REPORT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY LEGISLATURE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

SEPTEMBER 6, 2012

Michael R. Pillmeier, Chairman Orange County Legislature Hon. Jeffrey D. Berkman, Chairman of Special Committee Hon. Katie Bonelli Hon. Albert W. Buckbee, III Hon. Matthew A. Turnbull

Prepared by Jacobowitz & Gubits, LLP 158 Orange Avenue Walden, New York 12586

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................3 Government Center Elements ...................................................................6 Roof............................................................................................................6 Walls ........................................................................................................10 Mold .........................................................................................................11 Windows ..................................................................................................13 Mechanicals ............................................................................................14 Structure...................................................................................................14 Energy Efficiency .....................................................................................14 Access......................................................................................................15 Reposition Space ....................................................................................15 Drainage ..................................................................................................16 Aesthetics ................................................................................................17 Project Cost..............................................................................................17 Storm Recovery ......................................................................................18 Site ..........................................................................................................20 Connection to New Courthouse ..............................................................20 Judiciary ..................................................................................................20 Handicap Access .....................................................................................21 Time Schedule ........................................................................................21 Witnesses.................................................................................................22 Document and Exhibits ...........................................................................25

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Committee was formed by a Resolution Number 161 of 2012 by the Orange County Legislature. The Resolution reads as follows: "Resolution of the Orange County Legislature, pursuant to Orange County Charter Article II, Section 2.02(q) and the Orange County Legislative Manual Section IV(G.) establishing a Special Legislative Committee to conduct an investigation and subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and require the production of books, papers and other evidence necessary or material with respect to the Orange County Government Center. Despite the time constraints within which the Committee had to complete its task, the Committee conducted twelve sessions and received testimony and documentary evidence at five of those sessions. We conducted site inspections and received additional documentary evidence from witnesses following their testimony. It is regrettable that some Executive Branch officials refused to provide testimony under oath, consistent with the charge given this Committee. Our ability to access the facility was frustrated by delays over providing the keys, and many documents requested from the Executive Branch have not been provided. Nevertheless, the Committee was able to overcome those obstacles in a bi-partisan fashion and assemble evidence and information into a record that is quite comprehensive, complete, and informative and should be reviewed in detail by all Legislators. It will provide considerable valuable information to enable us all to make better informed decisions on the future of the Government Center. The Committee was determined to have an open, transparent process that welcomed the contributions of other legislators and members of the public. We thank those that took the time to participate and provide their testimony and expertise to assist the County Legislature in building an informative record upon which the County government can take future action. 1. In summary, the record reveals the following: The F.E.M.A. storm recovery issue prompted the credibility concerns which led to the creation of this special committee. The efforts of this committee have resulted in a better understanding of the F.E.M.A. process and the anticipated results.

The building was designed by Paul Rudolph, a noted architect of the last century. The original design had been modified over time so as to remove some of its architectural highlights. The building was evacuated after the floods of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee and is currently vacant. 2. Pre flood conditions of the OCGC. The Government Center has approximately 80 separate roofs. In May 2000, the LAN Associates report revealed significant problems with the roofs due to design, construction and/or maintenance deficiencies which had developed over time. Since that time, the Executive Branch has permitted those same conditions to still exist today. The building was not designed for energy efficiency or ADA compliant handicapped accessibility. The placement of some utility system components below grade compromised their operation. There was a demonstrable lack of rigorous maintenance which is most apparent with the roof, exterior walls and HVAC system. 3. Options Renovate or Replace

The building is vacant and staff dispersed which permits either a newly constructed facility or a complete gut renovation to be accomplished without phasing to accommodate users. 1 The building is capable of renovation, its spaces repositioned, with energy efficiencies, addressing the existing deficiencies at less cost than demolition and replacement. 4. Costs The Committee heard testimony from architects and engineers, some of whom have first hand knowledge of the building while others had limited or were denied access to the building, asserting estimates ranging from $20 million to $75 million for gut renovation.2 The Claire T. Carney Library renovation project in Dartmouth,
1 2

Revised BBL Construction Estimates Bates GC001784 That is where the entire interior, all mechanical systems and such portions of the exterior as needed are removed and replaced.

Massachusetts is most analogous at $43 million. The ultimate cost estimate for replacement of the building with a newly constructed facility was revised down to $75 million.

B. Government Center Elements The Orange County Government Center was built in 1969. Prior to the recent addition of the new Court facilities, the building was comprised of three separate buildings commonly referred to as divisions or pavilions 1, 2 & 3, linked in a "U" pattern with communicating corridors at both the ground floor and third floor levels. The building is constructed of poured in place reinforced concrete with split ribbed block exterior masonry walls. The building is monumental in scale and consists of three large connected structures comprised of multiple smaller massed, stacked and undulating cube forms. The building design consists of approximately 80 individual roofs of varying sizes and elevations including clerestory atriums, HVAC penthouses, stairtower penetrations and a chiller enclosure. 3 In the second half of the 20th Century, there was a modern architecture movement where people were creating new kinds of architecture and one aspect of that was called "The Brutalist Style," which is a very distinctive, kind of very strong kind of architecture, and one of the leading proponents of that style was Paul Rudolph. So, in the history of American architecture, if our goal as architectural historians and preservationists is to retain excellent examples of architecture from every period, both, commercial and public and residential so that we can see that history of architecture through what we have protected, this is an important building because it was from -- it's of a very distinctive style from a very specific period by somebody who is acknowledged in having been a leading architect of that period.4 1. The Roof 56 (a) The first roof was constructed with the building in 1969. Its first replacement was with a membrane roof in 1985. (b) Roof performance and longevity is directly related to maintenance history, installation details, and environmental conditions. 7 (c) The LAN report date May 17, 20008 provides historical insight to the condition of the roof. LAN Associates, Engineering, Planning, Architecture, LLP ("LAN") had been retained in 2000 by the Orange County Department of Public Works to conduct a visual condition survey of existing roofing systems at the Orange
3 4

LAN Report GC001619-1753 (Sanchis, 7/31/12, page 880-881) 5 Photos of Roof 4/20/11 GC 001567-001569 6 Dormitory Authority Field GC001563-1566 7 LAN Report GC001619-1753 8 LAN Report GC001619-1753

County Government Center. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the existing roofing systems, identify system failures, and develop recommendations for remedial repairs or replacement based on data collected. (d) That report detailed the 1985 roofing system consists of a single reinforced PVC membrane approximately 40 -60 mil in thickness loose laid over polyisocyanurate insulation with integral vapor barrier over an original poured concrete deck. The roofing system is fully ballasted with l' x l' x 2" concrete ballast pavers, shown then to have decayed. The roof area totals approximately 650 squares or 65,000 square feet. (e) Roof Drains: The roofs drain via a combination of dedicated roof drains and/or scuppers draining to lower roofs. The roofs employ the use of three (3) basic types of roof drains consisting of recessed drains with damping rings and strainers, drop tube drains and through the wall scupper drains. (f) Upper Level Roofs: Upper level roofs are provided with individual drains. A single drain is provided for each of these roofs. There does not appear to be positive drainage to the drains via tapered insulation and the drains appear slightly elevated or flush with the field of the roof. (g) Intermediate Level Roofs: Several intermediate level roofs are located between the upper level and main level roofs and drain via roof edge/coping scuppers. (h) Main Level Roofs (Level At Which Roof Access is Gained Through Stairtowers) A series of flush mounted drop tube drains and recessed drains provide drainage for the main level roofs. (i) Lower Level Roofs: All smaller roofs below the main roof level are drained via individual through-the-wall scupper drains. (j) History of Leaks (i) According to the LAN report the current roofing system had experienced leakage problems since its installation.9 This was corroborated by the testimony of a County Employee, Wekerle. However the Countys Superintendent of Construction (1970-2000) who had first served as the Clerk of the Works for the construction disputed that characterization such that it appears there may have been some leakage initially when
9

LAN Report GC001619-1753

construction finished, but not again until the roof required replacement due to age.10 (k) Identified Problems (i) Due to the architectural massing of the building, inordinate amounts of perimeter flashings and roof penetrations exist. (ii) The Roof Flashings were installed improperly and were of inferior materials which led to water infiltration. 11 (iii) Flashing of the roof to the walls was not proper. The LAN Report identified the height of the base flashings varies throughout the facility. In many cases base flashings are installed too low and should be raised to a minimum of 8" - 10" above the field of the roof. Perimeter base flashings at lower roofs are approximately 4" - 6" high. Base flashings are attached to masonry walls with mechanical fasteners 16" O.C. located 2" above the field of the roof. Mechanical fasteners are provided with rubber grommets. This detail is poor and allows for potential water infiltration every 16" along all base flashings. . Further, the height of the flashings does not allow for the proper protection of the membrane in snowdrift conditions.12 (iv) The perimeter flashes where the roof, actually, connects to all of the walls, the adjoining walls, are very low and they're not really installed per the roofing standards, accepted roofing standards. They're, in many cases, they're only 6 inches high. The roofing requirements are, generally, 10 or more inches are required. The method in which they were installed was unusual, every six inches, they poked a hole through the flashing. 13 (v) Ballast (tiles or blocks) were installed to secure and protect the roof membrane. Those ballast tiles have disintegrated into aggregate which has blocked roof drains. Additionally the tiles themselves when broken up
10 11

(Bagge 7/31/12 page 909) The flashings are -are in extremely --they're poorly installed, the workmanship on the installation is bad, and the reason why I can say that is because, in the report, we, actually, did a probe where we cut the block off the walls in two locations and we observed flashings. We observed how they were installed, what the materials were, and all of that is in this report, it's documented, and the basic conclusion was -is that the flashings, they're a plastic flashing, they're not even metal, that it's the industry term for it is "Nervastral." It's a flashing that, back in the day, was touted as being, you know, a great new innovative flashing, but, in reality, over time, the plastic gets degraded due to its exposure and it becomes brittle and it cracks. So, um, it's not -it's not being used anymore, in any event, the flashings were not installed, correctly. They were not lapped, properly. They were cut short. They didn't extend to the outside of the veneer. (McGovern, 8/9/12, page 1195-1196) 12 LAN Report GC001619-1753 13 (McGovern, 8/9/12, page 1196-1197)

have sharp edges which have punctured the membrane. In some places the tiles were raked up into piles and those piles have resulted in deterioration of the roof and punctures.14 (vi) In 2000 it was observed that: Overall condition of the ballast is poor. There are significant signs of deterioration of the ballast due to water absorption and exposure to the freeze thaw cycle. The ballast has expanded resulting in cupping, ridging and heaving joints between ballast pavers. The pavers are not properly graded for this type exposure. U.S. weathering index maps indicate that the subject roof is located in a severe weathering zone and ballast should be grade 1 classified. Grades are calculated using the average geographic freezing cycle days and winter rainfall amounts. While the overall condition of the ballast is in poor condition, there are areas were the deterioration of the pavers is significantly worst. There appears to be a direct correlation between ballast deterioration and poorly drained roof areas. The low areas on the roof conducive to ponding water and subjected to the freeze thaw cycle are in significantly worst (sic) condition then areas that are elevated and or drain. (vii) In most cases these highly deteriorated areas are not located near roof drain locations. This condition further corroborates that tapered insulation was not installed. Ballast in these areas has deteriorated to the point where the pavers have essentially transformed into an aggregate material. This material has many angular sides and sharp edges which when walked upon may further compromise the PVC membrane. Furthermore the deterioration of the ballast has resulted in fine sediment which effectively inhibits or dams water and prevents the water from moving laterally to roof drains. This further aggravates the drainage problems at the roof level. Continuous stainless steel hold down straps and fasteners show signs of corrosion and in many cases are no longer properly attached to perimeter pavers. Several of the smaller clerestory roofs, which are elevated and drained via scuppers, exhibit extreme deterioration of pavers to the point where the pavers are no longer recognizable and have been transformed into a 2" layer of aggregate. On several of these roofs the maintenance staff has shoveled away the material to create trenches to channel water to scuppers. The scuppers are elevated above the main field of the roof and do not provide positive drainage. Areas of paver deterioration have been noted on the roof plan
14

(Berg 7/30/12 page 621)

and have been overlaid with documented areas of interior water damage. 15 (viii) The rooftop equipment was installed in a manner creating penetrations through the membrane compromising the membrane. Block screen walls for rooftop equipment were deteriorated into aggregate resulting in blocked drains.16 (ix) The Committee heard that The technology and construction technique for dealing with a roof like that, today, is much better than it was in the '60s and the '70s. You can develop adequate pitch with tapered insulation. The membrane systems that we're using are much more reliable. We have better flashing techniques. So, I mean you could, absolutely, achieve a watertight roof condition on a building of this type . 17 2. Walls (a) The LAN report found that, The exterior masonry walls are highly suspect as a cause of the chronic leakage problems for this facility. During the course of LAN's field observations it was noted that several areas of masonry were replaced at both the east and west facades of the building ***.18 Although LAN attributed the replacement to leakage, the record revealed that the two walls were replaced during the McPhillips administration due to deflection and not leakage.19 (b) The Committee heard testimony that Split-faced block is, probably, a porous product. It needs to be sealed on a regular basis. It would not surprise me, in the least, if you were taking on water from the exterior walls. Q. Through the wall? A. Through the wall; right. The flashing details. 20 It also learned that normally, the walls are not a prime source of water infiltration and if repointed, new mortar put in, all the caulk joints redone and then the building, properly sealed, any infiltration problems could be alleviated. 21 (c) Cavities in Walls
(i) The cavity wall construction is common in a building where there are

people involved and there is a masonry exterior. The cavity serves two
15 16

LAN Report GC001619-1753 (McGovern, 8/9/12, pages 1195-1198) 17 (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1074-1075) 18 LAN Report GC001619-1753 19 April 19, 1991 Report GC001509-1531 20 (Stiller, 8/13/12, page 1581) 21 (Hennessy, 8/3/12, page 1026)

10

purposes. One, the air in the cavity is an insulating layer, and, two, it prevents wind-driven rain from working its way through the masonry to the inside of the building. 22
(ii) The Committee learned that there are two ways of doing a cavity- insulated and uninsulated. The way Government Center drawings show that the cavity was insulated the proper way using rigid insulation in part of the cavity to maintain the air layer in the rest of the cavity, and that's an insulated cavity wall and that's as good as it gets.23

(iii) Given the cavity design of the walls24, any water entering the cavity from any source would normally be drained out to the exterior through weep holes at the flashing.25 (iv) It was observed however that as a result of improper maintenance many of those weep holes were caulked closed. 26 (v) There is no need to remove the exterior veneer walls except at the top course to facilitate proper flashing to the roof. 2. Mold (a) I will tell you that with mold, from my experience, perception is, significantly, an issue and, usually, the problem doesn t lie, necessarily, with the cleanup. The problem lies with the interpretation of what s there, with the litigation that occurs because there is ambiguity regarding the interpretation and because there are no standards. 27

22 23

(Berg, 7/30/12, page 642-643) (Berg, 7/30/12, page 643) 24 They're always designed for the water to arrive at the cavity, um, and they even have - you put a kind of masonry re-enforcement through a cavity so that the two wythes of the cavity, they're called "wythes," WY-T-H-E-S, are not independent of each other, that, structurally, they act together. So now you've connected them with wires, but there are always drips in the wires filled up. If any water got through them, they drip off to the bottom of the cavity where they go out of the building through leak holes of one kind or another. (Berg, 7/30/12, page 644)
25

Actually, very little water comes in through a wall, and -and if you provide a cavity for what water that does penetrate the outer surface and then weep it away, well, you've - you've done about as much as you can do. (Wickham, 7/30/12, page 659-660) 26 The weep holes that are provided at these flashings where it tries to get the water to drain out, they were caulked, probably, in an effort, many years ago, to try to, you know, keep water from getting in the building when, in fact, calking the joints, probably, exacerbated the situation and made it worse. (McGovern, 8/9/12, page 1196) 27 (Pedone, 7/30/12, page 726)

11

(b) There were conflicting reports as to the extent of the mold in the building reflected in the difference of opinion between the Countys expert and the F.E.M.A. representative who visited the building months later. 28 (c) The Countys expert opinion was that there are areas of the building that have mold but not the entire building, for example in Division 1. 29 (d) As to the wall cavities: There are some areas where the mold is evident, you see it. There's some areas where I feel it's behind the walls. 30 I will tell you that from the studies that I've read, mold inside wall cavities that's trapped does not contribute, significantly, to the air inside of the building unless there is some type of pressure gradient or physical force, mechanical force that's pushing, pulling, making that mix. 31 (e) The building can be stripped of its materials that promote mold growth and renovated, it's just a matter of the correct architecture, engineering and funding of the project.32 if you have clean concrete and you don t contaminate it with any extraneous material and it s locked inside of a cavity and you get just water driven through, chances are you re not gonna have too many issues with mold. 33 (f) Modern methods will eliminate any issues since all materials that can be the basis for mold will be removed from the structure thereby eliminating any growth influences.34 (g) I came up with something that I thought was reasonably attainable, which was you fix the leaks, get rid of the visible mold, clean the ventilation system, clean up the rest of the building, now you got a clean building. 35 (h) There is no health-based standard, and I would never ever sign or say with any certainty that whatever concentration of mold inside that building is safe. What I can say is that the building has been cleaned up, the areas inside the building exist similar concentrations, similar

28 29

(Pedone, 7/30/12, page 701) (Pedone, 7/30/12, page 717) 30 (Pedone, 7/30/12, page 725) 31 (Pedone, 7/30/12, page 725) 32 (Pedone, 7/30/12, page 705) 33 (Pedone, 7/30/12, page 724) 34 (Stiller, 8/13/12, page 1580) 35 (Pedone, 7/30/12, page 720)

12

types of molds and that they are either higher or lower than the benchmark and how they would compare to an outside air standard. 3. Windows

36

(a) The original windows are single pane and not energy efficient thermal pane similarly metal frames are not energy efficient. (b) In 2000, it was observed that the windows were in extremely poor condition, conditions which promote condensation and contribute to water infiltration. (c) The weep holes were sealed from past calking work impeding proper drainage of condensation to the exterior.37 (d) The caulking around the windows and the window frames are issues. The LAN report noted the Joints between glass and frame are open and
allow water to penetrate directly into the building. Caulking repairs at joints are poor and were not properly prepared prior to repair. Multiple layers of dissimilar caulking material have been applied over the years. Caulking between frame and masonry walls is in poor condition. The caulk has split and spalled out of joints allowing water to enter the building. Window jambs have been installed directly over irregular split ribbed block surfaces creating conditions that are difficult to seal. Many window sills are not provided with metal flashings and are installed directly on concrete sills. In some cases PVC roofing material has been adhered directly to metal flashings. This condition traps water and will not allow It to drain to the exterior of the building. This condition also forces water to enter under the roofing system.
38

(e) The window flashings were inadequate.39 (f) The windows should be replaced with modern systems double pane with argon gas or enclosed in a glass curtain wall. (g) Altering or adding window locations and sizes can accommodate any redesign and exposures.

36

(Pedone, 7/3012, page 721) LAN Report GC001619-1753 38 LAN Report GC001619-1753 39 Where flashings are provided, leakage problems may result from poor flashing design such as missing end pans, unsealed joints at corners, and by penetrations of fasteners that anchor the window to the surrounding masonry opening at head, jambs and sill. LAN Report Exhibit Bates Number GC0016191753
37

13

4. Mechanicals (a) The location originally was below grade and water table. These can and should be relocated to safer area.40 5. Structure (a) The footings, foundation and poured concrete structure are sound. (b) Some pointing is required for the exterior walls. Minor pointing may be required for interior walls. (c) The building could be renovated and made watertight. 41 (d) With the proper detailing, sealing, flashing, et cetera, there's no reason that this building can't be sealed. 42 6. Energy Efficiency (a) The existing building can be renovated in a manner to achieve the same energy efficiencies as could be obtained with completely new construction. 43 The same technologies for energy efficiency are available.44

40

The Switch Gear Room could not be used for pretty much any purpose other than, you know, a coy pond, maybe, but -but the Boiler Room Area, you know, could be used, you know, but everything still, internally, would need to be raised up just for the New York State Building Code which would require that they be raised 2 feet above flood level. (Fusco, 7/30/12, page 558-559) 41 Is there any doubt in your mind with the information you know now that if the Legislature were to decide to renovate - have a gut rehab, basically --of that building, that we could make a watertight building? Yeah, to the estimates that the comprehensive estimates that we have in there, the approach is to provide you with a normal reasonable watertight building. Q.And then you could -you could warrant that right now without any --with the information you already have? A. Yup. Q. You could tell the Legislature that that can be done? A. Yes. (Kukuvka, 8/9/12, page 1291) 42 (Hennessy, 8/3/12, page 1018) 43 You could - you could achieve the same - the same goal in a renovated building as a - as a new construction. that issue is no different whether you're doing, a renovated building or a new construction (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1078-1079) 44 Q. If we were to decide that option and fully renovate the Rudolph building, would the same new technology that would be available if we went for new construction, would the energy efficiency be comparable from a renovated structure, fully gut rehab, newly - newly-renovated structure, would that be about the same cost savings in energy as compared to a new building? A. I believe it would be. You know, the renovation would, essentially, be a new building. You're, essentially, the way I would view it, is you're, essentially, keeping the foundation and the structure and other core items by the elevator shaft, stairs, you know, things of that nature, um, but everything else, I would assume, would be cleaned out, everything, all new mechanical systems, new insulating systems, et cetera, a new roofing system. (Hennessy, 8/3/12, page 1021-1022)

14

(b) The Rudolph building renovation project in Massachusetts achieved a significant improvement in the energy model beyond Code and ASHRAE which will allowed them to achieve LEED certification. 45 In fact, since the Orange County Government Center Building has less glazed openings in its exterior envelope, the testimony indicated that means is it might be easier to achieve your energy performance because there is less glass. 46 So, what that suggests, it might be easier to achieve your - your budget and your energy goals, but it, also, might allow the possibility of transforming some of your solid enclosing walls to glass walls so it would bring in more natural light, more - more - more offices with view. 47 (c) Estimates for energy savings ranged from 30% 48 to LEEDS certifiable. 7. Access (a) Originally the primary design entry into the original three pavillions of the Government Center was through the central court yard, substantially eliminated in the 1990's. The concrete portals at the south parking lots setting up the entry image and sequence were also removed in the 90's. 49 (b) Currently there are three main entrances to the building. Access to Division 1 is through the parking lot side door, the most commonly used entrance for access to the County Clerks offices, the Executive Branch offices and the Legislative chambers and offices. Access to part of the Judicial division is through the reconfigured and reduced court yard and lastly through the new court facility. (c) A new reoriented entry access can provide an opportunity to eliminate the use of the least secure side door access and also provide an aesthetic improvement (see changes made at University of Massachusetts project). 8. Reposition Space (a) The Committee heard that the Rudolf design of the building is very amenable

45 46

(Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1069) (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1070) 47 (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1070-1071) 48 So, to - to increase the building by the current building by 30 percent, I think wouldn't take much at all, but I think the goals should, actually, be higher than that, cause 30 percent above a 1960 standards is still, probably, below the current energy code. (Hennessy, 8/3/12, page 1012) 49 Kartiganer Letter GC001560-1562

15

to change and efficient reuse. 50 (i) There are no bearing walls only columns. 51 (ii) Total gut renovation can be done. (iii) There is excellent flexibility in the use of the space. (iv) Multi-level floor layout is capable of redesign. (b) This would give an architect an opportunity in the redesign to, actually, completely, make it a new building on the inside. Everything on the inside could be cleaned out except for those columns.52 (c) We've been able to, substantially, change the image and the perception of the building by - by a whole new interior environment, more color finishes, better lighting, more transparency in the building, more natural light, all of those things. 53 (d) The Committee heard that repurposing the building provides a great economy
because if you just look at the cost of excavation, foundations, building structural frame, that's, probably, 20 or 25 percent of your building cost. So, even if you were to keep only the frame or replace all the building enclosure, all the roofing, all the interior finishes, all the building systems, you still stand to save on the order of magnitude 20 to 25 percent . 54

2. Drainage (a) The Village of Goshen system is the receiver of storm water and the Village appears to be receptive to cooperating in a comprehensive drainage improvement plan (b) A drainage channel known as the Rio Grande runs along the property boundary is principally used to channel drainage off site. That channel needs
50

. we were, frankly, surprised to find how amenable the building was to, um, to the conversion that was anticipated. I think the other surprise is how cost effective repurposing the building was. That - that was really I think the most astounding thing we found. (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1084) 51 ***Government County Building was afforded a structural system that had much longer spans for beams and slabs than was possible before then, and what that means is much fewer columns, no loadbearing walls in the interior and, basically, an open plan, which afforded us a lot of flexibility in terms of our rearranging the program areas within each floor. It's, also, fair to say that I think that the technique and the robust nature of that structural system, I don't think is, economically, possible any longer. I mean building is, even though it had much deferred maintenance and, certainly, some envelope issues, it was, virtually, indestructible. (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1053) 52 (Hennessy, 8/3/12, page 1019-1020) 53 (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1048) 54 (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1055)

16

to be maintained with the brush and growth removed, widened or deepened. 55 56 , (c) Drainage problems rarely affect only one property and comprehensive improvements to the system on and off the County property are warranted. 3. Aesthetics (a) There are differences in opinion as to the architectural appearance and significance of this building. 57,58 (b) The University of Massachusetts experience does show how the aesthetics can be altered if desired. (c) The Committee determined that aesthetics are subordinate to costs 4. Project Cost (a) There's a lot of embedded energy in that building and - and in cost. So, there's good value in saving it and not spending a lot of money to tear it down and dispose of it. 59 The Committee heard testimony of $20.M.60 for the project as a gut rehab but discounted that as a risk; (b) The testimony of $77.M 61was of a study budget which was admittedly the highest amount since it takes worst case scenario. That testimony was discounted by the Committee as over designed and unverified: (c) A revised renovation estimate projection from BBL Construction Services came in at $62,776,560: 62

55 56

(Fusco, 7/30/12, page 537-538) The storm water needs to go through it, quickly, yet, you have all this growth in there. I'd like the cat tails in there, but this isn't the place for it. In fact, I think that should be, probably, enlarged and it should be, probably, lined like they do in California with their storm conduits where they're dry most of the year and then, all of a sudden, you get all this rain and, you know, you have all these impervious surfaces and there's no place for it to go so they built these large conduits. This is what should be done pointing to that storm system back there and - or it should be just grass and it should be cut just like they cut the lawns. Right now, there's trees growing in it and it's very thick (Carbone, 7/31/112, page 824-825) 57 Kartiganer GC1561-1562 58 (Sanchis, 7/31/12, page 880-881) 59 (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1085) 60 (Berg 7/30/12 page 625) 61 Holt Construction GC00150-1556 62 BBL estimate GC001784

17

(d) The testimony regarding the Claire T. Carney Library Rudolph building project at the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth, Mass designed by the Design Lab Architectural firm of Boston Mass, is instructive. 63 The CTC project is of substantially the same size renovation and addition as the one being considered by our legislature. The project included the 20,000 square foot addition. (e) The CTC project is a renovation and addition of a similar Rudolph building with similar design features and physical structural details.64 (i) The CTC project has numerous roofs (36) and similar flashing and drain details (ii) The CTC project addition was above average in square foot costs and therefore comparable as far as costs are concerned. (iii) The wage scale in Massachusetts is around the same as the wage scale in Orange County. (iv) The CTC project was occupied during construction thereby increasing costs in general conditions and the length of time required to complete the project. (v) The length of time to complete will be fourteen months. (vi) That project came in at $43M which is well within a reasonable range as determined by the Committee. 65 2. Storm Recovery (a) The FEMA storm related damage calculations presented numerous issues prior to the hearings. The testimony of Seamus Leary was quite informative. The County Executive reportedly represented that $10 million was expected from FEMA. That number apparently represented the original $10 million storm damage estimate from LaBella Associates who had been retained by
Design Lab Architects GC001532-1544 there were a number of water- infiltration issues, primarily, around flashings. We have a very complex configuration. There are multiple roof areas. We are, completely, replacing all - all roofing systems and flashing systems and adding additional rigid insulation for improved energy performance. The product that we focused on was a PVC roof which is expandable, moves - moves well in freeze-thaw cycle and has - has great durability and reliability. They've been - they've been in use in this country, I think, for - for over 30 or 40 years; in Europe, much much longer. (Miklos, 8/3/12, page 1047) 65 See UMASS Library Project As It Compares to Orange County Government Center Report of Fusco Engineering et all, July 2012 GC001798-1823
64 63

18

the County to assist in presenting storm damage estimates and scope to FEMA66. Prior to presentation to FEMA, that number was reduced by the executive branch to $7.5 million due to the parking lot having been improperly accounted for in the LaBella Estimate. So, those estimates that you heard of 10 million and 7 million mean nothing to F.E.M.A. They could care a less what that number is. All that number tells us -- tells them is where, what we're thinking. They -- Their teams come in and evaluate the building. Their teams decide what they feel is storm related and what is not storm-related damage. 67 (b) The only real discussion with F.E.M.A. is whether some items of damage may be storm related. we don't give estimates to F.E.M.A. for anything. They don't take our -- There's no such thing as a claim to F.E.M.A. There's no such thing as we're applying for money for F.E.M.A. as far as disaster damage. They make the evaluation. They determine what storm - that's stormrelated damage, they determine what's not storm-related damage and they give us a figure to repair said storm-related damage. There's no negotiation. There is no give and take. This is a one-way system. Now, we can disagree with their numbers and try to, you know, come have a discussion about them, but, as soon as the numbers are done and the final and F.E.M.A. says we're not negotiating this anymore, it's done. 68 (c) The first F.E.M.A. team came down and offered $505,000, we thought that was, quite frankly, insulting cause we knew that there was more damage in the Government Center than $505,000.00. And, when doing our history, our background check on what this same team, this was called a Building Assessment Team, it assessed all the major buildings in New York, we found, time and time and again with counties, this team did the same thing - Tioga County, Essex County, Schoharie County, Chemung County, they undercut the values almost by a digit, which is the same thing they did to us. 69 So the F.E.M.A. team was notorious and ultimately removed from the job in New York State replaced with a new team and an agreement reached at $3.6 million in storm related damage.70 (d) There are additional funds ($3 million) competitively available for mitigation improvements, (such as relocating the mechanical facilities from the lower levels of the facility.

66 67

(Leary, (Leary, 68 (Leary, 69 (Leary, 70 (Leary,

8/13/12, 8/13/12, 8/13/12, 8/13/12, 8/13/12,

page 1600) page 1600-1601) page 1611-1612) page 1612-1613 page 1612-1613)

19

(e) The proceeds from FEMA recovery and insurance claims, if any, can be allocated to the project fund and be applied to the cost of the project whether a gut rehab or new building. Those proceeds will reduce the amount to be bonded, thereby reducing the project cost accordingly, and the debt service of principal and interest. 3. Site (a) The bulk of the existing site can be utilized with minimal change. (b) If the site were to be used for new construction, the location of the building on the site would be changed71 and the grade of the site raised by four feet requiring additional fill material.72 4. Connection to New Courthouse (a) No one identified this as a problem. 5. Judiciary (a) The Committee heard testimony from the Office of Court Administration as to the judiciarys concerns regarding the building. Ronald Younkins from OCA testified: (b) First, our interest, it's very narrow and specific. Our interest is ensuring that the Courts in Orange County have adequate and appropriate space, that the County is complying with the statutory obligation, which is in Section 39 of the New York State Judiciary Law to provide court facilities that are, quote, "suitable and sufficient for the transaction of the business of the courts." 73 (c) Our concern, frankly, is that those needs for the facilities get addressed, promptly, and that meeting those needs not get caught up in and get delayed because of resolution and the debate about this larger issue about the future of the Rudolph Building. (d) The County has a statutory obligation to provide court facilities. We recognize the difficult situation that The County faced last August and September with respect to the floods and we appreciate the steps that The County took, including the County Attorney moving out of the annex to provide us with additional space. We're appreciative of those steps. It was
71

The test borings revealed that the best location would be on the corner of, you know, 207 and Erie and that the soil conditions there were much better than the back side of the site, and we felt that conventional footing foundations, spread footing foundations could be used there. (Fusco, 7/30/12, page 556) 72 (Fusco, 7/30/12, page 557) 73 ( Ronald Younkins 7/31/12 page 926)

20

always understood those would be interim measures. Um, it has now been about 10 months since we're out of the Government Center. There is no plan for the long-range needs of the Courts and it is time for The County to come to grips with - with - with that issue. 74 (e) A renovation project provides the shortest time frame to meet the needs of the judiciary and to comply with the Office of Court Administration requirements. 6. Handicap Access (a) A new interior layout and revised entry will provide handicap - ADA complaint facilities. 7. Time Schedule (a) The estimated time for construction of renovated space can be 10 months to 14 months based on the University of Massachusetts experience.

74

(Ronald Younkins 7/31/12 page 926-927)

21

ORANGE COUNTY SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER Witness Appearances by Date June 25, 2012 No appearances June 29, 2012 No appearances July 13, 2012 No appearances July 20, 2012 No appearances July 24, 2012 No appearances July 27, 2012 No appearances July 30, 2012 Alfred Fusco, P.E., Fusco Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C./LaBella Team Mark Fellenzer, P.E., Fellenzer Engineering, LLP/ LaBella Team Harvey Berg, Architect and Structural Engineer (Retired) Francis Wickham, Architect (Retired) Steve Brander, Architect Marco Pedone, President, Environmental Management Solutions July 31, 2012 Jurgen Wekerle, past employee of Orange County Frank Carbone, Jr., Maintenance Engineer, IBM (Retired) Frank Sanchis, III, Director of United States Programs for the World Monuments Fund George Bagge Ronald Younkins, Office of Court Administration August 3, 2012 Andrew Hennessy, Architect Robert Miklos, Architect, Design Lab Architects August 9, 2012 Michael J. McGovern, Architect, Vice President of LAN Associates, Engineering, Planning, Architecture, Survey, LLP
22

Mark Kukuvka, Architect, LaBella Associates Drew Kartiganer, Architect August 10, 2012 No appearances August 13, 2012 Phil Stiller, Executive Vice President, Holt Construction Seamus Leary, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services

23

Witnesses Invited/Subpoenaed: Did Not Appear Edward Diana James ODonnell Charles Lee Daniel Conklin Gary Scrittore Mike Daskalakiz Peter Johantgen

24

ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER DOCUMENTS & EXHIBITS Bates Stamp No. 1. 2. Bond Resolutions (Nos. 66 of 2003, 59 of 2005, 146 of 2006, 164 of 2009, 45 of 2010 and 84 of 2011) Post Tropical Storm Property Condition Orange County Government Center prepared by Labella Associates, P.C., dated November 2011 3. Orange County Government Center Study- Final Assessment Report prepared by Labella Associates, P.C., dated January 6, 2012 4. 5. Orange County Government Center Study- Final Assessment Report Presentation FEMA Field Report dated February 1, 2012, and Building Condition Assessment and Architectural Building Inspection Assessment and Report dated February 15, 2012 6. 7. 8. 9. New Government Center Proposal dated March 5, 2012 Orange County Government Center Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee Interim Analysis dated May 24, 2012 Orange County Government Center Documents Resolution No. 161 of 2012 Establishing Special Legislative Committee with respect to Orange County Government Center 10. Letter to Diana from United Court System dated June 6, 2012 re providing facilities that are suitable and sufficient (with Exhibits) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. New Govt Center Proposal OCGC Nasco Comparison 4/23/12 Response to FEMA Building Condition 3/19/12 Architectural Record August 1971 Bio for Frank Carbone Budget for Renovation 3/2/12 Maintenance 2000-2012 GC001286-1404 GC001405-1435 GC001436-1441 GC001442-1451 GC001452-1461 GC001462-1467 GC001468-1470 GC001471-1505 GC001284-1285 GC000856-882 GC000883-1283 GC000736-824 GC000825-855 GC000256-735 GC000197-255 GC000009-196 GC000001-8

25

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Pillmeier to Diane re: Key 7/31/12 Golden to Protter re: Key 7/30/12 Repairs to Govt Center 4/19/91 Design lab Architects to Diana 4/17/12 Jason to Protter re: Holt 7/31/12 Fusco Demolition Costs Kartiganer re: Renovate or Replace Dormitory Authority Field Report 10/5/11 Photos of Existing Roof 4/20/11 OCGC Report - Appendix D Revised Budget for Renovation Nuzzolese Letter re: Stormwater Drainage dated 8/10/12 Report of Roof Condition Survey 5/17/00 Diana to Pillmeier 8/7/12 re: Final FEMA Worksheet Kukuvka E-mail Dated 8/13/12 Re: Renovation Budget Gandin to Golden re: Request for Documents Duma to Committee re: Roof Condition 8/12/12 UMASS Library Project Compared to OCGC

GC001506 GC001507-1508 GC001509-1531 GC001532-1544 GC001545-1556 GC001557-1559 GC001560-1562 GC001563-1566 GC001567-1569 GC001570-1615 GC001616 GC001617-1618 GC001619-1753 GC001768-1781 GC001782-1784 GC001785-1787 GC001788-1794 GC001798-1823

Wall E-mail Dated 8/6/12 re: OC Study Renovations & Add. GC001754-1767

Berg Memo to Committee Re: LaBella Cost Estimate 8/13/12 GC001795-1797

26