COURT FACILITIES AND COUNTY SPACE NEEDS COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING – JUNE 29, 2011

** NOT APPROVED **

---

Members Present: D. Pullen, D. Fanton, G. Benson, D. Cady, K. Graves, C. Crandall

Absent: P. Curran

Others Present: M. Alger, S. Collins, A. Finnemore, M. Healy, K. LaForge, J. Margeson, T. Miner, B. Riehle, D. Roeske, S. Sheldon, F. Sinclair, R. Whitney; Media: J. Cole, Olean Times Herald

Call to Order: 9:00 a.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen

BUILDINGS & GROUNDS MAINTENANCE BUILDING:

A referral was received from the Ways & Means Committee to consider issues related to a proposal for construction of a Maintenance Building to replace the building demolished to make space for the Courthouse addition. This matter was also previously addressed by the Public Works Committee. The department has been without the building for nearly two years, and it has been identified as a pressing need.

Public Works Superintendent David Roeske summarized the Maintenance Building project activity to date. The Public Works Committee made the decision last year, after considering various options, that the building should be constructed in the back corner of the parking lot behind the County Office Building. Money was appropriated through Board action for the design (Res. #115-10). The building was designed as a steel building, and bids were requested. The bids came in a little high, but were within the ball park. When the matter was taken to the Ways & Means Committee, there was opposition to cost and construction materials, and it was referred to this committee. Since then, there was discussion on Public Works’ staff doing some of the work themselves. After talking with the contractor and consultant, it was decided that Public Works would do all the inside work. They would not award the contracts for plumbing, electrical, and HVAC, and would eliminate a lot of the interior finish work. The foundation, shell, firewall, insulation, exterior doors and windows would be contracted, reducing the price down from $720,000 to $355,800 for the contracted portion. There is currently $399,000 appropriated in the 2011 budget for this project, and some additional funds would have to be budgeted next year to finish the inside. The total project should cost between $420,000 and $450,000 with Public Works doing the interior, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and finish work. The building permit will have to be modified a little to remove the HVAC unit from the plan, because they will be using something different, but they will follow the plan for electrical and heating, using a local source for the heating and doing the installation themselves. This way, materials for finishing the inside will be purchased locally. Addressing the possibility of using some of the former Sheriff Office space, Mr. Roeske noted that the Sheriff’s staff will continue to use the security “bubble” area and the holding cell area. There is some space on the back wall side (former kitchen), but it’s too small.

The proposed building is 4,800 square feet (40’ by 120’), and it includes a storage area, workshop, and office/meeting room. Mr. Roeske stated that the size is the minimum for their needs; it is not over-sized. Plans call for completion by Spring 2012. The metal building is similar to a Morton Building, and has a steel frame. When asked why pole-type construction wasn’t used, Mr. Roeske stated that they planned to finish the inside better. Public Works built one of these buildings for their shop in Birdsall, and it’s been a very good building. They will try to match the color of the building to the bricks in the other buildings, and it will have a painted roof, not galvanized. Mr. Roeske pointed out that the garage they’re currently using for a shop and the former Jail space they are using for an office are only temporary, as they don’t meet code. He also noted that if construction is to take place in the back lot, it has to begin soon, because paving of the lot will be done in the fall. Legislator Graves remarked that there’s been discussion about the building that this new building will replace. The reason we can’t use that same type of building that’s now obsolete is because it didn’t meet code, it was two different levels, and it was not fire safe.

The proposed site that the Public Works Committee is looking at is the back corner of the parking lot behind the County Office Building, straight back from the north drive. Mr. Roeske explained this location is convenient for deliveries. Other locations that have been considered were the area where the museum is now and the properties on lower Court Street acquired several years ago. Some have said it would make more sense out front for deliveries; others felt the front was not appropriate for that type of building. Committee Chairman Pullen preferred the Court Street properties, but Mr. Roeske felt the Maintenance Building should be closer to the County Office Complex for convenience for deliveries, accessibility to supplies and tools, and the controls for the County Office Building will be located there.

Legislator Benson voiced his objection to building in the back lot due to the reduction in parking spaces, not only by the building itself, but access needed in front of it. Mr. Roeske noted that additional spaces are being added at the side and back of the Courthouse addition. Shari Collins asked how many parking spots would remain after construction. Mr. Roeske responded that it’s difficult to estimate until the paving and layout are done, but there will probably be about 40 spots left. At a future meeting, the Committee will be discussing parking issues such as areas for employees and the public, staff who come and go frequently during the day, and handicapped spots. Deputy County Administrator Mitchell Alger is currently working on these issues. Parking will improve after construction is over, and although there will still be a need for additional space, there have been some improvements over the past several years related to the Sheriff’s Office/Jail moving and freeing up spaces.

