COURT
FACILITIES AND COUNTY
SPACE NEEDS COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 19, 2008
** NOT APPROVED **
Members Present: D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton,
W. Hall, T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady, C. Crandall
Others Present: L. Ballengee, D. Burdick, W. Dibble, A.
Finnemore, J. Foels, K. Kruger, J. Margeson, T. Parker, B. Riehle, T. Ross, K.
Toot, N. Ungermann; Guests: T. Gilbride; Media: B. Quinn, Wellsville Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 10:10 a.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Approval of
Minutes: The minutes of the October 1, 2008 meeting
were approved following a motion made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by Legislator
Hall and carried.
Court Facilities Capital Plan Update:
Chairman Crandall reported on his conversations with the
Unified Court System relative to the acceptance of Allegany County’s
Court Facilities Capital Plan. We were
waiting for the Court Facilities Capital Review Board to meet, but that has not
happened because they’re waiting for appointments to be made by the Paterson
administration. In spite of that Board
not meeting, the Chief Administrative Judge has the power to approve or
disapprove a plan and has the authority for taking the same actions that the
Capital Review Board would. Chairman
Crandall read a letter from Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau, dated November
18, which stated she is prepared to approve the County’s Capital Plan as soon
as she receives an updated schedule of milestones and confirmation that the County Legislature
has authorized financing. Without these
things, the Plan cannot be regarded as complete. Judge Pfau also stated that any further delay
in completing this Plan and advancing it in accordance with its terms will
result in the initiation of the process set forth in the Judiciary Law leading
to the imposition of financial sanctions against the County. Accordingly, she asked that the Legislature
act promptly so that the planning process can be completed, the threat of
financial sanctions against the County averted, and the needs of the Court and
its users can finally be met. (A copy of
the letter is attached to the original minutes.) Court Facilities Committee Chairman Pullen
noted that we now have contingent approval of our submission, and the next step
would be the bonding resolution.
Office for the Aging and Veterans’ Service Agency
Facilities at Crossroads, Update:
Industrial Development
Agency Executive Director John Foels reported on progress made for the
provision of facilities on the Crossroads property for Office for the Aging, NY
Connects, and the Veterans’ Service Agency.
The project has reached the floor plan stage, and they are looking at
how the expansion will be positioned on the site and establishing cost
estimates. Mr. Foels displayed drawings
for the extension of the building, which will be one story, with the existing
structure to the right and the new structure extending directly south. Reception will be in front, with an overhang meeting
traffic. Although the extension will
share utilities with the Crossroads
Center, and the plan
could include a glassed-in walkway between them, it will be a separate entity
with its own secure area. They plan to utilize
the existing heating system, which presently has enough excess capacity, and
they are working with the utility companies.
The floor plan includes 6,400 square feet. A second driveway entrance to the property at
the south end is included in the plans, as well as an improved, larger parking
lot to accommodate 100 vehicles (the present lot has room for 40). The IDA has met with several banks with
favorable results, but they have not finalized cost estimates yet.
The Senior Foundation had expressed an interest in
building a senior center on the Crossroads property. Mr. Foels explained that the plan would
include a senior area located off to one side after entering through a common
entrance. Mr. Pullen noted that part of
the layout is based on input from the Senior Foundation. The common foyer provides the opportunity to
avoid duplication and has the advantages of cost savings at a later date.
Ms. Toot’s impression of the proposal was that it will
meet their needs. She conducted a
telephone survey of the surrounding counties, and three of them are looking at
providing more space for their Offices for the Aging. We all seem to share a common problem, and
this proposal will address that problem for Allegany County. It is centrally located, all on one floor,
and will offer privacy for client meetings.
Ms. Toot explained that the Senior Foundation was part of the original
proposal to Houghton
College when they were
selling the building. At that time, they
paid to have architects draw up what a senior center could look like. The Foundation is committed to having a place
for seniors that consolidates services and is accessible to everyone, and they
have paid for part of these plans as well.
They should be looked at as a resource.
A fund campaign has not been initiated yet, because the Foundation wants
to conduct a survey of needs first.
Mr. Foels explained that the next steps will be taking
the plans to the engineering design phase, establishing final cost estimates,
and preparing a lease to submit to this committee. Chairman Crandall remarked that the language
in the lease will probably be similar to the one already in place for the Crossroads
building, but stated that the County
Attorney should be
involved from the start in the preparation of the lease. The consensus of the committee was to
authorize Mr. Foels to move forward with the project.
Maximizing Cost Savings Strategies for the Court
Facilities Project:
Terrence Gilbride, Attorney with Hodgson Russ, LLP,
presented information on options for cost savings strategies for the Court
Facilities Project. (A copy of his notes
is attached to original minutes.)
Mr. Gilbride worked with the City of Niagara
Falls on their Court Facilities Project when they were at a point
similar to where Allegany
County is now. They were looking for the most cost effective
way to handle the project. Mr.
Gilbride’s team developed a different delivery model where the Courthouse was the
central feature of a larger economic development project. The process involved the creation of a Local Development Corporation and passage of special state
legislation. The building was
constructed and then sold back to the municipality. The project is nearly completed and on
schedule. Mr. Gilbride was asked to look
at Allegany County’s situation to see if there were ways
our County could utilize their model. Allegany County
may be able to employ a more cost effective method than conventional
construction, but not quite the one Niagara
Falls used due to a recent development in state
legislation. Mr. Gilbride outlined the
options available:
Option 1, Conventional
Construction would be the most expensive, but is also the easiest. Pros:
This option does not require any special legislation or working with Project
Labor Agreements (PLA). Cons: The Wicks Law requires competitive public bidding
and acceptance of the lowest responsible bidders. There also would be three to four prime
contractors, bidding, time periods, and other constraints. No alternative delivery methods would be
available.
Option 2, Special
Legislation/Local Development
Corporation (LDC) Model, was used for the Niagara Falls project. Pros:
This method is not subject to Wicks Law constraints for competitive public
bidding. With Public Construction, there
is no choice on how to select bidders, and no opportunity to work with the low
bidder later to negotiate a better deal.
This model allows the development of a “short list” of contractors and
only requesting bids from them. One team
designs and builds, expediting the process and allowing other
efficiencies. Cons: Special state legislation is required due to
the creation of a Local Development Corporation
(LDC). (Niagara Falls was eligible because their
Courthouse was the anchor for an eight-block economic development project.) The Local Development
Corporation is fairly easy to create, but the process also involves conveyance
of the site to the LDC, bifurcation of the project into “expansion” and “existing”
facilities, and working through Project Labor Agreements with union trades. Allegany
County is already halfway
into the traditional design model, and Option 2 may not be the most cost effective
way to go from where we are now. This
option also requires the economic development project, so we don’t fit.
Option 3, Project
Labor Agreement (PLA)/Wicks Exempt Model, was not available with the Niagara Falls project. With the passage of the Wicks Law reform bill
this past summer, an exception is now available with the use of Project Labor Agreements,
thereby avoiding compliance with the Wicks Law.
There would be one construction manager and one contractor, who would still
have to be selected though bidding. Pros: No special legislation is required, there is
no need for an LDC, and there is no need for bifurcation of the project. Cons: Project
Labor Agreements and public bidding will be needed with this method, and
alternative delivery methods are unavailable.
Public construction is basically more expensive. Mandates including prevailing wage, bidding,
and the Wicks Law add at least 10 percent to costs. All of
the options will require adherence to prevailing wage; Wicks Law will be a factor
with Option 1, but not in 2 or 3; and General Municipal Law bidding will be
required in Option 3, where it isn’t in Option 2.
Mr. Gilbride recommended Option 3 for Allegany County
as a way to maximize cost savings. It is
a more efficient model than Conventional Construction, and the Project Labor Agreement
will allow proceeding in the most cost-effective manner, rather than through
conventional municipal construction. We
also wouldn’t have the hassle of special legislation as would be required by
Option 2.
Legislator O’Grady commented that back in 2005, he
brought this up and was ignored.
Legislator Ungermann also suggested private construction and leasing
back space, and his idea was put down.
Now it’s too late to take advantage of Option 2. Mr. O’Grady was on the original Court
Facilities Ad Hoc Committee, and they felt that the ideal solution was new
construction at the County
Jail site. We’ve “settled” for the addition
scenario. He brought this other
suggestion up before, and it was tossed aside; now here we are trying to do the
same thing with the option we settled on.
The County should have had Mr. Gilbride come in at the beginning to
consider this option.
Mr. Gilbride pointed out that the legislation that
allowed the Niagara Falls
process wasn’t passed until the summer of 2007.
Legislator Pullen noted that there are other issues besides timing and
the uncertainty of the rest of this. If
the project had been located at the Jail site, it would have required a referendum,
and there were other reasons why suggestions encountered opposition. There were costs involved with exploring the
other options with no assurance they would be allowable by OCA. The process described in Option 2 has only
been used or considered in two places, and they were based on economic development
models. Allegany County
wouldn’t have been eligible. The
committee has been trying to come up with ways to save money, and Mr.
Gilbride’s proposal will require far less in legal services and is the less
expensive option because of where we are presently. The new Wicks Law exemption fits us.
Mr. Gilbride explained that the Project Labor Agreement
process involves the owner entering into an agreement to only use union labor
in order to ensure a stable workforce. The
hired contractor would require laborers to join. The process is routine in larger construction
projects. The project is still put out
to bid.
Legislator Kruger agreed that PLAs are cost effective,
but he doesn’t agree with circumventing the standard bidding process. Public projects cost more because no one
feels sorry for the government. Mr.
Kruger urged caution. The contractor has
to pay prevailing wage anyway, and ultimately we may not realize any savings.
Mr. Gilbride noted that Option 3 still requires the selection
of a contractor through the lowest responsible bid process. Only Option 2 eliminates that. Converting to a design/build project was
discussed, but there were a couple of reasons why it wouldn’t be recommended at
this stage. We could still get the
exemption and special legislation, but that would take time. Our situation is different than Niagara Falls’ in that
our project is not part of an economic development project, and therefore we
would have a tougher case to make for special legislation. Mr. Gilbride felt that Niagara Falls would
probably have used Option 3 if it had been available at the time because it
would have been more direct, and Option 2 cost them substantial money and
effort. He commented that he didn’t know
of a way to do this more cheaply than Option 2 or 3, and Option 3 is most cost
effective at this point. For where we
are in the process, we are exactly suited for Option 3. There are substantial cost savings to be
achieved, and time savings as well, although savings would be difficult to
estimate because it varies case to case.
Legislator Pullen explained some of the potential savings:
·
The role of the
construction manager is key when you have multiple prime contractors; but when
you have one prime contractor with sub contracts, he serves as his own construction
manager, which saves that cost.
·
LaBella’s
proposal includes a longer timeframe because of the Wicks Law and having multiple
contractors; Option 3 shortens the timeframe.
·
The prime
contractor is able to negotiate costs with subs; we couldn’t do that with the
competitive bidding process.
·
The prime
contractor deals with problems with sub contractors, which lessens the County’s
burden.
Chairman Crandall commented that in 2005, we were not in
a position to move forward with an alternative delivery model, but Niagara Falls was. There have been a couple of other
municipalities considering it. Now this
new legislation puts us close to the advantages Option 2 would have offered,
but with less cost and effort. The
timing is right.
Legislator Pullen noted that he spoke with Mark Kukuvka
from LaBella, and they are aware we are looking at this. Mr. Kukuvka is more comfortable with Option 3
than 2. The County would be more
centrally involved.
To proceed with this alternative delivery model will
require the services of someone with expertise in this area, because it is not
something that is widely used. Mr.
Gilbride prepared a sample resolution authorizing Hodgson Russ LLP to act as
special counsel for negotiation of the Project Labor Agreement and to provide
consultation and assistance with respect to the Courthouse expansion project
(copy attached to original minutes). The
County Attorney will review the tentative
agreement. A motion was made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by
Legislator Fanton and carried to refer the matter to the Ways and Means
Committee.
NEXT MEETINGS: Wednesday, December 3 at 3:00 p.m.;
Committee of the Whole – December
3 at 7:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. following
a motion made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator O’Grady and carried.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk