COURT
FACILITIES AND
JANUARY 8, 2008
** NOT APPROVED
Members Present: D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton,
W. Hall, T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady,
C. Crandall
Others Present: R. Christman, A. Finnemore, A. Isenberg
(OCA), K. Kruger, M. Kukuvka (LaBella), J. Margeson, T. Parker, B. Riehle, N.
Ungermann
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Committee Chairman
David Pullen.
Approval of
Minutes:
The minutes of November 27, 2007 were approved following
a motion made by Hall, seconded by O’Grady and carried.
The minutes of December 3, 2007 were approved following a
motion made by
The minutes of December 10, 2007 were approved following
a motion made by Benson, seconded by Hall and carried.
Discussion and Update by LaBella Associates on Refinement
of Court Facilities Project:
Mark Kukuvka, from LaBella Associates, updated the
Committee on the work accomplished at a very productive meeting held in
Ground Floor Plan Modifications:
a. Maintain existing Courthouse entrance as main
entry point.
b. At ground level, provide a handicap entrance
including a ramp and/or elevator access, probably located off to the side. Handicapped access could possibly be done on
an intercom basis, which is most economical, but requires an escort by a security
officer. A lift or one-story elevator to
the security office and not requiring the intercom would be ideal. Need to consider pros and cons and see what’s
in compliance with
c. By maintaining the main entrance and
performing security screening there, the connection between the proposed
addition and the Courthouse can be reduced (security office reduced from 266 to
150 sq. ft.). Need to add a locker room,
possibly in the rest room area.
d. Eliminate temporary holding room in the
security office; can use one of the holding cells.
e. Eliminate one staff elevator. Provide one secure elevator that allows staff
access and inmate access separately.
Accomplish through door control technology (swipe cards will lock out
access by other categories of users).
Main Floor Plan Modifications:
a. Keep main entrance as monumental Courthouse
entrance. Screening would take place
upon entry. Keep the main staircase in
the Courthouse; previous plan locked out the stairway except for exit only; now
wide open because screening is done at entrance.
b. Consider reworking the existing Treasurer’s Office
area into the building security area, including all public screening at one
station. Saves square footage by screening
entire building. OCA may require at
least a podium on the upper floor for security.
Screen everybody for all three levels; staff could have swipe cards for
strategic outside doors.
c. Provide 20-30 seats in the Family Court
waiting lobby. Provide small 6x7
workstations for Family Court reception.
Need to add reception for children’s area.
d. Reduce attorney/client conference rooms to
100 sq. ft. each.
e. Eliminate multi-purpose room in addition. Waiting room in back provides flex for jurors
and multi-purpose for Family Court.
f. Eliminate Grand Jury room, continue to
provide in either the existing Legislative Chambers or in one of the courtrooms
(eliminates rest room also).
g. Add a secretary office to the
judge/magistrate office (too large as is).
h. Reduce the hearing room from 1,100 sq. ft. to
600 sq. ft.
i. Consider keeping the District Attorney’s Office
in its current location.
j. Provide a public access common use elevator
that is connected to the new addition and the existing Courthouse that lands on
all existing and new floors.
Second Floor
Plan Modifications:
a. Large courtroom reduced from 3,160 sq. ft. to
around 2,000 sq. ft. (The main courtroom
in the Courthouse is 1,800 sq. ft.)
b. Reduce spectator seating down to 30-40 seats
in the large courtroom, since we have the existing courtroom. Also don’t need four tables. Install lift instead of ramp for judge.
c. Eliminate
witness waiting room in the addition; relocate to old Courthouse.
d. Provide two attorney/client conference rooms
at 100 sq. ft. each in the addition, a reduction from four.
e. Eliminate Drug Court Coordinator’s Office,
combine with
f. Eliminate alternate jury waiting room, use
existing Law Library. Required to have Law
Library; keep at same size and it will double as attorney/client conference
room. Part of conference function will
be alternate jury waiting room.
g. Eliminate jury security office, security
station to be provided for in hallway outside of the jury room.
h. Reduce jury deliberation room from 488 sq.
ft. to 375 sq. ft.
i. Keep existing library as is and use also as
attorney/client conference room.
j. Add judge’s secretary space inside the
visiting judge’s chamber.
k. Convert the existing small courtroom into a
hearing room, size can be reduced.
l. Convert the Commissioner of Juror’s Office
and Law Clerk Office to a jury deliberation room.
m. Convert the jury deliberation room into
judge’s chambers.
n. Provide two 100 sq. ft. attorney/client
conference rooms in the existing Courthouse, to double as witness waiting areas.
o. Convert one of the attorney/client rooms into
the Commissioner of Juror’s Office.
Comments:
Mr. Pullen questioned if these
modifications were acceptable to OCA.
Mr. Isenberg responded that they were, and that the December 21 meeting
was productive. The goal was to downsize
the plan as much as possible. When also
questioned, District Attorney Terry Parker said the changes were acceptable in
order to keep the addition as small as possible.
Mr. Pullen asked how the present
breezeway between the
Mr. Fanton asked about the total
square footage taken out. Mr. Kukuvka responded
that he doesn’t have all the answers at this point, and there’s a lot of work
ahead, but the marked up working copy of the floor plan demonstrates the work
done so far in a lot of areas. He will
begin on a redesign now, to “crunch” the floor plan, but first wanted direction
on any other guidelines from the Committee.
The addition is driven by the courts only on the main and upper
floors. The ground level “shell” is
intended to keep costs down. Mr. Fanton
commented that he likes the idea of the shell.
Maintenance is short on space now.
With a smaller addition, we may be able to save a portion of the existing
maintenance building. This will reduce the estimate for a large replacement maintenance
building. Mr. Kukuvka commented that
they will “crunch” the addition for court needs, keeping it as small as possible.
When the plan is acceptable to the Committee
and OCA, we can look at vacated spaces and back in other departments as a
follow up step.
Mr. Christman mentioned screening of
clientele of the
Mr. Pullen questioned the number of
courtrooms: one new hearing room, one new courtroom, the existing monumental
courtroom, and the existing hearing room.
Both courtrooms are full sized.
Mr. Kukuvka noted this is acceptable to OCA. The first step is to produce something
acceptable to OCA, but they need to see it.
That will be the next step.
Mr. Pullen asked about the
renovations completed on the ground floor of the
Chairman Crandall felt that the
December 21 meeting was a very productive exercise. The addition was reduced more than he thought
possible, and the project was brought down to a more acceptable level. If we proceed with leaving the addition’s ground
floor as a shell, it allows for growing room.
By utilizing the top floor of the County Office Building and other
vacated spaces, and in light of the action taken by the Board of Health last
night (eliminating the Home Health Care Program), the County should have enough
space to address the space needs of other departments. The plan may not be ideal, but we have to
have a plan that’s acceptable for the Board to approve.
Proposed next steps in moving forward with the
project:
1. LaBella to
provide new sketches of the OCA plan revisions, with consensus of Committee.
2. LaBella to
prepare a summary list of existing court spaces including square footages.
3. LaBella to
provide a summary list of proposed new and renovated court spaces and square
footages.
4. Work with
OCA to achieve buy-in of 1-3 above.
5. Provide a
new budget estimate of the revised Court Facilities plan.
Mr. Kukuvka summarized the above
steps. At subsequent meetings,
spreadsheets and revised floor plans will be available. They will work with Ciminelli to put numbers
with the plan (at this point, just on the Court Facilities piece). Mr. Kukuvka
will accomplish as much as he can before the next meeting on January 22 and is
hoping to have the sketches ready then.
After consensus of the above, 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 a sketch plan scenario from these
meetings.
e.
Edit and approval of the plans.
f.
Provide a budget
estimate of the revised
Once a Court Facilities plan is
submitted and approved, it opens things up for LaBella. With a clear understanding of vacancies,
options, and costs, they can begin addressing the
Mr. Kukuvka asked if the date of the
Court Facilities Board meeting is known yet.
Mr. Isenberg did not know, but will provide notification when he does.
Mr. Kukuvka noted that he wasn’t
hearing any disagreement on the major philosophies mentioned so far, and there seems
to be consensus on keeping the ground floor of the addition open for now, so
this gives him some major rules to comply with and will make the process as efficient
as possible.
The original concept included an
atrium (now referred to as a link), with a walkway across the middle to get
from section to section. There was a lot
of open space that can now be utilized for other functions. Mr. Fanton noted we have to look at the most
economical use of space. Mr. Kukuvka
pointed out that although scaled down, the new version will still have some
esthetics. It’s still public space; so
it has to be inviting. Mr. Pullen asked
if we still have the advantage of not having to bring the old Courthouse into
full compliance with
Letter of Acknowledgement to Clark Patterson Lee:
Chairman Crandall referred to a discussion
at the last meeting regarding work accomplished by Clark Patterson Lee and the
possible sharing of their plans for the top floor of the
Public Information Dissemination:
Chairman Crandall believes it is important
to develop and disseminate some form of periodic public information sheet on
the Court Facilities Project. This could
be a brochure, pamphlet, or single sheet with facts on the progress of the
project that would provide general information and possibly answer questions. The information could be put together by this
Committee, John Margeson, David Pullen, and himself, with input from Mark
Kukuvka. It could be sent to Town Clerks
and Supervisors, and spread around.
There are questions out there that need to be answered.
NEXT MEETING: January 22, 2008 at 3:00 pm. (Future dates in February were discussed, but
will be decided on at the next meeting.)
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. following
a motion made by Fanton, seconded by O’Grady and carried.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk