COURT
FACILITIES AND
JUNE 10, 2009
** NOT APPROVED
Members Present: D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton,
W. Hall, T. Hopkins, C. Crandall
(Absent: T. O’Grady)
Others Present: W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, LaBella Associates (M.
Kukuvka), J. Margeson,
T. Miner, T. Parker, B.
Riehle; Media: B. Quinn, Wellsville
Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 1:35 p.m. by Committee Chairman David
Pullen
Approval of
Minutes: The minutes of May 6, 2009 were approved following a
motion made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried.
Court Facilities Project Design
Mark Kukuvka, from LaBella Associates, distributed and
briefly reviewed the contents of their design development report. (The same information was used by the estimators.)
Volume
1: Technical information and general
project information
·
Section 1:
·
Section 2: Detailed room-by-room sheets, NYS Code
reviews for both the addition and renovation sections of the project
·
Section 3: Existing site conditions, subsurface geo-technical
exploration (includes soil boring logs; engineer indicated that the site is
fine, with nothing special needed for footing and foundation)
·
Section 4: Detailed system descriptions including
structural, mechanical, electrical, HVAC, fire protection, plumbing, security
control
·
Section 5: Outline specifications as precursor to
bidding documents for contractors (including products and materials), asbestos
report (in existing facility, some asbestos found in ceiling areas, not in
floors or walls)
Volume 2: Drawings
to date (not final); precursor to bidding documents
Mr. Kukuvka suggested that the Committee could review the
information at the next meeting after everyone has had a chance to look it
over. If there are any concerns or
questions, they should be given to Mr. Pullen or Mr. Margeson. If any adjustments are needed, this is the
time to do it.
LaBella will be reviewing the same information with the Office
of Court Administration (OCA) and Court representatives during a working
session on Tuesday, June 16, in the Board Chambers. They have had a preview of the room sheets,
and they will begin discussing the detailed millwork in the Judge’s Chambers,
fixtures, etc. As per Committee
direction, LaBella is taking a modest approach, yet respectful of the existing Courthouse.
Chairman Crandall questioned how detailed the
conversations on materials with Court personnel would be, and used as examples
the millwork and ceiling tile. Would
they be requesting specific materials, or just the appearance of it? The direction should be a nice looking
project, but modestly done. Mr. Kukuvka
replied that the conversations would include both imagery and material. There will be places where hardwood is called
for, and others where plaster, or painted, or stained materials could be used. Some of the choices they’ve made could be
negotiable, but in addition to material and imagery, part of the answer will be
from a durability and functional standpoint.
Mr. Kukuvka suggested another round of meetings with maintenance
staff on materials, because they may have preferences and could know of parts
and components that aren’t easily replaced.
Legislator Fanton noted that maintenance wasn’t consulted during the
Jail project, and we ended up with problems.
Legislator Hall commented on something Judge Griffith
said on the Court tour about a particular area that was really nice. The Judges had input. The project was reasonable but looked nice. Having other people’s input is a good idea. Mr. Kukuvka noted that Warren Emerson sat in
on all of the working sessions as a liaison for the Judges, but at some point
it may be good to sit down with the Judges also.
Draft Estimate:
Mark Kukuvka presented the draft financial estimate
summary for construction costs and owner’s soft costs for the Court Facilities
Project. The first two pages did not
include the build-out of the addition ground floor shell space, and the last
two pages did include that additional scope.
(A copy of the draft cost estimate is attached to the original
minutes.) A more detailed estimate is
included in the design development report notebooks.
Draft project costs, prior to the additional
scope of building out the addition ground floor shell space: The worksheet includes construction
costs, consultants and miscellaneous costs, and owner’s soft costs. Construction includes a 5 percent design
contingency for unknowns from what isn’t drawn yet; this will go to zero at the
next level when the design is final. The
worksheet still contains a few unknowns, some left blank, and some filled in
with assumptions. The largest unknown is
the Clerk of the Works or Construction Manager fees. A decision has to be made on a single or
multiple prime contractors, so that estimate will have to be plugged in when
known. An owner’s general contingency of
5 percent has been included. Construction
and owner contingencies may be able to be used for the Construction Manager
fees, which were the largest unknown. Mr. Kukuvka noted that the construction
contingencies (5 percent for the new work and 10 percent for the renovations)
will be carried all the way into construction until near the end.
Total projected construction budget: $11,895,489
Total projected owner’s and soft costs: $
1,716,451
Total projected project costs: $13,611,940
(Not incl. CM fees)
The budget was: $13,786,700
Under budget by: ($ 174,760)
Draft project costs, including the
additional scope of building out the addition ground floor shell space and a
little more work on the addition ground floor for Social Services:
Total projected construction budget: $12,524,845
Total projected owner’s and soft costs: $
1,719,755
Total projected project costs: $14,244,600
(Not incl. CM fees)
The budget was: $13,786,700
Over budget by: $ 457,900
Legislator Pullen questioned if the estimates were based
on more current figures, considering the economy, than last year during the
original development stage. Mr. Kukuvka
noted that escalation is probably down about 3 percent and that is built in,
and yes, the estimates are current. They
assume bidding in September and receiving bids in October. The window is close enough now that prices
are more predictable. It’s a favorable
bidding market right now, and we’re also in a good location to get bidders.
Chairman Crandall asked if some of the unknowns, such as
insurance, utility connection, and furnishings, could be narrowed down fairly
quickly. Mr. Kukuvka and Mr. Margeson
will work together to define some of that from past experience, using County
forces or moving agencies or getting some actual quotes.
Mr. Kukuvka requested direction from the Committee on
pursuing the full build-out of the addition ground floor as the base bid. Consensus of the Committee was affirmative.
Fire Access Road Cost Estimate:
Mark Kukuvka reported that, pursuant to meetings with the
Code Enforcement Officer, the access road to the addition doesn’t comply with
fire-fighting access requirements, which specify a 26-foot width. The present
Construction: $135,160
Construction Contingency at 5%: $ 6,758
Soft Costs at 15%: $ 21,287.70
Total: $163,206
Construction: $203,116
Construction Contingency at 5%: $
10,156
Soft Costs at 15%: $ 31,990.77
Total: $245,263
Due to the location of utilities and the steep slope
beside the property, a 20-foot width would be workable, but the code requires a
26-foot width. Mr. Kukuvka noted that a
variance from the state could be applied for to allow construction of the
20-foot wide road, using reasons of the steep grade and physical hardship. Although there is also an $80,000 cost
difference, the physical impediment of the steep slope and addition of a
hydrant would be the issues that are stressed.
Mr. Kukuvka pointed out that the piling illustrated in
the drawings would be right next to the OFA building and completely avoids the
utilities. The addition of a few parking
spaces was also discussed. There is a
pond included in the drawings at the low end of the site to provide needed
retention of storm water. Chairman Crandall
questioned if there was a less expensive alternative to widening the slope, by
possibly coming up from the west behind the adjacent properties. Mr. Kukuvka replied that it probably would
not be workable and would not be less expensive.
Mr. Kukuvka estimated that it will take two to three
months for the variance on the road. He
currently has two items under variance consideration, the second being the
firewall between the existing Courthouse and the addition. The firewall variance would be an
administrative issue not requiring a hearing, but the road would require a
hearing. A question was raised on the
additional time and expense for redesign if the variance isn’t given. Mr. Kukuvka commented that he could use the
draft sketch to apply for the variance.
The only risk would be calendar days.
If the variance is denied, we have to have something in place for the building
permit process. The schedule indicates going
to Commission of Corrections for approval of holding cells on September 14, and
going out to bid in mid-September. He
should hear in August on the variance.
We may have to make an adjustment and a “commitment to fix” so it will
hold up for the building permit.
Legislator Fanton noted that he has had conversations
with Public Works about the entrance, and will give them a copy of the
drawings. There was discussion on exact
placement of utility lines, and Mr. Kukuvka noted that he allowed some buffer
for utility maintenance. The proposed
sheet piling stops short of the hydrant and ties into the existing piling. He also commented that even the 20-foot width
would provide two lanes. Chairman Crandall
suggested that with the piling and gaining more parking, Public Works may feel
it makes more sense and would possibly be able to do the access road in-house. Legislator Fanton expressed concern about the
height of unsupported piling on the downside and the need for extensive
anchors. A step-back retaining wall would
be more expensive, would still have to be anchored back, and there’d be a lot
of fill over buried utility lines.
A
motion was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator
Attorney/Client Session:
A motion was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by
Legislator Hall and carried to enter into an Attorney/Client Session. Following discussion, a motion was made by
Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Hopkins and carried to return to
regular session.
Construction Manager or Clerk of the Works Services
RFP:
A
motion was made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by Legislator Benson and
carried to authorize the County Administrator to issue a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for two levels – Construction Manager services or Clerk of the Works
oversight – for the Court Facilities Project including the full build-out of
the addition ground floor. Mr. Margeson noted that the RFP would probably be sent
out next week (the week of June 15) and he would allow 30 days for response. Mr. Kukuvka will work with Mr. Margeson on
wording to define what services would or would not be required for the Clerk of
the Works. Results of the RFP will be
discussed by the Committee at the August 5 meeting.
State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) for Proposed
Property Acquisition:
County Administrator John Margeson reviewed a Short Environmental
Assessment Form for property the County is proposing to acquire at 21 Court
Street,
County Administrator John Margeson reviewed a Short
Environmental Assessment Form for property the County is proposing to acquire
at 25 Court Street,
Project Labor Agreement:
Legislator Pullen reported that he will check with Peter Godfrey
regarding the status of the Project Labor Agreement, which would require a
resolution before the end of July. If we
have an answer from Mr. Godfrey, this will be discussed at the July 1 meeting; otherwise
a special meeting will be set up, and the July 1 meeting won’t be needed.
NEXT MEETING: Tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, July 1,
2009 at 3:00 p.m. (LaBella Associates
representatives will not need to be present.)
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m. following a motion made by Legislator Fanton,
seconded by Legislator Hopkins and carried.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk