Members Present: Sally Holewa, State Court Administrator and Committee Chair; Jerome
Gruenberg, Ward County Commissioner, representing counties with populations of 7,500 or more;
Dwayne Erickson, Foster County Commissioner, representing counties with populations under
7,500; and Jim Hill, State Bar Association representative.
Members Absent: William E. Kretschmar, State Representative
Others Present: Williams County Commissioners Dan Kalil and Raymond Schmidt; Architect Jeffrey
Morrau; District Judge David Nelson; and Louie Hentzen, Assistant State Court Administrator
Chair Holewa called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. for purposes of continued review of
fifth round requests for court facilities improvement and maintenance grants. She then welcomed
Williams County Commissioners Dan Kalil and Raymond Schmidt, Architect Jeffrey Morrau, and
District Judge David Nelson for a further presentation and comments concerning the Williams
County application for a court facilities improvement grant. The application was initially reviewed
at the Committee's January 29, 2009, meeting, which concluded with the Committee's request that
the County submit a revised cost estimate for Phase 1 of the project. The amount of the revised grant
request is $509,841. Chair Holewa noted that the Committee will also consider grant requests from
Ransom County and Sargent County, for which the Committee had requested additional information,
and from Grand Forks County, which was received late but appears to have been submitted in a
timely fashion.
Williams County Grant Request
Commissioner Kalil generally reviewed the Williams County project. He summarized the
planning work underlying the project development and reviewed new construction efforts with
respect to a law enforcement center and a new jail adjacent to the courthouse. He said the third floor
of the courthouse is used primarily for court services, but a jail had also been located on the third
floor. He said demolition of the old jail left space available for construction of new facilities for the
court.
Judge Nelson explained that the greatest improvement in the project is the construction of
a second jury-capable courtroom. He said there are numerous other improvements in the project to
enhance court services and to make other needed facility changes, such as ADA-related
modifications.
Jeffrey Morrau reviewed the project submitted as part of the first application and then
distributed and reviewed the details of the revised Phase 1 cost estimate. The Phase 1 details were
also included in the material distributed for the meeting.
In response to a question from Jim Hill, Mr. Morrau said the demolition work related to the
old third floor jail space (removal of cell walls and related work) has been completed and the cost
is not included in the revised project estimate. Additionally, he explained that the project's phases
consist of the South Phase (Phase 1) and the North Phase (Phase 2). He said work on Phase 1 could
be done independent of the Phase 2 work and would provide a juried courtroom space. He said the
existing old jail space has a 7'8" beam height cast into the roof structure, which makes it very
difficult to use except, perhaps, for marginal office space. That, he said, is the reason for the
construction of the new roof as part of the project. He said the revised project estimate for Phase 1
does not include, as the Committee requested, costs related to general demolition, roof construction,
abatement of asbestos or other hazardous material, ADA-related modifications, and some mechanical
and electrical work. He said the revised estimate results in a cost per square foot of about $170,
which is below the average cost per square foot of $225-$275 indicated in the American Institute of
Architects most recent justice facilities review for similar courthouse projects. He said the revised
Phase 1 estimate is $679,788 for work directly related to court services, with a grant request of
$509,841. He noted that the entire Phase 1 project cost would be $1,473,938 but the county would
assume the balance of the cost over the grant request amount.
In response to a question from Jim Hill, Mr. Morrau said Phase 2 of the project is almost
entirely renovation of existing structures, while Phase 1 is new construction related to the new
courtroom and associated facilities and services.
In response to a question from Sally Holewa regarding project timelines, Mr. Morrau said
the expectation is to begin the Phase 1 project in mid-summer 2009, with completion in early 2010.
Mr. Morrau then reviewed the cost categories included in the Phase 1 project description. He
noted that the cost figure related to "Total Roof" means the cost associated with new ceiling tiles.
He said the HVAC system and lighting is designed specifically for the courtroom space and are not
a portable or reuseable system. Commissioner Gruenberg observed that the cost estimate for the
HVAC distribution system seemed high.
In response to a question from Commissioner Erickson, staff said the Committee has not
granted awards in the past that included funds for estimated increases in costs.
Commissioner Schmidt observed that the entire project represents significant renovations to
the courthouse for which Williams County has committed substantial funding. He said the county
would assume the greater share of Phase 1's over-all cost, but an award for the requested amount
would help the county considerably in moving forward with the project.
Jim Hill said the County has submitted an excellent project description and the presentation
has been informative. But, he said, the Committee must be a good steward of the funds available
to it and consider the grant request in light of the Committee's past experience and the impact of a
large grant on the fund.
Chair Holewa thanked Commissioner Kalil, Commissioner Schmidt, Jeff Morrau, and Judge
Nelson for their presentation and explanations of the project.
Following a break, Chair Holewa asked with respect to the Williams County grant application
that, Committee members consider each assessment determination separately, as set out on the
Assessment Sheet, i.e. whether the project is dedicated to facilities improvement or maintenance or
both; whether the affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or "court-related services", and
whether the project is a necessary improvement or essential to remodel or maintain the facility. She
noted that a majority vote is required on each determination.
It was moved by Commissioner Erickson and seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg
that the Phase 1 project be considered as dedicated to facilities improvement or maintenance.
Jim Hill said there is nothing about the project that is not meritorious. He observed that
initially there was little idea of how much fee revenue would be raised for the facilities improvement
and maintenance fund. But, he said, the history of the fund has shown a startling amount of revenue
raised and available for grants. He said the Committee's early experience had been primarily with
relatively modest and small grant requests. Burleigh County, he said, represented the first large grant
request and the Committee struggled with the request and ultimately awarded about $160,000. He
said there has also been an awareness of difficulties related to whether funds should be awarded for
putting up buildings as opposed to being awarded essentially for remodeling efforts. He said the
Committee has never had occasion to consider a grant request as substantial in dollar amount or
construction requirements as the one submitted by Williams County. He said the County is
essentially building the courtroom, not remodeling an existing courtroom. The project, he said,
contemplates wrapping in overhead and profit, basic heating elements, lighting, and other things that
are generally essential to a county building as such. By way of comparison, he said, Phase 2 of the
project may actually be more consistent with improvement and maintenance criteria as it is directed
at renovation of existing facilities. He wondered whether the Committee is at a point, based on 4
years of experience to identify the outer limits of grant awards. He noted that the governing statute
and the Committee's rules allow the Committee to require that a county contribute more than 25%
to the cost of a project. He wondered about the long term effect of awarding a substantial grant for
building construction if other counties expect then to receive similar grants and whether the fund can
generate the revenue to support such grants.
Commissioner Erickson agreed Phase 2 would actually be easier to address in terms of the
criteria.
Sally Holewa recalled the purpose for which the fund was established, which was to assist
counties and to partially offset the costs counties incur in providing facilities for use by the state
court system. She agreed other counties may submit substantial grant requests in the future, but that
is the purpose for which the fund was established. She said the governing consideration is whether
there are funds available at a given time and whether the fund satisfies the relevant criteria. She said
it may be too limiting to consider only improvements to existing space that a court currently uses.
Jim Hill suggested the mission of the Committee could be interpreted as "improvement" of
existing facilities rather than "building" new facilities. Additionally, he said, the Phase 1 project
cannot be considered in isolation from the Phase 2 project. He said a grant for the first will likely
mean a grant request for the second. And that, he said, may result in future requests for funds to fill
a "space" with a court facility. He said the Committee may be at a crossroads and the decision that
will likely commit the Committee to considering grant requests that essentially build "new" facilities.
Commissioner Gruenberg agreed the purpose of the Committee is to assist counties in
meeting facility improvement needs and the Committee's earlier direction to Williams County
contemplated assisted with interior finishings, furniture, and the like related to the third floor
courtroom. He said his review of those kinds of improvements identified in the project estimate
suggests a project cost of about $326,340 with a 75% grant award amounting to about $244,755. Jim
Hill observed that analysis of that kind essentially requires reviewing particular parts of bids and
determining which are acceptable as improvement or maintenance of a facility.
After further discussion, the motion carried. (Commissioner Gruenberg, Commissioner
Erickson, Sally Holewa - yes; Jim Hill - no).
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, and
carried that the affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or "court-related services". (Commissioner Gruenberg, Commissioner Erickson, Sally Holewa - yes; Jim Hill - no).
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg and seconded by Commissioner Erickson
that the project is considered a necessary improvement to the court facility.
Sally Holewa said the project, as described, is necessary to meet the needs of the court. She
said Williams County has shown that it is essential to have another courtroom.
The motion carried. (Commissioner Gruenberg, Commissioner Erickson, Sally Holewa -
yes; Jim Hill - no).
Chair Holewa said that having determined that the project satisfies the noted criteria, the next
question concerns the amount of the grant. She said general options are to award the amount
requested or consider particular elements of the project.
Jim Hill cautioned that it will be difficult to review each cost element of the project and
decide which should be funded and which should not. However, he said he is not comfortable with
awarding funds to be used for overhead and profit and regional cost adjustments and escalation (total
of $135,958 identified in the Phase 1 estimate).
For purposes of discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Erickson and seconded by
Commissioner Gruenberg that an award be granted equal to 59% of the amount requested,
or $401,074.92.
Jim Hill said that based on the Committee's history with previous grant requests and the
amounts awarded he would be uncomfortable with a grant award much higher than $250,000.
With the consent of the second, the motion was withdrawn.
It was moved by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg, and
failed that a grant be awarded in the amount of $320,859.70 (59% of the Direct Cost Subtotal
for Phase 1 - $543,830). (Commissioner Erickson, Commissioner Gruenberg - yes; Sally Holewa,
Jim Hill - no).
It was moved by Jim Hill that an award of $250,000 be granted. The motion died for
lack of a second.
It was moved by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg, and
carried that a grant be awarded in the amount of $320,859.70. (Commissioner Erickson,
Commissioner Gruenberg, Jim Hill - yes; Sally Holewa - no).
Sally Holewa explained that she would support a grant award for the amount requested in the
application - $509,841.
Grand Forks County Application
Project: Replacement of boilers in the courthouse.
Staff noted that the Grand Forks County application was not included in the applications
reviewed at the January 29 meeting as it had not been received. He said a conversation with the
County Administrator indicated that the application had, in fact, been mailed and the transmittal
letter indicates a mailing date of December 12. He said it appears the application was likely mailed
in a timely manner but was not, for some reason, received.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gruenberg regarding "jail" references in the
application, staff said an old jail facility is adjacent to the court facility and may receive some bleed-over heating from the boiler operation. He said the County Administrator explained that the jail
facility still relies on steam heat and would require substantial work to be serviced by the boiler
operation, which work is not included in the application.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg, and carried
unanimously that the Grand Forks County application be considered as timely. It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg, and carried that the
project be considered as dedicated to facilities improvement or maintenance. (Jim Hill,
Commissioner Gruenberg, Sally Holewa - yes; Commissioner Erickson - no).
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, and carried
unanimously that the affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or "court-related
services".
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Jim Hill, and carried
unanimously that the project is considered a necessary improvement to the court facility.
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, and
carried unanimously that a grant be awarded in the amount of $219,480 (59% of the amount
requested - $279,000).
Ransom County Application
Project: Replace windows (courtroom, chambers, clerk's office, jury room, counsel room);
air conditioner for judge's chambers.
Staff noted that the Committee had initially review the Ransom County application at the
January 29 meeting and requested that the county provide detailed vendor estimates for material with
respect to the replacement of the windows and also provide pictures of the current windows and
affected facility areas. He explained that the requested information had been provided and is included
in the meeting material. He said the project cost was also modified, which resulted in a lower grant
request. It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg, and carried
unanimously that the project be considered as dedicated to facilities improvement or
maintenance and that the affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or "court-related
services".
Commissioner Erickson explained that the three windows related to the emergency
manager's office are not part of the court system. He said those windows should be a county
responsibility, as well as the window indicated for the stairwell. That, he said, would decrease the
total project cost by approximate cost of the four windows. Committee members agreed a reduction
of $5,000 in the estimated cost would address the window differential.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg, and carried
unanimously that the project, with the recommended modification, is considered a necessary
improvement to the court facility.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, and carried that a
grant be awarded in the amount of $31,875 (75% of the modified project cost of $42,500). (Jim
Hill, Commissioner Erickson, Commissioner Gruenberg - yes; Sally Holewa - no). Sally Holewa said
she voted "no" as the supporting information does seem to adequately indicate which specific
windows are being replaced.
Sargent County Application
Project: Replace (9) window mount air conditioners with mini-split air conditioner/heat
pumps.
Staff noted that the Committee initially reviewed the application at the January 29 meeting
and had asked that the County submit a revised project description and cost estimate that did not
include any costs related to improvements in the sheriff's office. He said the requested information
is included in the meeting material. Committee members agreed the additional information
adequately described the project
It was moved by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Jim Hill, and carried
unanimously that the project be considered as dedicated to facilities improvement or
maintenance and that the affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or "court-related
services".
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Jim Hill , and carried
unanimously that the project is considered a necessary improvement to the court facility.
It was moved by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Jim Hill, and carried that a
grant be awarded in the amount of $20,673.13
Timing of Next Round > In light of the discussion at the January 29 meeting, it was agreed the next round would be
held no earlier than the fall of 2010.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gruenberg, Chair Holewa said the Committee
has typically held any funds not awarded during a particular round for inclusion in the next grant
application round.
Chair Holewa will send a letter to Williams County requesting confirmation that the County
will accept the Phase 1 project award.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.