COMMITTEE
OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 8, 2009
** APPROVED
Members Present: Chairman C. Crandall, G.
Benson, D. Burdick, W. Dibble, D. Fanton, W. Hall, T. Hopkins, K. Kruger, M.
McCormick, T. O’Grady, D. Pullen, B. Reynolds, D. Russo, N. Ungermann; (Absent:
R. Truax)
Others Present: Unified Court System Counsel for Capital
Planning William Clark and Administrative Assistant Andrew Isenberg, LaBella
Associates Representatives Mark Kukuvka and Penny Mashtare, and approximately
10 County personnel and members of the public;
Media: J. Loyd, Olean Times Herald.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman
Curtis W. Crandall followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Invocation was given by Legislator Pullen.
Chairman
Crandall’s Opening Remarks:
The purpose of the meeting, like the one held on December
3, was to present information on the court facilities project and to ensure
that legislators had as much information as possible prior to voting on the
bond resolution January 12. Chairman
Crandall commented that he made a statement at the Organization Meeting that
there are some heavy issues to deal with, and he would like to see the Board
“get them behind us.” It’s now evident
that it’s not going to be our choice whether or not we get these issues behind
us. This comes from his conversation
with Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau in
Chairman Crandall quoted from Judge Pfau’s November 18
correspondence: “Pursuant to Section
1680-c of the NYS Public Authorities Law, I am prepared to approve the County’s
Capital Plan as soon as I receive an updated schedule of milestones and
confirmation that the County Legislature has authorized the financing necessary
to advance this plan. … 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.” In his recent conversation
with Judge Pfau, Chairman Crandall was told that the County’s deadline to have
financing and scheduling information to the Judge is the end of January;
otherwise, the sanction process will begin the first part of February.
How that process will come about is that the Judge will
send to the State Comptroller the amount of funds necessary to correct the
problem. Then, if the County wishes,
there is a mediation process, followed by a 60 to 90-day period for response
before funds will be shut off. There
will be further conversation on the actual amount. The question on the language of the original
1987 Court Facilities Act, dealing with the actual fund that state aid would be
withheld from, was answered and clarified at the Court Facilities meeting on
January 7. OCA has given us a deadline,
and there are only two meetings between now and then. The time has come to deal with this issue.
On Monday, January 12, the Board will consider a bond
resolution for financing the court facilities project. Mark Kukuvka was invited to come back before
the legislature to give a brief overview on what the plan calls for and to give
an opportunity for questions regarding the plan. Mr. Kukuvka will also address other options
available for additional space for County offices.
Presentation by LaBella Associates, Mark Kukuvka:
Mr. Kukuvka presented an overview of the court facilities
project, similar to the one given in July 2008 (see minutes of the 07/28/08
Committee of the Whole meeting; also a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached
to the original minutes). The plan
specifications have not changed since July.
Mr. Kukuvka reviewed the Project Approach, Site Plan, Floor Plan, and
Building Perspective Highlights. The
Budget Estimate has also remained the same as that presented in July, but is
included below for reference.
Budget Estimate for Courthouse and
The estimate has been broken down by project components;
the square footage and cost estimate for each component are indicated below:
Courthouse Renovation: 9,600 sf $ 1,852,000
Courthouse Addition: 42,000
sf 11,935,000
Total Project: 84,600 sf $18,684,000
Costs are inclusive project costs (including
contingencies, construction manager fees, bonding costs, etc.) and are adjusted
for inflation according to the assumption that construction will begin Summer/Fall
2009. (For comparison purposes, the
September 2007 proposal included a total project square footage of 97,700 at a
cost estimate of $22,678,000; current estimates have been reduced by nearly $4
million and total project square footage has been crunched by 13,000 square
feet.)
Summary of OCA Capital Plan Improvements:
·
Court/Hearing Rooms:
from 2 to 4
·
Judges’ Chambers:
from 2 to 3
·
Designated Public
Waiting Areas: from 0 to 3
·
Holding Cells: from 1 to 4
·
Attorney/Client
Conference Rooms: from 0 to 4 plus Law
Library
·
Jury Deliberation
Rooms: from 1 to 2
·
Handicapped Accessibility: to all floors
·
Secure Separation
of Prisoners, Judges, Staff, and Public
·
Formal Court Security
Screening Area
·
Controlled Access
to Family Court and Surrogate Office
·
Increased File Storage
Capacity
·
Future Expansion:
Unfinished “Shell Space” Provided on Second
Floor of Addition
Department Existing
Net SF Proposed Net SF
Clerk
of Board/Legislative Chambers 3,313 4,237
Social
Services * 11,629 15,532
District
Attorney 620 2,023
Health ** 4,693 7,625
Human
Resources 1,008 1,782
IT 2,513 2,930
Public
Works 2,173 3,330
* Incorporates Support Collections back into
** Incorporates Wellsville WIC Office and Cancer
Services back into
Alternatives to Renovating Former Jail for Additional
Mr. Margeson noted that part of the County's plan calls
for renovation of the former jail for County office space. Over the past month, there has been
discussion of looking at alternatives to renovating that floor. Mr. Kukuvka gave a brief overview of some
options that may be available and preliminary estimates for those options:
The current budget estimate breakdown for the proposed renovation
work on the
Third floor (former jail) - 16,300 square feet
(including elevator work) $3,590,000
Ground,
Total $4,897,100
LaBella requested Ciminelli to provide preliminary
estimates for construction of a new 16,300 square foot single-story municipal
office building at the Public Safety Facility site:
Construction costs between $2,600,000 and $3,000,000
Site costs between 300,000 and 500,000
Soft costs between 800,000 and 1,000,000
Total between $3,700,000
and $4,500,000
Estimates to build out (finish off) the proposed 6,000 square
feet of ground floor shell space in the addition to provide additional County
office space were presented. Possible
functions for this space: IT and Public
Works (considering size, keeping entire departments together, and adjacencies).
Construction costs between $ 300,000 and $
420,000
Soft costs between 60,000 and 84,000
Total between $
360,000 and $ 504,000
Questions and Comments:
Mr. Kruger questioned Mr. Kukuvka on (1) the cost to
finish the addition for court use, as he didn't believe FFE costs were included
and may come to over $500,000, (2) the cost to finish off the upper floor shell
space in the addition, and (3) parking to replace the lost area and also to
accommodate the additional traffic that bringing WIC and Support Collection to
this building will add. The parking
problem has to be addressed before we break ground, because there aren't even
any staging areas or places for the construction workers to park. Mr. Kruger also noted his concern about the
addition being built so close to the bank, and he gave photos, taken this year,
to Mr. Kukuvka showing severe erosion on the bank, trees tipping over, and rock
that has fallen out along the embankment.
He commented on one of Mr. Kukuvka's photos that shows a gravel
embankment across the river that diverts water toward the bank and a small set
of rapids that weren't there in 1978.
Mr. Kukuvka responded that the County is planning to
salvage as much as possible, and regarding the court spaces, FFE is all
included. Mr. Pullen referred to some
recent articles that stated project estimates don't include things like paint
and carpet. Mr. Kukuvka noted that was
not true; the completed facilities will be in "turn-key" condition,
other than desks, chairs, and personal items.
Mr. Kruger noted a couple of court projects where the
buildings were much older than ours, and questioned if it is a good idea to
spend this kind of money on that large of a building on a bank that’s eroding. Mr. Kukuvka stated there was no settling and there
has been no cause for concern for the present Courthouse over the history of the
property. Mr. Ungermann commented that
the river is starting to eat deeper as evidenced by the foundations of the
railroad bridge becoming exposed. The
bank's elevation is 54 feet above the water.
This should be a concern; the bank is not bedrock, but shale. Mr. Kukuvka noted that soil borings will be
done, and any areas for concern or problems can be mitigated by modifying the foundation
system.
Mr. Burdick questioned the square footage of the second
floor shell space in the addition. Mr.
Kukuvka remarked that it was between 1,500 to 2,000 square feet.
Presentation – William J. Clark, Esq., Counsel for
Capital Planning, NYS Unified Court System:
William J. Clark, Counsel for Capital Planning, works
with municipalities around the state to advance plans for adequate court
facilities. This marks his seventh or eighth
visit here, and the fourth with this Board.
The last time he was here was on June 26, 2006 with a serious message to
deliver regarding
The County’s current plan, which started out at a certain
level and was reduced down to its present iteration, was submitted as the
County's Capital Plan. Upon review, the
Chief Administrative Judge has determined that it does meet the needs of the
courts and indicated in her correspondence to Chairman Crandall that she is inclined
to approve the plan upon provision of two additional items: an updated schedule
and information on financing for the project.
The Board is on the verge of voting on the financing, and
that is the reason for Mr. Clark's visit – to tell us that if the project is
not financed in the near future, the Judge is prepared to advance the sanction
process. The time to consider
alternatives is over. The plan is almost
completed. Once it is completed, the
Judge is prepared to approve it and the state will reimburse the County for up
to 33 percent of the interest on borrowing.
If the plan is not completed, the sanction will be imposed and the Judge
with authorize the interception of state aid.
The County currently receives approximately $13 million in state
aid. This, or a significant portion,
will be withheld. That is not a step Judge
Pfau wants to take, and not a result anyone here wants.
The Court System has been very tolerant with the County's
delays. Mr. Clark's files are
overflowing with articles, letters, and proposals, highlighting years of failed
efforts to get this done. We've never been
so close as now to having an approvable plan; but at the same time, the Court
System has never been so close to imposing a sanction on the County. Sanctioning will be a painful, complicated
process. History has shown it to be an effective
measure of getting the project done, as was the case in both
Comments:
Mr. O'Grady questioned if the
Mr. Ungermann referred to the illustration of
Mr. Clark stated that this responsibility has been before
the County for over 14 years. With this
position comes the responsibility to resolve problems. Mr. Clark has the responsibility
to work with us to arrive at a solution. That solution has to be suitable for the courts. In order to get the most for the money, he
has been willing to work with any solution that is acceptable. This plan is.
Mr. Ungermann's plan was unacceptable.
That decision was not personally made by him, but by people with
expertise for what will work for the courts.
How long is the Court System supposed to wait? If not now, when?
Chairman Crandall commented that we could take Mr.
Ungermann's statement even further. Shame
on
Mr. Kruger commented that he does take OCA's position
seriously, and this Board would like nothing more than to fix the court
facilities, but our struggle is affordability.
In his town, the tax rate is already $76 dollars per thousand, and the
citizenry is made up of a large percentage of elderly people. He was asked by his constituents not to
support the bond resolution. If OCA was
truly concerned about the County’s citizens, they'd be more willing to allow us
to renovate space we already have in the former jail, bringing the project cost
down to the $4-5 million range. That
space could be configured anyway the courts would deem acceptable, but LaBella was
not even given the opportunity to look at that space. It represents two-and-one-half times more
space than the courts currently have. It
wouldn't be perfect, but
Mr. Kruger stated that he is not supporting the bond
resolution. The taxpayers can't pay for
it. The Town of
Mr. McCormick referred to figures included in the December
3 presentation regarding the court facility project's financial outlay of $13.7
million in principle and about $10 million in interest and questioned whether
the percentage of the state's reimbursement for interest was negotiable. Mr. Clark replied that the percentage was capped
at 33 percent by legislative action. He
was unsure what
Mr. Clark pointed out that the state does reimburse for
court expenses such as cleaning and security.
Legislation established back in the 1970's was designed to help municipalities
with their responsibilities. They were
relieved of a big burden when the state took over payroll, but localities were
left with the responsibility to provide suitable facilities. Some failed to maintain them and the state's
response was to create the oversight process of the Court Facilities Capital
Review Board.
Mr. Reynolds commented that he will be supporting the
bond resolution, but also requested that when Mr. Clark goes back and when he
gets the opportunity to speak before the state legislature, to consider that
small counties can’t be treated the same as larger ones. Some mandated actions can totally devastate
small areas. Even issues like the risks
faced by our Judges are not the same as in big city environments. State government doesn’t do things fairly in
regards to small, rural areas. Mr. Clark
responded that a
Closing Remarks – David T. Pullen,
Court Facilities and County Space Needs Committee Chairman:
Mr. Pullen noted that
many hours have been spent on the court facilities issue, both at the local
level, and by Office of Court Administration personnel. We're at a crisis, and we’re going to try to
deal with that. Mr. Pullen responded to something
that he and Mr. Kruger have differed on, and that’s perspective. No one in this room is responsible for the
mess that we’re in, but we have a problem that we have to deal with. Mr. Kruger made a very strong statement that
he won't be responsible for the fact that we may face sanctions, but in another
sense, he will be responsible, because we know what can be done to avoid that. The choice is whether we will experience a
$13-14 million sanction in one year. We
couldn’t bond to cover current operating expenses, because the sanction would
take away the revenue needed to bond against.
The alternative is to bond the expense for the court project over 25
years, the same way most of us would have to buy homes. We're talking about bonding – that’s the
option we have. To say “if we can’t pay
cash, we can’t do it,” most of us would be living in cardboard boxes if we took
that attitude at home. If someone
chooses to say “don’t blame me for the problems,” Mr. Pullen stated that he’s
not, but he is blaming them for not accepting an alternative that we have
available.
Mr. Pullen prepared his
comments for tonight around the theme of “going” on a journey. In 1989,
Where are we "going"? We are “going” to build a courthouse. Whether we want to or not, or think we can
afford to or not, we are “going” to have to do it. If we don't, it's "going" to be
done for us. After much research, Mr.
Pullen has concluded that we really have to do this. If we fail to act promptly on this mandate,
we are "going" to experience sanctions in the form of having all
state aid intercepted for one year. That
interception amounts to about $14 million, the approximate cost of the court
facilities. The only real issue is whether
we can survive the sanctions. We
cannot. Some refuse to accept that the
state can and will intercept our state aid.
There is irrefutable evidence that they can and will take that action; they
have already done it with
One way or another, we
are "going" to get a new courthouse.
There are two separate routes we can take to get there. We can build our own courthouse and control
the design, construction, and financing.
That is the direction this Board has chosen. The other route, if we fail to act and take the
responsible course, is the default route and will go to sanctions and interception
of our state aid. The rest of that trip
revolves around the state deciding what the courthouse will look like, where it
will be built, and how much it will cost.
He has seen how the state handles major projects, and we don’t want to “go”
there. Although we don’t have a choice
about “going” on this particular journey, we do have a choice about what kind
of journey it will be.
Mr. Pullen noted that
he took an oath of office to uphold the laws of this state and do the best job
he could to provide leadership for
Adjournment: The
meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. following a motion made by Legislator
Reynolds, seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Adele Finnemore, Journal Clerk