COURT
FACILITIES AND
MARCH 5, 2008
** NOT APPROVED
Members Present: D. Pullen, W. Hall, D. Fanton, T.
Hopkins, T. O’Grady, C. Crandall
(Absent: G. Benson)
Others Present: S. Decker (Ciminelli), W. Dibble, A.
Finnemore, A. Isenberg (OCA), K. Kruger, M. Kukuvka (LaBella), J. Margeson, P.
Mashtare (LaBella), M. McCormick, B. Riehle, T. Ross, P. Schmelzer, N. Ungermann; Media: K. Doyle, Olean Times Herald; B. Quinn,
Wellsville Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Approval of
Minutes: The minutes of February 13, 2008 were
approved following a motion made by Hall, seconded by Fanton and carried.
Review of Court Facilities Plan:
Committee Chairman David Pullen noted that a tentative meeting
had been scheduled with 8th Judicial District Judge Townsend and County
Judges Euken and Brown, but it hasn’t taken place yet. Mr. Pullen and County Administrator John Margeson
met with the
·
Shell space – shouldn’t
there be a security door at the end of the corridor? (Mark
Kukuvka – the purpose for the space, when that is decided, will drive that
concern, i.e. whether people need to be screened, or if the area will have
separate outside access.)
·
Separate entrance
for Court personnel through the back door and the Sally port area? (Kukuvka
– with the shared elevator and separate access lock-out system, there will
probably be a shared vestibule.)
·
Ramp of 18” in
the corridors between the Courthouse and addition on the two upper floors. The more important floor is the main floor,
and if that corridor could be level, there would only be a slight grade down on
the ground floor and up on the second. (Kukuvka – they can look at that, but the
slopes would always follow code.)
·
Server rooms – is
one on each floor necessary? (Kukuvka – that was suggested in the program
by OCA; they are dedicated OCA server rooms and include the amount of equipment
needed for each floor.)
·
Secure traffic
patterns for Court personnel – the Surrogate Clerk area only has one access
from the main corridor with no secure method of egress. Would it be possible to install a doorway to
the storage room between the Surrogate and Family Court Clerks’ offices? It was noted by Mr. Kukuvka that the
·
Public viewing of
Surrogate records – plan calls for five stations, but our County probably only
would need one or two. Also the waiting
area for the Surrogate Court Clerk with the door separating that area from the
Clerk isn’t the way this County works.
If we’re tight for space, this area could be cut, as there is seating
for the Family Court just down the hallway that would be adequate for
both. (Kukuvka – it’s typical around the state to provide some segregated
area there with a counter to prevent the Clerks’ offices from being immediately
off the hallway.)
·
Natural lighting
in Courtrooms on main and second floors?
(Isenberg – the trend is for the Courtrooms
to be more in the interior of the building.
There are ways to bring natural light in to the middle section, such as
skylights or building partial walls to “borrow light” from the outer areas.)
·
Mechanical
area? (Kukuvka – air handlers for heating and cooling.)
·
Toilet facilities
in holding cells on main and second floors?
(Mashtare - they are there, but
not shown.)
·
Treasurer is
concerned about loss of space overall; their designated area in the plan is not
sufficient. (Much of the present
Treasurer’s area will be used for screening.)
(Kukuvka – what the Treasurer ends
up with hasn’t been addressed yet. In
order to save money on construction, it’s necessary to screen for the entire building.)
·
The entire Clerks’
area on the second floor is immediately off the main corridor with no secure
method for egress except through the Courtroom or public corridor. Mr. Pullen suggested changing the jury
deliberation area to allow personnel access through a secure corridor. Is there a need for a secure attorney/client
area on the second floor as well as the main floor, and do we really need two
holding cells on the second floor? If we
eliminate the holding area and interview area and put the jury deliberation
area there, there would be room for a secure staff corridor.
·
No staff
restrooms on the second floor except in the visiting Judges’ area; staff has to
travel through public corridors and/or elevator to get to one. (Kukuvka
– there are also restrooms in the jury room.) There’s also no restroom for jury deliberation
in the current Courthouse. (Kukuvka – the jury will continue using the unisex
one across the corridor, which will be cheaper than putting in a new one, and
it is still secure.)
·
Court reporter
room shows only one desk; we could have three reporters at once. (Mashtare
– the space is 200 sf, or large enough for two at 100 sf per reporter.) Also of concern is the distance the reporter
has to travel to the existing Courtroom without a secure hallway.
·
Reduce the number
of holding cells on the second floor to one?
(Isenberg – not sure.)
·
Visiting Judges’
area has no secure access. (Kukuvka – this area isn’t used on a daily
basis. It did have separate circulation,
but in the effort to reduce the size of the project, we had to compromise on
the traffic patterns. Isenberg – although
the visiting Judges have to go through a public corridor to get to their area,
once there, they are secure. Unlike the current
situation, that Judge will not be walking through a public corridor to get to the
Courtroom. These were not easy
concessions for OCA to make. They
recognize those security shortcomings and would like strict adherence to secure
traffic patterns, but they are trying to be as cognizant as possible of the
financial situation of the County. Ed Rodman
felt these issues were not a grave problem.
Although the concerns are valid, if we go back now to the prior set-up,
it adds cost.)
·
Two
attorney/client interview rooms outside Supreme Court area are not enough;
possibly use the vestibule area for an additional one. There is another one in the existing Courthouse
area and a conference room, but that room may end up being used for meetings. (Kukuvka
– the Law Library is another alternate interview area. The vestibule area is a design issue to keep
the main area separated a little from the public corridor. He will raise the concern about the number of
attorney/client interview areas during his meeting with the Judges and OCA. Judge Townsend also requested a meeting with
the Bar Association to get their input, after which he can bring back a single
set of concerns, instead of the Committee hearing from many different people.)
·
Distance from the
Judge’s bench to other features in the Courtroom design? (Kukuvka
– design is per Court standards for viewing by the jury, attorneys, Judge,
witnesses, handicapped, etc.
Updated Budget Estimate of Revised Court Addition
Plan:
Mark Kukuvka, of LaBella Associates, presented
information on an updated budget estimate for the Courthouse addition. Steve Decker, of Ciminelli Construction, was
also present, and provided support to LaBella in the estimations, applying
factors and knowledge from prior Courthouse projects. Reducing the size of the addition has been
the primary goal. Following buy-in of
the plans by OCA and the Judges, we will have a comprehensive estimate, but at
this point, figures were presented for just the addition, or new space, for
comparison purposes (copies of the handouts are attached to the original
minutes):
·
March 2008 –
Addition at 39,700 sf budgeted at $13,855,875 in 2010 dollars
(estimated start date of June 2009 with an 18-month construction schedule). Due to efforts made to decrease the size of
the addition, the estimate has dropped nearly $3 million from the September
2007 estimate escalated for the same construction date (see below).
·
September 2007 – Addition
at 48,695
sf budgeted at $15,868,309 in 2009 dollars. For a fair comparison with today’s figures,
that estimate was escalated to $16,654,198 to reflect moving the
construction mid-point date out one more year to February 2010, rather than
2009.
For development of the 2,200 sf rooftop shell space shown
on the drawings for the second floor of the addition as “roof space,” allow $400,000
added cost to finish to the same type of office space as applied to the rest of
the addition. That cost, when figured
per square foot, is about half of the square foot estimate for the rest of the
project. Finishing that area off at a
later date was discussed, but was not feasible due to access for building
materials. There is greater economy in
building it all at the same time. If the
space was built out to shell space level, Public Works could complete it
later. It was the consensus of the Committee
to have the Court addition second floor roof space finished off as shell space
for now, rather than leaving it as just roof.
OCA Capital Plan Narrative Draft:
LaBella’s agenda listed the items to be included in the
Capital Plan Narrative and indicated which party is responsible to complete
each item:
a)
Project summary
of new work, addition and renovation work – LaBella
b)
Proposed total
square footage of the project – LaBella
c)
List of spaces,
Courtrooms, hearing rooms, etc. – LaBella
d)
Schedule for
going forward, design/construction/occupancy – County, LaBella, Ciminelli
e)
Proposed method
of construction/bidding – LaBella
f)
Proposed project
budget – LaBella, Ciminelli
g)
Financing method
– County
h)
Special building
features, etc. – LaBella
Mr. Kukuvka distributed copies of “Information for the OCA
Capital Plan Narrative – First Draft” (copy attached to original minutes),
which contains suggested paragraphs for LaBella’s technical aspects of the Narrative,
for consideration. This draft will be
the basis for input if edits are desired or if Mr. Isenberg feels OCA needs
more detail.
The estimated budget portion of the Narrative should
include the figure for the entire Court project, not just the addition, and
that’s not available yet. LaBella will
refine the estimate and move ahead after input on the plan from OCA and the
Judges.
Mr. Isenberg noted that for the Narrative, the total
square footage of the project should include the addition and Court renovations,
but not any of the County Office related renovations, because interest
assistance available from OCA will apply to just the Court related portion of
project costs. There was discussion
about whether the addition ground floor shell space should be included if it
won’t be entirely for Court use. Mr.
Isenberg was unsure about the shell space, but encouraged asking. The vacated Treasurer’s space used for screening
will be joint-use, but still considered Court space. Mr. Isenberg proposed sharing the draft Narrative
with Bill Clark for preliminary feedback on direction, possibly through a conference
call including John Margeson and Mark Kukuvka.
The schedule section of the draft was based on experience
and assumptions and includes durations rather than dates. It gives something to build from, and all
parties will need to play some role in finalizing the schedule. Mr. Isenberg stated OCA will want dates and
project milestones. (The date of the
next Commission meeting when the Capital Plan Narrative needs to be ready is
still unknown.)
Financing method was discussed. It will probably be a 30-year bond with
subsidy on the interest expense from OCA.
Mr. Isenberg noted it is very important that our financial people have
communication with OCA on the financing method in order to meet eligibility
requirements for reimbursement of the interest expense. There are a lot of technical issues. County Treasurer Terri Ross noted that the
County used Allardice & Associates (now Municipal Solutions) as a financial
consultant during the Public Safety Facility project bonding, and it was
recommended that we use a consultant to guide this process also. Ms. Ross noted that Municipal Solutions is aware
of the pending project, and she asked if we could get the interest subsidy
eligibility requirements in advance. Mr.
Isenberg suggested that our financial consultant should conference with OCA.
Chairman Crandall suggested that Municipal Solutions be
authorized to move forward with the Court Facilities financing process and meet
with the Committee to explain the process and time frame and analyze OCA’s requirements. Municipal Solutions should coordinate with
OCA and the Commission on what is needed for the Capital Plan Narrative, and
also guide the County through the process.
A motion was made by Fanton, seconded by
Hall and carried to direct the County Treasurer and County Administrator to
contact Municipal Solutions to arrange a meeting and presentation with this Committee
or the full Legislative Board on the financing method for the Court Facilities
Project, and also to meet with OCA relative to the financing method.
Mr. Isenberg noted that although the Court Facilities
costs have to be calculated separately from the County Space Needs issues for
the OCA interest cost reimbursement, the County does not have to do separate
bond issues. Mr. Kukuvka pointed out
that the construction managers will have to have the break down also for
allocating work.
Next Steps Outlined by LaBella:
SUBMIT OCA CAPITAL PLAN NARRATIVE AND WORK WITH OCA TO
GAIN APPROVAL:
The process for County approval of the Narrative when it
is completed was questioned. Mr. Margeson
noted that the Narrative doesn’t involve an actual commitment by the County, so
therefore this Committee has jurisdiction.
Future steps of setting up the capital project and approving bonding
will need full Board approval.
LABELLA TO MEET WITH ALL OTHER REMAINING DEPARTMENT
HEADS AND THE
Mr. Kukuvka commented that when the Committee is comfortable to proceed, LaBella will
start tackling this issue. We may want
to wait until OCA has some of their meetings, but he feels any Court changes
from here on will be minor ones. Mr.
Isenberg noted he felt comfortable with his meeting with Ed Rodman, but the
main problem may be circulation issues.
Chairman Crandall questioned the process for addressing
the other County space needs, in relation to needs assessment and utilization
of the top floor of the
Chairman Crandall questioned if the Space Needs Study performed
in the past would be looked at in conjunction with the Department Head meetings. The study indicated a shortage of 60,000 sf
in an ideal world. (Recent changes in
some departments will affect sections of that study.) The existing jail space and vacated areas
will not fulfill departments’ needs ideally, but the County will be looking for
direction to utilize the given amount of space reasonably. Mr. Kukuvka responded that the study will be used
as a guide and they will assess needs and divide up available space on a priority
basis with input from the Committee. The
prior study was based on new construction.
Backfilling into vacated areas will make the situation better, but not
necessarily solve the space needs as identified in that report.
A
motion was made by
LABELLA TO PROVIDE A SKETCH PLAN SCENARIO FROM THESE
MEETINGS.
EDITS AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANS.
PROVIDE A BUDGET ESTIMATE OF THE REVISED
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES SELECTION:
a)
Write RFP based
on a final acceptable program, budget, and schedule.
b)
Submit to
potential construction management firms, allow 30 days for review and response.
c)
Review submitted
proposals and determine a “short list,” allow 14 days.
d)
Possible
interviews of the short-listed firms, allow 21 days.
e)
Final firm
selection and recommendation to the Legislature for award, allow 30 days.
Discussion on the timing for addressing construction
management services selection was held.
The process outlined above covers about 90 days. Mr. Kukuvka and Mr. Decker noted that the RFP
requires a definitive plan of action to propose on, but you don’t need all the
detail. Provide general information on
scheduling, dates, costs, and a brief description. It makes sense to hire a construction manager
early in the process, as he can provide detailed estimates throughout all the stages,
helping to keep the project on budget.
There is value in having the architect and construction manager working
together, such as recommendations on materials and quality, constructability,
synergy during the design stage, and that extra set of eyes. They recommended going through the RFP
process early, and we are close to having sufficient information for it. The
A
motion was made by Hall, seconded by
Public Information Brochure:
Mr. Margeson distributed copies of the Court Facilities
Official Project Update public information brochure. Some small changes were incorporated. The plan is to do a series of these updates. As questions come in, and when specific costs
are known, they can be included in subsequent issues. The e-mail address included on the brochure
goes to Mr. Margeson’s computer, and he will respond to questions. The phone number is in the Clerk of the
Board’s Office for messages to which Mr. Margeson will respond. Copies can be available for distribution at
the March 10 Legislative Board meeting.
Chairman Crandall commented that this will be the official avenue for
updates and the official stance or response by the County.
A
motion was made by Fanton, seconded by O’Grady and carried to approve the
public information brochure.
Court Security Screening Process video:
Mr. Pullen made note of a Court security screening
process video viewed by one of his staff which illustrates the importance of security. Mr. Isenberg commented that security is top
priority in the Court System, and he will arrange to get a copy of the video
and schedule through Mr. Margeson for the Committee to view it.
Upcoming:
Mr. Isenberg will try to get information to the Committee
as soon as possible relative to his scheduling the meeting with OCA, the Judges,
and Bar Association members.
Mr. Kukuvka noted that at the next meeting, they should
be ready to discuss the next version of the Capital Plan Narrative and an update
on the OCA meeting.
NEXT MEETING: April 9, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. following
a motion made by Fanton, seconded by O’Grady and carried.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk