Chief Judge presses Pasco County for central courthouse as caseload and growth strain existing facilities

Chief Judge Sean Crane told the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners on April 15 that the county needs a central courthouse to handle rising criminal caseloads and to extend the useful life of the two existing courthouses.

“The central complex allows people from the east side of the county to have access … and it consolidates not only the state attorney's office, the public defender's office,” Crane said, summarizing the operational benefits of consolidation and the economies of scale for justice partners.

Why it matters: Judge Crane said Pasco’s growth and courtroom shortfall pose operational and security challenges. Centralizing criminal dockets would relieve pressure on the older East and West facilities and better align courtroom capacity with judicial staffing.

Main points from the presentation - Historic planning and current need: Crane said planning for a central complex dates back to plans in the late 1990s and a Facilities Master Plan the county commissioned. He described an ongoing square‑footage deficit and cited multiple county studies that listed a central courthouse as a priority. - Courtroom and judge ratio: Crane said Pasco has 22 judges but roughly 13.5 courtrooms, leaving an unfavorable judge-to-courtroom ratio compared with most other circuits. He described operational examples — hearings occurring in close proximity that complicate management and safety, particularly in high‑tension hearings. - Cost and comparisons: Crane said an earlier estimate for a central complex had reached about $200 million but suggested that recent work in Pinellas County showed larger projects coming in at varying costs (he referenced a roughly $300 million Pinellas example) and urged further cost study and consultant involvement to refine the number. - Design approach: Crane recommended designing the building with a shell for future expansion and using a mix of full-size and smaller magistrate courtrooms to optimize space and costs.

Context and next steps - Judge Crane urged renewed study and cost refinement and thanked the board for past support on the issue. Commissioners discussed funding tools including general obligation bonds, public-safety impact fees and federal or state grants; staff said they will “freshen up” past studies and return with funding and design ideas.

Ending - Judge Crane framed the project as a long-term, once-in-a-generation investment and asked commissioners to consider options to move from planning to a funding strategy.