Court House-Main St-19-05-31 Updated Draft FCA - Hampshire County Superior Courthouse_Redacted
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1410
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel. +1 703.684.6550
fgould.com
Faithful+Gould is a trading name of Faithful+Gould, Inc. a member of the SNC-Lavalin Group
May 31, 2019
Division of Capital Assessment Management & Maintenance
Office of Facilities Management and Maintenance
One Ashburton Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Attention: Michael Silveira
Reginal Planner II
Reference: Report of Facility Condition Assessment
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Faithful+Gould Project No. 100065396
Dear Mr. Silveira:
Faithful+Gould, Inc. has completed a report of our Facility Condition Assessment of the Hampshire County Superior Court
located at 99 Main Street in Northampton, Massachusetts (“the Property”). This report provides a summary of the project
information known to us at the time of the study, the scope of work performed, an evaluation of the visually appa rent
condition of the Property and a forecast of anticipated capital expenditures required over the next ten -years.
This report was completed in general accordance with the ASTM E2018-15 Standard Guide for Property Condition
Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process and Faithful+Gould’s proposal for Facility Condition
Assessment services dated March 20, 2019.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this service. it was a pleasure to work with you and your team on this project. We
look forward to working with you on more projects in the future.
Very Truly Yours,
Raihan Saleh Benjamin J.M. Dutton, BSc (Hons), MCIOB, MRICS
Facility Assessor Vice President
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 1 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... 2
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 9
SCOPE OF SERVICES & DOCUMENT REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 15
SITE FEATURES .............................................................................................................................................................. 18
1.0 SITE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................................... 18
BUILDING ELEMENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 22
2.0 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................................... 22
3.0 ROOFING COMPONENTS .................................................................................................................................. 25
4.0 BUILDING EXTERIORS ........................................................................................................................................ 30
BUILDING SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
5.0 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS..................................................................................................................................... 33
6.0 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................................ 38
7.0 PLUMBING SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................................... 42
8.0 FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................................... 45
9.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ...................................................................................................................................... 49
BUILDING INTERIORS & FINISHES .................................................................................................................................. 50
10.0 INTERIOR FINISHES............................................................................................................................................ 50
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 53
11.0 ACESSIBILITY ISSUES .......................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendices
Appendix A - Photographs
Appendix B - Ten-Year Capital Expenditure Forecast
Appendix C - CAMIS Input Sheet
Appendix D - Proposed Plans
Appendix E - Glossary
Appendix F - FEMA Floodplain Map
Appendix G - Résumé of the Assessment Team
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 5 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
• Replace existing wood framed windows on all elevations, which were observed with wet rot
• Complete full repoint of the masonry granite and brownstones on the exterior façade
• Clean exterior façade
Step 3 – Decouple Buildings and Introduce Utility Services
3a. – Introduction of Utility Services – ($1,900,000 ECC / $2,660,000 TPC)
• Introduce electric service to the Superior Court building
• Introduce domestic water service to the building
• Introduce natural gas service to the building
3b. – Installation of Building Systems – ($2,382,565 ECC / $3,335,591 TPC)
• Install hot water boilers for heating system
• Scenario A – Replace air handling units with split systems and heat pumps
• Scenario B – Refurbish existing air handling units and install air cooled chiller
• Following discussions with DCAMM, we have included the costs for Scenario A within this report from herein.
• Install emergency generator – optional
3c. – Bridge Demolition – ($344,850 ECC / $482,790 TPC)
• Demolish the vaulted glass link bridge between the District Court and the Superior Court
• Close out curtain wall on the south elevation of the District Court building
Step 4 – Code Compliance – ($1,461,357 ECC / $2,045,900 TPC)
4a. – Fire Code Compliance (Full Scope to be Determined by AHJ)
• Conduct a fire code review with specialize engineer and local code authority
• Install fire rated doors and walls throughout the building
• Install fire detection and alarm system
• Install fire rated egress stairwell to the first floor at the rear of the building, contingent on fire code review.
• Install wet sprinkler system, contingent on fire code review
4b. – ADA Compliance
• Install traction elevator at the northwest corn of the building
• Convert rear emergency exit to an accessible entrance into the law library
• Provide accessible restrooms at the second and third floors
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 6 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
• Install new bi-level drinking fountains on the second and third floors and replace the existing drink fountain
on the first floor
• Modify the third-floor courtroom to provide ramps at the jury boxes, the witness stand, and the judge’s
bench
• Install ADA compliant directional signs in common spaces in the building
Step 5 – Interior Construction and Non-Critical Repairs – ($630,366 ECC / $882,512 TPC)
• Replace circa 1970s suspended ceiling tiles, which may contain asbestos containing materials (ACM)
• Replace 2 x 2 suspended ceiling tiles
• Remove and replace damaged plaster and lathe walls and ceiling throughout the building.
• Replace carpet floor finishes
• Repaint interior walls and ceilings
• Renovate the existing three single-user restrooms
• Repaint iron perimeter fencing.
Historic Significance
The Hampshire County Courthouse is a historic landmark. As such, a specialist historical consultant should be
appointed prior to the commencement of any detailed design, large-scale alteration, or any major renovation works.
We recommend that the facility retain specialized consultants (listed below) to scope, price and design the restoration
and decoupling projects that we have recommended in this report.
• Historic preservation specialist
• Structural engineer
• Architect
• MEP Design Consultant
• Code consultant
• Cost consultant
• Project manager
Extreme Weather Impact and Building Resilience
During our assessment DCAMM requested that Faithful+Gould determine any potential weather -related
environmental impacts that may jeopardize the operations and future of the Property. To do this, we completed a
public records review to ascertain the recorded flood plain designation for the Property and researched various
government resources that provide future predictions on climate change. Based upon these sources, we concluded
that given the location, nature, and purpose of the Property, it would prove to be very costly and likely uneconomical
to fully protect the building against severe weather conditions. This is discussed in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 7 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
Regional Extreme Weather Impacts
The northeast has significant geographic and climatic diversity within its relatively small area. The character and
economy of the northeast have been shaped by many aspects of its climate including its snowy winters, colorful falls,
and a variety of extreme events such as nor’easters, ice storms, and heat waves. This familiar climate has already
begun changing in noticeable ways. Since 1970, the annual average temperature in the northeast has increased by
2°F, with winter temperatures rising twice as much. Warming temperatures has resulted in many other climate-
related changes, including the following:
• More frequent days with temperatures above 90°F
• A longer growing season
• Increased heavy precipitation
• Less winter precipitation falling as snow and more as rain
• Reduced snowpack
• Earlier breakup of winter ice on lakes and rivers
• Earlier spring snowmelt resulting in earlier peak river flows
• Rising sea surface temperatures and sea level
Each of these observed changes is consistent with the changes expected in this region from climate change. The
northeast is projected to face continued warming and more extensive climate -related changes, some of which could
dramatically alter the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life.
Local Extreme Weather Impacts
As there is scientific evidence to suggest there is a trend towards ever increasing temperatures and more frequent
severe weather events, the building will become more reliant on the heating, ventilation and cooling systems to
maintain the indoor air quality required to serve the building occupants. Additionally, severe weather conditions such
as storms, floods, heat waves and snow storms etc., are likely to cause extensive damage and service disruption to
the Property. To mitigate these risks, we recommend:
• Cleaning coils and filters on air-hander units to maintain HVAC efficiency
• Managing outside air-intake to balance indoor air quality and HVAC performance
• Routinely check through window air conditioners are secure, especially following high winds.
We consider these recommendations existing routine planned maintenance items that can be completed with little
or no additional effort.
Per the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map Numbered
2501670002A and dated April 3rd, 1978, is in flood zone C (an area of minimal flood hazard). Flood zone C is an area
that is outside the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and higher than the elevation of the 0.2% annual chance flood.
The 0.2% annual chance flood (500-year flood) is the flood that has a 0.2% chance of being equaled or exceeded in
any given year. During flooding events, there is a strong probability that the Property and access routes would be
severely disrupted which would most likely result in collateral damage to the Property.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 8 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
Extreme Weather Preparedness
The environment is in constant change, and this change has effects on operating budgets and short-term programs,
as well as long-term capital programs. We have vetted the question of environmental preparedness within the
Faithful+Gould team and researched the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other
weather prediction long-range weather models. We have concluded that while weather forecasting has improved,
there is still a lot of uncertainty in the future regarding environmental change. As such, it would not be prudent to
recommend capital changes for scenarios that may or may not occur. We believe, however, that through operational
readiness the Property can be better prepared to manage changing environmental conditions.
The Property should be prepared for hotter summer months which will strain the existing air conditioning systems,
stronger storms which may cause extended delays in utility services and possibly colder winters which will strain the
existing heating systems. As the temperature rises in summer, coils and filters on the air handler units will need to
be kept clean and air qualities may be reduced during extreme temperatures as the outside air intake dampers will
need to be closed to allow the system to function properly. The air handler units are designed for design temperatures
at 95 degrees, with 50 percent relative humidity. When the temperature outside exceeds those parameters, the air
handler units will struggle to maintain set-point. Additionally, the higher temperatures will cause additional heat gain
from the envelope of the building, thereby increasing the load that the building systems must manage to keep the
facility comfortable.
Building Resilience
The building is fairly straight forward without a lot of complicated system that could bring the operation to a halt.
However, with the intention to fully decouple the building from the District Court, the Superior Court will require
major infrastructure upgrades in the near term. During the design phase of the infrastructure upgrades, engineers
should be consulted regarding the resiliency of the building systems at the Property. The recommended boilers should
have enough capacity and quantity available to minimize any likely disruption short of a catastrophic failure, which
takes down several boilers at once. The electrical system, when introduced, should be properly maintained according
to industry standards, and if necessary installed with redundancy of systems. We have recommended the optional
installation of an emergency generator to provide electrical resilience to the building.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 14 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
Terminology & Limitations
This report and the attached expenditure forecast generally identify the Expected Useful Life (EUL) and the Remaining
Useful Life (RUL) of observed systems and components. EUL is projected based upon industry-standard guidelines and
our experience with similar systems. RUL is projected based upon our assessment of age, condition and
maintenance/repair history.
The timing of the projected expenditures and their associated costs represent our opinion considering the
aforementioned factors. Alternative methods of managing the existing equipment or systems may be feasible over
the study period. However, these alternative methods will depend upon actual management practices, financin g
requirements and the ability of the engineering staff to perform some of the repairs in -house. Alternative scenarios
that have not been presented to Faithful+Gould have not been considered within this report.
This report has been presented based upon our on-site observations, information provided to us, discussion with
building management and maintenance staff, our review of available documentation (see scope of services and
document review section) and our experience with similar systems. If any infor mation becomes available that is not
consistent with the observations or conclusions expressed within this report, we request that this information be
immediately forwarded to us.
The evaluation of existing structures requires that certain assumptions be made regarding existing conditions. This
evaluation was based upon our visual non-destructive evaluation of accessible conditions of the Property.
Furthermore, this evaluation was limited in time on-site, fee and scope, and was not based upon a comprehensive
engineering evaluation. As such, our report is not intended to represent a complete review of all systems or system
components or a check or validation of design professionals’ computations. Therefore, Faithful+Gould’s evaluation
and this report do not represent, warranty or guarantee any system or system component or the future performance
of any site improvement.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 15 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
SCOPE OF SERVICES & DOCUMENT REVIEW
Report Objectives
The objective of this report is to produce an advanced facility condition assessme nt and capital planning process,
utilizing all current data from a complete condition assessment of the Property, to result in a strong and well -
developed plan to support strategic capital investment. In short; the objective is to assess the condition of all included
buildings and site systems and develop a prioritized forecast of anticipated capital expenditures over the ten-year
period between 2019 and 2028. This forecast has been prepared based upon two future use scenarios. This will form
the long-term investment plan for the buildings by developing an array of projects, architectural and
mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems that can be inputted into a planning model from which sound management
decisions can be made to best utilize funding resources. Specific objectives of this study are listed below:
• Identification and documentation of the present condition
• Recommendation of corrections for all deficiencies
• Provision of cost estimates for such corrections
• Forecasting of future facility renewal costs based on documented methodology, of the facilities and equipment
in the building
In order to meet these objectives, we completed a visual evaluation of installed systems at the building (i.e. site
systems, structural, roofing, exterior, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection and life safety, elevators and
interiors), and produced this report of Facility Condition Assessment. We also reviewed and incorporated disabled
access remediation recommendations prepared by a separate DCAMM retained consultant. This report represents a
comprehensive evaluation of the building systems and major components including criteria for assessment, expected
useful life, remaining useful life, year to be replaced, project priority and plan type, existing conditi on, estimated
replacement date and estimated replacement cost standards.
Key Issues
Faithful+Gould was requested to complete a Facility Condition Assessment of the site and site improvements. The
key issues to be addressed by the Facility Condition Assessment include the following:
1. Identification of the visually apparent condition, installation date, remaining useful life and deficiencies at the
Property to include all systems and elements detailed in the following “Strategy Employed to Meet the Key Issues”
section.
2. Recommendations and opinions of cost for capital projects over a ten-year period from 2019 to 2028. Projects
are to be categorized using two priority tools and one set of deficiency categories, and consider two future use
scenarios
3. The replacement value of the component or system.
4. Proposed projects and timelines for when the system/component should be replaced.
5. Proposed execution strategies for the identified projects that minimizes cost and disruption.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 16 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
Strategy Employed to Meet Key Issues
The strategy employed to meet the key issues detailed above (i.e. our scope of services) consisted of performing a
visual assessment of the interior, exterior and site components of the subject building. The scope of services was
governed by Faithful+Gould’s proposal for Facility Condition Assessment services.
The primary purpose of the Facility Condition Assessment was to identify visually apparent deficiencies in the building
and site. The evaluation included site visits to observe the building and site systems, interviewing building
management and maintenance personnel, and reviewing available maintenance systems, design and construction
documents and plans. This Facility Condition Assessment has been conducted in general accordance with industry
standards and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 2018-15 Standard Guide for Property
Condition Assessment: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process.
We performed a visual non-destructive assessment of the interior, exterior and site components of each building,
including the following major components and systems:
• Site Systems. We visually observed the site systems for the removal of stormwater and evidence of poor
drainage and/or erosion potential. We also reviewed (where applicable) the condition of pavements, site
concrete, retaining walls, fencing, landscaping, site grading and stormwater drainage features.
• Structural System. We observed the structures for visible signs of distress and have reported our findings.
We also reviewed available structural drawings for information regarding the design load criteria of the
existing structures and the building codes to which the structures were designed. We did not complete a
seismic probable-maximum-loss (PML) evaluation of the Property.
• Roof System. We visually evaluated the condition of accessible roof systems, accessories and details. In
addition, where applicable we discussed existing roof warranties. We also took infra-red photos of the
exterior to identify areas of significant thermal loss, locations of roof leaks and wet insulation.
• Building Exterior Elements. We visually observed the exterior wall system, window and door systems for
visible evidence of deficiencies, continuity of seals, and other types of distress and have reported our
findings. We reviewed available flashing and connection details for drainage design and observed the
condition and placement of expansion joints. We also took infra-red photos of the exterior to identify areas
of significant thermal loss.
• Mechanical/HVAC, Electrical, Plumbing (MEP) Systems. We observed the age and condition of the MEP and
related building systems and have commented on their condition and visible deficiencies.
• Fire Protection and Life Safety. We observed the age and condition of the fire protection and life safety
elements and have commented on their condition and any visible deficiencies. The elements surveyed
included structural fire protection, means of egress, fire suppression systems, and fire detection and alarm
systems.
• Conveyance. We observed the age and condition of the conveyance systems; however, we were informed
modernization project has been funded and slated to begin in early 2019. On this basis we have therefore
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 17 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
not provided detailed comments with respect to the existing elevators nor provide costs for modernization
within our capital expenditure forecast.
• Interior Finishes. We visually observed the interior areas of the Property and have reported their general
condition.
• Accessibility. A separate study was completed by Universal Designers and Consultants which evaluated the
Property for compliance with applicable disabled access requirements. Costs from this report have been
included within our Capital Expenditure forecasts, and a copy of the report provided in Appendix F.
The scope of services under which the Facility Condition Assessment was completed, was visual in nature and not
intended to be destructive to the Property, to gain access to hidden conditions. We did not perform any destructive
testing or uncover or expose any system members. We have documented the type and extent of visually apparent
defects in the systems in order to perform the condition assessment.
The scope of services under which the Facility Condition Assessment was completed, includes only those items
specifically indicated. The evaluation does not include any environmental services such as (without limitation)
sampling, testing, or evaluation of asbestos, lead-based paint, lead-in-water, indoor air quality, PCB’s, radon, mold, or
any other potentially hazardous materials, air-borne toxins, or issues not outlined in the previous scope of services. In
addition, the assessment does not include identification of underground soils, identification or quantification of
underground contaminants.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 19 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
No parking is provided within the Property. Shared public parking is provided at a lot on Gothic Street, one
block from the site; and at street level along the site boundary.
Pedestrians can walk the boundary of the building via the municipal owned sidewalks to the east, south and
west of the site or the Property’s concrete and brick paved walkways to the north of the Property. Several
public entrances are provided at the facility, which allow entrance to either the Law Library contained within
first floor of the building or the courthouse areas at the upper floors. The main public entrance to the building
is achieved via the glass link bridge from the district court building at the second and third floor. The main
entrance to the Law Library is achieved via an entrance on the east corner of the building located under the
front portico. Local bus routes provide commuter access options to the site.
The grade level parking areas surrounding the building site is owned by the local municipality and are not
maintained by DCAMM/the Superior Court. These areas have not been considered by this report.
Portico, Link, Walkways, and Steps
The Historic Superior Court building is connected to the adjacent District Court building via a steel -framed
bridge at the north granite stone elevation. The barrel vault glass bridge was constructed in 1973 and allows
pedestrian access to the building from the district court at the second and third floor level.
The south (front) elevation is provided with an entrance portico, framed by brownstone arches at the second
floor of the building. Granite steps from the ground level are provided for entrance to the front portico.
Additionally, the west elevation of the facility is also provided with granite steps leading to the second-floor
level of the building. The west and south stairs to the building are typically used as exit routes from the upper
floor levels.
Cast-in-place (CIP) concrete components consist of walkways directly north of the building and municipal
sidewalks. The curbs along the boundary of the Property consists of a combination of CIP concrete and
granite. Complete civil engineering drawings were not provided to confirm the exact composition of the
concrete walkway; however, we anticipate the concrete to be cast over a compacted sub-grade. Where
measured the concrete sections were 6’ by 5’ in size. Additionally, the Property is provided with brick paved
walkways from King and Main Street, which approach the facility’s front entrances and rear exit.
Landscaping
Landscaping is limited to lawn areas along the east, west and south boundaries of the building. Several large
trees are located along the front and flank lawns. The east corner of the Property is also provided with a
fountain pool approximately 18 feet in diameter.
Lighting
Site lighting is primarily limited to municipal owned street lamps along Main Street and King Street. Localized
wall packs were also provided at the north (rear) elevation. Additionally, the front portico deck was provided
with a ceiling hung light fixture with incandescent bulbs.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 20 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
1.2 Condition
Portico, Link, Walkways, and Steps
The barrel-vaulted glass bridge was overall in fair condition. However, if the two buildings are decoupled, the
Superior Court will function independently. Therefore, we have recommended the demolition of the bridge.
The recommendation to demolish the bridge is discussed further in detail under Section 2.0 Structural
Systems.
Generally, the cast-in-place concrete walkways and curbs were noted to be in fair condition having benefited
from on-going replacement of failed concrete on an as-needed basis through the years. The concrete
sidewalks, however; were noted with several locations of cracks to concrete sections . We assume concrete
sidewalks along Main, Gothic and King Streets are outside the property boundary and have not recommended
capital expenditures for the replacement of the damaged sections.
The two granite stairs to the second-floor entrances of the Property were in fair condition. No cracks to the
granite were observed during the onsite assessment. However, we noted the treads and risers were loose as
mortar joints have deteriorated and cracked. The granite treads and risers should be reset on an operating
budget to preserve the condition of the stairs.
The brass railings were observed to be in fair condition. No capital expenditure is recommended at this time.
Landscaping
The lawn, trees and small shrubs were generally in good condition with no major defects noted. Assuming
periodic completion of on-going landscaping as an operational expense, we do not anticipate any major
capital expenditures during the study period.
The perimeter metal fencing and gates were observed to be in fair condition. However, we noted flaking
paintwork and early sings of surface corrosion to the metal work. We recommend budgeting for the
repainting all metal fencing at the Property in the near term of the study period, with repeat cycles performed
at seven-year intervals.
Lighting
The limited site lighting was generally in fair condition with no major defects noted. Assuming periodic
completion of on-going re-lamping and repair as an operational expense, we do not anticipate a requirement
to complete significant repair or replacement of the site lighting during the study period.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 22 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
BUILDING ELEMENTS
2.0 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
The description of the respective structural systems is based upon our review of exposed portions of the
building structure at the mechanical areas, as well as reviewing construction drawings and evaluation reports
(See Photographs ST-01 through ST-06 in Appendix A).
2.1 Description
The Property was reportedly constructed in 1886 and consists of a granite and brownstone masonry
superstructure with wood floor assemblies and wood-stud partitions for interior walls. The Building also
contains a front portico framed by brownstone arches and columns and a granite and brownstone framed
tower.
Foundations
The foundations at the building are assumed to consist of solid masonry rubble stones laid on undisturbed
earth. The exterior ashlar cut granite stones are not part of the veneer walls. Instead they are structurally
tied to the interior solid rock (granite) bearing wall.
Ground Floor Slab
Due to the lack of drawings and the floor finishes on the ground floor being covered by rolled carpet, we
could not verify the composition of the floor slab. We assume the lowest floor to consists of concrete slab
on grade.
Upper Floors
The upper floors typically consist of wood floor decking supported by wood joists and beams.
Roof Structure
The building is mainly protected by a main gable roof consisting of slate shingles. The tower is covered by a
pyramid hip roof consisting of red terracotta tiles, and the front portico is covered by a low-slope roof
consisting of ethylene propylene diene polymer (EPDM) membrane. The gable and pyramid hip roofs are
composed of wooden roof decks and are supported by wood trusses and rafters. The low-slope roof consists
of a wood roof deck laid on wood joints supported by brownstone arches and columns
Superstructure
The superstructure generally consists of the solid granite masonry with distinct ashlar cut stone patterns,
which are tied to a non-reinforced solid stone bearing wall on the ground floor. Wood beams, joists, and
trusses support walls and upper level floor decks.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 23 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
Interior Walls and Ceilings
Interior walls consist of a combination of load bearing granite masonry units and wood-stud beams covered
by painted lathe and plaster finishes. Ceiling systems consist of a combination of painted lathe and plaster
ceilings, and suspended metal grids with lay-in acoustical tiles. Some acoustical ceiling tiles observed at the
facility may contain asbestos containing materials (ACM), however, we were unable to confirm this.
Exterior Walls
The exterior wall primarily consists of the ashlar cut granite masonry units. The window outlines and
horizontal bands at each floor level consists of brownstone blocks.
2.2 Condition
We observed exposed portions of the buildings structure at the utility rooms, service rooms and at support
rooms to facilitate observation of the structural elements at the Property. Generally, the structural systems
at the Property were found in good condition. However, due to many years of deferred maintenance of the
slate roof, the roof structure of the building, particularly at the northeast corner, was found to be in poor
and potentially critical condition. Evidence of significant roof leaks was observed, which may have affected
the structural integrity of the roof. This is further discussed in Section 3.0 Roofing Components.
If the buildings are decoupled, we believe a series of structural works is required, and have recommended
the facility demolish the vaulted glass bridge connecting the two buildings. In conjunction with the
demolition of the link bridge, the curtain wall system of the south elevation of the District Court building will
need to be closed off. We have included individual allowance for the two projects in our capital expenditure
forecast
We reviewed a structural evaluation report dated August 10, 2011 prepared by Boston Bay Architects Inc.
The report indicated that the west elevation of the building, particularly at the northwest corner of the
building was in need of repair due to deterioration of structural foundation. However, during our onsite
assessment, we did not observe evidence of any structural issues at the foundations or solid masonry bearing
walls. Due to the concerns raised in the 2011 report, we have included an allowance in the near term to
perform destructives testing at the ground floor masonry walls along all elevations to determine whether
structural deterioration have occurred. Following the destructive testing we have include a set of allowances
to perform structural foundational repairs.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 28 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
3.2 Condition
Main Gable Roof
The main gable roof and its components are original to the building. The roof was generally observed to be
in poor condition. We utilized the existing scaffolding at the front of the building to observe the condition of
the main roof and noted the following defects:
• Broken/ Missing Shingles: We noted several locations where the slate shingles were missing or
cracked, exposing the wood deck below. This was most notable where snow guard rails have been
mechanically fixed into the roof on the northwest portion of the roof. The exposed wood deck was
visible without any weathering proofing tar paper, which is assumed to have deteriorated over the
years. We can assume water and snow have already begun to penetrate into the building at several
locations.
• Metal Flashings: The copper roof flashings were generally noted to be heavily oxidized and
misshapen. The flashings were found to be cracked and loose in most locations. There is also no
evidence of drip flashing at the slate roof edge, allowing rain to enter the exterior systems of the
building.
• Structural Damage: There were noticeable signs of leaks (i.e. flaking paintwork on ceiling soffits),
particularly to the north corner of the building at the 3 rd floor courtroom. A review of the 2011
Courthouse Study reveals that the roof plane in the north end of the building has sunken below the
roof rafters by 5 to 6 inches between middle spans. Reportedly the structural beam and rafter in the
northeast corner has deteriorated due to water ingress.
Given the age, the reported structural damage, and the general conditions observed of the roof, we
recommend budgeting for a complete replacement of the main roof in the near term of the study period. Our
view of the cost assumes a full replacement of the slate shingles, roof deck, and associated metal flashings/
snow rails. We have also included a separate budgetary allowance to perform structural repairs at the north
corner of the main roof, which should be completed during the replacement of the slate roof. As a matter of
note, our structural repairs allowance is a budget only and the framing members will need to be inspected by
a local qualified structural engineer during the roof replacement works when inspection access can be
provided.
In conjunction with the roof replacement works we have included a recommendation to insulate the attic
crawls spaces within the building. We have included this recommendation in our capital expenditure forecast
during the near term of the study period, as discretionary item.
Tower Pyramid Hip Roof
At the time of our study the tower roof and the front portion of the slate roof were being replaced. Following
discussion with the construction project lead, it is understood that the roofs in these areas are being fully
replaced with new shingles, wood decks, and flashings. No further capital expenditures are anticipated during
the study period.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 30 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
4.0 BUILDING EXTERIORS
The building is constructed in a Romanesque revival architecture. The principal exterior wall systems consist
of ashlar cut stone walls bound together with solid masonry granite bearing walls, decorative brownstone
window outlines, an entrance portico that is framed by Romanesque brownstone arches, and single glazed
windows. Other systems comprise of cornices, pinnacles, and entrance / egress doors (reference
photographs Ext-01 through Ext-06 in Appendix A).
4.1 Description
Solid Masonry Wall Construction
The Superior Court building was originally constructed in 1886. The exterior walls primarily consisted of
ashlar cut stone patterns bound together by a non-reinforced 32” solid masonry granite bearing wall. A
structural evaluation report dated August 10, 2011 prepared by Boston Bay Architects Inc. was reviewed for
details. The evaluation report and associated drawings indicate that the ashlar stones are not part of veneer
walls but are structurally tied to the interior solid rock bearing wall.
Window decorative outlines and horizontal banding at each floor level are made of brownstone masonry
units. The main entrance portico is also framed by Romanesque brownstone arches and columns.
Windows & Doors
The windows at the Property consist of varying sized fixed units containing a ½” single pane clear glass set
within painted wood frames and lintels. The exterior wall along the window outlines contained decorative
brownstone banding. With the exception of the tower windows, all windows at the Property were reportedly
replaced in the 1973 renovation. Originally the Property contained 2x2 double hung win dows at the first,
second and third floor levels.
All exterior doors at the facility were solid wood doors. The exterior doors to the Property are assumed to
have been refurbished during the 1973 renovation project.
Portico
The main entrance to the Property is provided with an exterior granite staircase, which lead to the front
portico on the second level of the building. The portico is framed with granite columns and brownstone
Romanesque arches that hold up a wood roof deck, covered by a single-ply rubber membrane. The portico
also contains decorative brownstone column bases and railings.
4.2 Condition
Solid Masonry Wall Construction
Generally, the original (1886) exterior masonry was in good condition, with the exception of mortar joints at
the exterior walls. The mortar joints were noted to be loose/ cracked in several locations. A review of the
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 31 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
2011 Structural Study indicate the presence of soft mortar (mostly loose sand) behind the first ½” to 1” of
hard mortar. The soft mortar reportedly extends as deep as 6” into the granite stones of both head and bed
joints across all elevations and floor levels. No evidence of repointing of the mortar joints is found, suggesting
the mortar is original to the construction of the building. However, the ongoing construction project relating
to the tower at the Property, currently includes exterior masonry repairs. Full repointing at the tower
masonry walls is currently being undertaken. We recommend that the same level of attention is given to the
remainder of the building exteriors.
The brownstones at the property were typically in fair condition. However, some locations were noted with
surface deterioration, specifically at the front portico columns and walls. Significant efflorescence was
observed at all exterior elevations at the brownstone bandings and portico arches. Some brownstones were
also noted to be cracked.
Considering the Property has received minimal to no maintenance and refurbishments at the exterior walls,
since its construction in 1886, we believe a full repointing of the mortar joints at the Property is required in
the near term. We recommended the minor locations with cracked granite and brownstones are also
repaired as part of this project. In the near term, we also recommend a project to complete a full exter ior
façade cleaning of the granite and a chemical treated cleanup of the brownstone.
Windows & Doors
With exception of 26 windows at the tower, which are being refurbished as part of the current construction
project, the wood framed windows at the Property were generally in poor condition. The painted exterior
moldings, granite lintels and the painted wood sills were deteriorated throughout all elevations. We also
noted the ground floor window trims to be rotted or soft. The caulking at the windows were also deteriorated
at many locations.
The existing ½” single pane glass units, generally, were in fair condition. However, the existing seals between
glazed units and the wood frame are well beyond their lifespan and have begun to fail.
The 1973 retrofitting project involved the removal of the original double-hung windows, which included the
removal of rope, pulley, and counterweight systems for opening and closing the windows. The single large
thermal glass closed unit now allows no ventilation into the building.
Considering the poor conditions observed and the noted significant failing components of the windows at
the Property, we recommend the facility undertake a major window replacement project in the near term.
During the project, efforts should be made to restore the original double-hung design of the windows for the
purposes of historical preservation. Based on our discussions with the site contractor, the windows will need
to be temporarily removed and refurbished off site by way of splice details, putty repairs, and repainting,
and then reinstated on completion. We have also included an allowance to budget to scaffold the exterior
façade of the building.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 33 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
BUILDING SYSTEMS
5.0 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
The following information was obtained through our visual observations of the building systems and review
of available documentation. The facility contains HVAC equipment for occupant comfort, with mechanical
systems consisting of air handler units, reheat coils, fin tube hot water radiators, cabinet unit heaters,
exhaust fans, and pneumatic controls (reference Photographs M-01 through M-08 in Appendix A).
5.1 Heating and Cooling Systems
Description
Heating Systems
The spaces within the facility are heated by hot water fin tube radiator heating coils around the perimeter
spaces on the first floor, and convection type units located throughout the occupied spaces on the second
and third floor. The hot water is provided by boilers from the District Courthouse boiler room next door via
underground pipes. There are four total air handling units at the Property. Three units are located in the
attic and one unit on the second floor, which supply heated air to the occupied spaces on the second and
third floor, with some reheats in the ductwork for individual spaces. Stairwells and small closets are heated
via unit heaters or small cabinet heaters.
Cooling Systems
The building utilizes air handler units to cool the spaces within the building manufactured by Trane. Chilled
water is pumped from the District Courthouse main chiller to the air handler units on the 4th floor. Chilled
water in the cooling coils removes heat from the return air and/or outside air.
System Capacity
Based upon our review of the equipment and documentation, the hot water and chilled water systems are
adequate for the buildings cooling needs.
Condition
The Trane air handler units were installed during the renovation in 1973 and are in fair to poor condition,
and reportedly not maintained on a regular basis. Air handler unit number six has the chilled water piping
disconnected from the unit. Several of the units appear to have the bottom pan rusted out and may be
leaking condensate. The units are approaching the upper end of the useful life expectancy and showing their
age. The unit’s overall condition is discussed in the air distribution section below. The fin tube radiators,
cabinet unit heaters, and unit heaters should remain serviceable throughout the study period.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 35 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
5.2 Air Distribution Systems
Description
Conditioned air for the building is provided by four air handling units that are designated as air handler unit
4, 5, 6, and 7. The units have hot water heating coils, chilled water -cooling coils, outside air make-up, and
return air. The air handler units supply air to diffusers in the space via metal duct work in the ceiling. We
noted a heating coil in the ceiling of one room and believe there are approximately 18 reheat coils in the
building. We also noted that the supports for the ductwork and heating box are pulling out from the ceiling.
That issue is detailed later in the report.
System Capacity
Based upon our review of the equipment and documentation, the air handling systems appeared to have the
capacity to maintain comfort conditions throughout the building based on the current use and occupancy
levels.
Condition
The useful life expectancy of these types of units (dated in circa 1973) is 20-25 years, and longer if well
maintained. These units are more than 40 years old and showing the age. The insulation is worn on much
of the units piping systems, the chilled water coils that were inspected had condensate pan rusting, and the
interior pans looked a bit worn and dated. The units overall appear to be neglected, minus an occasional
filter change or minor repair, and have exceeded their useful life. We recommend budgeting for the
replacement of the air handler units in the near-term.
During our site assessment, we noted some locations with acoustical ceiling tile systems failing. The Judge’s
chamber on third floor was particularly noted with sunken acoustical grid system. Some of the ceiling tiles
were removed to better understand the degree of damage. We found the ductwork above the ceiling in this
located to be loose from the lathe and plaster ceiling above. This was noted as a safety concern as an
unsuspecting occupant in the area can be seriously injured if the ductwork above were to fall due failing
support. We recommend the facility complete an initial pr oject to secure the ductwork to the lathe and
plaster ceiling in the first year of the study period.
