COURT
FACILITIES AND
FEBRUARY 13, 2008
** NOT APPROVED
Members Present: D. Pullen, W. Hall, G. Benson, D.
Fanton, T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady, C. Crandall
Others Present: W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, A. Isenberg (OCA),
K. Kruger, M. Kukuvka (LaBella), J. Margeson, P. Mashtare (LaBella), T. Miner, B.
Riehle, D. Roeske, P. Schmelzer; Media:
B. Quinn, Wellsville Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Approval of
Minutes: The minutes of January 8, 2008 were approved
following a motion made by Fanton, seconded by O’Grady and carried.
LaBella
Mark Kukuvka, from LaBella Associates, introduced
Assistant Project Manager Penny Mashtare.
Mr. Kukuvka distributed an agenda for the meeting. The focus at this point will be on Court
spaces only. Once there is consensus
with that, we can address other space needs, vacated areas, shell space, and
other functions in the
1) Review
new sketches of the OCA plan revisions.
2) Review
summary list of existing Court spaces including proposed new and renovated
Court spaces and square footages.
3) Work
with Court Facilities Committee and OCA to achieve buy-in of 1 & 2 above.
4) If
acceptable, LaBella to provide a new budget estimate of the revised Court plan.
After we achieve consensus of the above, we feel the
following items can be addressed:
a) LaBella
to work with
a. Project
summary of new work, addition, and renovation work.
b. Proposed
total square footage of the project.
c. List
of spaces, Courtrooms, hearing rooms, etc.
d. Schedule
for going forward, design/construction/occupancy.
e. Proposed
method of construction/bidding.
f. Proposed
project budget.
g. Financing
method.
h. Special
building features, etc.
b) Submit
OCA Capital Plan Narrative and work with OCA to gain approval.
c) LaBella
to meet with all other remaining Department Heads and the
d) LaBella
to provide sketch plan scenarios from these meetings.
e) Edits
and approval of the plans.
f) Provide
a budget estimate of the revised
Mr. Kukuvka presented revised floor plan sketches and gave
a cursory review of the changes. The
plan is still a work in progress. Major
points were:
Ground level:
·
Put in vehicle Sallyport
and elevator for incarcerated (elevator co-used by other groups with key-card
lock out system, which is acceptable to OCA);
·
Core area with
common circulation and lobby area;
·
Unassigned space
to be left as “shell” space or storage (undetermined at this point). Utilization of the shell space for
maintenance and storage was questioned.
It was noted that nothing has been designed there yet, although
opportunities have been discussed.
·
Handicapped
access through side entrance with elimination of existing side stairs, and door
will be exit only with exception of handicapped.
Main floor:
·
Main front stairs
will be the entrance for the entire building, including the addition;
·
Everyone will be screened;
queuing area for the screening process will be the present Treasurer’s area;
·
Handicapped
access lift elevator;
·
Secure door to access
core area;
·
Ramp up 18 inches
to floor level of addition;
·
DMV and
·
Door to bridge
with
·
Addition includes
Surrogate, Family Court, hearing officer, hearing room, children’s waiting
area, holding cells, interview room, mechanical room, locker room, Sallyport,
storage, secure corridors;
·
Public limited to
lobby (stopped by swipe card doors);
·
Surrogate records
restricted access (records brought to public vestibule/research room);
·
Staff entrance
also through public lobby (no back entrance) (Mr. Isenberg noted that tightening
the space program as much as possible resulted in some compromise, but it is
still better than at present and will work quite well);
·
Firewall between existing
building and addition;
·
Main hallway,
stairway, and windows of Courthouse remain;
·
Mechanical room/janitor
closet on each floor;
·
Treasurer back
corner and taking over remaining Surrogate area to keep them on the main floor,
but not worked out completely yet (there are a lot of people that need to be
accounted for in the next step, items c through f in the above listing).
Second floor:
·
Supreme and County
Courts;
·
Main Courtroom,
ceremonial Courtroom, hearing rooms, law library remains;
·
Bridge to
·
Staff corridor
separate from public corridor;
·
Ramp up again
from existing floor level to addition;
·
Small roof area
in one corner was kept open in an effort to crunch space and cost (2,000 sq ft
at $125 per sq ft saves about $250,000), or it could be shelled in to be used
for future expansion (Surrogate area was planned there, but it saves money to
put them on the main floor and leave the roof space), it can be priced both
ways;
·
Windows at top of
main Court stairs remain and look out on the roof space.
·
When Visiting
Court Judges’ area is used, judicial staff will have to use a public hallway,
but will be secure once in place. This
is a compromise from previously discussed requirements that judicial officers
have access and movement separate from the general public. The solution was discussed with OCA. It resulted from the loss of some corridor
space in reducing the size of the addition.
Mr. Isenberg noted it’s something that’s not ideal, but they have tried
to address practicalities. He envisions
the hearing room being used less frequently, and that area could be used by
personnel where the threat is not as high.
Mr. Kukuvka reported that the square footage in the
addition has been reduced from the previous 45,300 sq ft to about 39,700 sq ft
(leaving the small roof area on the top floor as is). From the Court’s perspective, the previous 45,300
sq ft was filled top to bottom with Courts and Court-related areas and the
shell space area (9,000 sq ft). Now the Courts
occupy only 30,700 sq ft of the revised 39,700 sq ft figure, or a decrease of
14,600 sq ft of Court space.
Mr. Kukuvka felt the Committee may need time to review
the plans, and OCA needs to review them.
If the plan is close, within the next couple of weeks LaBella will
submit a revised cost estimate with some alternates. Prior to estimates, they will need to know
how much the 9,000 sq ft shell space on the ground level should be built out.
A handout distributed by Mr. Kukuvka showed a tally of
all Court-related spaces including columns for existing net square footages and
proposed net square footages. This was
requested by Mr. Rodman from OCA and will help to build our case. Accompanying floor plan drawings of existing
buildings were shaded to illustrate existing Court areas (it was noted that the
Grand Jury area shouldn’t have been shaded because it’s considered part of the
District Attorney’s area). Totals for Court-related
spaces are: 9,486 existing net sq ft,
and 24,171 proposed new and existing net sq ft, or a little over double the
space. We’ve come a long way to bring
this number down from the 50,000 sq ft proposed for the new building option. With over double the current capacity, the
next step will be trying to get consensus within OCA that this is sufficient
for
Mr. Pullen asked if the firewall between the existing
building and the addition, instead of the previous atrium, will affect what
needs to be done to stay within code.
Mr. Kukuvka responded that they are considered separate buildings and we
won’t have to trigger full compliance with the existing Courtrooms since the
new ones will be fully compliant. There
will be fire doors between the buildings with a magnetic hold open. He also noted that the 18-inch ramp from the
existing Courthouse floor level to the addition is to accommodate the higher Courtroom
ceiling heights, the requirement for raised judges’ benches, and mechanical
space above the ceilings for ductwork, heating, and sprinkler piping.
Timing for the next steps was discussed. Once consensus is reached, LaBella can begin
item 4 from the above list, providing a new budget estimate, and can also begin
their part of item a, writing the OCA Capital Plan Narrative. Mr. Isenberg reported that he was told the
next session of the Commission is coming up soon, probably before spring, but
no dates were given yet. At that meeting,
we need to present a Capital Plan including a narrative with estimated costs,
how the project will be financed, method of construction, number of Courtrooms
and other Court areas, milestones, etc.
Mr. Isenberg hasn’t had time to review this new set of drawings yet, and
he would like the opportunity for LaBella to meet with the OCA Judges to
explain the plan, either through video or face-to-face, which would be very
beneficial (prior to the next Committee meeting).
A
motion was made by Fanton, seconded by Hall and carried unanimously to indicate
to LaBella Associates that the Committee gives general approval on the revised
Court Facilities Plan drawings, for LaBella to work with the Office of Court
Administration to get their responses back relative to the Plan, and to
establish cost estimates in time for the next Committee meeting on March 5 at
3:00 pm. (Cost estimates at this point will be for Court Facilities
only – both the addition and renovations to existing space.)
Mr. Kukuvka noted that LaBella will follow up with the Judges
and will begin looking at items a through f on the above listing.
In response to a request that a set of plans be made available
for review by the County Bar Association, Mr. Isenberg noted it was important
for the public and Bar staff to see the plans, but he would like to have the opportunity
to brief the OCA Judges first in case they have any major problems with the
plans. Chairman Crandall suggested that
when we get past that point, the plans can be made available and even hung up for
display in a central location.
Public Information Brochure:
NEXT MEETING: March 5, 2008 at 3:00 pm.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. following
a motion made by Hall, seconded by Fanton and carried.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk