COURT
FACILITIES AND
JUNE 4, 2008
** NOT APPROVED
Members Present: D. Pullen, W. Hall, G. Benson, D.
Fanton, T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady, C. Crandall
Others Present: J. Carminati, L. Ballengee, W. Dibble, W.
Emerson, A. Finnemore, J. Foels, A. Isenberg, B. Kelley, P. Fogarty, K. Kruger,
M. Kukuvka, J. Margeson, P. Mashtare, B. Riehle, T. Ross, K. Toot, N.
Ungermann; Media: B. Quinn, Wellsville
Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Approval of
Minutes: The minutes of May 7, 2008 were approved
following a motion made by Mr. O’Grady, seconded by Mr. Fanton and carried.
LaBella Update on Courthouse Addition and
(Penny Mashtare, Mark
Kukuvka)
Review of
Penny Mashtare, from LaBella Associates, reported on the
latest revision of the
Ground Floor: Health
Department will occupy most of the floor; WIC and Cancer Services will be
brought back in from off-site; Health reception will be near the entrance,
allowing for better direction of customer flow; Public Defender’s Office stays
where it is; Maintenance will have the Sally port area. A suggestion was made to locate the entrance
door for the Public Defender’s Office in the hallway, rather than in the former
Sheriff’s area. It was later noted that
a second door out of the Public Defender’s Office would be better for security,
instead of just relocating the door. Better
signage was suggested, possibly color coded, to help with directing customers.
First Floor: Social
Services will have the entire floor; Child Support Unit will be brought in from
off-site (records stored in the basement of the Support Unit building will be
out-sourced). Existing work stations and
exam rooms will be taken advantage of, and acoustics will be addressed with
partitions to help with noise and privacy.
Storage was addressed: high density storage area is the same, and there
is a file room, but a lot of the filing goes with personnel into offices; archival
records will be out-sourced.
Second Floor: Social
Services will occupy nearly half of the floor.
The present Legislative Chambers area will require the most work on this
floor, requiring new walls to section it off.
Public Works remains and will expand in area. Information Technology will move up and
acquire additional storage space.
Third Floor
(former Jail): This floor will require the most work. Legislative Board Clerk’s Offices, Caucus
Room, and Chambers (from a load bearing/code standpoint, the Chambers had to be
located in the former outdoor rec area); District Attorney; County Attorney; County
Administrator; Human Resources; Workers’ Compensation (in the HR area, from
off-site); mail/copy room. The need for
the corridor at the back of the Chambers area was discussed, as was the
possibility of reversing the direction of the Chambers. Mr. O’Grady questioned if all the conference
rooms were needed, and if one of those areas could be used to bring the
Youth/DWI Office back in from off-site.
Ms. Mashtare noted that there are still some unassigned spaces that
could be looked at. Mr. Isenberg asked
if doubling for Grand Jury was discussed when planning space for the
Legislative Chambers and when meeting with the District Attorney. Mr. Kukuvka responded that it was
accommodated for.
Courthouse
Basement/Addition Ground Floor: Board of Elections will be brought back up
from off-site and voting booths will be out-sourced;
Mr. Fanton questioned where the rest of building
maintenance would go following the removal of the large building out back. They have some space in the former Sally
port, but due to noise, it might not be appropriate to go in the unassigned
space on the ground floor of the addition.
Mr. Kukuvka noted that the ground floor unassigned space is tentatively
slated for storage; it’s unfinished space right now to help with keeping costs
down. If the County wants that built out
to a certain level, he will need to know that.
With the Support Unit moving into the main building, a
decision will have to be made on what to do with the vacant building.
Overview of Demolition Plans and General Approach for
COB Remodeling:
Ms. Mashtare and Mr. Kukuvka displayed demolition plans
which Ciminelli will use to estimate costs.
A mechanical team will be coming in next week for analysis and
assessment. Guidance will be needed from
this committee on the level of renovations and finishing work the County will
want in order to ascertain proper estimates. LaBella previously supplied estimates for
three different levels of renovation, from “scrape and paint” on the lowest
level; to some walls, carpeting, and tile; to a more major level, as on the
third floor where nearly everything will be new. When the drawings are given to the estimator,
a narrative will be included to ensure basic finishes, but they need direction
on what to include in the narrative such as how much electrical renovation is needed,
number of data drops, etc. Discussion
included ceilings, flooring, existing lighting, and hardware. What can be salvaged will be, to keep the
project as economical as possible. There
will be a lot of judgment calls, but these issues affect pricing. Mr. Kukuvka noted he realized the legislators
would not know what all the needs would be, but is looking more for an attitude,
such as whether to paint all rooms, and leaving flooring if it is in good
condition, or fixing it if tiles are missing.
Next Steps:
Mr.
Kukuvka suggested the committee review the latest floor plan revisions and
forward comments back to him through Mr. Margeson within one week. LaBella’s next step will be to write up the narratives
and give the information, along with the mechanical team’s figures, to the
estimators. Estimates will be presented
to the committee at the July meeting. If
the committee approves the figures, LaBella can be ready for a presentation to
the full Board of Legislators on July 14.
Mr. Crandall will schedule a Committee of the Whole meeting on July 14
following the Board meeting at approximately 3 p.m.
Preparation for Office of Court Administration (OCA)
Meeting on June 10:
Mr. Margeson reported that he, Mr. Kukuvka, and Ms.
Mashtare will meet with OCA officials on June 10 to review the Courthouse
addition project and go through the floor plans floor by floor. LaBella will take the plans, elevations, the comparison
space program (which is a strong selling point in reducing the size of the addition),
and a three-dimensional piece. It was noted that the
Mr. O’Grady suggested that another informational pamphlet
be prepared following the June 10 OCA meeting in order to keep the public
informed of progress on the project.
Mr. Isenberg reported that after OCA’s Ed Rodman was in
town for a meeting with LaBella on the revised floor plans, he met with the
Judges, and with some minor tweaking, everyone on the Court side is on board
with the plan.
Mr. Pullen reported that Legislator Dibble provided him
with information from NYSERDA regarding state funding availability for new
construction programs adhering to “green” guidelines for energy efficiency, performance,
and energy consumption. Mr. Kukuvka
remarked that a lot of county projects have applied for NYSERDA incentives,
some more aggressively than others. Sometimes
you have to put in more expensive units in order to reap some money back, but
you certainly wouldn’t get the difference in costs back. Mr. Kukuvka stated it makes sense to apply. The process involves getting the project
registered, a case number would be assigned, and a technical assistance person would
work with LaBella on how much to go for.
Mr. Isenberg commented that the County should be working
with any agency appropriate at the state level for any incentives that are available. OCA provides assistance with a portion of the
interest on bonding. NYSERDA would be
pursued independently by the County, not through OCA.
Mr. Pullen noted that the project could cost more up
front, with pay back in energy savings over the life of the bond. The County’s goal was to keep upfront costs
as low as possible, but this might be something to consider with energy costs
what they are. Mr. Hopkins commented
that if we’re talking of using something that’s proven as an energy saver, we’d
know the savings up front, but he wouldn’t want to use something that’s
unproven. Mr. Kukuvka remarked that “more
aggressive” just means more sophisticated technology, as in higher efficiency
furnaces. You’d be spending more but the
NYSERDA incentive would also be higher.
NYSERDA can do a third-party calculation to determine the payback period. Mr. Kukuvka’s experience has shown that most
counties have pursued the incentive casually, only a few aggressively. He will refer it to their engineers in light
of higher fuel costs and get a fresh look at the payback period. There is also a green building movement
independent of NYSERDA that involves the use of recycled materials, etc. The US Green Building Council has a
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified Program. It costs five to ten percent more up front to
construct a completely LEED Certified building, for which you would reap benefits
in energy savings over a period of years, although there are no incentives. Mr. Kukuvka noted that this project has not
been priced yet as a green building, but we can still be good stewards as far
as some things go without getting LEED certified. Mr. Hall stated there is no chance now to do
a completely green building, and it’s too expensive. Mr. Pullen commented that we don’t lose
anything by registering with NYSERDA. Mr.
Kukuvka will register the project with NYSERDA and check with LaBella’s
engineers on how aggressively to pursue those incentives. He will report at the next meeting.
Space Options for Office for the Aging/NY Connects/Veterans’
Services:
Mr. Margeson spoke with Ray DeTine from the Belmont
Betterment Association approximately two weeks ago and discussed the County’s
interest in space, what it would be used for, and what would be needed. Mr. DeTine wanted to speak with an investor. Mr. Margeson is waiting to hear back and will
contact Mr. DeTine later this week.
Mr. Foels, along with Waterbourne Construction Advisor
James Carminati, presented preliminary lease figures and construction estimates
for a 6,000 sf facility on the
|
10-year initial lease term
rate (based on a fifteen-year loan): |
Years 1-5 |
$11.59 psf |
|
|
Years 6-10 |
$12.75 psf |
|
Two
additional five-year renewal terms: |
Years 11-15 |
$14.03 psf |
|
|
Years 16-20 |
$15.43 psf |
|
|
|
|
|
15-year initial lease term
rate (based on a twenty-year loan): |
Years 1-5 |
$ 9.92 psf |
|
|
Years 6-10 |
$10.91 psf |
|
|
Years 11-15 |
$12.00 psf |
|
Two
additional five-year renewal terms: |
Years 16-20 |
$13.20 psf |
|
|
Years 21-25 |
$14.52 psf |
The rental rate is based on
this being a financed project. The rate
secured on the existing building is six percent, and Mr. Foels expects those
numbers will be the same. The estimates
included the entire cost of the project and amortization over those time
periods, an additional five percent for structural maintenance, five percent
management fee required by the banks, and three percent for soft costs. The IDA will own the building (tax exempt). Estimates and cost breakdowns are based on
assumptions on square footage, keeping like specifications, and upgrades, and
there may still be some economies. The next
step will be working on floor plans and specifics. The total cost estimate for actual
construction was $588,865.
Construction of
Mr. Margeson distributed a handout prepared in concert
with Public Works Superintendent David Roeske which provides a rough estimate
for construction of a 5,400 sf metal building adjacent to the
Mr. Ungermann felt that the figures provided were
close. He noted that the metal buildings
can be built with an expandable end wall, so they can be added on to at minimal
cost. There is a lot of room at that
site (23 acres remain). We could solve
our storage space problems as well, and storage space isn’t as expensive as
office space finishing.
Other Space Options:
Mr. Pullen made note of communications forwarded by
Office for the Aging Director Kimberley Toot which were received from other
property owners in the area (Back in Thyme, south of Belmont; and Boomers, in
Scio) wishing to have their properties be considered for County space needs.
Next Steps / Discussion:
Mr. Foels would like to come back to the committee and
look at tightening up their estimates and look at floor plans. Mr. Ungermann questioned why the IDA couldn’t
build and provide rental space at the Jail site. Mr. Foels responded that the IDA should have
ownership of the property, but that he would have to check to see how that
would work. Mr. Fanton pointed out that
if the IDA constructs the building, they don’t have to meet the same labor laws,
whereas the County would presumably be working through a private contracting
firm. With a $200,000 difference in
costs, where is the benefit in the IDA project?
Mr. Foels noted that the steel structure is a good option with cost
benefits, but the projects are two different construction issues. The IDA couldn’t construct a metal building
at the Crossroads site because it wouldn’t “fit” there.
Mr. Carminati commented that the construction numbers were
probably close on the pre-engineered building.
IDA numbers were based on using structure standards in the existing
building. If the County has a budget,
they can work with us to try to stay within that budget by changing some things
around. Mr. Hopkins noted he would like
to see pictures and actual costs. Mr.
Pullen commented that the proposals are different in ownership, financing, etc.,
and suggested investigation into the feasibility of the IDA building on another
location. Mr. Ungermann remarked that in
looking at other sites, accessibility and sight distance are important
considerations. The Jail site has more
sight distance in both directions than the Crossroads site.
Chairman Crandall stated that we’re not comparing like
issues. We have to look at annual costs
if moving in a different direction than the IDA project. We have to look at the pros and cons of each
proposal. Chairman Crandall reminded the
committee of the presentation regarding coupling this facility with existing
programs at Crossroads and also with what the Senior Foundation is looking to
do. That’s an important factor. We need to look at the larger picture in how
the facility is utilized, if the space is just for Office for the Aging or additional
programs, and neighboring facilities.
Parking at the Crossroads facility was questioned. Mr. Foels noted that their original plans
wouldn’t work, as they will need about double the parking spaces on a regular
basis. They’ve changed the plans, and
paving will be an IDA cost.
Mr.
Pullen suggested that Mr. Foels move forward to put a proposal together for a 6,000
square foot facility, and the County put together the same for the Jail site,
as comparable as possible, and bring the information back to the July 9 meeting. As far as the
Discussion was held on how a building would be placed at the
Jail site, looking at the potential of adding on, entrances and new parking,
and site work. Mr. Ungermann also
pointed out that we could hire a design/build team and lease the building back
from them. Mr. Carminati noted that the
Jail site is a good, flat site and recommended being careful when dividing off
little chunks, as it may impede future development. Chairman Crandall noted that drawings were done
during the Jail development on how the site could be parceled off.
Mr. Fanton questioned some of the $120,000 costs included
in the IDA proposal. Mr. Carminati
responded that they were confident these numbers are good to build a facility
comparable to the existing structure. A
ten percent contingency will allow unforeseen problems to be dealt with, or it
can be used for add-ons if not needed for something else. Mr. Fanton asked if the septic system was adequate. Mr. Carminati assumed so, as it was built for
a school with larger capacities than what the senior center will require. It still has to be tested. Mr. Foels noted that if the County wanted
some thoughts on the Jail site, the IDA would be glad to look at that also. Mr. Carminati noted that his company has done
some design/build projects, and they can work with the County on design and advise
if the County’s budget for the project is adequate. Because they work on a construction
management basis, they build under different situations and have used union
labor, non-union, prevailing wage, etc.; they can do what the County wants.
A motion was made by Pullen, seconded by
Fanton and carried to authorize
NEXT MEETING:
Wednesday, July 9 at 3:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. following
a motion made by Hall, seconded by Fanton and carried.
Respectfully submitted by Adele
Finnemore, Journal Clerk