Building Decoupling
We suggest the air handler units are replaced with heat pump units, and condensers mounted in the attic
with a louver to allow heat to escape, eliminating the need for the air-cooled chiller mentioned in the cooling
section. The heat pump could have a hot water coil and switch back and forth between the heat pump and
hot water coil based on outside air. We recommend replacing the air handler units in the near -term
regardless of the final configuration of the cooling systems. We have budgeted for a much higher unit cost
than normal due to the location of the air handler units, the lack of elevator, and the unknown design
parameters.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 37 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
5.4 Temperature Control Systems
Description
Controls for the HVAC systems consist of pneumatic air controllers for water flow (valve operation) and
temperature control (thermostat for reheats). The compressed air is delivered from the District Court
mechanical room in the basement. A small oil -less air compressor could be installed in the penthouse to
control the current system. The air handler units appear to have individual DDC controllers manufactured
by Schneider. The controller observed is controlling start/stop operation of the variable spee d drive,
controlling dampers, and monitoring temperatures of the air handler system. There are three analog output
points available on the controller that we observed.
System Capacity
The building control system is considered generally adequate for the size of the building.
Condition
The HVAC DDC control system is in good condition, although limited. The pneumatics systems appear to be
maintained as needed. The valves on the air handler units would need to be replaced as part of the air
handler replacement costs. We believe the thermostats would need to be upgraded to newer models or
replaced with digital controls.
Building Decoupling
The pneumatic air system would need to be decoupled from the Courthouse. A small oil-less air compressor
could be installed in the penthouse, or the valves could be changed to electronic valves. The cost of the air
compressor and/or electronic valve installation is included in the air handler replacement cost.
Projected Capital Expenditures
No required capital expenditures are anticipated at this time
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 38 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
6.0 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
The following information was obtained through our visual observations of the building system and limited
electrical drawings. The electrical systems include electrical distribution equip ment, lighting systems, and
communications systems (reference Photographs E -01 through E-04 in Appendix A).
6.1 Electrical Service and Distribution Equipment
Description
Electrical Service Equipment
Electrical power comes from the basement level of the District Courthouse panel DCPH with separate
breakers feeding each electrical panel in the facility. The power is passed through a trough four to six feet
below grade between the buildings.
Power Distribution
Voltage in the building is 277/480 and 120/208 volts, with larger equipment utilizing 480-volts.
Wire and Conduit
Typical power distribution for feeders and branch circuits is accomplished using wire in conduit. Observed
wiring consists of copper with thermoplastic insulation. Conduit types varied in the buildings based on area
and usage. Rigid conduit appears to be used in the chase between the buildings. Electrical metallic tubing
(EMT) is used in interior spaces. Limited amounts of flexible metal conduit and Type MC cable are used. The
tubing from motors to disconnect were liquid-tight.
Panelboards
Panelboards in the facility are typically rated between 60 -amps and 100 amps. Most panels utilize circuit
breakers for over current and short circuit protection of circuits. Most distribution panels appear to be main
lug only.
Transformers
Transformers are the dry-type of 30-45 kVA throughout the facility.
Equipment Manufacturers
Distribution panels were manufactured by Eaton, Siemen’s, and Kinney Electrical boxes with Eaton breakers.
Disconnect switches are manufactured by various manufacturers Federal Pacific. Variable speed drives are
manufactured primarily by Square D.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 41 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
6.5 Security Systems
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 42 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
7.0 PLUMBING SYSTEMS
The following information was obtained through our visual observations of the building. We were not able
to determine the current configuration of the systems based on the available drawings. The plumbing
systems include the domestic cold-water system, domestic hot water system, sanitary waste and vent
system, and storm water collection system (reference Photographs P-01 through P-03 in Appendix A).
7.1 Domestic Water Systems
Description
Domestic Cold Water
It appears as though the domestic cold-water comes from the District Courthouse building, but site personnel
did not know the exact location of the service. In the first-floor bathroom, there is a 1 1/2” domestic cold-
water line feeding the hot water heater. We suspect this is the line feeding from the Courthouse.
Domestic Hot Water
Domestic hot water is generated by an electric RUDD hot water heater. The unit man ufacture date is
unknown. The unit is an electric hot water heater rated at 40-gallons.
Plumbing Fixtures
Each floor contains a men’s and woman’s restroom. Plumbing fixtures within the restrooms typically consist
of floor mounted water closets with manual flush valves and vitreous china lavatories mounted within
laminate counters with manual nickel-plated handles and faucets.
System Capacity
The capacity and configuration of the water service to and throughout the building appears to be
appropriate. No problems were reported or noted concerning water distribution.
Building Decoupling
The domestic water system would need to be decoupled from the District Courthouse with the installation
of a new water line fed from most likely from the King Street side of the building as the drawings show a 10”
water main. We anticipate the need to install a new domestic water service in the near-term. We also
anticipate that the work be completed with the electrical and HVAC work to reduce the overall price by using
the same trench if possible, into the building. If the building is mothballed, the cost to preserve the building
in a state of preservation will be much lower. However, the costs to decouple the building at some point in
the future could be significantly higher due to escalation and unpredictable cost escalation.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 44 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
Condition
The sanitary, storm drainage water systems appeared to be in good condition (where visible) with no
significant leaks or other areas of deterioration noted or reported to us.
Projected Capital Expenditures
No required capital expenditures are anticipated at this time.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 51 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
Offices and administrative areas – Floors 2, and 3
The second floor of the building primarily contains offices, meetings rooms and common lounge areas. The
front and rear portions of the third floor also contained a judge’s chamber and smaller offices, which can be
used as jury and or witness pool rooms. Primarily the office areas at the building contained rolled carpets
floor finishes, gypsum wall board walls, and a combination of gypsum wall board and suspended acoustical
tiles for ceilings.
Courtrooms – Floor 3
The building is provided with one main courtroom on the third floor. The courtroom can be accessed either
via the multiple stairwells that exists on the front and back portions of the building. The north section of the
courtroom is designed as the deliberation area and contains the judge’s sitting area, one witness stand, two
jury boxes on either side of the judge’s sitting area, and the attorneys’ sitting area. The south end of the
room is designed public sitting area.
The wall finishes in the courtroom consists of painted lathe and plaster walls. The floor finishes consist of a
combination of rolled carpet finishes and original maple strip wood flooring. The ceiling in the courtroom
consists of a painted lathe and plaster ceiling with crown molding.
Restrooms
Three single-use restrooms are installed at the property. Two are located at the first-floor near the front
entrance lobby area. The other restroom is located behind the rear stairwell at the second floor. The judge’s
chamber on the third floor is provided with a washroom that contains a sink.
Typical finishes consisted of porcelain water closets, lavatories, and vanity units. The walls and floors are
typically finished with ceramic tiles and ceilings are finished with painted lathe and plaster. Mirrors above
sinks are provided throughout.
10.3 Condition
The finishes to the interior areas were typically dated, however not original to the building. Generally, the
interior finishes to the property were in poor condition. Several locations were observed with failing or loose
lathe and plaster walls and ceilings. The offices and corridors throughout the building were typically noted
with cracked and peeling paint, which may contain lead. Where suspended ceiling systems were present, we
noted two distinct types of systems at the property. One is a circa 1970’s fiberboard system, which may
contain asbestos however we could not confirm this. The other is a typical 2x2 square acoustical system,
which appear to be at the end of its lifespan.
In the near term of the study, we have recommended several replacement and refurbishment projects to
main the original interior conditions of the building. The interior projects include the following:
• Replace the 1970’s suspended ceiling tiles system, which may pose a health concern in the building
due to the possibility of asbestos containing material.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 53 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE
11.0 ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES
Architectural Access Board (AAB) and ADA Title II Summary
The Northampton Superior Court building is owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is required
to meet the accessibility requirements of both the Architectural Access Board (AAB), Section 3.00 of 521CMR,
2006 Edition; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 28 CFR Part 35 as amended; and the 2010
ADA Standards for Accessible Design. When the state and federal regulations differ, the regulation that
provides the greater level of accessibility must be followed.
The ADA is a civil rights law, not a building code. Title II requires more accessibility than the AAB when a
project includes alterations to a program space, sometimes including an accessible path of travel (including
access to toilets) from site arrival to the program space.
The Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board 521CMR are enforced by local and state building
inspectors, but interpretations are made, and variances granted, only by the Architectural Access Board.
11.1 Accessibility Issues – Existing Conditions
The Property currently contains a connector bridge between the District Court building and the historic
Superior Court building, which provide accessible routes to the second and third floors. The property also
received some accessibility improvements in the past including the renovation of one single -user restroom
on the first floor (reference Photographs ADA-01 and ADA-06 in Appendix A).
With the intention to decouple the building from the District Court and our recom mendation to demolish
the link bridge, the Property will generally be inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Furthermore, as a
result of the major upgrade works anticipated, the Property will need to be brought into compliance with
accessibility requirements. Since the Property is reportedly on the National Register of Historic Places, we
understand that consultation will be required with the Advisory Council on Historic Landmarks.
Consequently, we recommend that a specialist historical consultant is appointed prior to the commencement
of detailed design work or large-scale alteration works. While the MAAB takes historical status into
consideration when granting variances to their regulations, the ADA does not have a variance process and
Program Access must always be maintained even when not all architectural barriers to accessibility are
removed.
11.2 Applicability
The Property was constructed prior to January 26, 1992, the effective date for compliance with ADAAG for
Title II entities. Existing buildings before this date must meet ADA Title II requirements to provide Program
Access but may not need to have all accessibility barriers removed. Any renovations after this date would
have been required to comply with ADAAG or the 2010 Standards and th e current revision of 521CMR at the
time of renovation. Given the proposed recommendations of capital projects, the building will need to be
updated to meet all accessibility requirements.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 54 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
Where applicable, the work proposed in the accompanying facility condition assessment (FCA) report must
be completed in compliance with the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Rules and Regulations (521
CMR) and the 2010 ADA Standards. The extent of compliance is based on the type of alteration, the total
cost of alterations and the value of the building. A full accessibility analysis for all renovation options should
be undertaken during the design phase of the project. For the purpose of this FCA, our costs include
accessibility improvements to provide the minimum level of accessibility to meet ADA Program Accessibility
obligations assuming each level of the building will be used by the public. DCAMM has more detailed
information on accessibility barriers from a prior report which will be updated prior to a potenti al project
start.
11.3 Site Access and Building Entrances
11.3.1 Requirements
In order to meet ADA Program Access requirements, an accessible route must be provided from a building
entrance to sidewalks, parking, drop-off, and/or public transportation locations. This accessible route may
include curb cuts, sloping walkways, ramps and stairs. The entrance approach, door widths and hardware
must be compliant with accessibility requirements, and it is advised that automated door openers are
provided if the opening force to entrance doors is considered excessive.
11.3.2 MAAB Building Analysis
The MAAB regulations 521CMR, has a specific definition of a building which may differ from other building
code definitions. If a building relies on an adjacent building for accessible features, then both buildings are
considered one building by 521CMR. Since the Superior Court relies on the District Court for accessible
vertical circulation, both are considered one building by 521CMR.
11.3.3 On-Site Conditions
The Property features stepped entrances to the front (south) and side (west) elevations, which allow access
into the building on the second floor-level. The Property also provides one ground level entrance to the law
library (first-floor) on the southeast corner of the building. The ground level entrance is reported to be
accessible, however it is located within a deep recess. To be accessible, this door needs an automatic door
opener if not already installed. The door generally cannot be locked during operating hours unless a written
policy exists which describes how to gain access through the locked door. Additionally, the grading at the
brick paved walkway leading up to the accessible entrance at the front was too steep and does not comply
with accessible route standards, discussed further in section 11.4 Accessible Routes. Another accessible
entrance to the building is located on the second floor where the building connects to the District Court
elevator lobby.
Since the current accessible entrance on the first floor is not fully compliant with accessible route standards
and decoupling the building will remove the only fully compliant accessible entrance, we recommend the
rear emergency exit from the building be repurposed for an accessible entrance.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 55 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
11.4 Accessible Routes
11.4.1 Requirements
All publicly accessible areas should be provided with accessible horizontal and vertical circulation. All publicly
accessible floors should be connected by an elevator along the accessible path. Accessible routes mus t
comply with all accessible route requirements.
11.4.2 On-site Conditions
The accessible route to the building is reportedly achieved via the brick and concrete paved walkways located
along the east and north perimeters of the building. Persons using a wheelchair will have to use either the
King Street or Gothic Street entrances into the Property. The Gothic Street sidewalks provide a dropped curb,
which can be utilized as a drop-off location for persons with disabilities traveling to the site via car. T he King
Street entrance into the Property boundary, however does not provide a dropped curb. Since the front
ground floor entrance is the only accessible entrance to the building, a person using a wheeled mobility
device would have to travel the entire length of the east elevation via the walkways to access the building.
As mentioned, the walkways to the east perimeter are not graded to comply with accessible route standards.
We recommend the rear emergency exit be repurposed as an accessible entrance. The route from Gothic
Street to the rear of building is graded properly and will allow an accessible route into the building.
Horizontal access of public areas is generally accessible throughout the building. Corridors were found to be
large enough to meet accessible route requirements. However, the only vertical circulation in the building is
provided via the link bridge at the north elevation and the accompanying elevator in the District Court
building. With the link demolished, as recommended for decoupling the building, the Superior Courthouse
will have no means of vertical circulation for the upper level floors. With the proposed installation of an
elevator at the rear of the building, we believe that the upper floors can be made accessible. The proposed
locations of accessible items can be found in Appendix D Proposed Plans.
11.5 Doors and Signage
11.5.1 Requirements
The ADA requires that signs identify permanent rooms and spaces such as restrooms and exits. Where
provided room numbers must have Braille and raised letters or numbers to allow them to be read visually or
tactilely. The ADA also requires that signs meet specific requirements for mounting location, color contrast
and non-glare surface. Signs that provide direction to or information about functional spaces must only
comply with requirements for character proportion, character height and finish, and have contrasting colors
between the characters and background. All required signs must comply with the 2010 ADA Standards.
Doors and entrances must comply with the 2010 ADA Standards including door width, required clear
maneuvering spaces at doors, door hardware, closing speed, opening force, and other accessibility
requirements. Doors cannot have hardware that require tight grasping, tight pinching or twisting of the wrist
to operate.
Hampshire County Superior Court
99 Main Street May 31, 2019
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Page 56 of 57
Report of Facility Condition Assessment DCAMM Project No. TRC1918-HS1
11.5.2 On-site Conditions
Signage within the building was limited and where provided it was non-compliant. We have included an
allowance to upgrade signage provided within the Property to comply with the current requirements. Door
widths and maneuvering areas were generally compliant within the building. Door hardware in some
instances were non-compliant. Upgrades to make doors compliant with current ADA guidelines should be
completed according to requirements based on the level of work performed. For a more detailed list of
accessibility requirements the Owner may need an update to the existing 2007 accessibility audit.
11.6 Accessible Amenities and Function Spaces
11.6.1 Requirements
The ADA requires that all primary function areas are accessible unless a written policy is in place that
identifies an alternate means of accessibility to achieve Program Access. Confirmation should be sought that
programs, services, and activities are accessible according to Title II Program Access requirements.
11.6.2 On-site Conditions
Areas that can be considered function areas within the building are generally limited to entrance lobbies, the
law library on the first floor, the courtroom on the third floor, and some large office rooms, which can be
used for jury pools and witness assembly. Generally, the function areas were compliant. However, the two
jury panels, the witness stand, and the judge’s bench in the courtroom were all provided on raised platforms.
The raised platforms make these spaces inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Depending on the future
use of this space, accessibility improvement may be required. These improvements have not been included
in the CAPEX listing because the future use of the Courtroom is not known at this time.
11.7 Usability of Restrooms
11.7.1 Requirements
Depending on the level of work performed in the building at a minimum one single-user gender neutral toilet
room must be provided. If non-accessible toilet rooms are renovated or modified some or all accessibility
requirements may need to be met. If the cost of work in the building exceeds 30% of the CAMIS value of the
building, then all toilet rooms may need to be made compliant with both 521CMR and the 2010 Standards.
11.7.2 On-Site Conditions
There were three restrooms provided at the Property (two on the first floor and one on the second floor).
No restrooms were provided on the third floor. The restroom on the first floor had been upgraded (estimated
in the late 1980s/early 1990s) and was found to be compliant with accessibility requirements. We have
recommended that the building upgrade the existing second floor restroom to be fully compliant with both
521CMR and the 2010 Standards. Actual compliance requirements for restrooms will depend on the cost of
work performed in relation to the CAMIS value.
1 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. S-01
Overview of Concrete
Walkways at Property
Photograph No. S-02
Overview of Brick Paved
Walkways
2 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. S-03
General Condition of
Landscaped Areas
Photograph No. S-04
Condition of Perimeter
Fencing
3 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. S-05
Condition of Metal
Handrails and Granite
Steps
Photograph No. S-06
Overview of Brick Paved
Walkway to Accessible
Entrance to Law Library
4 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. ST-01
Wood Trusses and Joists
at Tower
Photograph No. ST-02
Overview of Northwest
Bearing Wall
5 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. ST-03
Ceiling Structure of Front
Portico
Photograph No. ST-04
Brownstone Columns and
Arches at Front Portico
6 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. ST-05
Overview of Link Bridge
Between District and
Superior Court
Photograph No. ST-06
Interior View of Link
Bridge
7 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. R-01
Condition of New
Terracotta Tile Roof at
Tower
Photograph No. R-02
General Overview of
Gable Roof
8 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. R-03
Condition of Slate
Shingles. Missing, Cracked
and Loose Shingles
Observed
Photograph No. R-04
Failing Slate Shingles and
Flashings at the Northeast
Corner of the Main Roof
9 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. EXT-01
General Exterior
Overview – West
Elevation
Photograph No. EXT-02
Overview of Northwest
corner of Building
10 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. EXT-03
Condition of Windows on
Third Floor Elevation
Photograph No. EXT-04
Wood Rot Observed at
Ground Floor Windows
11 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. EXT-05
Condition of Mortar Joints
Photograph No. EXT-06
Condition of Brownstones
and Granite Walls at
Portico
12 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. M-01
Centrifugal Chiller for
Chilled Water Supply in
District Court Building
Photograph No. M-02
Chilled Water Supply and
Return Piping
13 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. M-03
Unit Ventilator within
Office Spaces and
Courtroom
Photograph No. M-04
Perimeter Radiators
Located Throughout
Building
14 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. M-05
General Overview of Air
Handling Units at the
Superior Court
Photograph No. M-06
Chilled Water Supply Pipes
Capped at Air Handling
Unit
15 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. M-07
Typical Condition of Supply
Air Diffusers
Photograph No. M-08
Condition of Plaster and
Lathe Ceiling Above
Ductwork, in Judge’s
Chambers
16 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. E-01
Main Distribution
Switchboard in District
Court Building
Photograph No. E-02
Emergency Generator
Located in District Court
Building
17 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. E-03
Automatic Transfer Switch
in District Court
Photograph No. E-04
Overall Condition of
distribution Panelboards to
Superior Courthouse
18 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. P-01
Overview of Domestic
Water Main at District
Court Building
Photograph No. P-02
Overview of Domestic
Water Heater
19 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. P-03
Duplex Sump Pump
Located in District Court
Building
Photograph No. FLS-01
Fire Alarm Annunciator
Located in District Court
Building
20 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. FLS-02
Main Fire Alarm Panel
Located in District Court
Building
Photograph No. FLS-03
Typical Fire Alarm Devices
Located in Superior Court
21 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. FLS-04
Typical Fire Alarm Pull
Stations
Photograph No. FLS-05
Typical Fire Extinguishers
Located in Common Areas
22 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. FLS-06
Overview of Egress
Stairwells
Photograph No. C-01
Overview of Elevator
Provided at the Link in the
District Court Building
23 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. C-02
Overview of Elevator
Provided Interior at Link
Bridge
Photograph No. INT-01
Overview of Courtroom on
Third Floor
24 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. INT-02
Ceiling Condition from
Roof Leaks at Northeast
Corner of Courtroom
Photograph No. INT-03
Typical Damage to Plaster
and Lath Ceilings
25 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. INT-04
Overview of Judge’s
Chamber
Photograph No. INT-05
Typical Condition of Walls
Throughout
26 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. INT-06
Overview of Second Floor
Corridor
Photograph No. INT-07
Typical Conditions of Floor
Finishes Throughout
27 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. INT-08
Peeling Paint Finishes
Observed Throughout
Photograph No. INT-09
Second Floor Restroom
(Non-ADA Compliant)
28 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. INT-10
Typical Conditions of Two
Types of Suspended Ceiling
Systems. Gray Ceiling Tiles
May Contain ACM
Photograph No. INT-11
Overview of Law Library
29 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. ADA-01
ADA Compliant Restroom
on Ground Floor
Photograph No. ADA-02
Current Accessible
Entrance to the building at
Front (South) of Building
(Law Library)
30 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. ADA-03
Proposed Accessible
Entrance at Rear (North) of
Building (Law Library)
Photograph No. ADA-04
Proposed Accessible Route
to Property from Gothic
Street
31 Hampshire County Superior Courthouse - Photolog
Photograph No. ADA-05
Judge’s Bench Currently
Inaccessible without Ramp
Photograph No. ADA-06
Raised Jury Box Current
Inaccessible without Ramp
Component
No.CapEx Recommendation Priority Category Deficiency
Category
Estimated
Useful Life or
Replacement
Cycle (Yrs.)
Remaining
Useful Life (Yrs.)
Cost
Multiplier Quantity Unit of
Measurement Unit Cost 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
RequiredTen Year Capital Expenditure Forecast
Hamshire County Superior Court - Historic Courthouse
99 Main Street
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Site Systems
Required
1 Repaint Metal Perimeter Fence - Cycle 1 3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 7 1 1.40 480 LF $9.50 $6,384 $6,384
2 Repaint Metal Perimeter Fence - Cycle 2
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 7 8 1.40 480 LF $9.50 $6,384 $6,384
Structural Systems
Required
1 Perform Destructive Testing at Ground Floor Masonry Walls, Per 2011 Study -
Allowance, Pending Client Review
2 - Potentially
Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 0 1 1.40 1 Allow $25,000.00 $35,000 $35,000
2 Allowance for Structural Foundation Repairs on Northwest Wall, Per 2011 Study,
Pending Client Review
2 - Potentially
Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 50 2 1.40 1,185 SF $70.00 $116,130 $116,130
3 Allowance (10%) for Structural Foundation Repairs Following Destructive Testing,
Per 2011 Study, Pending Client Review
2 - Potentially
Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 0 2 1.40 606 SF $70.00 $59,378 $59,378
4 Demolish Link Bridge at North Elevation - Allowance
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 0 2 1.40 1 Allow $300,000.00 $420,000 $420,000
5 Close Out Curtain Wall System at South Elevation of District Court Building -
Allowance
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 40 2 1.40 390 SF $115.00 $62,790 $62,790
Roofing Systems
Required
1 Allowance for Structural Repairs at Northeast Corner of Gable Roof 2 - Potentially
Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 50 2 1.40 1 Allow $150,000.00 $210,000 $210,000
2 Replace Slate Roof Finishes, Copper Flashings, and Snow Rails
2 - Potentially
Critical Capital Renewal 50 2 1.40 6,054 SF $48.00 $406,795 $406,795
3 Replace Low-Slope Membrane Roof Over Front Portico with EDPM System
2 - Potentially
Critical Capital Renewal 20 2 1.40 300 SF $20.00 $8,400 $8,400
4 Insulate Attic Crawl Spaces
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 35 2 1.40 1,352 SF $3.95 $7,477 $7,477
Exterior Elements
Required
1 Scaffold Entire Building to Facilitate Façade Works (Assume 1 Year Rental) -
Allowance
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical Capital Renewal 0 2 1.40 1 Allow $390,000.00 $546,000 $546,000
2 Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows (5'
x 13.5')
2 - Potentially
Critical Capital Renewal 50 2 1.40 10 EA $4,387.50 $61,425 $61,425
3 Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows (5'
x 10')
2 - Potentially
Critical Capital Renewal 50 2 1.40 35 EA $3,250.00 $159,250 $159,250
4 Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows (5'
x 8.5')
2 - Potentially
Critical Capital Renewal 50 2 1.40 25 EA $2,762.50 $96,688 $96,688
Component
No.CapEx Recommendation Priority Category Deficiency
Category
Estimated
Useful Life or
Replacement
Cycle (Yrs.)
Remaining
Useful Life (Yrs.)
Cost
Multiplier Quantity Unit of
Measurement Unit Cost 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
RequiredTen Year Capital Expenditure Forecast
Hamshire County Superior Court - Historic Courthouse
99 Main Street
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows (3'
x 5')
2 - Potentially
Critical Capital Renewal 50 2 1.40 11 EA $975.00 $15,015 $15,015
6 Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows
(10' x 10')
2 - Potentially
Critical Capital Renewal 50 2 1.40 2 EA $5,265.00 $14,742 $14,742
7 Repoint Full Masonry Granite Stone on Exterior Façade
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical Capital Renewal 50 2 1.40 14,101 SF $40.00 $789,656 $789,656
8 Exterior Façade Cleaning of Granite and Chemical Treatment of Brownstone
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 25 2 1.40 14,101 SF $2.55 $50,341 $50,341
Mechanical
Required
1 Secure Ductwork to Lath and Plaster Ceiling - Allowance *See Note 1
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Deferred
Maintenance 20 1 1.40 1 Allow $30,000.00 $42,000 $42,000
2 Decouple Hot Water System and Install Hot Water Boilers for Heating System
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 20 3 1.40 2 EA $450,000.00 $1,260,000 $1,260,000
3 Introduce Natural Gas Service to Building
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 20 3 1.40 1 SYS $325,000.00 $455,000 $455,000
Scenario A
4 Replace Air Handling Units with Split Systems and Heat Pumps - Scenario A 3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 20 3 1.40 4 EA $80,000.00 $448,000 $448,000
Scenario B
5 Refurbish Air Handling Units - Scenario B 3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 20 3 1.40 4 EA $15,000.00 $84,000 $84,000
6 Install Air Cooled Chiller - Scenario B
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 20 3 1.40 1 EA $450,000.00 $630,000 $630,000
Electrical
Required
1 Introduce Electrical Service to Building 3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 20 3 1.40 1 SYS $1,400,000.00 $1,960,000 $1,960,000
2 Install Emergency Generator - Optional
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 20 3 1.40 1 SYS $650,000.00 $910,000 $910,000
Plumbing
Required
1 Introduce Domestic Water Service to Building 3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 20 3 1.40 1 SYS $175,000.00 $245,000 $245,000
2 Replace Electric Domestic Hot Water Heater (40 Gallons)
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 15 3 1.40 1 EA $2,565.00 $3,591 $3,591
Component
No.CapEx Recommendation Priority Category Deficiency
Category
Estimated
Useful Life or
Replacement
Cycle (Yrs.)
Remaining
Useful Life (Yrs.)
Cost
Multiplier Quantity Unit of
Measurement Unit Cost 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
RequiredTen Year Capital Expenditure Forecast
Hamshire County Superior Court - Historic Courthouse
99 Main Street
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fire & Life Safety
Required
1 Conduct Fire Code Review with Engineer and Local Fire Code Authority
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 0 1 1.40 80 HRS $120.00 $13,440 $13,440
2 Install Fire Rated Doors and Walls Throughout, Following Fire Code Review -
Allowance
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 20 2 1.40 1 Allow $50,000.00 $70,000 $70,000
3 Install Fully Addressable Fire Alarm System
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 20 3 1.40 19,950 SF $5.00 $139,650 $139,650
4 Install Sprinkler System to Building
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 20 3 1.40 1 SYS $400,000.00 $560,000 $560,000
5 Install Fire Rated Egress Stairwell to the First Floor at the Rear of the Property
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 40 3 1.40 1 Allow $34,748.00 $48,647 $48,647
Conveyance Systems
Required
1 Install One Machine Room-Less Elevator at Northwest Corner of Building -
Allowance
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 40 2 1.40 1 Allow $750,000.00 $1,050,000 $1,050,000
Interiors
Required
1 Replace Circa 1970's Suspended Acoustical Ceiling Tiles (Possible ACM)
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital Renewal 10 2 1.40 4,100 SF $8.40 $48,216 $48,216
2 Replace Suspended Acoustical Ceiling Tiles
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical Capital Renewal 10 2 1.40 1,010 SF $7.00 $9,898 $9,898
3 Remove and Replace Loose Lathe and Plaster Walls - 20% Allowance
2 - Potentially
Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 20 2 1.40 6,560 SF $15.00 $137,760 $137,760
4 Repaint Ceilings and Walls
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Deferred
Maintenance 10 2 1.40 32,800 SF $1.35 $61,992 $61,992
5 Replace Carpet Floor Finish
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical Capital Renewal 10 2 1.40 11,783 SF $32.00 $527,878 $527,878
6 Renovate/ Upgrade Single-User Restrooms
3 - Necessary, Not
Yet Critical
Capital
Improvement 20 2 1.40 3 EA $20,000.00 $84,000 $84,000
Component
No.CapEx Recommendation Priority Category Deficiency
Category
Estimated
Useful Life or
Replacement
Cycle (Yrs.)
Remaining
Useful Life (Yrs.)
Cost
Multiplier Quantity Unit of
Measurement Unit Cost 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
RequiredTen Year Capital Expenditure Forecast
Hamshire County Superior Court - Historic Courthouse
99 Main Street
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Accessibility
Required
1 Replace Door Threshold at Rear (North) Building Exit 2 - Potentially
Critical Capital Renewal 25 2 1.40 1 LS $1,538.80 $2,154 $2,154
2 Provide Two Accessible Restrooms at the Second and Third Floor - Allowance
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 20 2 1.40 1 Allow $80,000.00 $112,000 $112,000
3 Replace Existing and Provide Bi-Level Drinking Fountains on Each Floor
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 20 2 1.40 3 EA $1,350.00 $5,670 $5,670
4 Modify Courtroom to be Fully Accessible, Incl. Installation of Ramps at Jury Box
and Witness Stand
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 20 2 1.40 1 LS $26,920.00 $37,688 $37,688
5 Install ADA Directional Signs in Common Spaces
1 - Currently Critical
and/or Code
Violations
Capital
Improvement 25 2 1.40 19 EA $250.00 $6,650 $6,650
$96,824 $5,177,993 $6,029,888 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,384 $0 $0 $11,311,089
$99,729 $5,493,333 $6,589,022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,087 $0 $0 $12,190,170
$4.73 $253.08 $294.72 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.31 $0.00 $0.00 $552.84
Required Cost
(Inflated @ 3% Per Yr.)
Total Cost
(2019 $/ SF/ Yr.)
Notes:
1.) Immediate Attention Required Required Cost (Scenario A) -2019
Dollars
Project ID Building Code Site Code Building Name
Uniformat
Code
Project Description / Deficiency
Title Deficiency Description CAMIS
Number Condition Project Priority
Project Cost /
Deficiency Cost
Investment
Criteria
Project
Category Package ADA Program Access
/ Min Compliance
Project
Type
Campus
Name
Project Input
Year
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse G2060.20 Perimeter Fence Maintenance - Phase 1 Repaint Metal Perimeter Fence - Cycle 1 Poor 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 6,384 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2019
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse G2060.20 Perimeter Fence Maintenance - Phase 2 Repaint Metal Perimeter Fence - Cycle 2 Poor 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 6,384 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2026
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse A1010.10 Destructive Testing of Ground Floor Masonry
Walls
Perform Destructive Testing at Ground Floor Masonry Walls, Per 2011 Study - Allowance,
Pending Client Review Fair 2 - Potentially Critical $ 35,000 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2019
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse A1010.10 Foundational Repairs at Northwest Wall
Allowance for Structural Foundation Repairs on Northwest Wall, Per 2011 Study, Pending
Client Review Poor 2 - Potentially Critical $ 116,130 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse A1010.10 Allowance for Foundational Repairs
Allowance (10%) for Structural Foundation Repairs Following Destructive Testing, Per 2011
Study, Pending Client Review Fair 2 - Potentially Critical $ 59,378 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse F3010.10 Demolish Link Bridge at Property Demolish Link Bridge at North Elevation - Allowance Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 420,000
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse F3010.10 Curtain Wall Closeout of South Elevation of
District Court Close Out Curtain Wall System at South Elevation of District Court Building - Allowance Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 62,790
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B1020.10 Allowance for Structural Repairs at Roof Allowance for Structural Repairs at Northeast Corner of Gable Roof Fail 2 - Potentially Critical $ 210,000 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B3010.10 Roof Replacement Replace Slate Roof Finishes, Copper Flashings, and Snow Rails Fail 2 - Potentially Critical $ 406,795 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B3010.50 Front Portico Roof Replacement Replace Low-Slope Membrane Roof Over Front Portico with EDPM System Poor 2 - Potentially Critical $ 8,400 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B3010.90 Insulate Attic Crawl Spaces Insulate Attic Crawl Spaces Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 7,477
Program
Improvement Modernization Space
Improvement
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D1080.10 Allowance to Scaffold the Entire Building Scaffold Entire Building to Facilitate Façade Works (Assume 1 Year Rental) - Allowance Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 546,000 Reliability
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B2020.10 Window Replacement (5' x 13.5') Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows (5' x 13.5')Poor 2 - Potentially Critical $ 61,425 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B2020.10 Window Replacement (5' x 10') Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows (5' x 10')Poor 2 - Potentially Critical $ 159,250 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B2020.10 Window Replacement (5' x 8.5') Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows (5' x 8.5')Poor 2 - Potentially Critical $ 96,688 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B2020.10 Window Replacement (3' x 5')Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows (3' x 5')Poor 2 - Potentially Critical $ 15,015 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B2020.10 Window Replacement (10' x 10') Replace Existing Wood Framed Windows with Historical Double Hung Windows (10' x 10')Poor 2 - Potentially Critical $ 14,742 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B2010 Full Repointing of Masonry Walls Repoint Full Masonry Granite Stone on Exterior Façade Poor 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 789,656 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B2010 Exterior Façade Cleaning Exterior Façade Cleaning of Granite and Chemical Treatment of Brownstone Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 50,341 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Envelope
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1070.20 Allowance to Secure Ductwork to Lath and
Plaster Ceiling Secure Ductwork to Lath and Plaster Ceiling - Allowance *See Note 1 Fail 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 42,000 Safety / Code Repair /
Maintenance
Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2019
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D3020.10 Install Hot Water Boilers Decouple Hot Water System and Install Hot Water Boilers for Heating System Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 1,260,000
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Project ID Building Code Site Code Building Name
Uniformat
Code
Project Description / Deficiency
Title Deficiency Description CAMIS
Number Condition Project Priority
Project Cost /
Deficiency Cost
Investment
Criteria
Project
Category Package ADA Program Access
/ Min Compliance
Project
Type
Campus
Name
Project Input
Year
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse G3060.10 Natural Gas Service Introduction Introduce Natural Gas Service to Building Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 455,000
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D3050.50 Replace AHUs with Heat Pump System Replace Air Handling Units with Split Systems and Heat Pumps - Scenario A Poor 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 448,000
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D3050.50 Refurbish AHUs Refurbish Air Handling Units - Scenario B Poor 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 84,000
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D3030.30 Install Air Cooled Chiller Install Air Cooled Chiller - Scenario B Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 630,000
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D5020.10 Electrical Service Introduction Introduce Electrical Service to Building Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 1,960,000
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D5010.10 Install Emergency Generator Install Emergency Generator - Optional Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 910,000
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse G3010.10 Domestic Water Service Introduction Introduce Domestic Water Service to Building Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 245,000
Program
Improvement Infrastructure Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D2010.10 Replace Hot Water Heater Replace Electric Domestic Hot Water Heater (40 Gallons)Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 3,591 Reliability Infrastructure
Building
Systems
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D4030 Conduct Fire Code Review Conduct Fire Code Review with Engineer and Local Fire Code Authority Poor 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 13,440 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2019
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1030 Install Fire Doors and Walls Install Fire Rated Doors and Walls Throughout, Following Fire Code Review - Allowance Poor 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 70,000 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D7050.10 Install Fire Alarm System Install Fully Addressable Fire Alarm System Poor 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 139,650 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D4010.10 Install Fire Suppression System Install Sprinkler System to Building Poor 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 560,000 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse B1080.10 Install Fire Rated Egress Stairwell Install Fire Rated Egress Stairwell to the First Floor at the Rear of the Property Poor 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 48,647 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2021
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse D1010.10 Elevator Installation Install One Machine Room-Less Elevator at Northwest Corner of Building - Allowance Poor 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 1,050,000 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1070.10 Replace Acoustical Ceiling Tiles (1970s)Replace Circa 1970's Suspended Acoustical Ceiling Tiles (Possible ACM)Poor 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 48,216 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1070.10 Replace Acoustical Ceiling Tiles Replace Suspended Acoustical Ceiling Tiles Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 9,898 Asset Preservation Modernization
Space
Improvement
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1070.20 Remove Plaster Walls - 20% Allowance Remove and Replace Loose Lathe and Plaster Walls - 20% Allowance Poor 2 - Potentially Critical $ 137,760 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Space
Improvement
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C2010.70 Repaint Ceilings and Walls Repaint Ceilings and Walls Poor 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 61,992 Safety / Code
Repair /
Maintenance Safety / Code Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C2030.75 Replace Carpet Floor Finish Replace Carpet Floor Finish Poor 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 527,878 Asset Preservation
Repair /
Maintenance
Space
Improvement
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1090.40 Renovate Single-User Restrooms Renovate/ Upgrade Single-User Restrooms Fair 3 - Necessary, Not Yet Critical $ 84,000 Asset Preservation Modernization
Space
Improvement
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1030 Replace Door Thresholds Replace Door Threshold at Rear (North) Building Exit Fair 2 - Potentially Critical $ 2,154 Safety / Code
Repair /
Maintenance Safety / Code ADA Minimum Access
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Project ID Building Code Site Code Building Name
Uniformat
Code
Project Description / Deficiency
Title Deficiency Description CAMIS
Number Condition Project Priority
Project Cost /
Deficiency Cost
Investment
Criteria
Project
Category Package ADA Program Access
/ Min Compliance
Project
Type
Campus
Name
Project Input
Year
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1090.40 Install ADA Compliant Restrooms Provide Two Accessible Restrooms at the Second and Third Floor - Allowance Fail 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 112,000 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code ADA Minimum Compliance
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse F1050.20 Install Drinking Fountains Replace Existing and Provide Bi-Level Drinking Fountains on Each Floor Poor 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 5,670 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code ADA Minimum Compliance
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1060 Courtroom Modifications for ADA
Compliance
Modify Courtroom to be Fully Accessible, Incl. Installation of Ramps at Jury Box and Witness
Stand Fail 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 37,688 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code ADA Minimum Access
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Unknown Unknown
Northampton Historic
Courthouse C1090.40 Install ADA Compliant Signs Install ADA Directional Signs in Common Spaces Fail 1 - Currently Critical and/or
Code Violations $ 6,650 Safety / Code Modernization Safety / Code ADA Minimum Compliance
Capital
Project
Hamshire County
Superior Court -
Historic
Courthouse
2020
Report of Facility Condition Assessment – Glossary
WORK ELEMENT CATEGORIZATIONS
Work Element Deficiency Category
Each identified project was assigned one of the three deficiency categories as discussed below:
•Deferred Maintenance: Deferred Maintenance is maintenance or repair work on existing facilities and
infrastructure that is past due and is already detrimentally affecting the building or facility in question in
one of a variety of ways varying from the deterioration of a Heritage Asset to the outright inability to use a
building or some portion thereof as intended and needed. In other words, a portion of the building or facility
‐ a system or component ‐ has already failed. Although, there can be situations where one could not have
reasonably projected such a failure, in the vast majority of cases, there are warning signs that a failure will
occur in the future or, there are industry standards and on‐site measurements that can be made to project
in advance such a failure. While the impact of addressing some failures after the fact may not be great, in
other situations, such failures must be avoided at all cost.
Accomplishing a Deferred Maintenance project will return a system or component to an acceptable
condition, but not necessarily its original condition. It will prevent physical depreciation or loss in the value
of a building, minimize or correct wear, and ensure the maximum reliability and current useful life or the
facility or component. Deferred Maintenance does not incl ude preventative maintenance or replacement
of minor constituent parts of a facility while performing routine maintenance.
•Capital Renewal: Accomplishing a Capital Renewal project prevents a situation from deteriorating to where
a Deferred Maintenance situation exists. Accomplishing a Capital Renewal project can be essential for some
building systems and components if a subsequent failure of that system or component would have a major,
detrimental impact on the functioning of the activities supported by th at building. Capital Renewal projects
generally correct unacceptable conditions caused by building systems or components approaching the end
of their useful life. In some instances, the system or component in question may continue to function as
originally intended right up to the point of failure; in other instances, there may be an observable and
progressive erosion or deterioration. The former situation can be the most problematic and require more
careful monitoring as occurs through the periodic updating of condition assessment.
A Capital Renewal project may return the building system or component to its original, like new condition,
or it may prolong the life of the system or component for an extensive period of time. Either way, after the
accomplishment of a Capital Renewal project, the system or component in question will function as
originally intended. Capital Renewal projects may be performed by overhaul, reconstruction or replacement
of constituent parts or materials which are damaged or deteriorated to the point where they cannot be
maintained. Capital Renewal does not include additions, expansions, alterations, or modifications required
solely for a change in purpose or mission; these would be a classified as Capital Improvements. However,
when such elements are only a minor portion of the overall project scope, such projects can be considered
to be Capital Renewal projects.
•Capital Improvement: Capital Improvements include the addition, expansion, extension, alteration,
conversion, or replacement (complete reconstruction due to damage or major repair) of a facility. Work
accomplished that improves, enhances or modernizes a building or facility is a Capital Improvement.
Additionally, where the use of a building or facility, or portion thereof cha nges, this is a Capital
Improvement. For example, bringing a building into compliance with current codes, such as the addition of
a handicapped accessible curb ramp, or work which improves a building's performance, such as installing a
new air conditioning unit where none previously existed, is classified as a Capital Improvement. A Capital
Improvement project may incorporate incidental Deferred Maintenance or Capital Renewal work.
Report of Facility Condition Assessment – Glossary
WORK ELEMENT CATEGORIZATIONS
Work Element Priority Grouping
Each identified project was assigned a priority. Priorities were assigned based upon the impact to the facility’s
mission and the potential for failure. There are a total of three priorities discussed below:
•Priority 1 –Currently Critical: These are needs and/or projects which significantly impact the mission of the
facility and require immediate action to return the facility to normal operation, stop accelerated
deterioration, or correct a cited safety hazard, especially those conditions which potentially impact an
entire site or pose a significant risk to health and safety.
Examples of such conditions would be: Overall facility impact: A chilled water system is in imminent danger
of failing. Failure would make all buildings at a particular site non‐functional. He alth and Safety Impact:
Previously undiscovered dry rot has compromised structural beams. The building cannot be safely used
without immediate repair.
•Priority 2 –Potentially Critical: These needs and/or projects will become critical within a year if not
corrected expeditiously. Situations in this category include intermittent interruptions, rapid deterioration,
and potential safety hazards. The significance of these conditions to the mission of the facility should be a
factor.
•Priority 3 –Necessary, NotYet Critical. These needs and/or projects include conditions requiring reasonably
prompt attention to preclude predictable deterioration or potential downtime and the associated damage
or higher costs if deferred further. Conditions which do not significantly impact the mission of the facility
should be placed in this category.
Work Element System Condition
Each identified project was assigned a condition. Conditions were assigned based upon the level of
maintenance/attention required for each system/asset compared to their replacement value. There are a total of
six conditions discussed below:
•Excellent – Minimal routine maintenance is required at a cost of less than 2% of replacement value.
•Good – Routine maintenance is required at a cost of less than 5% of replacement value.
•Adequate – Some corrective and preventative maintenance is required at a cost of less than 10% of
replacement value.
•Fair – Extensive corrective maintenance and repair is required at a cost of less than 25% of replacement
value.
•Poor – Constant attention is required. Renovate or overhaul at a cost of less than 60% of replacement value.
•Fail – Replacement is required because repair cost is greater than 60% of replacement value.
Joseph Scott, MRICS
Lead Facility Assessor
Joseph Scott is a senior facility assessor at Faithful+Gould with
more than five years of experience. His areas of expertise
include property condition assessments, technical due diligence,
and facility capital and maintenance expenditure planning.
Joseph’s assessment experience has included K-12 schools,
college / university buildings, commercial real estate, hotels,
apartments and multi-family homes. Since joining Faithful+Gould,
he has played a key role in condition assessments for municipal,
state and federal government agencies.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Private Sector
Bloomberg Skillman Campus; Skillman, NJ: Joe completed a
Facility Condition Assessment of the Bloomberg Skillman
Campus consisting of an 84 acre development with two office
buildings totaling approximately 160,000 square feet. The
purpose of the exercise was help Bloomberg understand the
capital investment required to stay at the site for the next five to
ten years considering all aspects of the facility.
Mission West; San Jose, CA: Faithful+Gould completed a
property condition assessment (PCA) evaluation for 23 of the 27
properties and completed probable maximum loss (PML) studies
for nine of the 27 properties. In 2015, our SFC team updated the
23 PCA reports, and completed PCA and PML reports for the
properties not previously assessed.
Federal Capital Partners, 13200 Woodland Park Road;
Herndon, VA: Faithful+Gould performed a property condition
assessment of a commercial office building and parking garage.
AHC Inc., Hollybrooke II Condominium; Falls Church, VA:
Faithful+Gould performed a facility condition assessment and
reserve fund plan for Hollybrooke II Condominium in Falls
Church, VA. The community consists of 249 residential
condominium units and a large common area built in 1950.
AHC Inc., The Shelton; Falls Church, VA: Faithful+Gould
performed a facility condition assessment of 141,144-square-foot
apartment building, The Shelton.
Education
B.S., Surveying, Leeds
Metropolitan University, 2010
Registrations/Licenses
Member, Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors
Certifications
Member, Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors
Years of Experience
7
Years with Faithful+Gould
1
Government – Federal
Confidential Government Agency; Washington, DC Metro
Area: Faithful+Gould was selected by a confidential government
agency under an IDIQ contract to complete condition assessment
of its 17.4-million-square-foot portfolio in the District of Columbia
and on outlying sites in Virginia and Maryland. Our Strategic
Facility Consulting (SFC) team is helping the agency understand
the portfolio condition, performance and capital requirements,
and offering a consequential analysis, of its buildings and
grounds.
Government – Other
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Soldiers Home; Holyoke,
MA: Faithful+Gould completed a facility condition assessment of
the Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke, Massachusetts. The Soldiers'
Home in Holyoke consists of a multi building health care facility
with a main building and detached former nurse’s dormitory first
occupied in 1952. The Property covers a total of 242,944 square
feet including a primary health care facility with 278 long‐term
beds, an outpatient unit, a dental and pharmacy wing, a dementia
ward, recreational and lounge areas, commercial size kitchens
and dining rooms, office and administration areas, and other
back of house functions. Faithful+Gould visited the Property to
observe and document the condition of the building and site
components. This information was used to develop a projection
of capital expenditures required at the Property over the next 10
years. Our assessment was completed in general accordance
with the ASTM E2018‐15 Standard Guide for Property Condition
Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process.
Virginia Department of General Services, Center of
Innovation; Herndon, VA: As part of our Term Contract with the
Virginia Department of General Services, Faithful+Gould
performed a facility condition assessment for the building
330,685-square-foot Center of Innovation, including an 181,270-
square-foot parking garage.
Fulton County, County-Wide Facility Assessment; Atlanta,
GA: Faithful+Gould was selected to provide facility condition
assessments of a wide variety of building types throughout the
county. The assessments included an analysis of the physical
condition of buildings, recommended upgrades and repairs, and
associated cost estimates.
K-12 Education
Williamsburg-James City-County Public Schools;
Williamsburg, VA: Joseph was a part of the facility condition
assessment team for this assessment of 16 school buildings
totaling more than 1.8 million square feet of space. Our team
conducted a review of all properties, including the maintenance
and operation of facilities; and developed an estimate of remedial
costs for system repairs, upgrades and replacements. Our
services also included an evaluation of how well each WJCC
school was equipped to deliver the curriculum.
Confidential Client, Schools Portfolio FCA; New York Tri-
State Area: Faithful+Gould performed facility condition
assessments of a regional portfolio of school buildings for a
confidential client in the New York Tri-State area. The
assessment on 20 schools in the portfolio; these schools serve
children in pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and grades 1-12. The
age and condition of many of the schools were such that major
capital projects were an urgent priority. Our client was supporting
a school system in its efforts to optimize the children’s learning
potential and experience by bringing these buildings up to
modern, 21st-century standards.
Howard M. Day
Chief MEP Assessor
Mike is a senior facilities, construction and service management
leader with a record of developing and supporting successful
projects incorporating a wide range of applications and
technologies. He is consistently recognized by peers and clients
as an excellent resource to improve functionality and to provide
project management expertise to the design and improvement of
the physical plant maintenance and improvement projects. Mike’s
front line leadership along with a passion for learning and
teaching has developed into a drive for aligning best practices
and engineering infrastructure to improve quality and safety,
realize cost savings, accelerate performance and provide a
competitive advantage.
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Government – Federal
GSA, Max Rosenn Courthouse BER; Wilks Barre, PA: Mike
supported the level four building engineering report of The Max
Rosenn Courthouse, a two-story building with a limestone façade
and three historic entries originally constructed in 1933 as a post
office building. Faithful+Gould conduct a Level-4 assessment of
the subject building, parking, and grounds, identified building
deficiencies; developed cost estimates to correct the deficiencies;
and Itemize work to be completed based on priority. GSA,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) BER;
Woodlawn, MD: The CMS Headquarters Campus is comprised
of approximately 57.4 acres and includes four interconnected
buildings containing approximately 928,292 square feet and
almost 3,000 surface parking spots. The site was built in 1995.
Faithful+Gould was engaged to identify the conditions of building
systems and investment needed to continue use of these facility
for another 50+ years. Mike supported the Level Four BER
identifying building deficiencies, developed cost estimates to
correct deficiencies, and prioritized needed improvements.
GSA, Baltimore and Philadelphia BER; Baltimore, MD:
Through our on-going work with the GSA, Faithful+Gould
performed building engineering reports for the Veteran
Administration Center and Powerhouse in Philadelphia, PA and
the George Hyde Fallon Federal Building in Baltimore, MD.
GSA, Charlottesville and Portsmouth BER; Charlottesville,
VA: Through our on-going work with the GSA, Faithful+Gould
performed building engineering reports for the 3 buildings that
comprise the Federal Executive Institute located in
Charlottesville, Virginia and the Federal Building located in
Portsmouth, Virginia.
Education
B.S., Management, University of
Maryland University College,
2000
Years of Experience
37
Years with Faithful+Gould
4
GSA, Fisher Federal Building BER, SFC; Trenton, NJ:
Faithful+Gould performed a level 4 building engineering report of
the Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
Annex located in Trenton, New Jersey. The courthouse is seven
stories and consists of 178,057 square feet. The annex is seven
stories and consists of 176,280 square feet.
Confidential Government Agency; Washington, DC:
Faithful+Gould was selected by a confidential government
agency under an IDIQ contract to complete condition assessment
of its 17.4-million-square-foot portfolio in the District of Columbia
and on outlying sites in Virginia and Maryland. Our Strategic
Facility Consulting (SFC) team is helping the agency understand
the portfolio condition, performance and capital requirements,
and offering a consequential analysis, of its buildings and
grounds.
Private Sector
Archon Group, LP (Goldman Sachs), Comprehensive
Property Conditions Assessments; Nationwide:
Faithful+Gould Ben performed condition assessment of 700
buildings (approximately 20 million square feet) comprised of
industrial, office, hotel and related buildings under acquisition.
Federal Capital Partners, UBS Tower, SFC; Nashville, TN:
Mike provided the MEP assessment of an abandoned building in
Nashville, TN.
Cold Spring Harbor Labs, Facility Assessment; Cold Spring
Harbor, NY: Faithful+Gould provided a facility condition
assessment that enabled the CSHL to be able to plan, manage,
and analyze the condition information and resulting cost
recommendations to develop strategic short, intermediate, and
long-term capital improvement strategies and receive funding for
such strategies.
K-12 Education
Williamsburg-James City-County Public Schools;
Williamsburg, VA: Faithful+Gould performed facility condition
and educational adequacy assessments for Williamsburg-James
City County Public Schools (WJCC) in Virginia. Our team
assessed the condition of all school facilities, reviewed the
maintenance and operations of the properties and provided an
education adequacy assessment.
Williamsburg-James City-County, Municipal Buildings;
Williamsburg, VA: After Faithful+Gould successful assessed the
Williamsburg-James City-County schools, we were hired by the
WJCC to perform facility condition assessments on the municipal
buildings.
Agnes Irwin School; Bryn Mawr, PA: Mike was the lead facility
assessor for this K-12 all-girls private school campus. The 18-
acre campus includes a lower school with its own gym, dining
room, library, and arts, science and music rooms. The middle
school, upper school, arts and science center, libraries, and gym
are interconnected buildings.
Experience Prior to Joining Faithful+Gould
Prosource Consulting, LLC; New Jersey and New York: Mike
oversaw all day-to-day operations of contract sites. He met with
clients, developed proposals, prepared written reports, provided
QC inspections on operation, developed budgets, performed site
inspections for client base and third party inspections, and
managed daily needs of contracts. He oversaw the start-up
operations for four VA hospitals in New Jersey and New York.
Mike oversaw project managers’ preventive maintenance
program at hospitals.
Complete Building Services; Washington, DC: Mike was a
subject matter expert and department head responsible for all
business development, media and marketing activities. He
developed bid documents, met with potential clients, conducted
site visits and presented proposals to clients. He participated in
daily operations of 35 million square feet of commercial and
government space.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Chevy Chase, MD: Mike
was the subject matter expert and department head responsible
for all facilities management for a 550,000-square-foot critical
system laboratory building, 45,000-square-foot guesthouse, and
20,000-square-foot campus housing unit. HHMI’s annual
operating budget is $12 million. Mike delivered daily direction and
supervision to five direct reports and a technical staff of 50
distributed over four departments. He oversaw facilities,
engineering, custodial, grounds, security, and construction. Mike
directly responsible for $20 million capital fit-out program on
projects ranging from 500 to 5,000 square feet. He developed
operating SOP’s, policies, and procedures for engineering,
custodial, and security.
Raihan I. Saleh
Facility Assessor
Raihan is a facility assessor with a diverse background in
industrial facility management and project management. Raihan
has diverse skills including, MEP engineering, process
implementation. Raihan has extensive knowledge and
experience in management of major site systems and
infrastructure. Raihan's experience includes serving as the
engineering manager for a 900,000 square foot industrial
research facility including an industrial waste water treatment
plant, high pressure boiler and chiller plant, and co-generation
plants.
Representative Project Experience
Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Headquarters, Facility
Condition Assessment; Chevy Chase, MD: Raihan supported
the facility condition re-assessment of the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute Headquarters Campus. Faithful+Gould initially
provided an Facility Condition Assessment of HHMI in 2011. The
re-assessment updated the description and condition statements
as well as financial projections for recommendations,
recommendation year and recommendation costs to support
capital planning on the next 10 years. The reassessment
included site visits to observe the building and site systems,
interviewing building management and maintenance personnel,
and reviewing available maintenance systems, design and
construction documents and plans.
Loudoun County Virginia, County-wide Facility Condition
Assessment: Raihan served as a facility assessor as part of the
Faithful+Gould team responsible for the assessment of 120
county facilities totaling more than 2,000,000 square feet.
Facilities ranged from parks and recreation facilities to adult
detention centers.
Minneapolis Public Schools, District-wide Facility Condition
Assessment; Minneapolis, MN: Raihan served as a facility
assessor as part of the Faithful+Gould team responsible for the
assessment of 36 schools/facilities totaling more than 3.8 million
square feet.
AVAYA Facility Condition Assessment; Highlands Ranch,
CO: Raihan served as a facility assessor providing an
Infrastructure Assessment at AVAYA data center sites in
Colorado.
Education
B.S., Chemical & Biomolecular
Engineering, New York
University, 2012
Years of Experience
5
Years with Faithful+Gould
1
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Army National Guard
Facilities Condition Assessment; Statewide, MA: Raihan was part
of Faithful+Gould’s Facility Assessment team for the assessment
of 45 Army and National Guard facilities across Massachusetts.
Architect of the Capitol, Facility Condition Assessment
Services; Washington D.C.: Raihan is a facility assessor for
Faithful+Gould supporting facility condition assessment for the
17.4 million square foot portfolio in the District of Columbia and
on outlying sites in Virginia and Maryland. Our Strategic Facility
Consulting (SFC) team is helping the agency understand the
portfolio condition, performance and capital requirements, and
offering a consequential analysis, of its buildings and grounds.
Engineering Manager, Jones Lang LaSalle (Exxon Mobil);
Annandale, New Jersey
Raihan was responsible for management of a 900,000 square-
foot industrial research facility, including an industrial wastewater
treatment plant, high pressure boiler and chiller plant, and co-
generation plants. In this role Raihan was responsible for
developing scope, cost estimates, schedule, and coordinating
both capital and operational projects to improve facility systems.
He Interfaced with client across all business lines and foster
collaboration during major projects, and infrastructure upgrades.
Raihan establish processes of operations and integrity
management systems including management of change, facility
risk assessments, excavation permit to work, and management
of site critical equipment.