COURT
FACILITIES
MARCH 3, 2010
** NOT APPROVED **
Committee Members Present
D. Pullen (arrived late), D. Fanton, G. Benson, D.
Cady, P. Curran, D. Russo, C. Crandall
Others Present
M. Alger, M. Armstrong
(Bovis), M. Balling (Bovis), D. Burdick, D. Button, S. Collins, M. Healy, T.
Hopkins, J. Margeson, T. Miner, T. Parker, B. Riehle, D. Roeske, T. Ross, E.
Ruckle, F. Sinclair
Court Facilities and County Space Needs
Committee Vice
Chairman Dwight Fanton called the meeting to order at
Approval
of Minutes
The minutes of
Court Facilities Project, Construction Manager Update
Bovis Lend Lease Sr. Vice President Mark Balling
distributed copies of a project update (attached to original minutes). The report included a budget review, site
overview and summary of decisions and issues.
Change Orders:
Mr. Balling indicated that the potential change order
column totaling $12,300 for Javen represents five change events:
1. Storm Piping
Revisions ($1,200 credit) - relative to the manhole and piping that were
deleted on the drawings.
2. Temporary
Enclosures for Type M2 Window Infills ($5,042) - relative to where the addition
hits the existing Courthouse, Bovis is haggling with the contractor over
temporary protection of the windows that are not covered with plywood. Until they are replaced, they need to be protected
from damage, and this temporary solution was not clear on the drawings.
3. Site Utility
Redesign ($10,000) - relative to test pit on existing utility elevations. The results concluded that some of the storm
and sanitary piping and manholes that LaBella designed needed to be changed in order
to account for the actual conditions that were discovered. This also impacts the schedule which is why
there has not been a lot of work going on.
The test pits fell under the contractor’s scope so LaBella had to make
their best guess, and this kind of thing sometimes happens when a thorough
investigation is not done during the design process. Mark Armstrong from Bovis indicated that the
whole system had to be redesigned, and the total estimate was $7,000 to
$12,000.
4. Building
Management System Separation of Courthouse from
5.
Safety:
Mr. Armstrong stated that Bovis has conducted ten safety
orientations through February 2010. One
written safety warning was issued because a worker was not properly anchored to
a lift. Appropriate action was taken,
and they haven’t experienced any lost time.
Work Summary:
Mr. Armstrong indicated that the following work was
completed during the month of February:
·
Temporary
construction fencing
·
Testing of
underground utilities
·
Installation of
temporary window protection
·
Relocation of gas
line
·
Demolition of
maintenance building
·
SWPPP fencing and
inspection (Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan)
·
Temporary hot
water tank installed
·
Exploration of
pits, inverts and locations
Mr. Armstrong indicated that
the following work should be completed within the next 60 days:
·
Temporary window
protection at north side of Courthouse for safety during construction of Phase
Two
·
Relocation and
tie-in of gas line
·
Electrical
demolition of air handler and chiller
·
Temporary
relocation of air handler
·
Sanitary sewer
piping and structures
·
Sanitary sewer
tie-ins
·
Underpinning of
existing foundations
·
Storm water
treatment
·
Storm water
piping and structures
·
Excavation of
building pad
·
Foundation
excavation
·
Installation of
concrete footings
·
Installation of
concrete foundation walls
Mr. Armstrong stated that one item not included is that
the parking lot phasing will change in about a week, and he plans to send a
note out indicating that the entrance to the parking lot will be closed, and
they will also be fencing off additional parking spots. Mr. Balling referred to a timetable showing
the activities that Mr. Armstrong mentioned above. Mr. Balling noted that the addition is
running about a month longer than was intended because of the utility delay
they have experienced, but Phase 3 will only be completed about two weeks
later. The utility redesign was huge,
and now they need to get everything fabricated.
Relocation of Buildings & Grounds Staff and
Public Works Superintendent David Roeske stated that
Court Facilities and County Space Needs Committee Chairman David Pullen
requested him to put together a proposal for the relocation of Buildings and
Grounds staff. Mr. Roeske stated that
the building that houses the
Mr. Roeske’s initial proposal included building a 100 X
40 foot building along with some parking where the current Museum is, and he
distributed copies of a suggested floor plan (filed with original minutes) to committee members.
Mr. Roeske stated that after the Public Works Committee reviewed his
proposal earlier this afternoon, they suggested turning the entire Museum area
into parking and constructing a Buildings and Grounds structure behind the
Public Works Administrative
Referral from Public Works Committee: Request
approval for Department of Public Works to plan and build an office building
near the
Mr. Roeske distributed copies of an aerial map of the
Mr. Roeske stated that it makes sense to have everything
centralized. Although the Landfill will
be closing, we will still be operating a transfer station. There has also been talk of a
SEQR for Lease and Purchase of Parking Lots
Attorney Miner distributed copies of the lease and
Short Environmental Assessment Form for the
Legislator Pullen read through the first page of the SEQR
Short Environmental Assessment Form, noting that most of it is background
information, and it has been completed by Mr. Margeson. Legislator Pullen stated that although the
parking area that the County plans to use is off of Court Street, the church’s
address is
Part II – Impact Assessment:
A. Does Action Exceed Any Type I threshold in 6
NYCRR, Part 617.4? Committee members responded,
“No.”
B. Will Action Receive
Coordinated Review as Provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part
617.6? Committee members responded,
“No.”
C. Could Action Result in Any Adverse Effects
Associated with the Following:
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater
quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste
production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding
problems? The following was noted: Some increase in parking in an existing
parking lot. Some increase in pedestrian
and vehicle traffic to and from the parking lot. Some increase in noise from additional
traffic to and from parking lot.
Potential drainage issues if parking is expanded onto existing lawn of
church.
C2. Aesthetic,
agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources,
or community or neighborhood character?
Explain briefly. The
following was noted: Potential reduction
in the green buffer (lawn) on the south side of lot along Court Street if
parking is expanded onto existing lawn of church.
C3.
Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species,
significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly. The following was noted: Potential loss of grasses in lawn space to
gravel or pavement.
C4.
A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or
a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly. Committee members responded, “No.”
C5.
Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to
be induced by the proposed action?
Explain briefly. Committee
members responded, “No.”
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other
effects not identified in C1-C5? Explain
briefly. Committee members responded,
“No.”
C7. Other impacts (Including changes in use of
either quality or type of energy)?
Explain briefly. Committee
members responded, “No.”
D. Will the Project Have an Impact on the
Environmental Characteristics that Caused the Establishment of a Critical
Environmental Area (
E. Is There, or
is There Likely to Be, a Controversy Related to Potential Adverse Environmental
Impacts? Committee members responded,
“No.”
Part
Legislator Pullen read the instructions relative to the
determination. County Attorney Miner reminded
committee members that each effect should be assessed in connection with its:
(A) setting (urban or rural); (B) probability of occurring; (C) duration; (D) irreversibility;
(E) geographic scope; and (F) magnitude.
Legislator Sinclair stated that the fact that the increase
in traffic will occur during normal working day hours, it’s a parking lot now,
and there will not be a lot of increased parking at night could be included in
the rationale of no impact. Attorney
Miner also commented that the lease itself limits our use of the lot to
It was noted that the term of the lease is for two years
with an option to renew with the same terms for an additional two years. The lease also provides an option that the
County will have the first right to purchase the property if the church decides
to sell it.
Committee members agreed that the bottom box on the
Environmental Assessment Form should be checked which indicated that they
determined, based on the information and analysis and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL
NOT result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts. A motion
was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Benson and carried
directing Legislator Pullen in his capacity as Chairman of the Court Facilities
and County Space Needs Committee to check the appropriate box and sign the
form. Attorney Miner stated that a
resolution designating the County as lead agency or approving the SEQR would
not be required. Refer to County Attorney to
Prepare Negative Declaration Indicating Committee’s Determination
Legislator Pullen stated that the Ways & Means Committee
must approve the financial side of the lease, and then approval of the lease
and any necessary financial arrangements will be forwarded to the full
Board. Refer to Ways & Means
Committee
The same detailed instructions were provided for the
review of this SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form as were for the prior
review. Committee members reviewed Part
I – Project Information completed by Mr. Margeson. Legislator Pullen individually read each item
Under Part II – Impact Assessment, and committee members responded that A, B,
C, D and E should all be answered “No” with the following notations: C1 – Resumption of parking in an unused existing
parking lot with an increase in pedestrian and vehicle traffic to and from the
parking lot. Some increase in noise from
additional traffic to and from parking lot. C2 – By using an existing parking lot which has
not been used for several years, the quiet residential character of the
neighborhood will be changed somewhat.
Legislator Daniel Russo commented that he was reluctant
about this lot due to the distance from the
Legislator Pullen read the instructions relative to Part
Legislator Pullen stated that the Ways & Means
Committee must approve the financial side of the purchase/lease, and then
approval of the lease and any necessary financial arrangements will be
forwarded to the full Board. Refer
to Ways & Means Committee
The Buildings and Grounds staff relocated to the old Jail
prior to their building being demolished, and Mr. Roeske indicated that they
will need to occupy this space until a new facility can be constructed. The voting machines are also stored in the
former Jail as well as storage from some other departments. Legislator Fanton stated that the Chairman
looked into the possibility of Ag Tech students doing some interior work. Chairman Crandall stated that he believes the
Space Needs Study should be updated prior to any decisions being made.
Chairman Crandall stated that we had proposals for use of
the jail space going back to when we first started discussing the Court
Project. A space study was done, and
that needs to be done again if we are going to be looking at where different
departments need to go. LaBella has put
together a proposal and Mr. Margeson will talk about that.
Mr. Margeson distributed copies of a proposal that
LaBella Associates submitted for Design Services to investigate the most
appropriate and efficient options for space distribution within the
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be Wednesday, April 7, 2010, at 3
p.m.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:45 p.m.
following a motion made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Curran and
carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Brenda Rigby Riehle, Clerk of
the Board
Allegany