COMMITTEE
OF THE WHOLE
JULY 28, 2008
** APPROVED **
Call to Order: The meeting was called to
order at 2:47 p.m. by Chairman Curtis W. Crandall.
Members Present: Chairman C. Crandall, G. Benson, D. Burdick, W. Dibble, D. Fanton, W.
Hall, T. Hopkins, K. Kruger, M. McCormick, D. Pullen, B. Reynolds, D. Russo, R.
Truax, N. Ungermann; (Absent: T. O’Grady)
Guests: LaBella
Representatives M. Kukuvka and Penny Mashtare, Ciminelli Representatives,
OCA
Representative A. Isenberg
Court Facilities and County Office Building Presentation
by LaBella Associates:
Mark Kukuvka and Penny Mashtare from LaBella Associates,
with assistance from representatives from their estimating team at LPCiminelli,
gave a presentation on the Court Facilities Addition and Renovation and County
Office Building Renovation Project (a copy of the Powerpoint presentation is
attached to the original minutes).
Following selection of the Courthouse Addition option by the Court
Facilities and County Space Needs Committee, LaBella’s project approach has included:
·
Provide pre-schematics
drawings of the addition to the Courthouse
·
Provide furniture
and circulation plans
·
Review and
approve final pre-schematic drawings for the addition and renovation with the
County and OCA
·
Meet with OCA and
County department heads to establish objectives and program requirements
·
Develop
pre-schematics drawings of the County Office Building showing stacking,
departmental grouping, and circulation
·
Provide site plan
·
Proposed
elevations
·
Cost estimate
The size of the Courthouse addition has been reduced by
about 6,000 square feet. Circulation
patterns have been reworked in an effort to maximize back-filling into the
existing building as much as possible. Initially
a new Court entrance was to be located in back at the side of the addition, but
the current plan retains the front monumental entrance of the existing
Courthouse as the main entrance. To
accomplish handicapped accessibility, a ramp will be built off to the side of
the main entrance.
Some parking area will be lost in the back employee
lot. There will be a reduction from 141
legal spaces down to 99; a loss of 42 spaces.
This issue still needs to be resolved.
(The RFP and LaBella’s scope of work do not include off-site parking at
this point.)
The Department of Social Services has been reworked. The Support Unit will be brought over to the
main campus. Records are still being maintained
in the basement, but the Support building becomes available. WIC and Cancer Services are also being
brought back into the Health Department area of the main building.
The “bridge” between the two existing buildings will
become administrative only, with swipe-card access. The main entry of the Courthouse will be security
screening 100 percent for the entire existing Courthouse and addition. This caused relocation of the County Treasurer’s
Offices.
Floor Plan and Building Perspective Highlights:
Ground Floor, Courthouse:
·
County Clerk records
area remains
·
Probation gains
some space
·
County
Treasurer’s Offices relocated to front area of the addition
·
Inmate/Judge/employee
shared key-code access elevator and Sheriff Sally port located in back of
addition
·
Handicapped
access restrooms and elevator located in core area at front of addition
·
Large “shell
space” in addition remains. (In order to
maintain the monumental Courtroom and to keep Court functions together,
approximately two-thirds of ground floor has been left as shell space.)
Ground Floor, County Office
Building:
·
Health Department
rearranged
·
Public Defender
·
Buildings &
Grounds (part of it) in former Sally port area
·
E-911 back-up area
remains
First Floor, Courthouse:
·
Main entry, security
screening area
·
Courts
·
County Clerk’s
Office stays
·
Department of
Motor Vehicles back-filled into a vacated area in existing Courthouse
First Floor, County Office
Building:
·
Department of
Social Services has been reworked and is expanding to two floors
Second Floor, Courthouse:
·
Courts and
hearing rooms, retained monumental Courtroom
·
Judges’ chambers
reworked a little
·
Handicapped
access restrooms located in core area
·
Some additional
shell space for future expansion (roofed in, but not finished off)
Second Floor, County Office
Building:
·
Department of
Social Services expanded into one-half of the floor
·
Department of
Public Works has been given more space (the department remains in the main
building to save money, rather than moving them off-site)
·
Information
Technology relocated to get the equipment out of the basement
Third Floor, County Office
Building (former Jail):
·
Moved some of the
offices currently on the second floor up to the third floor: Legislative
Chambers/Grand Jury, Clerk of the Board’s Office, County Administrator, Human
Resources, District Attorney, County Attorney
Building Perspectives:
·
Front entrance
showing the handicapped ramp
·
Addition showing
the Judges’ entry which ties into the appearance of the main entrance and the Sally
port
Cost Estimates for Courthouse and County Office
Building:
LaBella put together very comprehensive data on their
pre-schematic design including a demolition plan, narratives, IT system,
structural system, analysis of existing building, etc., which gave their
estimating team at Ciminelli a lot of information to work with to compile their
cost estimates. The estimate has been
broken down by project components; the square footage and cost estimate for
each component are indicated below:
Courthouse Renovation: 9,600 sf $ 1,852,000
Courthouse Addition: 42,000 sf 11,935,000
County Office Building Renovation: 33,000 sf 4,897,000
Total Project: 84,600
sf $18,684,000
Costs are inclusive project costs (including contingencies,
construction manager fees, bonding costs, etc.) and are adjusted for inflation
according to the assumption that construction will begin Fall 2009,
construction mid-point Summer 2010. (For
comparison purposes, the September 2007 proposal included a total project
square footage of 97,700 at a cost estimate of $22,678,000; current estimates
have been reduced by nearly $4 million.)
Discussion
(Responses by LaBella’s Mark Kukuvka are
italicized):
Mr. Reynolds questioned if the estimates include
equipment and furniture. (Kukuvka:
The plan includes trying to salvage as much as possible to save costs.)
Mr. Ungermann asked what square footage in the addition is
for Court use. (Kukuvka: Court functions are
assigned to nearly all of the first and second floors, and not much of the ground
floor, or approximately two-thirds of the addition.) Mr. Ungermann noted that there are a lot of
excluded costs, such as high-density storage, fixtures, and equipment. (Kukuvka: LaBella worked with the County and OCA to be
sure all reasonable items are included in the bonding, minus salvaged equipment
and furniture. Although excluded in
earlier iterations, high-density storage is now included. The full report will be left with County
Administrator John Margeson.)
Mr. Truax questioned the plans for the addition ground
floor shell space, and wondered if it wouldn’t be better to eliminate a floor. (Kukuvka: The goal was to keep the existing Courtroom,
and to keep Court functions contiguous on the same floors between the existing
building and the addition.) Mr.
Truax suggested using the shell space for the offices slated to be moved to the
former jail floor, saving those renovation costs. (Kukuvka: Practicality, accessibility, and adjacencies
were considered in the placement of offices, and there were not a lot of
options for what could be put in the former jail space.) Mr. Truax noted that we’re paying a lot to
build the addition, but we’re leaving a lot of space vacant. It could be used for maintenance and storage. (Kukuvka: The shell space provides the County with
space for future expansion as cheaply as possible.)
Mr. Pullen referred to conversations held with other
counties that have gone through this process and already have encountered problems
with storage space deficiencies and lack of space to address changes in Court
structure, i.e. additional courts. Our
County was encouraged to allow for flexibility.
It may be cheaper to not include the shell space, but it will never be
cheaper to build than it is now. This
plan offers the longest term approach with the shortest term effect for
taxpayers.
Mr. Reynolds commented that the former jail space has to
be utilized. Mr. Truax asked if it could
be used for storage. (Kukuvka:
That space works for offices, but the floor loading rating is not
adequate for high-density storage.)
Mr. Ungermann asked if the estimates include a new roof over
the entire former jail. (Kukuvka:
No, only the recreation yard which will be built in.) Mr. Ungermann asked whether Information
Technology work is included in the estimate.
(Kukuvka: Wiring and conduit is provided for, but the
rest would be done by Information Technology.
A lot of the detailed listing includes assumptions, and it’s uncertain
how much equipment will be salvaged. Also
not included in the estimates is off-campus parking.)
Mr. Ungermann questioned the estimate for renovations per
square foot. (Kukuvka: That would be a
difficult number to pin down due to the nature of the project. Some areas will only require “scrape and
paint,” some need wholesale major renovation, as is the case with the former
jail floor. It’s a blend of so many
levels of renovation. The per square
foot estimate for some areas will be close to $300, and for some areas it will
be as low as $10-15.)
Chairman Crandall referred to discussion at the last
Court Facilities Committee meeting about escalating building material and
construction costs. He was left with the
feeling that there was ample coverage for projected escalations. Chairman Crandall had questioned the percentages
for contingencies and soft costs, amounting to several million dollars to cover
the unknowns. Even though the project has
gone through extensive analysis, that’s what these contingencies are for. We won’t know if this estimate is a
comfortable number until we go out to bid and get some specific dollar amounts,
but there are no hidden numbers. (Kukuvka:
That is correct. The amount
included for contingencies is reasonable for this phase of the project.)
Mr. Reynolds asked about LaBella’s past experience on how
the contingencies have run. (Kukuvka:
He doesn’t like to tamper with contingencies this early in the process. LaBella has a good record for building at
less than what they allow for contingencies, but it’s too early to say that. It’s different with every project. Renovations cause the biggest unknowns.)
Mr. McCormick questioned if enough public space is included
in the addition plans. Mr. Pullen noted
that it’s difficult to see on the floor plans, but there is a seating area for
20 people at the end of the corridor. We
don’t presently have that. There are
also attorney/client areas, seating in various Court Clerk areas, numerous
areas to conference and wait, and a children’s area (as required by OCA).
Mr. Ungermann commented that the open shell space on the
second floor of the addition covers the windows over the existing Court staircase. (Kukuvka: The plan is to put some back-lights in so the
stained glass will be lighted from behind, or possibly a small sky light.)
Andrew Isenberg, OCA, advised the Legislature that the Courts
have worked collaboratively with the Court Facilities Committee, and he feels
that they have worked tirelessly to make certain that the scale and scope of
the plan is adequate to accommodate the Courts.
The project has been scaled back as much as possible. Mr. Isenberg expressed his appreciation for all
their efforts.
Mr. Pullen recommended that if there are any questions,
legislators should contact him or Mr. Margeson prior to the next Court
Facilities meeting on August 6. The
committee will try to find the answers and implement suggestions to refine the
plan for the best possible outcome. The
Court Facilities Capital Plan will come before the full Board for approval
within the next few weeks.
Mr. Kruger asked when the unresolved problems, such as
off-site parking, will be addressed, and if those costs would be included in the
bond. Chairman Crandall responded that
some conversation has taken place, and the bond will cover whatever needs to be
included, unless there are other options.
Mr. Ungermann questioned if energy costs have been put together. Mr. Kukuvka noted that they have not. Mr. Pullen noted that it is a possibility to
work with and receive guidance from NYSERDA, and there are programs available. Participation will increase short-term costs,
but there is a long-term pay back. LaBella
is working on it. Chairman Crandall
noted that lighting, heating, etc. are included with any construction project,
and some projection is necessary.
Attorney/Client Session: A motion was
made by Legislator McCormick, seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried to
enter into an Attorney/Client Session.
Following discussion, a motion was made by Legislator Reynolds, seconded
by Legislator Hall and carried to end the Attorney/Client Session.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned following a motion
made by Legislator Reynolds, seconded by Legislator Hall and carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk