COURT FACILITIES AND COUNTY SPACE NEEDS COMMITTEE

APRIL 9, 2008

 

** NOT APPROVED **

 

Members Present:  D. Pullen, W. Hall, G. Benson, D. Fanton, T. Hopkins, C. Crandall

            (Absent: T. O’Grady)

 

Others Present:  L. Ballengee, D. Burdick, M. Chapel, W. Dibble, W. Emerson, A. Finnemore, P. Fogarty, B. Kelley, K. Kruger, J. Margeson, P. Mashtare, T. Parker, B. Riehle, T. Ross, M. Tayrien, N. Ungermann;  Media:  K. Ross, Wellsville Daily Reporter

 

Call to Order:  3:00 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.

 

Approval of Minutes:  The minutes of March 5, 2008 were approved following a motion made by Fanton, seconded by Hopkins and carried.

 

Financial Planning Services, Presentation by Municipal Solutions, Inc.:

 

            Mary Chapel, of Municipal Solutions (formerly Allardice and Associates), discussed financial planning services available to the County regarding the Court Facilities Capital Project.  Services include assistance with developing a financial plan, while looking at alternatives such as bonding, the use of reserve funds, fund anticipation notes, and investment bonds.  They also prepare financial information for meetings and help with the actual presentations.  If bonding is the route we take, they help implement it, and make sure funds are consistent with cash flow needs.  They will also be looking for situations of arbitrage and the spend-down requirements of borrowing large sums of money.  At budget time, they will advise on the figures needed for debt service.  Their services are also flexible to meet other potential needs.  Fees are dependent on the project, and will be based on a schedule of fees related to tasks and hourly rates.  They would provide a quote.

 

            When asked about the status of the bond market, Ms. Chapel noted that with insurance in flux, they’ve actually seen that the market is in flux.  Short-term notes would be safer right now, but she expects it will settle out within six months to a year.  They will offer options, but will err on the side of conservatism.

 

            Allegany County has worked with Allardice and Associates for many years.  County Treasurer Terri Ross noted that they were the financial consultant used for the County Jail and Public Safety Facility Project, and we use them every time we borrow money.  They know the County’s financial situation.

 

            Ms. Chapel was unaware of any other court projects Municipal Solutions has had involvement with in the past, but they are presently working with three communities consolidating their court facilities.

 

            Mr. Hopkins questioned if the financial plan for OCA requires this professional service.  County Administrator John Margeson noted that OCA is not looking for that level of involvement at this point, and that he and the County Treasurer’s Office can handle it for now.

 

            Mr. Pullen commented that through his conversations with OCA, he learned that there are no grants or funding available to apply against the principle of court facilities borrowing, but when the actual cost is documented, there is assistance to cover up to one-third of the interest on the actual expense.  A financial consultant would help with keeping track of that.

 

            Mr. Margeson recommended that the Financial Planning Services contract should be considered after the Legislature approves the Bond Resolution, although there would be some prior conversation.  That was the same timeline followed with the past County Jail Project. 

 

Court Facilities Design Activities, Update by LaBella Associates:

 

            Mark Tayrien and Penny Mashtare, of LaBella Associates, gave an update on design activities since the last meeting.  There was nothing formal to present on the project, but current status included:  the plans may need a little revision, Courthouse tours took place on March 26, and efforts are being made separately by OCA which may lead to other potential changes.  LaBella is waiting for feedback at this point.

 

County Space (Non-Court) Activities, Update by LaBella Associates:

 

            LaBella is also currently working with John Margeson on the non-Court space issues.  Some tentative plans may be available at the next meeting.  Their general approach for available space includes:

 

  • County Office Building (COB) Third Floor: Second floor occupants moving up, as well as Information Technology (moving from Courthouse basement)
  • COB Second Floor: Department of Social Services expansion space, which also allows for relocation of Support Collections Unit
  • COB Ground Floor: Public Defender and other Sheriff-use spaces are retained; areas presently occupied by Courts (former Room 8 and across hallway) vacated, but not assigned yet; Department of Health space may be scaled back some
  • Courthouse Main Floor: County Treasurer moving to lower level Courthouse addition (shell space closest to Courthouse) giving them adjacency to Real Property Tax and County Clerk; Surrogate’s Clerks moving to Courthouse addition;  Court security to occupy vacated front portion of Treasurer area; Department of Motor Vehicles moving to central portion of area vacated by Treasurer (back area) and Surrogate Clerks; balance of that vacated space unidentified
  • Courthouse Basement: Board of Elections moving to vacated Information Technology area (from offsite location, which will save on lease expenses)

 

            These plans are not finalized yet, but are a work in progress.  The approach used for assigning of space for non-Court functions has not referred back to the former County Space Needs Study, but instead LaBella is starting with current space and working with Mr. Margeson to add incremental space with a more global consideration of requirements.  This will be a two-step process: the first - working with Mr. Margeson to lay out a conceptual floor plan, and the second - interviewing department heads with Mr. Margeson regarding their needs.

 

Tours of Wyoming and Genesee County Court Facilities on March 26, Recap:

 

            Discussion was held on the impressions gathered from the Courthouse tours in Wyoming County (Warsaw) and Genesee County (Batavia) on March 26.  Both facilities were built approximately ten years ago, and the Judges felt they were planning for much more than ten to fifteen years.  Due to storage space issues and the unanticipated creation of new specialty courts, both facilities have run out of room.  (Flexibility in spacing and allowing more for storage would be something to consider.  Allegany County’s plans include two features that will allow for expansion: the ground floor and roof shell spaces.)  The Wyoming County Courthouse has a lot of natural light, but some hallways are too narrow, there is only one unisex rest room per floor, and parking is insufficient.  They used ramps instead of lifts for witnesses.  Wyoming County is presently at 68 percent of their constitutional taxing limit.  The Genesee County Courthouse has no natural light, no air conditioning, and there seems to be a lot of wasted space in some areas.  They reduced their original plans due to cost, and in the process ended up with some inaccessible spaces.  (With inadequate planning, our results could end up with less usability than hoped for.)  Their large jury assembly room doubles for other uses, but the jury deliberation room was small.  Parking is inadequate.  Genesee County is presently in the low 40 percent range of their constitutional taxing limit.  (Regarding jury room size and unisex bathrooms, OCA’s standards have changed since those facilities were built.)

 

            Value engineering was mentioned, defined as an attempt to make the facility look its best within a limited budget, spending money in public areas, with office spaces being a little plainer.  Mr. Tayrien commented on the increased need for durability in some areas, as well as finish, which would be looked at in conjunction with the construction manager. 

 

            The inclusion of furnishing costs in with the total Court Facility building cost estimates was questioned.  Mr. Tayrien noted that court projects are confusing with the breakdown of FF&E expense, and OCA sometimes picks up some of the furniture costs.  He will relay this question to Mark Kukuvka.  Mr. Pullen noted that in previous conversations, Andrew Isenberg has stated that it will be up to the County to equip the building. 

 

            Parking and access were discussed.  The Courthouse addition will cause a loss of at least 60 parking spaces.  Concern was expressed for where “customers” will park, or how far they will have to walk (uphill) to get here.  Project cost aside, we need to consider usability and practicality.  On one hand, there is the grand front entrance with its classic appearance which OCA has emphasized and LaBella took into consideration, and on the other hand, there is the issue of usability.  Wyoming County moved their Department of Motor Vehicles, and that traffic went to downtown Warsaw.  Allegany County eliminated some of its lack of parking and traffic flow when the Sheriff’s Office and Jail moved.  It was noted that the best parking is taken up by employees, which is less customer-friendly.  That would also be the case with the addition.  The Courthouse would be better accessed by the use of the front parking lot by customers rather than by employees.  One answer might be to pave over part of the Courthouse lawn, but we would then need to weigh usability against esthetics.  The parking issue needs to be addressed, but right now we need to deal with the pressure of the state mandates.

 

Presentation of Court Facilities Plans to Bar Association Members:

 

            Mr. Pullen reported on a meeting held April 7 with OCA representatives, members of the County Bar Association, and Mark Kukuvka from LaBella for a presentation and to gather input.  Fifteen attorneys and six others were in attendance (mostly County).  Attorney Pat Fogarty felt it was a good presentation, but it would have been better if held later in the day so more attorneys could have been present.  The plans are positive in terms of attorney needs, with an increase in conferencing areas from none to six or seven.  It has been a major problem having to meet in hallways and “broom closets” with clients facing serious legal issues.  Ms. Fogarty also commented on the need for more meeting rooms and waiting areas, and some reception areas are too large.  One additional conference room has already been created by reducing the size of a reception area in response to her concern.

 

            Mr. Pullen referred to a previous concern about cutting back on the number of holding cells to gain some space and change traffic patterns.  But during the March 26 Courthouse tours, District Judge Townsend responded that we wouldn’t want to cut back there because two holding cells on each floor are necessary to prevent traffic flow problems and sheriff transport issues.  (Those who work with it know better, so this feedback was helpful.)

 

            District Attorney Terry Parker commented on the location of the attorney waiting areas in relation to the judges’ chambers in the addition, which are approximately 150 feet away, and questioned if there would be a way to improve connectivity.  Mr. Parker also noted that the public stairway in the addition could be an impediment to the secure area upstairs, and suggested swapping it to the location of the restrooms near the elevators which frees up space in the secure areas.  This would stack the restrooms over each other.

 

            Principle Law Clerk Warren Emerson stated that the County Bar Association appreciates the opportunity to meet with OCA and provide input, and expressed concern about space limitations.  Both of the judges do a commendable job and are trying to do more telephonically whenever possible.  Mr. Parker noted that in Wyoming County, the jury box has screens and computer access to allow for remote testimony.  Capability for new technology will be one of the advantages of the creation of new space in the addition, rather than just renovating current spaces and getting something that’s only usable.

 

            Other issues mentioned were:

  • The use of lifts for judges in the Warsaw facility.  (Mr. Isenberg has noted that it would be nearly impossible to get a waiver to use a lift rather than a ramp any longer.)
  • Evidence room – something our plans did not include.  (Evidence is the responsibility of the Court Clerk, and a secure area would be needed for storage between sessions of court.)
  • Finishing off the addition second floor roof shell space, which could also change some of the traffic flow patterns.  (This may raise the cost, but would be cheaper if done now rather than later.)
  • Natural lighting in the new courtroom on the second floor of the addition.  (Ms. Mashtare noted that natural light would be brought from windows on the exterior walls, through the corridors, and in through transoms in the courtroom walls.  She has begun to implement some of the issues addressed so far.  Some have been taken care of, and other suggestions will be worked in as much as is possible.)

 

            Mr. Pullen noted that further comments should be gotten to Mr. Kukuvka, Ms. Mashtare, Mr. Isenberg, John Margeson, or himself as soon as possible to allow time to make changes.  Judge Townsend invited comments from attorneys, and we may want to ask Mark or Penny to attend a Bar Association meeting some evening to get that aspect of the “user friendliness” function and some of the other issues to address.

 

Construction Management Services Request for Proposals (RFP):

 

            County Administrator John Margeson led a discussion on the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for construction management services which he put together and e-mailed to committee members for review.  The draft covers all construction management services required for this project, including:  bringing the CM on board at the design stage, working through the bidding process, assisting the County in awarding bids and contracts, day-to-day oversight of construction, overseeing contractors, staging work, and staying until completion and occupancy.  The proposed time line suggests Legislative approval of the Bond Resolution in July 2008 and selection of the CM in August 2008.  Mr. Margeson recommended allowing four to six weeks for submission of proposals.  Within that period, the scope of services will be further defined due to LaBella’s progress.

 

            A motion was made by Hall, seconded by Fanton and carried to approve the Construction Management Services Request for Proposal (RFP) document prepared by County Administrator John Margeson, and to authorize Mr. Margeson to proceed with the RFP process.

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

Tour of Court Facilities Correspondence:

 

            Mr. Hall suggested that thank-you letters be sent to the staff at both the Wyoming County and Genesee County Courts and also to Andrew Isenberg for the Courthouse tours.  John Margeson will draft the letters and have Chairman Curtis Crandall sign them.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Presentation of Court Facilities Plan to Bar Association Members: 

 

            The previous presentation held during the day limited attendance by some Bar Association members.  Mr. Parker commented that several sets of the plans have been made and are available in Warren Emerson’s office if anyone wants to see them.  Those who are interested have an opportunity for comments and input.  Chairman Crandall noted that we are in the midst of plan revisions, and that as changes are made, we would need to update the information given to Bar members.  He suggested letting the process get to a more finalized form, and then decide on a format for further presentation.  Mr. Pullen requested communication from the Bar Association to its members that plans are available in the Court area, and any comments should be gotten back to the committee prior to the next meeting on May 7.  This may be better than trying to have a meeting within that time period.

 

Court Facilities Capital Plan:

 

            Mr. Pullen reported that Andrew Isenberg still has no date for the next Court Facilities Board meeting, but understood that it would probably be held before June.  At that meeting, the County will need to submit a finalized and approved Court Facilities Capital Plan.  Mr. Pullen urged committee members to review the draft plan.  If there are revisions, get them to Mr. Kukuvka and Ms. Mashtare, and they can forward the changes to Mr. Margeson to forward on to committee members for review prior to the next meeting on May 7.  Mr. Isenberg felt that the Court Facilities Board will be looking for something approved by the full Board.

 

NEXT MEETING:  May 7, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.

 

Adjournment:  The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. following a motion made by Fanton, seconded by Hall and carried.

 

Respectfully submitted by

Adele Finnemore, Journal Clerk