Other concerns voiced about the location were snow removal and piling snow in that back corner (it will have to be removed more often) and possibly moving some of the storage space to another location (not convenient because deliveries would have to be made at other spots and transported, taking time and labor; and since storage is only one-third of the building, we wouldn’t gain that much in parking). When asked if heated floors were considered, Mr. Roeske replied that they didn’t look into that; the design includes forced air heating with A/C running through the same ducts. Changing would require re-design and a new permit, which would hold up paving, etc.

Sheriff Rick Whitney explained the need for his staff’s continued presence in the County Office Building in a portion of the former Sheriff’s Office space. There is a little vacant space, but nowhere near what Public Works needs. The E-911 Back-Up needs to stay where it is, and the deputies need space for processing problems that arise within the complex. They might need the Sally Port occasionally, and they still need the holding area for arrests made on site. The old visitation room is about all they can give up, and that might be adequate for janitor supply storage. Mr. Roeske commented that the Sally Port wouldn’t be able to be used for Public Works for anything other than parking a vehicle, due to noise.

Legislator Benson asked about utilization of the ground level of the Courthouse addition. Mr. Roeske explained that the entire ground level is being used, but it wouldn’t have been adequate for maintenance, due to noise, welding, etc. Committee Chairman Pullen noted that originally there was some empty shell space on the ground floor of the addition, but the Treasurer’s Office had to be re-located to allow space for the Courthouse security area, and Information Technology and the Real Property Tax Agency were moved as well. Other than that, there are only utility areas. The addition does aid in complying with regulations and code issues by providing handicapped access via the elevator connection to the Courthouse. Mr. Pullen also noted that most of the empty space on the second floor of the addition will now be used for the District Attorney, opening up space for the County Attorney. One of the final spaces freed up will be the County Office Building ground floor space currently used for the Courts and planned to be used for Social Services. The top floor of the County Office Building, the former Jail space, is still unresolved and will have to be addressed at some point.

Chairman Crandall commented that there were several plans with support from various legislators, with discussion centering on location and cost, but there was not support for the plan that came out of Public Works. They came back and approached it in a different way and cut $300,000 from the original cost, but aside from the cost were these other questions related to size and construction materials. Mr. Roeske has adequately answered each, but Chairman Crandall still questions if it’s enough of a compromise to get support. Regarding the former Jail space, the original bond proposal would have addressed what to do with that, but it wasn’t supported, so now we’re picking through other space issues. In his opinion, one of the most expensive parts of the Maintenance Building is the office and the need to be heated and finished off. There is still space here that could be utilized for that. Work is needed upstairs to bring it up to code, but he wondered if there is a way to utilize it for this project and put the infrastructure there to build out from. Alfred State would be willing to look at the inside work, and if we had a start, it may be an opportunity to move forward. Mr. Crandall questioned revamping the elevator system, and if the bond could be utilized for the upstairs renovation. We need a compromise with enough support to move this Maintenance Building plan forward. There’s been discussion of other materials. He asked what happens with another plan: would it have to be re-bid, or would it be treated as a change order? Mr. Roeske replied that it would have to be re-designed and re-bid, and there’s a cost associated with that. They’ve already pulled the contracts for electrical and HVAC, so that part wouldn’t have to be re-bid.

Legislator Graves expressed the issue of cost to the taxpayers and the need to keep them in mind and compromise. Chairman Crandall stated that there is absolutely a need for a Maintenance Building, but we need something with a reasonable cost. Mr. Graves commented that the County is held to a higher standard by building codes and other laws i.e. prevailing wages. Municipalities end up paying nearly 100 percent more than a private entity could have the project done for.

Legislator Sinclair remarked that he supports the location and the need for the Maintenance Building, but he felt that reducing the size by utilizing space upstairs for storage or space somewhere in the main building for the office should be considered in order to fully utilize space for parking.

Legislator Sinclair presented the Insulated Concrete Masonry Wall (ICMW) construction as another option. The advantage of this construction material is that it provides a thermal mass inside the insulated barrier that holds its heated or cooled environment longer. The product is manufactured locally, and there are local construction examples. Mr. Sinclair noted that he suggested this alternative several months ago, as he felt the material could match the feel of the campus better. There is energy efficiency to be gained long term, as well as efficiency in building it. The walls are already finished. There are savings to be realized on labor, because you’d have one mason as opposed to several workers for another type of construction. Mr. Sinclair gathered the following rough estimates:

Southern Tier Concrete –

4,860 block (12”), 12’ wall, 40’ by 120’, including firewall,

plus miscellaneous materials/grout – Est. $ 25,000

Miller & Richards –

Lay 4,860 block, including control joints, at prevailing wage – Est. $ 38,000

Fassett Lane –

Joist system, 4/12, 42’ by 120’ – Est. $ 6,500

Install rafters – Est. $ 15,000

Swan Roofing –

Metal roof, including underlay, $50/sq by 330 sq – Est. $ 16,500

Foundation – 47 cu yds @ $400/yd – Est. $ 20,000

Floor – 178 cu yds @ $300/yd – Est. $ 54,000

Foam Floor Insulation – Est. $ 6,000

TOTAL for Unfinished Shell – Est. $181,000

Mr. Roeske commented that a lot of things were left out, such as the contractor’s profit margin, and we wouldn’t be guaranteed that materials would be purchased locally. The project wouldn’t be bid out in portions. The contractor would choose where he purchased materials. Mr. Sinclair stated that we wouldn’t have to go with just one big contractor. This option might be more work for the department, but we have an engineer and skilled people on staff, and the savings are there. He explained that this rough estimate is for construction to the same point where the other option came in at an estimate of $355,800. He put these figures together to address the concern of the contractor that concrete construction would be a more expensive option. The ICMW option can save money, it fits in with the architecture of the campus, it’s efficient, it’s greener, and it utilizes local business. The insulation factor is listed at R20, but adding in the thermal mass holding it increases that efficiency. Mr. Sinclair submitted ICMW information and his rough estimates for consideration.

Mr. Roeske and County Attorney Thomas Miner both commented that if we changed construction material, the project would have to be re-bid. Chairman Crandall questioned to what degree the design would have to be re-done. Mr. Roeske stated that we would have to hire an engineer to design it, because County staff doesn’t have the time. Committee Chairman Pullen voiced concern about the Wicks Law and working on the project with several contracts in different stages to get it done. Right now, the price for the shell is $355,800, but the total project cost is about $450,000. The option Mr. Sinclair suggested is a totally different system and would require a new design and plans by engineers or architects before bidding, which involves more cost. On the other hand, we already have the investment of the design costs for the steel construction proposal. County Attorney Miner agreed on the costs to re-engineer and re-bid. If we want to bid in smaller components, we’d have to have a general construction manager, and he didn’t know how that cost would play out. Mr. Graves and Mr. Benson expressed support for pursuing the ICMW option. Mr. Roeske pointed out that we’ve already spent $8,000 for infrastructure and $62,000 for engineers or contractors. The average municipal building price is $120 per foot; the steel building quote was $150, which was a little high, but it was done by the Request for Proposals process, and Hunt was the low bid.

Chairman Crandall questioned what utilities would be needed and the value of thermal efficiency in the ICMW proposal if the function of the facility was scaled back to storage and some shop work reducing the size of the building’s footprint. Mr. Roeske replied that they would still have to run a gas line. They’re planning on using the A/C units taken out of the former Information Technology Office area. Legislator Fanton pointed out that the building still has to have some heat. Mr. Roeske questioned where the maintenance staff would be located. He hasn’t found an adequate space in the County Office Building. Chairman Crandall referred again to possible uses for the former Jail space. It would set future development of the area in the right direction if Public Works was located there. Mr. Graves asked about the capability of adding on to a block building, and if we could start smaller and enlarge later. Mr. Roeske reiterated that the size of the proposed building includes his minimum space needs.

Legislator Cady addressed a misconception in the public by clarifying that the Maintenance Building would service the entire County complex and out buildings, not just the Courthouse addition.

Mr. Pullen commented that to use the space upstairs, there would have to be elevator access. Right now, the only elevator that goes to the top floor is in the Sheriff’s area, but that doesn’t stop at the first and second floors. How to provide that access is probably beyond the scope of this meeting, but if there’s a way to save money on the Maintenance Building by putting changes in to use the upstairs space for Public Works and help meet other space needs as well, it’s worth considering. Chairman Crandall noted that we don’t have any distinct plan or outline for addressing space needs while placing departments in the proper spots. We got within range of having a plan for looking at that and pulled up short to make decisions on these issues in committee. Now we’re on the third committee to look at this issue.

Legislator Fanton commented on the various renovation projects Public Works has undertaken. They need office and work space. The proposal is within this years’ budget with a little more needed next year for finish work, and now we’re going through the third committee looking at other plans. The County is not financially strapped at this time. The steel building may not be as fancy as a brick building, but Public Works tried to go with the minimum to meet their needs. Mr. Fanton questioned the “design-by-committee” when the building has already been designed. Also, they looked at other sites, and they weren’t practical. Maintenance staff will be working in these buildings all the time, so it’s not practical to isolate them and spread them out.

Chairman Pullen agreed that Public Works has been, and will be, involved in the moving and renovation for numerous projects including District Attorney, County Attorney, Probation, Social Services, Motor Vehicles, and County Clerk’s Office. When quotes came in high, those quotes were rejected, and Public Works agreed to provide the labor. They have saved the County as much as the cost for this Maintenance Building project, but we still have the responsibility to save as much as we can for the taxpayers. Legislator Graves commented that he appreciated the $300,000 savings from the original proposal, but just because we’re in good financial shape doesn’t mean the taxpayer is able to shoulder it. It’s our responsibility to be sure we have the best plan. Mr. Graves felt that the concrete building has merit and should be researched. Mr. Roeske stated that the only way to find out the true cost is to have the building designed and bid it out, and the re-design would cost another $65,000. County Attorney Miner asked if the money paid to Hunt also anticipated their staying with the project to completion. Mr. Roeske replied that it does, and Hunt has been paid $65,000 for design work. There was no construction inspection in that price.

Location – The consensus of the Committee was to construct the Maintenance Building in the back north corner of the parking lot behind the County Office Building (opposed: Benson). Chairman Pullen noted that this is the location that the Public Works Committee decided on, and there doesn’t seem to be support for another location. There is no perfect solution. Legislator Graves stated that Public Works is the “first responder” for electrical, plumbing, and ice, so it makes sense to have the Maintenance Building as close to the worksite as possible.

Material and Design – Chairman Pullen pointed out the additional design expense involved with the ICMW approach proposed by Legislator Sinclair. Legislator Graves felt that the option should be researched, but doesn’t want to spend another $70,000 for design and bidding. Legislator Fanton stated that the estimated $181,000 for the ICMW option doesn’t include a lot of things. It would help if we had some real numbers from someone actually bidding instead of just estimating to compare with, but we have to be careful with these numbers we’re looking at. Legislator Cady also noted that a better foundation would be needed with the block proposal. The steel construction is more flexible, and we have slate in the building site. Mr. Roeske suggested tabling this matter, and he will talk with the contractor/consultant for more information to bring back to the next regular committee meeting. Decision on the material and design for the Maintenance Building was tabled following a motion made by Legislator Graves, seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried.

ELEVATOR ACCESS TO TOP FLOOR OF COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING:

Committee Chairman Pullen distributed copies of an old floor plan for the ground floor of the County Office Building showing the entrances and elevators. He raised the issue of whether the main elevator could be made to go on up to the top floor. Mr. Roeske explained that we’d have to determine exactly what’s above it and if there would be room for the mechanical equipment. Then we’d have to raise the shaft and install a new elevator system. Legislator LaForge suggested another option would be a free-standing system on the back of the building. Mr. Pullen referred to the former Jail elevator, and noted that the Sheriff needs to retain access. If we renovated the existing elevator or installed a free-standing one to access the top floor, we could address other needs, such as possibly using that floor, instead of the space on the ground floor soon to be vacated by the Courts, for expanding Social Services into, and using that ground floor space for Public Works. Mr. Roeske pointed out that elevators are very expensive.

Chairman Crandall remarked that we’ve discussed use of the top floor of the County Office Building for a number of years, and he’s never seen any firm estimates on how to gain proper access. To resolve the issue, we need to have answers. We recently spent $150,000 to replace the cooling tower, and sometime we may have to address issues with the existing elevator. Mr. Roeske will obtain a quote from Otis to answer those questions related to the elevator.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, at 3 p.m.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m. following a motion made by Legislator Graves, seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried.