COURT
FACILITIES AND
AUGUST 6, 2008
** NOT APPROVED **
Members Present: D. Pullen, G. Benson, W. Hall, T.
Hopkins, T. O’Grady, C. Crandall
(Absent: D. Fanton)
Others Present: D. Allardice (Municipal Solutions), D.
Burdick, W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, J. Foels, M. Gasdik, W. Higgins, A. Isenberg
(OCA), K. Kruger, J. Margeson, M. McCormick, T. Parker, B. Reynolds, B. Riehle,
T. Ross, K. Toot; Media: B. Quinn, Wellsville Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Approval of
Minutes:
The minutes of the July 9, 2008 meeting were amended to
add the following comment to the middle of page 3: “Mr. O’Grady proposed that the project be
presented as two separate plans, the Courthouse addition and renovation as one,
and the
The minutes of the July 16, 2008 special meeting were
approved following a motion made by Mr. Hopkins, seconded by Mr. Hall and carried.
Mr. Dibble distributed copies of photos taken on the
Courthouse tours taken several months ago in
Office for the Aging /
New facilities for Office for the Aging / New York
Connects / and Veterans’ Services have been considered at the Crossroads
property, as well as a couple of other locations in the County. Today was established as the deadline for
proposals to be submitted.
Executive Session:
A motion was made by Mr. O’Grady, seconded by Mr. Hall
and carried to enter into an Executive Session to discuss the potential lease of
real property. Following discussion, a
motion was made by Mr. Hopkins, seconded by Mr. Hall and carried to end the
Executive Session and return to the regular meeting.
A
motion was made by Mr. Hall, seconded by Mr. Pullen and carried unanimously to
authorize the County Administrator, with the assistance of the County Attorney,
to engage in negotiations to enter into a formal agreement with the Industrial
Public Information Brochure Update:
Mr. Margeson reported that a final draft of the Court
Facilities and County Space Needs Public Information Brochure Summer 2008
Update had been distributed and comments were requested. Final copies were made available (copy
attached to original minutes).
Building Security Sub-Committee:
Mr. O’Grady noted that the Public Safety Committee
established an ad-hoc committee to review and investigate security in the new Courthouse
addition and existing buildings. He
questioned if that issue was part of the Public Safety Committee or this
committee. Would security be considered part
of the construction/renovation project, and would this committee be responsible
to research it and pass recommendations on to the architects? Mr. Pullen commented that the OCA process
directs the County to create a plan. The
actual proposal will include data on all systems, such as heating, plumbing,
electrical, IT, etc., including the security system. There is no particular configuration yet, as
these items will be subject to proposal from design professionals and OCA
approval. Mr. Isenberg stated that there
will be a need in the Court facilities for some type of security that has been approved
by OCA. They can provide feedback to the
County on different systems used in other Court facilities.
Mr. Dibble noted that the ad-hoc committee will be
looking at the buildings on a short term basis, and the second phase would
involve ideas and suggestions to be given to Chairman Crandall and himself to
make recommendations. Mr. O’Grady felt
that whatever security system is used in one part of the complex should be the
system used throughout. Mr. O’Grady
asked which committee would handle the security system issue, and also noted
that we don’t want to put a lot of effort into researching systems if that is the
charge of the architect or another group.
Mr. Pullen stated that it would be a collaborative effort, and something
that we will need as we move forward. OCA
has their guidelines and minimum requirements.
Mr. Dibble’s proposal is to first look at the short term. LaBella’s timeline shows mid-project at early
2010, so it will be close to three years until occupancy.
Mr. Isenberg noted that there is no date scheduled yet
for the next meeting of the OCA Capital Facilities Review Board.
Mr. O’Grady questioned if there were any grants or state
funds available to assist counties with Court security and cameras, or a system
to link the different Court-related areas, such as the Grand Jury’s use of the
Legislative Chambers. Mr. Isenberg
responded that OCA only assists with a portion of the interest for financing the
entire project, so if security is included in the bonding, aid would be
received through that avenue. OCA would
pay for the cost of outdated equipment, such as magnetometers, but items that
are integrated within the facility would be included in the capital project.
Operating Expenses:
Mr. Pullen had previously questioned operating costs
associated with the new facilities, and Mr. Isenberg reminded him that we currently
have a contract with OCA for reimbursement of Court-related operating expenses. When the time comes, a contract would be
negotiated to cover the larger square footage.
This would cover the Court areas, and go a long way toward addressing
additional expenses.
Mr. Pullen noted that a proposed resolution will be
considered at the August 11 Legislative Board meeting for the adoption of the
County’s Court Facilities Capital Plan.
The plan has been a major part of this committee’s work and he advised
committee members to be prepared for discussion.
Correspondence:
Mr. Pullen made note of an e-mail from Assistant County
Attorney Leslie Haggstrom. Ms. Haggstrom
suggested designing the Courthouse addition with extra supports to allow for
additional floors at a later date. It
wouldn’t add much cost to the project now, but could save significantly in the
future. Mr. Margeson noted that he can
pass this suggestion along to LaBella to get their take on it, but if the
additional research will cost a lot, he didn’t feel it would be a good use of our
resources at this point. Chairman Crandall
commented that it sounds simple to add beams and supports, but there are other
issues involved, such as extending the plumbing, electric, heating, and
elevator, changing the entire configuration.
Chairman Crandall stated that the Board needs to get their charge from
OCA taken care of, and he doesn’t want the process to get snarled up with other
issues and layered conversations. Mr.
Pullen noted that Ms. Haggstrom also suggested other
Financial Plan:
David Allardice, from Municipal Solutions (formerly Allardice & Associates), presented information regarding a financial plan
for the project (copy of printed material attached to original minutes):
Mr. Allardice commented that he has been with
a. Total cost is $18,684,000, broken out as follows:
OCA
Aidable/ Unaidable
Project
Cost 1 Eligible
Amount 2 Amount
Courthouse
Addition $12,136,621 $10,100,000 $2,036,621
Courthouse
Renovations 1,796,485 600,000 1,196,485
Total $18,684,000 $12,200,000 $6,484,000
Notes: 1 Includes incidentals and contingency
2
Per LPCiminelli’s April 4, 2008 estimate
b. The
Office of Court Administration (OCA) will provide between 25 and 33 percent of
the interest expense associated with eligible/aidable project expenses.
c. All
renovations/addition will be made on a Class A building; therefore useful life
is deemed to be 25 years. Maturity
schedules will be run for the full 25-year useful life.
d. Construction
will begin in the Spring/Summer of 2009, and will take approximately 24 months
to complete.
e. Borrowings
will be matched to the Architect/Construction Manager’s cash flow, once it is
known.
f. For
planning purposes, the County will borrow $10,000,000 during the first year to
cover soft costs such as design and construction. The borrowing will be bonded immediately,
should market conditions warrant. In the
Spring/Summer 2010, the remaining $8,684,000 will be borrowed using a bond
anticipation note (BAN) and will be bonded once construction is complete and
all costs are known.
Mr. Allardice recommended borrowing a significant portion
up front to take advantage of lower interest rates. This would be a “bridge” loan to draw down
from. We wouldn’t be borrowing the entire
amount in case the total project costs come in lower than anticipated. Mr. Allardice included loan schedule charts
for the following:
$12,200,000; Date of First Borrowing – April 2009; 25-Year Maturity
$ 6,484,000; Date
of Second Borrowing – April 2010; 24-Year Maturity
Regarding the OCA-aidable portion of the interest
expense, Mr. Isenberg stated that under statute, there is a formula they use to
determine eligibility. The percentage is
not negotiated. His information
indicates that
The annual County share of principal and interest on the initial
borrowing will average $700,000, and on the second borrowing will average $470,000,
a total of roughly $1.1 million. It will
probably be a little less when all is said and done. This information is only a draft, and it will
need to be updated when we have firmer figures.
We also need to consider the consequences if we don’t move forward with
the project.
Chairman Crandall questioned the reason for the $10
million/$8 million split on the two borrowings.
It’s front-end heavy due to the current, more favorable financial
outlook, but he wondered if the numbers were just an example. Mr. Allardice responded that it was just an
example, and he explained that most contractors will buy the bulk of their materials
up front and they have to be paid for. Once
the project has been bid out and we have viable contracts, a pre-construction
meeting will be held between the County and the contractors. At that time we can ask for their schedule of
values or cash flow with month-by-month draw down estimates. We would have to be careful not to risk an
arbitrage situation if borrowing more than a certain amount in any year. There would be a spend-down requirement over
the two-year period, and this will be determined by the schedule of values
submitted by the contractors. A significant
portion of the money could be borrowed up front, but we would be paying it back
sooner. We need to make sure the impact
on the budget is as even as possible.
Mr. Pullen noted that the combination of interest and principal have
resulted in fairly even payments. Mr.
Allardice commented that the state now allows level debt, and it would probably
be the way to go. We might want to look
at debts coming off and try to match that to keep payments as level as
possible. Mr. Margeson noted that when the
time comes for the bonding resolution, we will work with David Allardice and also
representatives from Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe.
Mr. Hopkins questioned the timing of payments on funds
borrowed in 2009. Mr. Allardice noted
that the first principal payment would be in 2010 (option to make a principal
payment at the end of the second year).
We have to make a principal payment within two years of borrowing. The payment in 2009 indicated on his tables is
due to the April borrowing. Interest payments
are due every six months.
Mr. Hopkins questioned when we would be moving ahead on
financing. Mr. Margeson responded that
he would like to see the Capital Plan resolution pass on Monday, August
11. Then, he didn’t see any reason to
act more quickly or slowly than the committee wanted to. The bonding resolution is the last step. Mr. Pullen noted that it would be premature
to consider a bond resolution until after the OCA Review Board accepts the
County’s Capital Plan.
County Treasurer Terri Ross reported that the present
estimate of $18.68 million equates to a 4.54 percent tax levy increase.
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, September 3 at 3:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
following a motion made by Mr. O’Grady, seconded by Mr. Hall and carried.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk