COURT
FACILITIES AND
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
** NOT APPROVED **
Members Present: D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton,
T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady, C. Crandall
(Absent: W. Hall)
Others Present: D. Burdick, W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, J.
Margeson, T. Miner, B. Riehle,
D. Russo; Media: B.
Quinn, Wellsville Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 12:00
p.m. by
Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Project Labor Agreement:
Committee Chairman David Pullen reported that the Project
Labor Agreement for the Court Facilities Project, drafted by Peter Godfrey from
Hodgson Russ Attorneys, was received and e-mailed to committee members for
review late last week. Mr. Pullen was
told by Mr. Godfrey that what we have is 99 percent complete; there is still a
small problem with the elevator group.
The Construction Trade Council met on September 11 to go over the PLA
and hopefully approve it and send it on, but Mr. Pullen hasn’t heard the
results of that meeting yet.
If the committee finds the PLA to be in the best interest
of the County, the next step would be to request a resolution to be pre-filed
for the September 28 Board meeting, subject to receiving positive results from
the feasibility study. The feasibility
study report will be due on September 23, and it will then be forwarded to all
legislators. The Court Facilities and
County Space Needs Committee will meet prior to the Board meeting on September
28 to determine if there will be sufficient savings to justify the PLA. Mr. Pullen felt that if savings are not
projected to be in the $300,000 to $500,000 range or higher, the committee could
withdraw the Project Labor Agreement resolution.
Legislator Fanton questioned how Seeler Engineering would
calculate cost savings in the feasibility study. Mr. Pullen responded that some elements would
be dependent on past studies; for instance, savings related to the Wicks Law
waiver. For other things specific to our
PLA, Seeler will work with LaBella to calculate savings; for instance, on the use
of apprentices with reduction in wage rates, they will look at the percentage
of work that can be done by apprentices and estimate the corresponding savings.
Some of the issues will result in very
significant savings. Peter Godfrey had
recommended the use of an independent firm for the study because the other
possible options included parties that were already involved (Hodgson Russ,
Bovis, and LaBella), and may be viewed as having a stake in the project.
Mr. Fanton asked if the study would also involve savings
related to the use of a single contractor versus several prime
contractors. Mr. Pullen noted that the primary
advantage of a PLA is that it entitles us to waive certain requirements of the
Wicks Law, so the study will look at those potential savings, although we could
still do multiple primes.
Most of the cash savings related to the specific aspects
of this Project Labor Agreement can be quantified. After reviewing the agreement, Mr. Pullen
remarked that everything was included that he had understood should be. The agreement is very favorable. Mr. Pullen highlighted some of the provisions
of the PLA:
·
Allows the use of
apprentices with reduction in wage rates
·
Flexibility on
starting/ending times with notice and shift work performed at regular time pay,
which saves from having to pay premium rates
·
Includes a
no-strike guarantee
·
Supersedes any
other agreements, which will prevent jurisdictional conflicts
·
Hiring of new employees
for project work at a ratio of one journeyperson employee referred by the
applicable trade or craft, to one “core employee” employed by the contractor
·
Contractor retains
authority for management of operations including the right to direct the work
force
·
No restriction on
the contractors’ choice of materials, installation, equipment, or use of
pre-fabricated products (It was noted that compliance with material
specifications is between us and the contractor; clearly the contractor must
comply with bid specs. This provision
just means that the union can’t object to materials.)
·
Option for
contractors to pay core employees the required benefits payment in cash (a
substantial concession)
Legislator
Mr. Fanton questioned previous comments about PLAs limiting
the number of bidders. Mr. Pullen noted
that some contractors won’t work with unions at all, and some never get
involved in public projects because they don’t want to pay prevailing wage, so
they may refrain from bidding, but there is nothing preventing any contractor
from bidding.
Mr. Fanton asked how the weather would be factored in,
since the project won’t begin until January or February. Mr. Pullen stated that there was provision
for show-up hours of pay, but if prior notice of bad weather is given,
employees don’t show up. There’s no
guaranteed number of hours. It was noted
that some issues will be handled with the contractor and are not included in
the scope of this agreement, such as proximity of parking to the work site.
A
motion was made by Legislator
A special meeting of the Court Facilities and County
Space Needs Committee will be held on Monday, September 28 at 12:00 p.m. to
review the results of the feasibility study.
At that point, we will have a clearer understanding of the savings, and
if the PLA is approved, LaBella Associates can finalize the bid specifications
for release in mid-October. One of the
construction management firms indicated they looked at the PLA and spoke with several
contractors. There is a lot of interest
out there. Construction has been slow,
and hopefully that will bode well for our project. The issue of stimulus money may come up. If
Next Meetings: Monday, September 28, 2009, 12:00 p.m.
(Special meeting)
Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 3:00
p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting
was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. following a motion made by Legislator O’Grady,
seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk