COURT
FACILITIES AND
SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
** NOT APPROVED **
Members Present: D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton,
W. Hall, T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady,
C. Crandall
Others Present: W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, A. Isenberg (OCA),
J. Margeson, T. Parker,
B. Riehle; 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 August 6, 2008 meeting
were approved following a motion made by Legislator Hall, seconded by Legislator
O’Grady and carried.
Update on Court Facilities Capital Plan:
Mr. Isenberg stated that sanctions are very much a reality. It is state law, and the County has been well
aware of it for the past 20 years. In
fact, sanctions were stayed by the Review Board previously. We are at a juncture now where it won’t take
much for the sanction process to occur.
Although Mr. Isenberg has no authority to say that sanctions will take
place, he read excerpts from Mr. Clark’s 2006 statement to the Board. Sanction means that state aid will be
withheld by the Comptroller, not just Unified Court System related state aid,
but a direct intercept of state aid amounting to between $13-14 million, up to
the cost to abate the deficiencies. Mr.
Isenberg will try to continue to work with the County to ensure that this
project happens and provide input. He
commented that he did not believe some of the legislators’ comments were
accurate regarding state intercession on behalf of the County.
Discussion on having Mr. Clark speak to the Board included
the following points:
·
Someone in a
position of authority needs to make the consequences of inaction or failure
very clear to the full Board and the press prior to the bonding vote.
·
The report to the
Board of Legislators should be timed for when the Review Board has approved the
Capital Plan, and it should include a listing of consequences if the plan is
not moved forward.
·
What the sanction
really means and what’s involved financially needs to be pointed out.
·
The sanction
message has already been delivered, and another “threat” won’t help.
·
The message needs
to be gotten across that the Governor and State Legislature are not going to
intercede to stop the sanction.
Legislator Hall commented that he couldn’t see how the
project will work if only the Court portion is passed.
Legislator O’Grady noted that one of the reservations on
approving the bonding is the renovation of the third floor of the
Chairman Crandall noted that Mr. Clark’s offer to address
the Board would help to accomplish getting the proper information together for Board
members prior to voting on the bond resolution.
What Bill Clark has to say, whether repetition or update, will be very
necessary for everyone to hear, and it will have an impact on how the situation
plays out. As the resolution moves to
the floor, there will be two choices – yes or no – with a series of
consequences for either action, and these need to be all laid out. If there is no action to move forward, the
reaction will be sanctions with state aid being intercepted. This will result in a chain reaction of other
major effects on the County’s finances, credit rating, bond rating, and so
on. If the vote is yes, that will have a
domino effect also. It was suggested to
have other parties present for this presentation, since the OCA perspective is
only one piece of the picture. Representatives
from LaBella (construction consultants) and Municipal Solutions (financial
advisors) should be called in to address the other consequences and effects of
a sanction, such as increased construction costs caused by a delay, and
financial concerns. It’s important to
get all the pros and cons of all the issues presented.
Legislator Pullen requested Mr. Isenberg to ascertain the
status of the authority for the sanction order, and if all it would take is the
order to be issued. Mr. Isenberg will
work at getting the information, but noted that the Capital Review Board is not
going to go against the Chief Administrative Judge, who under the law has the
authority to determine the amount of sanction.
They’re required by their oaths of office to uphold the Court Facilities
Act. Mr. Isenberg referred to Mr.
Clark’s statement from the last time he spoke to the Board, noting that it was
important to understand that the County’s “stay” for sanction can be lifted at
any time. Regarding the mediation
process allowed in Section 39, Mr. Isenberg noted that since there is a stay in
effect, we may be beyond the mediation process already. Mediation is not a negotiated process. “Negotiation” took place to cut this project
as much as possible. “Mediation,” in a
sense, has already occurred in that the Review Board has not already done
something. Mr. Pullen commented that
finding out the status of sanction and mediation will be important to those who
are not going to be in favor of any type of project, and it will also have an
impact on the perception that there is something else to take place for
mediation. Mr. Isenberg noted that
mediation is not going to “rescue” the County.
Chairman Crandall commented that we need feedback on the
Capital Plan from OCA, because we can’t move forward with the bonding process
without approval of the plan first.
Legislator Pullen noted that we will need to know whether that approval
is conditioned on other facilities such as the third floor, and implications
like the other displacements from the Courthouse also.
Mr. Isenberg reiterated a point made at a previous
meeting that everyone in office is bound by their oath of office to uphold
state law. Another way to look at the
Court facilities issue is that when the project is completed, this facility
will be serving our constituents in a tremendous way. It’s where their worst problems will be
resolved, and they look to the Courts for help. We are providing outstanding service to County
residents, and people don’t fully understand that.
Legislator Hall questioned what the County’s options
would be if a state sanction is imposed.
Would it be a matter of a tremendous increase in taxes, or would County
government services be shut down? Mr.
Margeson responded that shutting down is not an option. Legislator Pullen noted some things that could
be done, like not maintaining highways, eliminating Cooperative Extension, Office
for the Aging, the things that touch the lives of most people, but the mandated
things will need to be continued.
Legislator Pullen illustrated one increase we’d be looking
at if the project is delayed by six months (even if the mediation process is
possible, it would take about that long).
In today’s market, construction costs increase ten percent per year; for
six months we can assume a five percent increase, or $900,000. That’s an extra taxpayer burden of $900,000 due
just to increased construction costs, even before the first state aid check is
intercepted. If we’re going to have to
do this, it’s better sooner than later.
Referral from Public Works Committee Regarding
The Public Works Committee has requested that the fate of
the
Discussion included the possible use of the
Facilities for Office for the Aging and Veterans’
Services at Crossroads:
Mr. Margeson reported that he and IDA Director John Foels
have talked about development of facilities for Office for the Aging and
Veterans’ Services at the Crossroads site, and he hopes to have more of an
update for the next meeting. Although
the IDA may be looking for guidance from this committee prior to working up
floor plans, Legislator Fanton suggested that a general layout plan of the site
would be helpful to illustrate how it will fit.
Court Facilities Informational Brochures:
Mr. Margeson reported that the brochures approved at the August
meeting are out and available.
Distribution will take place as with the previous issue.
Executive Session:
A motion was made by Legislator Hall, seconded by
Legislator Fanton and carried to enter into an Executive Session to discuss the
potential lease of real property.
Following discussion, a motion was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded
by Legislator Hall and carried to end the Executive Session and return to the
regular meeting.
Construction Management Services Proposals:
Mr. Margeson distributed copies of proposals for
provision of Construction Management Services, which were received from the
following three companies:
·
Bovis Lend Lease
LMB, Inc.,
·
LPCiminelli,
Inc.,
·
The Pike Company,
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal Clerk