COURT
FACILITIES AND COUNTY
SPACE NEEDS COMMITTEE
JANUARY 7, 2009
** NOT APPROVED **
Members Present: D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton,
T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady
(Absent: W. Hall, C. Crandall)
Others Present: W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, J. Foels, K. Kruger,
J. Margeson, M. McCormick, T. Miner, B. Reynolds, B. Riehle, T. Ross, K.
Toot; Media: J. Loyd, Olean Times Herald
Call to Order: 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Approval of
Minutes: The minutes of the December 3, 2008 meeting
were approved following a motion made by Legislator Benson, seconded by Legislator
O’Grady and carried.
Reminder – Special Committee of the Whole Meeting:
A special Committee of the Whole meeting has been
scheduled for January 8, at 7 p.m. in the Board Chambers to discuss the Court
Facilities Project. Mark Kukuvka from
LaBella Associates will be at the meeting prepared to discuss the plans and
related issues and answer questions.
William Clark, Counsel for Capital Planning, Office of Court
Administration, will also be present.
Court Facilities Project SEQR Process:
County
Administrator John
Margeson reported that the SEQR process is ready to be addressed during a
special Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday, January 12, at 1:30 p.m. The short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)
has been completed. He notified Town of Amity’s Supervisor, Village of Belmont’s
Mayor, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation that the action is
taking place and that the County wishes to be lead agency. Letters in response to our notification have
been received from Belmont
and Amity so far. Even without the
response from DEC, we will still be free to proceed on Monday. Mr. Pullen noted that the SEQR process is
required prior to moving forward with the bond resolution.
Additional Options for County Office
Space Needs:
Mr. Pullen has spoken with Mark Kukuvka over the past couple
of months about less expensive alternatives to finishing the former jail space
for gaining additional space for County office needs. Other options include building a facility
near the Public Safety Facility or finishing off the vacant shell space under
the proposed Courthouse addition. Mr.
Kukuvka has looked into those options and appears to be ready to report at an
upcoming meeting.
Mr. Pullen also pointed out that the County Office
Building renovation
estimate of $4.8 million wasn’t just for the jail floor, but also included the
necessary changes on every floor for moving or expanding departments, the
elevator, and additional access. Moving
some agencies offsite would have both advantages and disadvantages, but there
are still changes needed here.
Everything is tied together. Mr.
Fanton commented that he was not locked into the use of the former jail for
office space. Completing the shell space
in the addition may be less expensive if we can get what we need, and use of
the jail space for storage may be more appropriate. We do have to address County office space
needs.
Funding Possibility:
Mr. Pullen noted that Mr. McCormick indicated he is
hopeful our new democratic Congressman may be able to gain funding for Allegany County for our Courthouse Project. The Congressman has talked about spending
money to jumpstart the economy. If this
is true, in the best of possible outcomes, we could do this project without County
taxpayer outlay. The next question would
be whether to proceed with the bond resolution, and Mr. Pullen believes we should. Mr. Fanton pointed out that the bond resolution
is necessary in order to continue on with the engineering phase of the project.
LaBella’s Timeline if Bond Resolution is Approved:
Mr. Pullen reported that in his conversations with Mark Kukuvka,
he was told that normally it is a six-month process to get to the point where
we will have construction specs to go to bid with, and the bid process takes
about two months. It may be able to be
compressed, but those are the normal periods.
After bids are awarded, it would take about one month to six weeks for
contract documents to be executed and approved.
That amounts to a total of about nine months and is another reason to
move forward on Monday. Mr. Fanton noted
that part of the money would be borrowed in 2010; it would not all be compressed
in 2009. Mr. Pullen stated that the
sooner we can approve LaBella to begin, the sooner we can get down to the
specifics for the contractors to proceed on.
Sanction and State Aid Interception:
Mr. Pullen has had numerous conversations and spent many
hours trying to get a definitive answer on whether or not OCA can actually
sanction us and intercept funds. OCA sent
him an e-mail yesterday, citing session laws from 1981, two statutory
amendments, and judicial law, and yes, they have the authority to intercept funds
amounting to a little under $14 million.
They recited that they have used that authority in the past, once for Erie County
and once for the City of Newberg.
The question was raised about wording in Judicial Law
Section 39 of the interception of funding being taken from the “local assistance
fund,” as the County
Treasurer has noted that
very little of our state money falls under that fund. OCA Capital Planning Counsel William Clark
responded that when the local assistance fund was abolished in 1981, the State Finance
Law allowed the Comptroller to transfer those functions to other funds (where
we do get funding from). In other words,
the state can withhold funds that appear under other fund names in lieu of the
local assistance fund.
If Allegany
County does not pass a
bond resolution and move forward with the Court Facilities Project, Chief
Administrative Judge Ann Pfau will issue a sanction letter and direct the State
Comptroller to withhold state aid. We
could challenge it, but in the meantime would not receive the funds. County Treasurer Terri Ross added that she has
been in contact with the legal department in the Comptroller’s Office, and will
try to get clarification by Monday. She
also received information from Mr. Clark’s office, and our remittances from the
state do total about $14 million. The
only thing actually denoted as local assistance is handicapped children
funding, but from what we’ve been told, we need to assume it includes
everything.
Mr. O’Grady questioned if the County would try to bond $14
million to pay expenses and figure out where to start making cuts, in the event
we were sanctioned. Ms. Ross made
reference to the Committee of the Whole presentation on December 3. The County could get by for about two-and-one-half
months. She pointed out that you have to
have the revenues to pledge against in order to borrow on a Revenue
Anticipation Note (RAN), which we can’t do if the state intercepts that money. Fourteen million is a big hit. Mr. Pullen noted the difference between the
state intercepting $14 million to build court facilities and the County approving
the project and bonding for $14 million is that the bond for a capital project
with a 25-year period of probable usefulness could be paid back over 25 years. If the money is intercepted and we have to
borrow for routine spending, that would have to be paid back over just one year. At the presentation on December 3, County
Administrator John Margeson estimated a 50 percent tax rate increase to cover
the shortfall. That would be intolerable.
If the sanction becomes a reality, we would have to start cutting every
non-mandated expense that we could.
County
Attorney Tom Miner
commented that we don’t have any real choice but to move forward. The state holds all the cards. We were given the chance to come up with a plan
we could live with, and that plan was submitted in August. The County could play semantic games with the
state, and after spending thousands of dollars on a lawsuit that will cost the
taxpayers dearly, we will still have to provide new court facilities.
Separating the Court Facilities and County Offices
Issues in the Bond Resolution:
Mr. O’Grady stated that he realizes we have to do the
court project, but agrees with Mr. Burdick’s past comments. He has a problem with the County Office
Building renovations
being included in the bond resolution, as he doesn’t feel we have an extra $5
million to spend on this building. It’s
a project for down the road. Mr. Hopkins
commented that separation of the two projects would still be possible even if
they are bonded for together, but there is no guarantee they will be looked at
separately. Mr. Pullen has heard
comments from some legislators indicating they won’t support the bonding if the
projects are combined, but also some saying they won’t support it unless both
projects are addressed. Mr. O’Grady suggested two separate bond
resolutions, one for $14 million and a separate one for $5 million, with two
separate votes. Ms. Ross noted that we
can do two separate bonds, but we can have only one capital project for the
entire thing.
Mr. Pullen commented that this meeting and two special
Committee of the Whole meetings are all that remain prior to the bond
resolution vote, so we should take this opportunity to resolve questions. He has done a lot of research and has copies
of applicable sections of law available if anyone wants them. The conclusion he has come to is that OCA is
not bluffing about their authority to sanction us. Chairman Crandall is presently in Albany for the Governor’s
State of the State Address and will also be taking the opportunity to speak
with Judge Pfau. Hopefully he can share any
information he receives tomorrow.
Mr. Kruger commented on the problems with issues that are
not being addressed, such as parking, which will be a major cost, the location,
and all the vacant space on the former jail floor. The parking issue can’t be put off; there has
to be immediate remediation. The project
is eliminating 40 to 60 parking spaces, and it hasn’t even been discussed. That cost added to the $18.7 million will be
a huge hurdle and a huge expense.
Mr. Fanton pointed out that the reason this Board is in
this situation is that our predecessors had the same viewpoint as Mr. O’Grady –
that they couldn’t afford it and put it off, resulting in us now having to deal
with escalation in costs for materials and labor.
New Facilities at Crossroads for Office for the Aging
and Veterans’ Services, Update:
Industrial Development
Director John Foels presented information on the revised layout for the new Office
for the Aging and Veterans’ Services facilities at the Crossroads Center. After meetings with the County Administrator,
Office for the Aging Director, and Veterans’ Services Director, they have revised
the drawings to include additional space for NY Connects, to relocate the OFA Director’s
Office, storage area, and Veterans’ Services, and to give Veterans’ Services
immediate access from the lobby, making it easier to get to. The overall design remains the same, but the
square footage has increased from 6,500 to slightly under 8,000, anticipating
current needs and some expansion of OFA over the next several years. The proposed layout will provide for the needed
confidentiality in dealing with customers.
Mr. Foels distributed a preliminary site plan drawing to illustrate how
parking will be laid out and the additional access road from State Route 19
(copy attached to original minutes). Mr.
Dibble requested drawings to show locations of the Senior Foundation building
and the sewer and leach field.
County
Administrator John
Margeson is currently reviewing an outline of terms and conditions. Mr. Foels briefly summarized that some of the
terms would include: utilization of the existing heating system (it is
oversized for the present facility); sharing of the water and sewer services;
the addition would have its own telephone and electric service; IDA would
provide building maintenance, mowing, and plowing; and cleaning costs would be
separate. The County would carry
insurance to cover liability and contents; in essence the County would have
“renters” insurance and the IDA would have the “landlord” insurance. When asked if the IDA was looking for a long-term
agreement, Mr. Foels responded that they are proposing a similar agreement to
the one the County presently has with the IDA for the existing facilities. They are looking at two five-year leases with
renewal. The IDA will be borrowing for
the building over a 20-year term, and that would allow them to get funding. Mr. Foels has met with the bankers, and they
are in position to move forward. The
County’s monthly installments would be $7,500, but that includes maintenance
costs, not just debt service, and a little cushion to cover possible interest
rate increases, etc. As construction
progresses, if expenses come in lower than estimated, that will be
reflected. The entire process will be
transparent.
Mr. Margeson noted that the next step will be for the
legislature to approve a resolution authorizing a lease agreement with the
IDA. They will need that prior to
applying for the mortgage. The IDA
attorney will consult with the County
Attorney, and this
committee will consider the proposed agreement at its next meeting on February
4, and then will refer it on to Ways and Means.
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. following
a motion made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Hopkins and carried.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk