COURT FACILITIES AND COUNTY SPACE NEEDS COMMITTEE

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011

 

** NOT APPROVED **

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

           

Others Present:  M. Alger, M. Armstrong (Bovis), M. Balling (Bovis), D. Button, A. Finnemore, M. Healy, T. Hopkins, J. Margeson, T. Miner, B. Riehle, D. Roeske, T. Ross, E. Ruckle, F. Sinclair, R. Starks;  Media:  J. Cole and D. Roorbach, Olean Times Herald

 

Call to Order:  3:00 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen

 

Approval of Minutes:  The minutes from the meeting of August 3, 2011, were approved following a motion made by Legislator Curran, seconded by Legislator Graves and carried.

 

COURT FACILITIES PROJECT, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER UPDATE:  

 

            Mark Balling and Mark Armstrong from Bovis Lend Lease presented a progress report (copy of report attached to original minutes).

 

Budget Review – Anticipated Cost Report:

             Mark Balling noted that the Anticipated Cost Report reflected work through August, and approximately 89 percent of the construction cost has been billed for.  The balance in construction contingency is $155,304.60.  It’s safe to say we will not come anywhere close to using that.  There are a couple of recent changes under incidental costs.  Furniture and Equipment was increased by $3,000 from last month due to the Judge’s credenza, but Javen will be paying for that through the damaged furniture credit change order.  There is also a small adjustment under Telephone/Data Servers/Equipment for a couple of uninterrupted power supply units the County purchased for the IT area.

 

Change Event Log (Changes from Last Month):

 

Approved Revisions:

·         #118 Sanitary Piping Revisions – around the existing building system – $3,781.04

·         #120 Firesafe Pre-Existing Floor Penetrations – less than estimated – $4,434.62

 

Approximated Revisions (Pending):

·         #125 Exhaust System Revisions – proposed price of $2,648.61, but waiting for a reply from Javen as they actually owe on some things not installed

·         #144 Delete Top Course of Paving on Back Parking Lot – the County will be doing this work to coordinate with the Maintenance Building – estimated credit ($35,000)

·         #145 Relocate the Fan Coil Unit in Room 204 (Security Office) – estimated $2,500

·         #146 In Existing Courthouse, Change all VCT-4 to VCT-1 – floor tile changed from black to tan – estimated $3,000, but waiting for restocking price for swap out

·         #147 Delete Law Library Window Infills and Install Opaque Film on Glass – estimated credit ($1,500)

·         #148 Remove Existing Door and Frame at the Main Floor Level at Bottom of Ornamental Staircase – at County’s request – estimated $600 – Legislator Graves questioned if there was some building code reason that the door was there, and stated that he didn’t want to take it out then have to put it back.  Public Works Superintendent David Roeske noted that the doorway was not wide enough.  Mr. Balling explained that the door doesn’t meet code now, because it swings the wrong way, but he will check on it.

 

            The project is currently $1.869 million under budget, but Mr. Balling pointed out there is a lot of unused contingency, so that number could easily end up at $2 million.

 

Site Overview – Safety Report

             Mark Armstrong reported that the project has a clean safety record for this reporting period.

 

Work Performed in the Past Month (August):

 

·         Phase II exterior and civil punch list nearly completed

·         Late Phase II change events completed

·         Ground floor vestibule underway

·         Final coat of paint nearly completed

·         Electrical lighting and finishes nearly completed on all floors; electrical inspection taking place in most areas today, to be finished when the handicap lift is done

·         HVAC control valves completed

·         Plumbing completed

·         Millwork completed

·         Carpeting and vinyl flooring nearly completed

·         Doors and hardware underway

 

Sixty-Day Look Ahead (September and October):

 

  • Painting completed
  • Electrical work completed
  • Doors and hardware installed
  • Security system installed
  • Flooring completed
  • Handicap lift installed
  • Punch list underway
  • Late changes completed
  • Closeout requirements in process
  • NYS Certificate of Compliance issued
  • County projects: DMV, Fire Apparatus Access Drive, and Maintenance Building ongoing

 

            Mr. Balling noted that the state inspection of the renovations is scheduled to take place in about two weeks.  Punch lists will begin tomorrow on the completed rooms, the handicap lift will be completed on the 22nd, furniture will be delivered on the 22nd, and hopefully the formal blessing for moving back into the Courthouse will be given on the 23rd.  There will still be some punch list items to complete, and he’d like to see the list before he says the project is done, but occupancy should be able to take place by the end of September.  Chairman Crandall remarked that there were a lot of details and millwork that seemed to drag on with the Addition, and asked if there was less of that type of thing with the renovation phase so that this part would go quicker.  Mr. Balling replied that because of how some of the issues went with the Addition Phase, the renovations went more smoothly, and there were also different circumstances.  They are pushing them to finish.

 

            Within 30 days, the project will be totally complete, unless there are some punch list items and late changes.  Mr. Balling suggested that they continue to come to committee meetings, depending on changes, to provide updates on the financial status of the project.

 

MAINTENANCE BUILDING – REVIEW OF COST ALLOCATION:

             Committee Chairman David Pullen noted that there have been questions on the cost of the Maintenance Building.  The original budget figure included on Bovis Lend Lease’s anticipated cost report for the Court Facilities Project (page 3) was $14.48 million.  Currently, the project is about $1.869 million under budget, but considering contingency balances, it may end up $2 million under budget.  Comments have been made that we’re not counting everything.  One significant item is the Maintenance Building.  Right now, the cost of that building is included in the Public Works budget, even though it was the Court Facilities Project that created the need to replace the previous Maintenance Building in a new location.  The cost of the new Maintenance Building is $364,000, not including the inside finish work.  Public Works’ 2011 budget includes $380,000 for the building.  Mr. Pullen questioned if that cost is in reality a Court Facilities Project cost, and if it should come out of what would otherwise appear to be our surplus for that project.  Is it accurate and fair to the public and the various departments involved to not include that cost?  Public Works Superintendent David Roeske felt the Maintenance Building should have been part of the planning process for the Court Facilities Project.  Instead, his department has had to do the planning and try to budget for it.  Public Works Committee Chairman Dwight Fanton agreed that the cost should have been included in the Court Facilities Project funding, especially since there was going to be a fund balance.  He stated that in addition to having to replace a building that they lost, they now have a lot larger facility to maintain, so they’ll need a little more room for storage and the maintenance operation. 

 

            Legislator Donald Cady noted that the $380,000 presently in the Public Works budget would be freed up by transferring the expense of the Maintenance Building to the Court Facilities Project contingency funds, and he questioned what it would be used for.  Mr. Fanton responded that there has been discussion on possibly revamping the former Jail elevator to provide better access to the upper floor (next item on the agenda).  An estimate of $58,000 was received to put in a new elevator car and new controls, but that estimate does not include a new opening on the ground floor.  Mr. Roeske pointed out that there are other things to consider that were not budgeted, such as the renovations asked for in Probation, the County Attorney’s Office, Public Works, and some others.  Mr. Cady asked if everything could be totaled to allow transferring a lump sum.  Committee Chairman Pullen pointed out that although these other issues are tied together, they’re not really part of the bonding done for the Court Facilities Project.  The bonding would cover the old Courthouse, the Addition, the parking lot, and things related to it, but it’s limited and does not include work in the County Office Building or the Support Collection Building.  That would have to be covered by other County funding sources.  For a project that was forced on us and during planning we had no idea how the cost would come out, $12.6 million is a good outcome.  Covering the cost for the Maintenance Building under the Court Facilities Project funding allows some flexibility in using the Public Works funds to include some things not in the original plan, such as changes in the County Attorney’s Office, Department of Motor Vehicles, and Probation. 

 

            A motion was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Cady and carried to approve moving the expense of the Maintenance Building at $380,000 to be paid out of the Court Facilities Project Capital Fund rather than the Public Works budget.  This matter will be referred to Ways and Means, and they will also determine how to utilize the funds freed up in the Public Works budget, based on the recommendations of the Court Facilities and County Space Needs Committee.  County Administrator John Margeson noted that this action, if approved, will allow utilizing currently funded monies to do projects other than the Maintenance Building, because the Maintenance Building will be covered by the Court Facilities Capital Fund.  Mr. Margeson will check with bond counsel and the County Attorney to see if a resolution is necessary or if we can simply pay for construction of the Maintenance Building out of the capital fund already established for the Court Facilities Project.  He already spoke with bond counsel about utilizing those surplus funds from the bond to pay for the Maintenance Building, and he’s been assured that it’s legitimate to do that.  Mr. Margeson will attend the Ways and Means meeting to report on whether a resolution is necessary.  Referred to Ways and Means

 

            Legislator Graves noted that there are a lot of issues and areas that need to be addressed, and he’d like to see something done about the cramped conditions in Social Services.  Mr. Graves suggested some planning sessions to establish a written action agenda, including goals and anticipated completion dates.  Legislator Fanton pointed out that this action referred to Ways and Means will allow some of these other issues to be addressed because we’ll have the funding for it.

 

JAIL ELEVATOR – DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATE USAGE:

             Committee Chairman David Pullen reported that there has been discussion related to the former Jail elevator.  Currently the only access is in the former Sheriff Control Center (the “Bubble”) on the ground floor, in the former Jail on the third floor, and limited use in the “Tank” in the breezeway area on the second floor, formerly used for taking prisoners from the Jail to the main court room.  The public has never had access to that elevator.  The Sheriff still needs to control that area for security purposes.  If left the way it is, that elevator remains unavailable to anyone other than Sheriff’s personnel for access to the top floor.  That has stymied the ability to do any planning.  Public Works Superintendent David Roeske contacted Otis Elevator for estimates on a new car that would open on the ground floor and possibly on the first floor.  We already have an opening on the second and third floors.  It would include the new car and all the controls that the public would need to use.  We’d have to put in a new entrance in the breezeway.  The shaft, all the power equipment, and the piston would remain.  An estimate of $58,000 was received for the new elevator car and controls, but that estimate does not include the new openings.  When asked about the Sheriff security issue, Mr. Pullen explained that the Sheriff will not allow us to have the general public in the Bubble area, but if the public would only be able to access the elevator from this side, rather than the Bubble side, with a lockout function, the Sheriff would approve of that.  The new elevator car would have double doors.  The Sheriff doesn’t use the top floor, which is presently just used for storage.  The stairs go all the way up, but given the ADA and other requirements, we’ve been unable to consider using that 16,000 square feet of space for anything involving the general public or the general County employee population because of the lack of handicap access.  Access points on each floor were discussed.

 

            A motion was made by Legislator Graves, seconded by Legislator Curran and carried to authorize exploring the possibility of converting the former Jail elevator for use by the general public and County employees in a manner acceptable to the Sheriff to provide access to the top floor of the County Office Building, and obtaining an estimate from Public Works for the cost of cutting through and rebuilding new openings.  Referred to Ways and Means

 

            Legislator Healy questioned alternate ways of providing access to the elevator on the ground floor while still avoiding the Bubble, and he pointed out that at some point, we might want to consider making that entrance a security station or leaving room for that option.  It should also be visible to the Sheriff’s security “Bubble,” so space should be left to allow for that.  At the same time, we also need to consider plans for where the second Assistant Public Defender will be located or if the Public Defender’s Office should be relocated.  Legislator Graves reiterated the need to plan ahead and noted that the top floor is very secure, even if it is remote.  Committee Chairman Pullen noted that during election times, the Board of Elections needs priority use of the former Jail elevator for moving the voting machines from the third floor storage.  There has been discussion of moving the voting machines to the new storage building being constructed near the Landfill, so that won’t be a long-term obstacle.  Until then, we would have to coordinate to prevent interference with the Board of Elections.  Public Works Superintendent David Roeske noted that the new storage building should be completed within a couple of months.

 

            Committee Chairman David Pullen commented that in the past, there has been discussion on offering the opportunity to one of the County’s educational facilities to develop a plan for the third floor of the County Office Building.  Skilled staff with training in design and building trades would provide the supervision and students would design and construct some of what we need.  This would serve several functions:  it would relieve Public Works from having to do the build-out, provides the opportunity for cooperation and collaboration, and allows the students to develop building skills beyond what they would normally be working on.  The concept hasn’t been explored in detail, but if Ways and Means concurs, maybe we can proceed with looking into it.  The Committee has had to deal with the hottest issues as we went along, but maybe now we can start planning ahead and planning to succeed.

 

PARKING PLAN REVIEW:

             Committee Chairman Pullen reported that Public Works Superintendent David Roeske has indicated that until the Maintenance Building is further along, he won’t know exactly how many parking spots will be available in the back parking lot and around the Courthouse Addition.  Without that information, the planning process would be very challenging.  The parking plan can be discussed further at the October meeting, when Mr. Roeske should be closer to having those numbers.  Mr. Roeske stated that he hopes to pave and mark the back lot during the first two weeks in October. 

 

            Mr. Pullen spoke briefly about his idea for a three-level parking garage with dedicated parking spots for those willing to pay rentals (also mentioned at the August 3 meeting).  Mr. Roeske said he could talk with some contractors to explore its feasibility and potential cost.  We may then want to survey employees for potential interest, and there would be other factors to consider.  Legislator Healy noted that there have been comments from the public about building a parking lot on the Court Street properties that the County purchased, and he questioned how many parking spots that would create.  Mr. Pullen noted that there are probably several answers to that depending on whether one or both buildings were demolished and if all the space was used for parking.  It was noted that the small lot below the back corner of the back parking lot has not been acquired yet and will need full Board approval.  Mr. Pullen will be working with Deputy County Administrator Mitch Alger on a parking proposal for the October meeting.

 

Next Meeting:            Wednesday, October 5, 2011, at 3 p.m.

 

Adjournment:            The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. following a motion made by Legislator Graves, seconded by Legislator Cady and carried.