Supervisor, the Mayor, Town and Village Court Judges, Court clerk staff and Town and Village staff.

• Court Operations Review: Documentation of the current organizational structures, daily operations, workloads, technology, records management and security considerations were evaluated.

In addition to the data and information collected, the Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study includes:

• Fiscal Impact Analysis and Summary of Findings: The analysis includes a comparison of current revenues and costs for both the Village and the Town to the costs and revenues to both the consolidated justice court model and the co-location/shared services model.

• Court Facilities Assessment: Laberge Group’s Managing Architect conducted a tour of both facilities to evaluate current condition, capacity, and needs as well as to determine expansion needs and opportunities. The analysis and conceptual layout was used to assist local leadership to determine the optimal facility and possible upgrades for a consolidated court as well as for a current operations.

• Grant and Funding Opportunities: The process also includes the investigation and identification of potential grant and funding opportunities that the Village and Town may want to consider to assist with financing components of the transition to a consolidated court.

Overview of the Justice Court System

This section describes the justice court environment in New York State and addresses recent New York State legislative changes that affect local courts, and an overview of the restructuring options available within state statutes.

Domain and Case Activity of the Justice Courts in NYS

Justice courts adjudicate offenses under penal, vehicle and traffic (V&T), civil and other laws. The penal cases are limited to cases in which the charges fall below the level of felony. Their jurisdiction also includes violations of local government ordinances such as parking violations. Justice courts also conduct arraignments for felony offenses occurring anywhere in the county, and can handle arraignments on lesser offenses, but only for adjacent municipalities. The case

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 11

II. Introduction

jurisdiction of the Justice Courts is primarily derived from the UJCA §§ 201-203, 2001, and CPL 10.30.[2]

Typically, vehicle and traffic violations (V&T) are the most numerous cases heard in a justice court, followed by penal law cases. Caseload data in the Town and Village of Red Hook show that in 2017, 2018 and 2019, Vehicle and Traffic cases initiated within those three years comprised nearly 88% of the overall court activity in the Town and Village Courts. Vehicle and Traffic represented nearly 92% of the Village and 84% of the Town caseload. The types and proportions of case types in a jurisdiction is influenced by municipal characteristics such as population, population density, crime rates, law enforcement activity; roadway design, function and speed limits, and commercial concentrations.

The varying types of Justice Court cases have different levels of complexity and accordingly require varying amounts of court time and resources. For example, Justices report that a fully ‐ adjudicated penal case can easily absorb 3 4 times as many work hours as a traffic case.[3]

The Town and Village Justice Courts interact regularly, at times on a daily basis, with Dutchess County officials including the office of the District Attorney, the Public Defender’s Office, the Conflict Defender’s Office and the Sheriff’s Department as well as with a variety of service providers.

Justice Court Governance and Finance

Local justice courts are entities of their sponsoring municipalities. The Town and Village of Red Hook are both responsible for funding the court operations, providing adequate facilities, and staffing them. Local justices are elected by the voters of the town or village in which they reside. In addition, the sponsoring locality has responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of court financial records. This leaves justice courts functionally independent from the State; however, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) exercises oversight responsibility over judicial matters.

All the costs of operation of a justice court are the responsibility of the local municipality including staffing, employee benefits, equipment, technology, facility and all other operating expenses. The courts collect fees, fines and surcharge revenues. These revenues are shared by New York State, the County and the local municipality based on the distribution formulas as established by New York State. The fund distribution is overseen by the New York State Office of the State Comptroller’s Justice Court Fund. Appendix A: Justice Court Fund – Town and Village Court

2 New York State Office of Court Administration (2015). Justice Court Manual, p.7

3 Justice Most Local. The Special Commission on the Future of the NYS Courts, 2008.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 12

II. Introduction

Revenue Report Data Description is a description provided by the Justice Court Fund unit of the New York State Office of the State Comptroller.

Municipalities are responsible to review and audit not only the expenses but also the collection of justice court revenues. Municipalities’ general financial oversight responsibilities include assuring the following are in place and/or accomplished:

• Segregation of duties in financial transactions.

• Data security controls are in place including network passwords, appropriate on-line transactional protocols are in place.

• Completion of the municipal annual audit of justice court records.

The New York State Office of the New York State Comptroller has prepared a Justice Court Handbook which provides detailed information for the courts on their financial and reporting responsibilities. The Handbook also provides self-audit tools relative to those responsibilities which can be used by municipalities to guide the annual audit:

• • www.osc.state.ny.us/sites/default/files/local government/documents/pdf/2019 01/jch.pdf

The New York State Office of the State Comptroller has also prepared reference materials regarding best practice review of internal controls and it can be found at:

www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/lgmg/managementsresponsibility.pdf.

Governing boards provide and maintain justice court facilities and decide on staffing levels and compensation; however, towns are statutorily required to have two justices, unless they follow procedures for increasing or decreasing justice levels. While New York State provides a variety of supports to justice courts through OCA, it does not set minimum standards on compensation, facilities, security, or general administration. Governing boards may also set court hours of operation, but those decisions are often left to the justices. Governing boards are required to audit justice court financials on an annual basis.

While municipalities have chief funding responsibility for the Justice Courts, the New York State Legislature does provide limited resources through the Justice Court Assistance Program (JCAP) under OCA. OCA also provides security and facility consultations, and periodically audits justice courts. The Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) audits justice courts, and its Justice Court Fund (JCF) collects case data and financial information each month. The Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) investigates alleged judicial impropriety, but is not a proactive body like OCA and OSC.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 13

II. Introduction

Pertinent Restructuring Law and Procedures

If an embedded village wishes to, it may dissolve its justice court. Once a Village Board of Trustees has approved the dissolution of its court, the decision is subject to a permissive referendum. Any resolution to dissolve a village court cannot be implemented until the current term of the village justice expires. The town justice court then assumes full adjudicative responsibilities, remitting fines from Village law and ordinances to the Village, but keeping fines related to vehicle and traffic law, criminal offenses and other offenses outlined in New York State statute.

Changes in the Justice Court System

Justice courts work in a system that is constantly in flux. The use of technology in the courts is widespread, thanks to court reform efforts carried out by OCA. These efforts have made the work easier but also introduce new processes and skill sets into court operations. Reporting requirements are frequently increased or amended, and fee schedules revised. But perhaps the most constant source of change has been introduced through changes in the statutes and rules that the courts enforce.

Shifts in state policies and rules generally introduce new procedures into the justice courts, and sometimes result in unintended outcomes for local governments and courts. The recent Criminal Justice Reforms including bail and discovery reforms have impacted both the Town and Village Justice Courts. The reforms have only been in place since early 2020 and more importantly the courts have only experienced them during the COVID 19 pandemic. The short-term impact of bail reform on the flow of court operations has been limited; however, the court personnel are not certain as to the long-term impact of bail reform on court operations.

The new discovery laws now require the sharing of evidence between the prosecution and defense on an accelerated timeline and this is requiring courts to have increased attention to timelines. Historically, the statute did not require discovery to be complete until pretrial hearings or trial. Discovery reform, implemented in early 2020, requires the prosecution to turn over all “discoverable” materials as soon as practicable, but no later than 15 days after arraignment. An additional 30 days is permitted if the materials are voluminous or the prosecutor is not reasonably able to obtain them. In effect, the maximum timeframe for most discovery information (with a limited number of specific exceptions) is 45 days after the initial arraignment. Court officials indicated that the court schedule and process for assignment of cases must take this into consideration in order to provide the schedule that enables the parties to meet their statutory timelines.

The justice court system across New York State has been materially impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020 and the early part of 2021. This put significant stress on the systems, created

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 14

II. Introduction

back logs and negatively impacted court revenues. The decline in court revenues reflected the significant reduction in community activity; particularly the reduction in vehicle and traffic infractions. In addition, Court experienced a slow-down in the payments of fees and fines. Courts are now reporting a return in activity as well as improvements in cash flow.

During these times, a number of technology strategies have been put in place in order to keep essential court functions flowing. A number of these new initiatives are strategies that the local courts have identified as potential protocols worthy of consideration for long term system reforms. Examples include the use of video conferencing for court actions such as arraignments. This has proven valuable for late night and weekend arraignments; particularly in the instance of low-level offenses.

Another strategy implemented by a number of communities has been the use of telephone and video conferencing between the prosecutor and the defendant on traffic tickets prior to court appearances. This has enabled the traffic court process to continue in spite of the cancellation of in-court sessions. This assists in limiting the bottle necking of cases. Other courts promoted the payments of fees and fines on-line. As we become an increasingly electronic society, this form of payment will be used more and more.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 15

III. Court Operations Review

III. Court Operations Review

Court Functions

The case type jurisdiction in both the Village and Town Justice Courts are the same. The core function is to conduct arraignments and other proceedings, preside over the court process and render decisions under penal, vehicle and traffic, civil and other laws. Accordingly, justices are present primarily for actual court sessions outside of normal business hours, but may also conduct legal research outside of court session. Local justices may structure their court nights, with some reserving different court nights for different types of cases as they see fit. Justices also conduct arraignments and preliminary hearings for felony offenses which are then referred to a superior court (typically County Court). Justices are allowed to conduct arraignments countywide for felony charges, and for neighboring municipalities on lesser offenses. Justices also have the power to issue bench warrants and orders of protection, and to grant motions.

The Offices of the Town and Village Justices are also responsible to collect, record and maintain the records for the fees, fines and surcharges remitted as part of case dispositions. The Courts are responsible to maintain the court records in compliance with the standards established by the Office of Court Administration.

Court Locations

The Village Justice Court is housed within Village Hall located at 7467 Broadway, Red Hook. The Town Justice Court is housed within Town Hall located at 7340 Broadway, Red Hook. The courts are located approximately six tenths of a mile apart which is the equivalent to a two-minute drive. Both court rooms are multipurpose rooms used for other municipal functions. The existing court rooms also serve as the board rooms for the Village Board of Trustees and the Town Board.

The close proximity of the existing court facilities provides an opportunity to explore sharing a facility or consolidation of the courts. There would be little to no impact on access to the public and key stakeholders should the Courts consolidate or share a facility. Sharing of one facility also creates opportunities for better coordination and communication. Municipal costs related to operating duplicative justice court facilities, judicial and non-judicial salaries, other operating costs and security arrangements costs could be avoided. In addition, consolidation and to a lesser degree co-location could have a cost savings impact on County and other agency stakeholders.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 16

III. Court Operations Review

Shared Facility or Consolidated Justice Court Conditions:

Laberge Group’s Managing Architect conducted a site visit of both the Village and Town justice court facilities. The architect determined that the existing Town Court room is larger in size, has a greater seating capacity and is identified as the only option between the two courts to serve as a shared court or consolidated court. The assessment evaluated facility improvements related to court personnel and consumer flow, security and office space, etc. and can be found in the Facilities Assessment Section of the Report.

Local View on Justice Court Restructuring Options

Elected officials in the Village and Town and the Justices serving both Courts were asked for their views and recommendations related to options for sharing services across the Justice Courts or consolidation of the Courts. There was a clear consensus among those interviewed, that there are potential benefits of sharing services or possibly consolidating the courts that are worthy of study and evaluation. All parties indicated that the operation of the existing courts which are both relatively small, limits their ability to make facility, security and service delivery improvements for the public and key stakeholders given the fiscal pressures on local governments today.

There was a clear consensus among those interviewed that the close proximity, similarity in name and address of the courts and crossover in Justices, leads to confusion by the public and key stakeholders as to which court has jurisdiction of their case. This has led to missed court appearances requiring follow up and rescheduling, frustrated members of the public and stakeholders, numerous phone contacts and interruption of justice court clerk work flow.

The interviews and surveys identified a desire for improved consistency of available office hours for access by the public and key stakeholders. Officials indicated that with two separate courts and strained budget resources, the current environment limits the options to make improvements. The local Justices hoped that a consolidated Court or shared facility would make it feasible for the municipalities to provide increased office hours, a staffing structure needed to optimize court operations and enable the sharing of facility and security improvement costs and equipment. The Town and Village officials as well as the Justices felt that the shared service or consolidation model would present an opportunity to increase office hours and potentially long term create a full time court clerk position that currently neither the Town nor the Village have been able to afford independently. The hope is that this will provide the consistency and expertise needed for the operations of the Justice Court(s).

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 17

III. Court Operations Review

There was a clear consensus among those interviewed that they desired facility and service improvements for not only the Court(s) operations but also for the public and key stakeholders such as the District Attorney, Public Defender, Conflict Defender, the Sheriff’s transportation detail, and other private defense attorneys and service providers:

• Hold court at a single facility and to the extent possible coordinate the scheduling of sessions to optimize convenience and reduce confusion for the pubic and key stakeholders.

• Streamline court sessions to the extent possible.

• Improve court facilities with adequate space for attorney conferences and attorney/client consultation and other general court safety and security enhancements.

• Provide knowledgeable and available court clerks with regularly scheduled office hours. It was recommended that the office be open to the public minimally four days/week and optimally 5 days/ week. Stakeholders indicated that this would improve court efficiency and effectiveness not only of court staff but key stakeholders as well.

• Implement uniform management practices and utilization of technology that would enhance efficiency and improve court services, i.e., video conferencing, mail and email plea agreements and improved court docket management.

Types of Cases and Caseloads

As previously stated, Justice Courts adjudicate offenses under penal, vehicle and traffic, civil and other laws, where the charges fall below the level of felony. This includes local government ordinances such as parking violations, animal ordinances, etc. Justice Courts also conduct arraignments for felony offenses occurring anywhere in the county, and can handle arraignments on lesser offenses, but only for adjacent municipalities.

On average for 2017, 2018 and 2019, the Red Hook Town and Village Justice Courts handled in total very similar caseloads. The three-year average of cases initiated in the Town and Village totaled 1,165 and 1,109 respectfully. Table 3: Court Caseloads presents a summary of the Justice Court caseload data for 2017, 2018 and 2019 which were taken from records provided by Justice Court reports filed by the respective municipal Justice Court clerks. The cases are divided into the following types: Vehicle and Traffic Law (V&T), Penal Law (PL); Civil Law (Civil), Town or Village Ordinance and Other (includes additional types of cases that come before the court in limited numbers.)

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 18

III. Court Operations Review

Table 3: Justice Court Cases for the Town and Village by Type of Case

==> picture [313 x 328] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Cases by Type 2017 2018 2019 Village of Red Hook Vehicle and Traffic 1013 955 1089 Penal 59 75 64 Civil 6 5 6 Municipal Ordinances and Codes 15 3 4 All Other 17 12 5 Total 1110 1050 1168 Town of Red Hook Vehicle and Traffic 936 1072 940 Penal 139 162 96 Civil 25 29 12 Municipal Ordinances and Codes 12 3 6 All Other 25 21 17 Total 1137 1287 1071 Combined Town and Village Total Vehicle and Traffic 1949 2027 2029 Penal 198 237 160 Civil 31 34 18 Municipal Ordinance and Codes 27 6 10 All Other 42 33 22 Total 2247 2337 2239 Source: Reported data by Town and Village Courts ----- End of picture text -----

The chart above reflects charges by category of offense that are occur each year. It is not uncommon for one incident to involve multiple charges. Charges are referred to as cases in the summary and analysis below.

In both the Village and Town Courts, approximately 90% of the caseload fall under the Vehicle and Traffic statutes. One notable distinction is that the three-year average of Town Court penal cases was double that of the Village Court. The Town Court and Village Court three-year average of penal law cases totaled 132 and 66 respectfully.

It is important to note some of the inherent variation represented by the case load data. For example, some of these cases are tried “in-house,” some are dismissed, and others are transferred to, or arraigned, for other judicial venues for actual adjudication. The dismissals, transfers and arraignments no doubt take less processing time and administrative resources, but are nonetheless handled by the reporting courts to some degree and represent some measure of workload.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 19

III. Court Operations Review

Caseload Assumptions

The three year average of total cases for the combined Town and Village Justice Courts totaling 2,274 is consistent with the 2019 combined caseload of 2,239. The mix of cases appears to remain fairly consistent over time with Vehicle and Traffic statutes representing approximately 90% of the cases.

Court Justices and Staff

As illustrated in Table 4: Justice Court Staff , the Town of Red Hook has two (2) part-time Justices and two part time clerks. Both Town Justices have terms ending December 31, 2023. The Village has one part time justice, an appointed acting justice that provides necessary back up to the part time justice and two part-time court clerks. The Village Justice has a term ending on March 31, 2023.

Table 4: Justice Court Staff

Source: Town and Village of Red Hook

Justices

According to the Report on the Justice Court Fund, “state law generally requires each town in New York State to have two justices and allows each village up to two. However, a town may, by resolution subject to permissive referendum, reduce the number of justices to one, and villages with only one justice are required also to have an additional “acting” justice who will serve when requested by the village justice, or in the absence or inability of the village.”[4]

Elected locally, municipal justices are not required to have a law degree or any specialty training or background; however, newly elected non-attorney justices are required to successfully complete a basic training program, which is provided by the NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA).

4 Report on the Justice Court Fund. Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Local Government and School Accountability, 2010.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 20

III. Court Operations Review

Each municipal court establishes its own practices and operating procedures; however, the New York State Office of Court Administration and the New York State Office of the State Comptroller provide significant standards and guidance for the municipal courts to follow.

Non-judicial Staffing

Court clerks are responsible for a variety of critical, complex, and often stressful tasks. They play an integral role in the Justice Court operations. They accept and process case documents, provide information to citizens, manage court finances including reconciliation of bank accounts and prepare and submit monthly and annual reports to the Office the State Comptroller and the Office of Court Administration. The clerks also schedule court sessions, coordinate arrangements with anyone appearing in court (including pertinent local and county stakeholders), and manage and record court procedures. Court clerks also staff the court office for public access during the day, and are critical in the functioning of the court sessions. Justices in each municipality emphasized the importance of having sufficient support from knowledgeable clerks in order to operate effective and efficient court operations.

As shown in Table 4: Justice Court Staff, the Town of Red Hook has two (2) part-time court clerks and their combined time represents just over 1 full time staff equivalent. The Village has two part-time clerks and the total hours worked reflect approximately 70% of a full-time clerk.

Potential Efficiencies and Reduced Duplication

A study completed by the Intergovernmental Studies Program of Rockefeller College, SUNY Albany in 2010[5] , included a survey of 11 participating justice courts in Ulster County. One data set collected and organized the annual number of cases handled by each court and the full-time equivalent justice court clerks in each of the jurisdictions. The caseload sizes ranged from 46 to 11,223. One general trend observed in reviewing the data is that the larger the court caseload, the more cases each clerk handles. A second observation of the sample data is that after removing the courts handling less than 1,000 cases and those handling greater than 5,000 cases, the average number of cases processed by justice court clerks was approximately 1,519 per full time court clerk. Currently the combined Town & Village operations handle approximately 1,300 cases per full time equivalent.

This trend is not surprising. There are internal controls, functions and reporting requirements that can be streamlined and/or eliminated and made more efficient in larger courts. In the consolidated court model, based on the caseload of the Town and Village combined, one and a half court clerk

5 Cresswell, S. (2010). Intergovernmental Collaboration in Ulster County: Shared Municipal Services Study Report on Justice Court” Albany, New York: Intergovernmental Studies Program, Rockefeller College

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 21

III. Court Operations Review

staff can handle the workload and it is anticipated that the average workload could increase to 1500 per 1 full time equivalent. This is possible because the clerks can back each other up and provide increased office hours. More importantly, there will be one court and two justices as compared to two courts and three justices that currently exist. This reduces a number of the required daily, monthly and annual activities and reporting requirements that have to be accomplished. Separate bank accounts and separate dockets and case management systems are required for each justice. The bank accounts must be reconciled, the case files must be reconciled and the bank accounts and case management system must be reconciled to each other. Monthly and annual reports are required to New York State agencies for each justice. In the consolidated model, these functions and corresponding reporting will be reduced from three to two for each activity. There will be two calendars to manage rather than three.

In a co-located/shared services model, efficiency opportunities may not be as great as in the consolidation model; however, there are clearly efficiencies and system improvement opportunities. The staff can certainly provide back up for each other; assist with back logs and generally provide a smoothing of operations; however, in a shared services model, the court clerk operations remain essentially the same. They would continue to support two separate courts and three judges each with separate calendars. The number of bank accounts to manage and reconcile and the number of monthly and annual reports to be filed will essentially remain the same as it is today.

The co-location model and to a larger degree, the consolidation model, provide costs savings that could be used to support the marginal cost of converting 2-part clerks into a full time clerk position.

Consolidated Town-wide Justice Court Option:

If the courts were to consolidate, the Village Court would be abolished and the number of Justices would shift from three to two part-time Justices. The consolidation model presents opportunities to increase office coverage, provide back-up coverage during absences, increase internal control coverage, reduce duplication and increase efficiencies for the court clerks. The consolidated operation could operate with 1.5 court clerks, which is a slight reduction in staff from the current operations. This staffing pattern is in line with other courts of similar size.

Co-location/Shared Service Option:

In the Co-location/Shared Services Option, there would continue to be separate Town and Village Court operations and there would continue to be three Justices. The functions and tasks required would remain essentially the same as today and the current level of staffing would likely be needed; however there would be opportunities for service improvements, increased office hours, back-up during absences and opportunities for shared internal control activities.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 22

III. Court Operations Review

Court Session Schedules

Each of the two Town Justices hold court sessions two times per month; typically, in the early evenings. Two of the four evenings per month are dedicated to Vehicle and Traffic matters and two are dedicated to criminal court matters. Civil matters are typically handled after one of the other court sessions or a daytime court session is scheduled. There are approximately 48 regularly scheduled Town Justice Court sessions held each year.

Similarly, the Village Justice typically holds court two times per month; one dedicated to Vehicle and Traffic and the other for criminal matters. Civil matters are handled after existing court sessions or scheduled during the day as needed. There are approximately 24 Village Justice Court sessions held annually.

The number of regularly scheduled court sessions held by the Town and Village Courts when combined is approximately 60 per year; however, 12 of the criminal court sessions have 2 parts; one for each judge’s calendar.

Current Court Sessions Per Month (Pre COVID)

 Vehicle and Traffic Court Village 1 Session, 1[st] Wed Town 2 Sessions, 1[st] and 3[rd] Thurs  Criminal Court Village 1 Session, 3[rd] Wed Town 1 Session-2 Parts, 4[th] Thurs (Each Town Judge has Separate Calendar)

The consolidation option presents opportunity for collapsing the number of sessions and/or session Parts. An informal review of other municipal courts that have similar levels of court activity, found that the majority of the courts held up to 4 sessions per month. Based on this, one option for consideration is for the consolidated Town Justice court to hold four sessions; two for Vehicle and Traffic and two for criminal court each month. Civil cases could be handled on an as needed basis similar to current practice. This would reduce the number of court sessions operated annually from approximately 60 to 48 sessions per year without having Parts (separate calendars within a court session) for criminal court.

In the Co-location/Shared Services Model, the number of sessions would likely remain the same as the number of judges remains at three.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 23

III. Court Operations Review

Shared Services or Consolidated Town-wide Justice Court Options:

• Consolidated Town Court Option

  • In a consolidated Town Court Model, the existing two Town Court Vehicle and Traffic (V&T) court sessions could absorb the Village cases. In total the V/T court sessions can be reduced from 3 to 2 sessions/month.

  • A Consolidated Town Court could operate two criminal court sessions per month; however, this model would no longer require separate parts within the session.

• Co-location/Shared Service Option: The Town and Village Justice Courts would share a court room. The Court sessions would essentially operate as they do currently.

Justice Court Office Access and Operations

Table 5: Justice Court Office Hours details the office hours for the current Village and Town Justice Court (pre-COVD 19). The Village Court office hours are 3 hours twice a week and the Town court has office hours full day twice a week and three hours one day per week. In addition to office coverage, the clerks are responsible for all the scheduling, bookkeeping and reporting responsibilities and they also attend and play a critical role during court sessions. The clerks cover all the office hours and all the justice court sessions.

Table 5: Justice Court Office Hours

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 24

III. Court Operations Review

The Office of Court Administration in its Justice Court Manual[6] stated, “A shared-facility agreement may create opportunities for savings arising from shared facility and overhead costs, as well as potential opportunities to share non-judicial staff.”

In the case of Red Hook either a shared services model or a consolidated court, the increased coverage by court clerks presents the opportunity to have extended office coverage. With a full time equivalent of 1.5 clerks it is feasible to have office coverage 4 to 5 days per week in addition to court session coverage. Both models enable the clerks to cover for each other. In the consolidated model, all the clerks are working for the same court jurisdiction so cross coverage is made easy.

There are multiple ways to share staff services. One option is to have the staff of the Village and Town Courts cover for each other during absences and share certain office functions. Another option is for staff employed by one jurisdiction to provide services for both Courts. This can be coordinated through an inter-municipal agreement. A Town Court and a Village Court in Essex County co-located operations. Each court retained their own clerk; however, the Town Justice Clerk was made the deputy Village Justice Clerk and the Village Justice Clerk was made the Deputy Town Clerk. Either model - sharing staff though an Inter-municipal Agreement and/or or deputizing clerks - not only enables clerks to cover for each other, but also enables them to perform functions for each other including acceptance of payments, dealing with court scheduling issues and accessing files. With additional court clerk staff, there is the opportunity to establish enhanced and shared internal control check and balance activities. Should the Town and Village want to implement such strategies, the Office of Court Administration has a history of assisting Towns and Village Courts through these set-ups.

Either model could improve services by avoiding missed calls from the public and sta Consolidated and Shared Service Justice Court Conditions:

Either the co-location or consolidated court option would facilitate establishing more and consistent office hours. Either model could easily support office coverage four days.

Either model could improve services by avoiding missed calls from the public and stakeholders, facilitate payment of fees and fines, enable improved scheduling and enable staff to have focused time to do the complex Justice Court Clerk work involving management of case files, the docket and revenue collections, accounting and reporting of fees, fines and surcharges.

6 New York State Office of Court Administration (2015). Justice Court Manual , p. 81

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 25

III. Court Operations Review

Justice Court Stakeholders

The criminal court activity requires key stakeholders including representatives of the Dutchess County’s District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender and Conflict Defender Offices, the Sheriff’s Department transport unit, law enforcement agencies and private attorneys to attend the courts. These same stakeholders are required to attend all the other town, village and city courts in Dutchess County. Vehicle and Traffic Court requires representatives of law enforcement and private attorneys to attend. In addition, both the Village and Town of Red Hook currently have a special prosecutor that handles vehicle and traffic safety matters.

Those interviewed indicated that the similarity in the name of the courts, the close proximity and similar addresses of the courts leads to confusion by the public and key stakeholders as to where the court case is being held as well as the date and time. This leads to missed court dates, numerous phone call and rescheduling. In addition, the existing limited office hours of court staff, further exacerbates the confusion and inefficiency in the current model.

The co-location model addresses a number of these issues; however, the consolidation model has a greater impact. See the following summary below:

Consolidated Town-wide Justice Court Conditions:

Co-location/Shared Services Option

There will remain two distinct courts; however, the co-location/shared service model presents the following customer service improvements:

• A shared court facility with one address reduces confusion as to location of the courts

• Expanded office hours and court clerks covering for each other leads to more responsive service; cutting down on confusion, improved compliance and easier access to pay fees

Consolidation Option

• A single court in one location provides the optimal reduction in confusion by the public and key stakeholders as to date, time and location of court.

• Stakeholders, such as the District Attorney, Public Defender, Conflict Defender and Sheriff are interfacing with one court not two.

• The consolidated court should be able to collapse the number of vehicle and traffic court sessions held each month and it should at minimum eliminate the need to hold separate parts within criminal court sessions.

• Expanded office hours and court clerks covering for each other leads to more responsive service; cutting down on confusion, improved compliance and easier access to pay fees.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 26

III. Court Operations Review

Electronic File, Docket and Receipts Management System and Records Management

Both the Village and Town Justice Courts use the same justice court management system that is an integrated docket management, case management and fees and fine collection and recording and reporting management system. Court clerks indicate the system meets their needs and provides for efficiency in their daily operations.

In addition to the electronic file, docket and receipts management system, municipal courts maintain hard copy files. The New York State Office of Court Administration sets the retention and destruction schedule for municipal justice court records. The court case and docket management system has reduced the frequency with which the courts need to access hard copy files; however, the hard copy files are requested by stakeholders and accessed by the Justice Court clerks on a regular basis.

One to two years of the most current Village Justice Court records are stored in the Justice Court Office and the balance of the records are stored in the basement of Village Hall providing relatively easy accessible to the Court staff. Similarly, the Town Justice Court stores the most recent case records in the Town Justice Court offices and the balance of records are stored in the basement of Town Hall.

Consolidation Option

In a consolidation, upon dissolution of the Village Court, all open cases, including the electronic and hard copy files are transferred to the Town Court in which the Village Court is located. All closed records become the responsibility of the Village Clerk. The New York State Office of Court Administration Justice Court Manual (January 31, 2015) states, “The Office of Court Administration has opined that, when a village justice court dissolves, the records of the village justice court’s closed cases remains with the village clerk, while any active/open cases re transferred to the town in which the village is located. If a village clerk who is in possession of records of a dissolved village court receives a request for access to or copies of closed village court records, best practices dictate that the village clerk may not disclose the court records but instead, refer the individual making the request to the town court in which the village is located. Thereafter, it is recommended that the town court clerk submit such a request for the records in writing to the village clerk. Village clerks may only destroy closed village records when authorized to do so according to the Records Retention Rules promulgated by the Unified Court System’s Office of Records Management.”

If the courts were to consolidate, this process could become very inefficient and awkward to manage for both the Town Court and the Village Clerk. Under the consolidation model, it is recommended that the Town and Village of Red Hook consider entering into an Inter-municipal

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 27

III. Court Operations Review

Agreement which would provide that the Town of Red Hook Justice Court be authorized to manage Village Justice Court records on behalf of the Red Hook Village Clerk.

Upon a local decision to consolidate, the local courts will work with the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) to determine the process to convert Village data into the Town data. OCA staff perform the conversion at no cost to the locality; however, they request they be notified months prior to the transfer so they can work with the Village Court to clean up outstanding cases and technical file issues.

Co-location/Shared Services Option

In a co-location/shared services model, the Village Court and the Town Court remain separate and distinct courts and the court records, bank accounts and all record keeping must be maintained separately, both electronic and hard copy. There will be limited efficiencies or performance improvement opportunities under this model.

Consolidated Town-wide Justice Court Conditions:

Consolidation Option

Upon consolidation, all open cases in the Village will be transferred to the Town Court. This includes all records, both hard copy and electronic. All closed case records become the legally responsibility of the Village Clerk. In order to provide access to these records that is practical for both the Town Court and the Village Clerk, the Town and Village may enter into an inter-municipal agreement in which the Town Court manages the Village Court records on behalf of the Village Clerk.

The consolidation model collapses a two record systems into one, both electronically and hard copy. This option presents opportunities for optimal operations efficiencies.

Co-location/Shared Services Option

In a co-location/shared services model, the Village Court and the Town Court remain separate and distinct courts and the court records, bank accounts and all record keeping must be maintained separately, both electronic and hard copy. This limits the potential to gain efficiencies in the operation of the courts.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 28

III. Court Operations Review

Justice Court Security

The Village of Red Hook Police Department provides court security services for the Village Court and also provides court security through an existing shared services arrangement for the Town Justice Courts. Officers are present during all justice court sessions.

In the consolidated or co-located justice court model, the Village Police would continue to provide security services during court sessions. It is not anticipated that neither the consolidated court model nor the co-located court model will impact the level of service or hours of security coverage needed. The consolidated court model may provide a measure of streamlining due to the reduced number of court sessions, but given that the combined caseloads will remain the same, the hours of needed security services will likely remain fairly constant.

Consolidated Justice Court Model - Village Justice Court Activities Post Abolishment

There will likely be Village Justice Court activities related to the recording and close out of fees, fines and surcharges that are not completed by the last day of business. There may also be reporting requirements that will be due post the dissolution date. The Village and Town may want to consider an agreement by which the Town Justice Court clerks complete any outstanding recording and reporting functions for the Village. These costs could be included in the Local Government Efficiency Grant, if available.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 29

IV. Fiscal Conditions

Justice Court Revenues and Costs

Revenues

Local jurisdictions do not retain all the Justice Courts fees, fines and surcharges collected. The distribution reflects the type and mix of cases handled by each court. It is also influenced by other factors such as local laws, rules and regulations, the transportation network within each jurisdiction and the speed limits set within each jurisdiction. New York State establishes the revenue distribution for the various offenses. The revenues not retained locally are remitted to New York State and a small percentage is remitted to Dutchess County, based on the case type. Table 6: Justice Court Revenues summarizes the total revenues and the revenues retained by the Town and Village.

Table 6: Justice Court Revenues

On average, the Village retained approximately 57% of all the revenues collected and the Town retained approximately 46%. Justice Court Officials could not identify which specific factors account for the differential in revenue retention percentages between the Town and the Village. As Table 6: Justice Court Revenues depicts, the Village has been experiencing a general downward trend in both total collections and retained revenues. In contrast the Town in both total and retained revenues experienced a slight increase overtime in both total collections and retained

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 30

IV. Fiscal Conditions

revenues. It is important to note that the 2019/2020 Village data was not used in this study because the collections were negatively influenced by reduced court activity resulting from the COVID 19 pandemic.

Expenditures

The expenditure information was provided by the Village and Town fiscal staff. Fringe benefit cost assumptions were added to the expenditures to provide a depiction of the total cost of Justice Court operations. Table 7: Justice Court Expenditures details the actual expenditures for the Village (FY 2018/2019) and Town (FY 2019). Both courts handled approximately the same number of cases; however, the Town Court operational expenses were approximately 38% greater than the Village. Personnel costs account for 85% of the differential and can be explained by the fact that the Town supports two Justices and has approximately 1 Court Clerk, whereas the Village operates with one Justice and approximately 70% of a Court Clerk. As pointed out earlier in the study, the Town, having two Justices, is required to maintain separate court calendars, maintain separate accounts and file separate reports. It would be expected that the costs would be higher. In addition, the Village holds less office hours for the public and the many stakeholders.

Table 7: Justice Court Expenditures

Net Cost of Justice Courts to Property Taxpayers

The impact on the property tax levy reflects the total cost of Justice Court operations less the Justice Court revenues retained by the municipality. It is important to note that municipalities retain only a share of the fees, fines and surcharges collected. The sharing of the revenues between the municipality, the County and New York State is determined by New York State.

Currently, the Village of Red Hook retains more fee and fine revenues and has lower costs than the Town of Red Hook. As such the net impact on the property tax levy in the Village is less than in the Town.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 31

IV. Fiscal Conditions

Table 8: Current Net Cost of Town and Village Justice Courts indicates that the Village annual net cost in fiscal year 2018/2019 was $27,533 and the Town’s 2019 fiscal year annual net cost was $85,767.

Table 8: Current Net Cost of Town and Village Justice Courts

Fiscal Impact of Co-location/Shared Services and Consolidation of the Justice Courts

Model budgets were developed for a co-location option and a town-wide Justice Court option (see Appendix B) . The budget models were developed with input from Town and Village officials. The model budgets incorporate the assumptions outlined in the consolidated and co-located court service sections of this study. The model budgets compare the Status Quo, Co-location/Shared Services and Consolidation Options as summarized in Table 9: Budget Comparisons for Shared Services and Consolidation Options.

Table 9: Budget Comparisons for Shared Services and Consolidation Options

The overall savings resulting from a consolidation of the courts is estimated to be approximately $26,467 annually, reflecting a 12% cost reduction. In the Consolidation scenario, The Village government would experience an overall positive impact of $30,523. This takes into consideration the reduction of cost of $82,156 and the loss of estimated revenue of $52,633. The Town would

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 32

IV. Fiscal Conditions

experience a slight increase in overall cost of approximately $4,000. This is the combined result of the increased cost of a town-wide court and the increased revenues as detailed in Table 10: Summary of Impact of Consolidation on the Town and Village depicted below:

Table 10: Summary of Impact of Consolidation on the Town and Village

In the consolidation option, the Village no longer has any expenses for the Justice Court. The Town is responsible to provide the resources necessary for the operation of the town-wide Justice Court. All fees formerly retained by the Village will now be retained by the Town with the exception of revenues related to violations of Village local laws and ordinances. These revenues would remain with the Village, except those for speeding. Village Justice Court officials indicate that the revenues that would be retained by the Village are minimal and that $1,500 per year is a reasonable estimate. All other justice court revenues would flow to the Town.

The cost savings in the consolidation model primarily reflect salary and fringe benefit savings associated with the reduction in the number of justices from three to two and the reduction in full time equivalent court clerk hours. There are also marginal cost savings in other than personnel costs such as association dues, phone and equipment maintenance in both the consolidation and shared service models.

Should the Town and Village want to implement the conversion of two part-time court clerks into a full-time court clerk, the estimated additional cost is $35,940 annually. This reflects the cost of employee health benefits provided to full time employees. This conversion is seen by Town and Village stakeholders as valuable; however, the Town and Village separately have not been able to afford the additional costs. In the shared service model, the conversion may be easier for the Town and Village to fund if the cost is shared between them.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 33

IV. Fiscal Conditions

In the co-location/shared services model, the Town and Village have options to consider as to how to share staff services and other shared services and to set up the corresponding sharing of costs. The Section of this report titled Justice Court Office Access and Operations Section presents three shared staffing models. Once these decisions are made, any necessary cost sharing arrangement can then be incorporated into the shared service inter-municipal agreement.

Property Tax Rate Impact

The consolidation of the Town and Village Justice Courts results in a number of service improvements, efficiencies, an approximate 12% cost reduction and a slight impact on Village and Town resident property tax rates. The estimated impacts are as follows:

• The Village taxpayer’s combined Village and Town tax rate is estimated to go down by 0.63%.

• The Town outside Village taxpayer’s combined town-wide and Town outside Village rate is 0.14% increase.

The fiscal impact of co-location and shared services are not significant; however, the identified improvements in service to the public and key stakeholders makes the option worthy of consideration.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 34

V. Court Facilities Assessment

Methodology

The scope of this Justice Court study included an evaluation of the existing court facilities and presentation of conceptual floor plan options for the consolidated court model and the Town – Village Court co-location model. As part of the development of the recommendations, the following actions were undertaken:

• Laberge Group’s Managing Architect reviewed existing floor plans and drawings and was given a guided tour of the existing Town and Village court facilities. The purpose of the facility tours was to develop a general impression of each facility’s current condition, potential lifespan, capacity, safety needs, and expansion opportunities. (See Appendix C : Facility/Site Assessment Checklist)

• Laberge Group’s Managing Architect evaluated both facilities to ascertain each facility’s capacity to function as a shared Town-Village Court facility and/or as a consolidated Town Court facility and a recommendation was developed as to which facility presented the better opportunity.

• Two conceptual floor plan options were developed to address the needs of either a shared Town-Village Court facility or a consolidated Town Court facility.

• A review of potential facility improvements was developed based upon consistency with the Building Code of New York State and all of its internal references to the Uniform Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Life Safety Codes, including the accessibility requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as the best practices for justice court security recommended by the Office of Court Administration.[7]

• A corresponding concept capital improvement budget estimate was also prepared and is included in this study.

7 Action Plan for the Justice Courts, State of New York Unified Court System, 2006

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 35

V. Court Facilities Assessment

Court Facility Observations and Improvement Considerations

The facility assessments clearly identified the existing Town Court facility as the preferred option for consideration as a shared or consolidated court facility. The Town court office area, meeting spaces and courtroom size are all larger than the corresponding spaces in the Village Court facility. The Town and Village leadership agreed that it would be best if the current Town Court be used for either the shared or consolidated justice court.

Both the Village and the Town courtrooms are multi-purpose spaces. Both court rooms also serve as the municipal boardroom for their respective elected bodies. The court room spaces are also used for other meetings and public gatherings when court is not in session.

The current Town courtroom and corresponding offices are located on the first floor of Town Hall. The courtroom is approximately 1,015 sq. ft. and the combined Town Justices and court clerk office space is estimated to be 320 sq. ft. The Justice Court uses the Planning and Zoning Boards’ conference room for attorney-client meetings. This space is immediately adjacent to the court facilities. The Town Justice Court special prosecutor utilizes the Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary’s office during court sessions. This space is also immediately adjacent to the courtroom.

In the consolidated court model, the existing court room space can be utilized in its current configuration. The justice court offices need to accommodate two justices and the necessary space for the court clerks. The staffing model included two options: 1) one full time and one part-time justice clerk positions or 2) three part-time justice court clerk positions.

In the shared justice court model, the existing court room space can be utilized in its current configuration. The offices need to accommodate up to three justices; the two Town Justices and the one Village Justice. As in the case of the consolidated model, the design would need to accommodate one full-time and one part-time court clerk or three part-time clerks.

Two concept floor plan options were developed. (See Appendix D: Court Facility Concept Floor Plans and Preliminary Budget ). The concept plans present options for a redesigned court facility space that could accommodate a shared Town-Village court facility or a consolidated Town Justice court facility. The concept floor plans were based on the following general observations and identified opportunities for facility improvements:

• The existing Town court room facility size (approx. 1,015 square feet) is more than adequate in size to conduct the shared or consolidated justice court operations.

• Reallocation of space in Town Hall is recommended for both the shared or consolidated court models in order to provide for additional Justice Court office space. The Town identified potential space that was historically allocated to the purchasing function which has since been

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 36

V. Court Facilities Assessment

absorbed by another Town department. In order to locate this additional space immediately adjacent to existing justice court spaces, the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals conference room and the Recreation Office space were moved.

• Concept Floor Plan (Concept 1) as depicted on the following page lays out the plan for the consolidated Town Justice Court that provides space for two justices and two court clerks; however, should the staffing model utilize three part-time clerks, the court clerk space could be modified. This option provides for a relocated Planning and ZBA conference room of similar size and dimension and a relocated Recreation Department Office. This option also replaces the displaced shared copier/office support alcove.

• Concept Floor Plan (Concept 2) depicted on the following page lays out a plan for shared Town-Village court space; providing for three justices and two court clerks. Should the staffing model utilize three part-time clerks, the court clerk space could be modified. This option provides for a relocated Planning Board and ZBA conference room of similar size and dimension and a relocated Recreation Department Office. A shared office support area with a copier has been displaced; however, there is ample space for its relocation within Town Hall.

• Courtroom security could be enhanced with the installation of an interlocking seating system to eliminate the potential for individual chairs being used as weapons.

Preliminary cost estimates for rehabilitation of the current Town Justice Court facility were developed based on the findings outlined above, are summarized below in Table 11: Preliminary Facility Budget and the full budget is presented in Appendix D: Court Facility Concept Plans and Preliminary Budget. The preliminary estimates are based on the cost of renovating existing space to comply with current building codes, recommended security and furniture and fixture upgrades. A summary of the conceptual plan budget is presented in Table 11: Preliminary Facility Budget. The information presented includes costs for court facility rehabilitation, fixtures, furnishings, equipment and fees for architecture and engineering design services. Appendix E and F include references and excerpts from the Office of Court Administration documents as well as other professional resources regarding court facility improvements and best practice security enhancements.

Table 11: Preliminary Facility Budget

|Town and Village of Red Hook Conceptual Court Facility Budget Summary|Town and Village of Red Hook Conceptual Court Facility Budget Summary|Town and Village of Red Hook Conceptual Court Facility Budget Summary| |---|---|---| |Construction||37,358 $| |SecurityEquipment||20,400 $| |Furnishings and Fixtures||40,200 $| |Professional Services||14,694 $| |Total||112,652 $|

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 37

V. Court Facilities Assessment

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 38

V. Court Facilities Assessment

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 39

VI. Grant Opportunities

Grant Opportunities

Due to the New York State fiscal crisis, the majority of shared service and/or consolidation grant opportunities have been put on hold. However, should the opportunities reopen, and Town and Village proceed to consolidate and/or co-locate, they may be eligible for multiple competitive grant opportunities that the Town and Village could seek to support the facility improvements, security, technology and records storage enhancements. In the option of consolidation, certain grants could cover transition costs such as electronic data conversions, final Village reconciliation of accounts and preparation of any and all final reporting of Village Justice Court activities.

 Local Government Efficiency (LGE) Grant Program

• The New York State Department of State administers the Local Government Efficiency (LGE) Grant Program that is designed to support strong consolidation and shared service initiatives. Should the Village decide to dissolve the Village Justice Court, both the Town and Village are eligible to apply for a Local Government Efficiency Grant up to $200,000 each or $400,000 in total. The court facility improvement costs identified in the Facilities Assessment section would be eligible for funding as well as transition costs that the Town and/or Village may identify. The grant program requires a 10% match. For example, if the total project cost is $100,000, the municipal match is $10,000 and the LGE grants funds would equal $90,000. Typically, the grant applications are due as part of the New York State Consolidated Funding Application process which usually has a late July submission date.

• Dutchess County Municipal Innovation Grant

Dutchess County sponsors the Dutchess County Municipal Innovation Grant program. The program supports local government initiatives to improve collaboration and cooperation, reduce redundancy and generate cost savings.

• Justice Court Assistance Program

The New York State Office of Court Administration administers the Justice Court Assistance Program. Municipalities are eligible to apply for up to $30,000 per year to make justice court improvements. Costs associated with facility, security and/or records storage improvement projects, etc. are considered eligible expenses.

• Local Government Records Management Improvement Funds (LGRMIF)

The LGRMIF is a grant program administered by the New York State Department of Education. These grant funds are provided to establish records management program or to

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 40

VI. Grant Opportunities

create new components of a system. Individual municipalities are eligible for up to $75,000 and shared service initiatives are available up to $150,000.

Key Dates

• May 1 Local Government Efficiency Grant announcement typically published. This is a possible funding source for facility, records, technology upgrades; etc.

• End of July Local Government Efficiency Grant applications are typically due through the New York State Consolidated Funding Application process. Each municipality participating in a consolidation/shared service initiative may apply for funds up to $200,000. If awarded, costs for consolidation from April 1, are typically eligible for inclusion in the Local Government Efficiency Grant.

• Sept. NYS Office of Court Administration Grants for facility improvements are typically due. Grants fund projects up to $30,000.

• Dec. Typically, the Local Government Efficiency Grant award announcements are made during the month of December.

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 41

APPENDICES

Town and Village of Red Hook Justice Court Consolidation Feasibility Study

Page 42

APPENDIX A:

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER JUSTICE COURT FUND REVENUE REPORT DATA

Justice Court Fund - Town and Village Court Revenue Report Data Description

APPENDIX B:

TOWN AND VILLAGE OF RED HOOK JUSTICE COURT BUDGET MODELS:

• CO LOCATED TOWN-VILLAGE JUSTICE COURT AND

CONSOLIDATED TOWN JUSTICE COURT

APPENDIX C:

TOWN HALL AND VILLAGE HALL FACILITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS

Town of Red Hook

Site / Building Assessment - Town Hall

Project No.: 2019095 Date Assessed: 7/7/20 Building / Site Address:Building / Site Name: oo Town Hall7340 South Broadway Ownership: Town of Red Hook Year Constructed: unconfirmed General Use/Occupancy: Town Departments and Justice Court Type of Construction: Type 5 As-built drawings available: None available

==> picture [54 x 10] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

insert picture ----- End of picture text -----

Remarks/Notes

|S Site |Dee|S Site |Dee|S Site |Dee|S Site |Dee|S Site |Dee| |---|---|---|---|---| |S.1|Size:|||unconfirmed| |S.2|Use:|||Town Offices and Justice Court| |||||| |S.4|Access:|||Public Streets on 2 sides| |S.5|Surface:|||Paved| |S.6|General Environs:|||Middle of a Village;surrounded byresidential and commercial| |||||properties| |||||| |S.7|Stormwater Mgt.|Date Built:||unconfirmed| ||Describe System:|||unconfirmed| |||||| |S.8|Special Features:|Date Built:||None observed| ||Describe System:|||NA| |||||| |S.9|Fuel Storage:|Date Built:||None| |||Above Ground||NA| |||Below Ground||NA| |||Size/Capacity:||NA| |||||| |S.10|Sand/Salt Storage|Date Built:||None| |||Size/Capacity:||NA| ||Describe System:|||NA| |||||| |S.11|Recycling:|Date Built:||None| ||What Materials:|||NA| ||Describe System:|||NA| |||||| |S.12|Solid Waste Transfer:|||None| |||Date Built:||NA| ||Describe System:|||NA|

L_ Dee B Building

B.1 Size: B.2 Date Constructed / Additions:

Building Total

Single story; approx. 5,500SF unconfrmed

Page 1 of 2

Conventional wood framed construction None available NA Number / Arrangement 4 Exit Enclosure Construction None Accessibility Accessible Deficiencies Noted ystem(s)stem(s)(s)s)) Footing / Foundation: Cast-in-place concrete Superstructure: Wood framed Type Type 5 Construction Deficiencies Noted g Enclosure System(s) Enclosure System(s)ystem(s)stem(s)(s)s)) Roof Asphalt shingles & solar array Exterior Walls Lapped siding Deficiencies Noted ystem(s)stem(s)(s)s)) Heating System Type hot water baseboard Deficiencies Noted Ventilation System Type natural Deficiencies Noted AC System Type unit AC in meeting room Deficiencies Noted Special System Type: unconfirmed Deficiencies Noted g System(s) System(s)ystem(s)stem(s)(s)s)) Conventional Deficiencies Noted ystem(s)stem(s)(s)s)) Power System Type Conventional Deficiencies Noted ystem Typestem Typeypee Communications Conventional Voice/Data Conventional Deficiencies Noted ystem(s)stem(s)(s)s)) (Y/N)Y/N)) None observed Deficiencies Noted stems (Y/N) Y/N) None observed

B.3 Structure Type

• B.4 Drawings Available: B.5 Vehicle Storage Bays:

B.6 Exits

B.7 Structural System(s)stem(s)(s)s))

B.8 Exterior Building Enclosure System(s) Enclosure System(s)ystem(s)stem(s)(s)s))

B.9 HVAC System(s)stem(s)(s)s))

B.10 Plumbing System(s) System(s)ystem(s)stem(s)(s)s)) Deficiencies Noted

B.11 Electrical System(s)stem(s)(s)s))

B.12 Special System Typestem Typeypee

B.13 Fire Alarm System(s)stem(s)(s)s)) (Y/N)Y/N))

• B.14 Fire Protection Systems (Y/N) Deficiencies Noted

• B.15 Other Notes/Observations:

Page 2 of 2

Village of Rhinebeck

Site / Building Facility Assessment - Village Hall

Project No.: 2019095 Date Assessed: 7/7/2020

Building / Site Name: Village Hall Building / Site Address: 7467 South Broadway Ownership: Village of Red Hook Year Constructed: General Use/Occupancy: Village Offices and Town Police Type of Construction: Type 5 As-built drawings available: None available

==> picture [58 x 10] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

insert picture ----- End of picture text -----

Remarks/Notes

S Site

unconfirmed Village Offices, Village Police and Village Courtge Offices, Village Police and Village Courte Offices, Village Police and Village Court, Village Police and Village Court Village Police and Village Courtge Police and Village Courte Police and Village Courtge Courte Court

S.1 Size: unconfirmed S.2 Use: Village Offices, Village Police and Village Courtge Offices, Village Police and Village Courte Offices, Village Police and Village Court, Village Police and Village Court Village Police and Village Courtge Police and Village Courte Police and Village Courtge Courte Court S.4 Access: Public streets on 2 sides S.5 Surface: paved S.6 General Environs: Middle of a village; surrounded by residential and commercial properties S.7 Stormwater Mgt. Date Built: unconfirmed Describe System: unconfirmed S.8 Special Features: Date Built: None observed Describe System: NA S.9 Fuel Storage: Date Built: None Above Ground NA Below Ground NA Size/Capacity: NA S.10 Salt/Sand Storage Date Built: None Size/Capacity: NA Describe System: NA S.11 Recycling: Date Built: None What Materials: NA Describe System: NA S.12 Solid Waste Transfer: None Date Built: NA Describe System: NA

Building

B

Page 1 of 3

B.1 Size:

Building Total First Floor Second Floor Partial Basement

2 story; approx. 80x55 footprint; approx. 3,600SF per floor Village Offices & Meeting Room Village Offices, Village Police and support Records Storage and Building Support

• B.2 Date Constructed / Additions:

• B.3 Structure Type

• B.4 Drawings Available:

• B.5 Vehicle Storage Bays: Vehicle Repair Bays Support Space

original: unknown; addition: 2006 Wood None available

None None

Fire Department Support Space

B.6 Exits

Number / Arrangement 2 Exit Enclosure Construction unconfirmed Accessibility accessible Deficiencies Noted

B.7 Structural System(s)

Footing / Foundation: Superstructure: Type Deficiencies Noted

unconfirmed; assumed stone or masonry unconfirmed; assumed wood framed

B.8 Exterior Building Enclosure System(s)

Roof Exterior Walls Deficiencies Noted

Assumed wood framed Original: assumed masonry/stucco; addition: wood framed/ stucco

B.9 HVAC System(s)

Heating System Type Deficiencies Noted Ventilation System Type Deficiencies Noted AC System Type Deficiencies Noted Special System Type: Deficiencies Noted

hot water baseboard

unconfirmed

window and wall AC units

unconfirmed

B.10 Plumbing System(s) Deficiencies Noted

conventional

• B.11 Electrical System(s)

Power System Type Deficiencies Noted

conventional

• B.12 Special System Type

Communications Voice/Data

conventional conventional

Page 2 of 3

Deficiencies Noted

|B.13 B.14 B.15|Fire Alarm System(s) (Y/N) Deficiencies Noted Fire Protection Systems(Y/N) Deficiencies Noted Other Notes/Observations:|none observed| |---|---|---| |||| |||| |||none observed| |||| |||| ||||

Page 3 of 3

APPENDIX D:

Court Facility Concept Floor Plans and Preliminary Budget

==> picture [28 x 5] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

JUNE, 2021 ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [28 x 5] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

JUNE, 2021 ----- End of picture text -----

Red Hook Town/Village Co-Located Court Project Conceptual Budget Estimate for Town Hall

rev 6/23/21

803 sf total

| Item | Quantity | Total | | Scope | Unit Unit Cost | - | | Quantity | - | - | | Unit Unit Cost | - | - | | TOWN HALL RENOVATION COSTS | - | - | | 1 | - | - | | Demo existing partitioning and door openings (33 LF) | - | - | | 297 | - | - | | SF | - | - | | $6 | - | - | | 2 | - | - | | Demo existing floor finishes | - | - | | 803 | - | - | | SF | - | - | | $3 | - | - | | 3 | - | - | | Demo existing existing ceilings | - | - | | 583 | - | - | | SF | - | - | | $7 | - | - | | 4 | - | - | | Construct new partitioning (9'ht)(22 LF) | - | - | | 396 | - | - | | LF | - | - | | $15 | - | - | | 5 | - | - | | Install new door and new hardware for (2) existing doors | - | - | | 2 | - | - | | LS | - | - | | $1,000 | - | - | | 6 | - | - | | Install new ceiling system and lighting | - | - | | 344 | - | - | | SF | - | - | | $9 | - | - | | 7 | - | - | | Install new windows in Justice office | - | - | | 2 | - | - | | EA | - | - | | $450 | - | - | | 8 | - | - | | Install new tel/data/elec outlets | - | - | | 803 | - | - | | SF | - | - | | $5 | - | - | | 9 | - | - | | Install security system | - | - | | 803 | - | - | | SF | - | - | | $3 | - | - | | 10 | - | - | | Heating system modifications for new rooms | - | - | | 1 | - | - | | LS | - | - | | $3,000 | - | - | | 11 | - | - | | Relocate projection screen and display wall | - | - | | 1 | - | - | | LS | - | - | | $1,500 | - | - | | Construction Estimating Contingency | - | - | | 20% | - | - | | Town Hall Renovation Costs Total: | - | - | | FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT COSTS | - | - | | 12 | - | - | | Metal Detection & Security Wands | - | - | | 1 | - | - | | LS | - | - | | 13 | - | - | | Furniture/equipment (2 Court clerks) | - | - | | 1 | - | - | | LS | - | - | | 14 | - | - | | Furniture/equipment (2 Justice office) | - | - | | 1 | - | - | | LS | - | - | | 15 | - | - | | Furniture/equipment (Court seating) | - | - | | 1 | - | - | | LS | - | - | | 16 | - | - | | Furniture/equipment (Attorney conference) | - | - | | 1 | - | - | | LS | - | - | | 17 | - | - | | Window treatments | - | - | | 7 | - | - | | EA | - | - | | $400 | - | - | | Construction Estimating Contingency | - | - | | 20% | - | - | | Town Hall FF&E Costs Total: | - | - | | TOWN HALL PROJECTED COST TOTAL: | - | - | | PROJECT SOFT COSTS | - | - | | 18 | - | - | | Legal / A-E,M,E,P,FP Fees: | - | - | | 15% | - | - | | TOTAL ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS: | - | - | $1,782 $2,409 $4,081 $5,940 $2,000 $3,096 $900 $4,015 $2,409 $3,000 $1,500 $6,226 $37,358

$12,000 $19,800 $10,900 $5,000 $0 $2,800 $10,100 $60,600

|||$97,958| |||$14,694| |||$112,652|

APPENDIX E:

Resource List for Court Facility Renovation Cost Estimating

Resource List for Suggested Improvements to Existing Facilities and – Renovation/New Construction Cost Estimates (Tables 7 14 herein)

The Codes, Plans, Standards, and Guidelines referenced below, have been applied to this project using our best professional judgment, and understanding of the fiscal, functional and organizational difficulties involved in the Study’s goal to objectively evaluate and recommend viable alternatives to current rural judicial practices.

• 1. Building Code of New York State and all of its internal references to the Uniform Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Life Safety Codes, including the accessibility requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Americans Disability Act (ADA), and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
• 2. Action Plan for the Justice Courts, State of New York Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration (OCA), November 2006. Recommendations for Court Operations and Administration, Facility Security and Public Protection, Accessibility, Facility Improvements, Appendix B: Best Practices for Justice Court Security.
• 3. Action Plan for the Justice Courts, State of New York Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration (OCA), Two Year Update, September 2008. Recommendations for Upgrading Court Facilities and Security.
• 4. Guidelines for Implementing Best Practices in Court Building Security, Costs, Priorities, Funding Strategies, and Accountability. The National Center for State Courts and the State Justice Institute, 2010. Appendix Steps to Best Practices.
• 5. Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service (PBS-PQ100.1). U.S. General Services Administration. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/170711/fileName/PQ1001__Facilities_Standards_for_the_Public_Building_Service General Requirements and Life Cycle Cost Example.

APPENDIX F:

ACTION PLAN FOR THE JUSTICE COURTS, STATE OF NEW YORK UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION (OCA), NOV 2006. EXCERPTS ON FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS: BEST PRACTICES FOR JUSTICE COURT SECURITY

ACTION PLAN for the JUSTICE COURTS

N OV E M B E R 2 0 0 6

ACTION PLAN F O R T H E JUSTICE COURTS

APPENDIX B

BEST PRACTICES FOR JUSTICE COURT SECURITY

Longstanding OCA experience managing court facilities, and nationwide experience with the security threats that courts inherently face, point to a series of steps that all court administrators should take to ensure the safety and security of their courts and all persons working in or appearing before them. The jurisdiction of the Justice Courts, and particularly their preliminary and limited trial jurisdiction over crimes, makes it essential that every locality sponsoring a Justice Court take seriously its duty to ensure the security of their courts. Threats can emerge in seconds, and as a growing spate of courthouse violence nationwide graphically has illustrated, these threats can be tragic.

Many of these threats are, however, preventable with commonsense steps that are within the means of nearly every locality to adopt. Recognizing that no two Justice Courts are alike and that the diversity of Justice Court facilities and dockets makes a one-size-fits-all approach impractical, OCA offers these guidelines to inform judges, court staff and local government leaders in securing their courts:

1. Dedicate space exclusively for Justice Court use. Full implementation of many court security best practices is best achieved when there exists sufficient space dedicated exclusively for the use of judges, court staff, attorneys, litigants and other members of the public with business before the court. By its nature, multi-use Justice Court facilities often must accommodate needs inconsistent with the proper security profile of a court. For that reason, the safest Justice Court is one that shares core operational space with no other governmental or non-governmental function. Municipalities with relatively large dockets and physical infrastructure for the local government already have established dedicated Justice Court facilities; other localities are strongly advised to do so. If localities must hold Justice Court proceedings in multi-use facilities, the court facility and all other appurtenant space open to the public (e.g. bathrooms, corridors, closets) should be swept for weapons and other potential threats before Justice Court proceedings begin, and all of that adjacent space should be considered part of the Justice Court for purposes of these Best Practices.

2. Eliminate potential courtroom weapons. Whether in a dedicated courtroom setting or a mixed-use facility, even the most seemingly innocuous object can become a weapon in seconds: a window or glass-covered table can be broken and large shards converted into knives, while a wall-mounted fire extinguisher easily can become a projectile. Experience in judiciaries nationwide proves, sometimes only in tragic hindsight, that these kinds of potential weapons must be eliminated from places where court proceedings are held. To this end, glass should be eliminated from tabletops and old windows should be either replaced with shatterproof glass or lined with inexpensive material to limit breakage. Likewise, moveable objects such as fire extinguishers should, to the maximum extent that Fire Codes permit, be mounted away from where litigants congregate. In courtrooms with microphones, portable microphones with long wires are disfa-

65

NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM

vored because the wires also can become weapons: these microphones should be replaced with fixed-location microphones wherever possible.

3. Create strategic barriers. The main security benefits of having a court bench are to physically elevate the judge and separate the judge from others in the courtroom, making physical contact between the judge and would-be assailants more difficult. Justice Courts should, if possible, install benches high and wide enough to confer this minimal security benefit. If benches are impracticable, then several large tables should be placed between the judge and the rest of the courtroom to create a makeshift physical barrier. Likewise, the main security benefit of having a “bar” between the audience and the working section of the courtroom is to establish a physical barrier that, even if a would-be assailant scales it, can afford precious seconds for intended victims to take evasive action. Each Justice Court should install such a bar wherever possible. Similarly, there should be a bar or other physical barrier between the judge and wherever a witness would sit to provide a zone of protection in case a witness becomes violent. If a courtroom space cannot accommodate immovable physical barriers of this nature, as much space as possible should be created between the audience seats and the working part of the courtroom. Localities using spaces too small to provide such space should identify alternative space for holding court.

4. Eliminate strategic lines of sight. Disturbing as the prospect may be, justices and court personnel could be — and have been — watched and targeted from outside courtrooms. Many Justice Court facilities have windows or other clear lines of sight between unsecured outside locations and the court bench (or table) where the judge presides, the judge’s office, the clerk’s office, etc. All of these lines of sight should be obscured. Measures as simple as tinting windows (opaque coverings can be affixed to existing windows), relocating desks (to obscure direct lines of sight to windows) and erecting inexpensive portable screens can greatly assist at minimal cost.

5. Secure courtroom furniture. An intoxicated or distraught litigant or other interested party to a contentious court action can become explosively violent in seconds, and experience reveals that such persons often can be quite strong. If a weapon is unavailable, even a table or chair can suffice to threaten or injure others. Especially in Justice Court facilities with dedicated courtrooms, all courtroom furniture (e.g. tables and chairs) should, if feasible, be bolted to the floor; in mixed-use facilities, furniture can be bolted down and then released to clear the space for other uses. In both dedicated and mixed-use Justice Court facilities, lightweight furniture (e.g. card tables that some Justice Courts provide for litigants) should be avoided in favor of heavier and more immovable wood furniture; plastic chairs and other furniture should be avoided unless physically linked together and thus made more difficult to throw.

6. Provide uniformed and armed security presence. Courts nationwide employ uniformed and often armed security personnel for two reasons: their presence can have an important deterrent effect on would-be perpetrators of courtroom violence, and their expertise can become vitally necessary if a security threat requires immediate response. These truths are as valid in Justice Courts as in State-paid courts, and yet few Justice Courts have uniformed security personnel in courtrooms to protect the court and the public. Recognizing that Justice Courts lack statutory authority to appoint officers eligible to carry firearms, localities should ensure that whenever the court

66

ACTION PLAN F O R T H E JUSTICE COURTS

is in session, and especially when the court is hearing criminal or other sensitive cases, at least one member (and in the busiest courts, at least two members) of the local police or sheriff’s department are on-site to protect the court and the public. As with regular-hour Justice Court sessions, off-hour proceedings (e.g. arraignments and emergency applications) likewise require dedicated armed presence to protect the court. Where such a police officer or deputy sheriff is armed in the courtroom, he or she generally should remain at sufficient distance from members of the public to minimize the possibility that they could lunge for the officer’s pistol, and the pistol should be secured in a proper Level 3 holster (i.e. a holster with three restraints) to ensure maximum control of the weapon.

7. Provide ingress screening. One of the most important preventive security measures a locality can take for its Justice Court is to provide ingress screening for all persons seeking to enter a court facility. The most effective method is by proper magnetometer, installation of which requires sufficient space to accommodate the machine and its operators, separate secured space from unsecured spaces and eliminate direct lines of sight between the court and unsecured areas. Larger town and village halls can accommodate these adaptations with minimal changes to the space; one-room all-purpose facilities may require modest capital alterations. In either case, it should be a priority of every locality operating a Justice Court to provide some ingress screening to keep weapons out of court.

8. Secure and illuminate parking. Perhaps the most palpable threat to court security occurs after a court session, away from public view and often at night. Judges or court staff members leaving court for their cars naturally expose themselves to risk. For that reason, some localities provide escort for the judge and court staff after the conclusion of court proceedings. This practice is a good one and should be emulated throughout the Justice Court system. Localities also should, where possible, provide a secure (i.e. gated and/or patrolled) and well-illuminated place for judges and court staff to park, as well as secure access between that parking location and the court facility. Typically, this latter adjustment will require a second backdoor, key-controlled entrance to the court facility, which also would convey the secondary benefit of giving judges and court staff an alternative way to leave a court facility (and police to enter a court facility) under threat conditions.

9. Arrange armed escort for bank deposits. Especially for high-volume Justice Courts, the collection of revenue can concentrate in the court significant funds, including cash, that must be deposited in a local bank. The clerk or other personnel responsible for making these deposits thereby can be exposed to the risk of assault, particularly if that person’s bank deposits are relatively routine (e.g. each Monday and Thursday afternoon after lunch). To protect the staff and the Justice Court’s funds, the locality should ensure that physical deposits of Justice Court funds in the local bank be protected by armed escort, typically by the local police.

10. Secure storage of cash and negotiable instruments. Until funds are deposited in a local financial institution, Justice Court staff must keep physical custody of cash and checks paid in satisfaction of court mandates. While some Justice Courts properly store these funds in secure, immovable vaults with the double protection of key or combination access, others keep cash merely in a desk drawer or cabinet — either in a small lockbox that can be easily removed or even

67

NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM

in a simple envelope. At absolute minimum, Justice Courts should keep funds, and especially cash, in safes too large to move, segregated from public areas, with access limited to the minimum possible number of persons and secured by proper combination lock. Deposits and withdrawals should be conducted under as secure circumstances as possible, preferably under armed escort as described above.

11. Provide duress alarms in strategic places. When threats do arise, seconds count. Even in the presence of armed security, but especially when a court lacks such security, it is imperative that judges and staff have a fast and secret way to call for help. To that end, judiciaries nationwide are installing duress alarms at strategic locations (e.g. in judges’ chambers, near benches, in backroom offices) that can be activated by push of a button. These inexpensive alarms are easily installed to provide direct 911-like notification to local police that an emergency is in progress, and thereby can make the difference between life and death or escape and apprehension. Just as New York’s State-paid courts are installing these duress alarms, so too should localities make this critical investment in the security of their courts.

68