COURT FACILITIES AND COUNTY SPACE NEEDS COMMITTEE

AUGUST 5, 2009

 

** NOT APPROVED **

Members Present:  D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton, T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady, C. Crandall  (Absent: W. Hall)

 

Others Present:  C. Braack, D. Burdick, R. Christman, W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, W. Goetschius, C. Gowiski, Hodgson Russ Attorney J. Braccio, J. Margeson, M. McCormick, B. Riehle, D. Roeske, R. Scott, N. Ungermann;  Media:  J. Loyd, Olean Times Herald; B. Quinn, Wellsville Daily Reporter

 

Call to Order:  3:15 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen

 

Approval of Minutes:  The minutes of June 10, 2009 were approved following a motion made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried.  (There was no meeting in July.)

 

 

Access Road to Proposed Courthouse Addition (Current Exit from Back Parking Lot):

            At the June 10 Court Facilities and Conty Space Needs Committee meeting, discussion included that the access road for the Courthouse addition will need to be widened to 26 feet, or possibly 20 feet with a waiver, to comply with new state fire code requirements.  This is currently the western exit from the back employee parking lot, adjacent to the Office for the Aging, and it is 15 feet wide.  LaBella Associates had offered estimates of $163,206 to extend the road width to 20 feet, and $245,263 to extend it to 26 feet.

 

            Public Works Superintendent David Roeske suggested that Public Works employees could complete this work, and he requested committee approval to begin construction of the access road this fall after logistics, such as waterline and utility placement, are worked out.  Mr. Roeske is proposing widening the access road to 26 feet to eliminate the need for a variance, and it can be done without sheet piling.  They will use a one-on-two slope to begin with and increase it to one-on-three after the Office for the Aging building is demolished.  The proposal was approved by the Public Works Committee earlier this afternoon.  When asked for an estimate, Mr. Roeske stated that it would be a lot less than LaBella’s estimate, because we will be using our labor force and will not be using sheet piling.  A motion was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Benson and carried to approve the request.  REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS.

 

 

Record Storage Space:

            County Historian and Records Administrator Craig Braack reported on the status of existing record storage space.  The records building constructed in the early 1990s on the landfill property is nearly 98 percent full, and the secured areas allocated for the Sheriff and Health Department are full.  There are presently 100 boxes being stored temporarily for the Health Department in a secure area of the former Jail.  Retrieval is a problem, because access is gained through the old receiving area, and a deputy has to be on hand to operate the elevator.  This seems to be the only alternative for now, and we could work with it for a year or two.  Mr. Braack requested the committee to keep adequate record storage space in the design for the Courthouse addition.  It is very important for the Courts to have secure, easy access to records on-site.  When asked if hard copies have to be kept, Mr. Braack explained that some records can be copied to be stored electronically, some are kept for a given length of time, and some are kept permanently.  There is an official records retention schedule that he follows closely. 

 

            Committee Chairman David Pullen commented on suggestions made during Court tours that no matter how much space is allocated for record storage, it won’t be enough.  The committee has attempted to plan with that in mind, and there is significant record storage space and some unassigned “shell” space in the plans, so there should be sufficient storage space for the Courts.  Legislator Dibble suggested building another records storage building the same size as the existing one.  Public Works could do some of the work, and we could apply for grants to help with the expense.  Mr. Braack responded that he is aware of the grant opportunities.  He has applied for and was successful in receiving two other records-related grants.  This topic will be discussed more in-depth at a future meeting.

 

Construction Manager / Clerk of the Works Services Request for Proposals (RFP): 

            County Administrator John Margeson reported that proposals for Construction Manager and Clerk of the Works Services were solicited, and three companies have responded:  The Pike Company, Rochester, NY; LP Ciminelli, Buffalo, NY; and Bovis Lend Lease, Syracuse.  Copies were provided to committee members for review (included with original minutes).  Mr. Margeson noted that these are the same three firms to submit proposals a year ago.  This RFP was advertised and was also sent to Pike, LP Ciminelli, Bovis, Chase, and LC Whitford.  Mr. Margeson provided a memo summarizing the fee proposals:

 

                                                      Clerk of the Works                           Construction Management

The Pike Company                                      $439,750                                                       $889,500

LP Ciminelli                                             No Proposal                                                       $792,500

Bovis Lend Lease                                        $550,000                                                       $630,000

 

            Mr. Margeson noted that after scanning the proposals, it appears they are comparable.  There is only one issue to clarify – one company had assumed the provision of an office or workspace, and the RFP did not include that.  It will take a couple of days to work out those details.   

 

            Mr. Pullen noted that there was a difference of about $190,000 between the low bid for Clerk of the Works and the low bid for Construction Manager.  A decision on which services to contract for will depend on whether or not a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) approach is used.  Mr. Pullen commented that his understanding was that if we go with the PLA and have a single prime contractor, it would be more feasible to hire a Clerk of the Works due to the lesser scope of support services.  Without the PLA, the Wicks Law requires multiple prime contractors, and the services of a Construction Manager would be needed.  The architects and engineers need to know the County’s decision on which approach will be used, because it affects how they draft the specifications and whether the Wicks Law waiver will be sought. 

 

            The proposals will be reviewed by committee members.  The committee decided to request actual presentations by the three firms submitting proposals.  If the presentations are fairly broad and not specific to either Clerk of the Works or Construction Management, they could take place prior to a decision being made.  Mr. Margeson suggested having LaBella here for the presentations also.  A special meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 2, at 9:00 a.m.  (This will be in addition to the regular meeting that same day at 3:00.)  Mr. Margeson will contact the three firms and LaBella.

 

Project Labor Agreement Update:

            Joseph Braccio from Hodgson Russ Attorneys was present on behalf of Peter Godfrey to provide an update on the Project Labor Agreement.  Due to the fact that specifics would be discussed about on-going contract negotiations and labor issues, an executive session was called for. 

 

Executive Session:  

            A motion was made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by legislator Benson and carried to enter into executive session to discuss Project Labor Agreement negotiations with retained legal counsel.  Immediately following, a motion was made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried to end the executive session and return to the regular meeting.

 

            Mr. Braccio gave a presentation regarding services rendered by his law firm on behalf of the County and this Committee on a possible Project Labor Agreement.  They have taken part in substantive negotiations, but they are not finalized.  Mr. Pullen noted that no action would be taken at this time, and until the issue of the PLA is resolved, the Committee would not be able to make a decision on the proposals for Clerk of the Works or Construction Management services.

 

Comments:

            Cindy Gowiski asked if the committee planned to address concerns voiced by the public regarding the site for the Courthouse addition.  An engineering report mailed to Mr. Margeson recommended that construction should be set back from the river bank to a minimum of 50 feet.  The committee needs to consider the project’s proximity to the bank.  Mr. Pullen responded that all processes relating to the proposed Court facilities have been carried out in accordance with the law, and he is comfortable with the soil boring and engineer’s site reports, so dissension on those topics would not be addressed by this committee.

 

NEXT MEETINGS:  

            Special meeting, Monday, August 24, at 12:30 p.m.

            Special meeting, Wednesday, September 2, at 9:00 a.m.

            Regular meeting, Wednesday, September 2, at 3:00 p.m.

 

ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. following a motion made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Hopkins and carried.

 

Respectfully submitted by

Adele Finnemore, Journal Clerk