COURT FACILITIES AND COUNTY SPACE NEEDS COMMITTEE

SEPTEMBER 2, 2009

 

** NOT APPROVED **

Members Present:  D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton, T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady, C. Crandall

            (Absent:  W. Hall)

 

Others Present:  W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, J. Margeson, T. Miner, B. Riehle, N. Ungermann;  Media:  B. Quinn, Wellsville Daily Reporter

 

Call to Order:  3:20 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen

 

Approval of Minutes:  The minutes of August 24, 2009 were approved following a motion made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator O’Grady and carried.

 

Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Update:

 

            Committee Chairman David Pullen gave an update on the Project Labor Agreement being negotiated for the Court Facilities Project by Hodgson Russ Attorneys.  Mr. Pullen’s discussions with Peter Godfrey have indicated that every union with the exception of the elevator service union has indicated its approval of the PLA, and the only problem the elevator union has is with some of the language.  Other than that, there is agreement, and we can move forward.  LaBella Associates has timeframe issues based on the impact of the PLA on preparing bid specifications; however, before the PLA can be approved, the statute indicates the need for a feasibility study.

 

Project Labor Agreement Feasibility Study:

 

            To proceed with the feasibility study, Peter Godfrey came up with three different approaches for the County to consider, although obtaining costs for the different approaches has been difficult:

 

·         Hodgson Russ Attorneys – Peter Godfrey could prepare a summary based on his expectations, using no outside consultants.  It would include savings based on a conceptual analysis and on studies done by the state over the years based on actual experience.  It would show what we could anticipate and general conclusions on what practices, such as the use of apprentices, would result in savings.  This would be the least expensive option at somewhere between $1,200 and $1,500.  The disadvantage is that conclusions would be lacking on hard calculations.

 

·         Bovis Lend Lease, as an independent estimator, working with LaBella Associates – This option would have the advantage of hard calculations of savings for the various aspects of the PLA.  Bovis’ cost for this service would be $9,200.  Mark Kukuvka felt that LaBella’s time working with Bovis wouldn’t be significant, and it would just be part of their current contract.

 

·         Seeler Engineering – A third option would be the use of an engineering firm to provide the calculations, and Seeler is available to do it on a quick turn-around.  The cost would be between $14,000 and $16,000, possibly as low as $12,000.  Advantages are that the study would be done by an engineering firm that has worked on these projects, and it’s also an independent firm.

 

            Legislator Pullen felt that the independent study by Seeler Engineering, although it costs more, would be the best option, and they would be capable of doing it in time for the committee to consider later this month.  To expedite the process in order to keep LaBella on schedule with bidding, the committee would need to approve moving forward with an option for the feasibility study and request a resolution to go to the full Board for consideration on September 14.  Then the PLA should be ready to go to the Board on September 28 so LaBella can release bids in mid October.  If the study doesn’t show significant savings, we would proceed with a standard approach rather than with the PLA.

 

            Legislator O’Grady questioned the potential overall savings of the PLA, and noted that he didn’t want to spend $12,000 on the study in order to save a very minimal amount of money.  Mr. Pullen responded that the study will show that.  The PLA will allow the waiver of the Wicks Law, which is the largest area of savings (estimated at 10 to 28 percent of the total project cost), but the study will help to verify the savings from that and other aspects of our PLA.  They are things a lawyer wouldn’t know.  It’s up to a contractor to say if he’s doing a particular thing and factor in the savings.  It certainly wouldn’t cost us more.

 

            Legislator Hopkins wondered if the PLA may eliminate some potential bidders, and if that is considered in the feasibility study.  More bidders would keep the costs down.  Also, do they look at the length of time to do a job?  Mr. Pullen noted that the PLA is very favorable to the County, and it eliminates some of the issues that usually discourage non-union bidders.  Mark Kukuvka is hopeful we will get a significant response when we go to bid.  The negative condition of the economy is actually to our advantage.

 

            Chairman Crandall commented that his first reaction on how to approach the feasibility study was that a quick approach by Peter Godfrey would be sufficient; he thought that no matter what the feedback was, it may not change the votes of the Board.  He now supports spending the $12,000 for the independent survey because it will be more Allegany County specific with concrete information instead of assumptions, and it will be specific to our PLA, our geographic location, and those types of things.  Once it’s done, we’ll be better able to decide whether to go with the PLA and one prime contractor, or not have the PLA and use multiple primes.

 

            Legislator Hopkins noted that he would rather have figures pertinent to Allegany County.  We have to decide soon on whether we will be using a Clerk of the Works or a Construction Manager and which firm to hire.  Part of their work will be to have input on the bidding process.  Mr. Hopkins questioned how that would work if the PLA didn’t go into effect until the bids go out.  Mr. Pullen commented that no one has an obligation to submit a bid, but contractors are not busy, and they will look hard at this.  Mr. Hopkins suggested that the Construction Manager could make a few phone calls to determine if firms would submit bids if a PLA was implemented.  They all talk and maybe we could get a sense of how they would feel.  Mr. Pullen noted that there have been two or three studies done over the years, and there is typically a savings pertaining to the waiver of the Wicks Law, which makes sense.  Unions have fought having the Wicks Law repealed for public projects.  Mr. Pullen has wondered if it was worth the risk, and in looking at this PLA that’s been described as being so favorable to the County, the only downside he sees is the possible loss of competition.  The feasibility study is the only way to get all the data on savings related to the specific terms of our PLA.  Mr. Pullen felt that savings could be substantial, or between $500,000 to $1 million.  He wouldn’t support the PLA if savings only amounted to $10,000.  We owe it to the taxpayers to bring this project in at the least cost.

 

            A motion was made by Legislator O’Grady, seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried to retain Seeler Engineering to perform a feasibility study on the Project Labor Agreement relative to the Court Facilities Project at a cost not to exceed $12,000 with the condition that their report must be submitted by September 23.  PREPARE RESOLUTION FOR SEPTEMBER 14 BOARD MEETING.

 

            Committee Chairman Pullen has requested Peter Godfrey to have the final Project Labor Agreement in by the middle of next week (around September 9).  To move the PLA forward for consideration by the Board on September 28, a special meeting of the Court Facilities Committee is being scheduled for September 14 at 12:00 p.m.  The PLA, along with a summary, will be given to the Clerk of the Board to distribute to committee members mid week to consider prior to the meeting on the 14th.

 

            If the Board approves the contract for the feasibility study on September 14, having the report due back from Seeler Engineering by September 23 or 24 will allow for distribution to committee members for review prior to a special meeting of the Court Facilities Committee September 28 at 12:00 p.m.  It was then decided to distribute the report to the entire Board.  If the report doesn’t show significant savings, the committee could withdraw the PLA resolution from consideration at the September 28 Board meeting.

 

            Legislator Hopkins questioned if one union not signing off (elevator service union) would affect the rest of the unions involved in the PLA.  Mr. Pullen replied that it wouldn’t.  All of them have agreed to all the terms important to us.  It’s just that some of the language doesn’t quite square up.  All of the major trades have signed off on it.

 

            Chairman Crandall questioned at what point the PLA would become a public document.  Mr. Pullen replied that Mr. Godfrey should lock it in first, but if the committee approves it on September 14, it would become public and would be attached to a proposed resolution.

 

Construction Manager / Clerk of the Works Proposals – Executive Session:

 

            Presentations were given this morning by the various firms responding to the RFP for provision of Construction Management and Clerk of the Works services.  A motion was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Benson and carried to enter into an executive session to discuss matters leading to the employment of a particular corporation.  Following discussion, a motion was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Benson and carried to end the executive session and return to the regular meeting.

 

NEXT MEETINGS:    Monday, September 14, 2009, 12:00 Noon (Special Meeting)

                                    Monday, September 28, 2009, 12:00 Noon (Tentative - Special Meeting)

                                    Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 3:00 p.m.

 

ADJOURNMENT:  The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. following a motion made by Legislator Benson, seconded by Legislator O’Grady and carried.

 

Respectfully submitted by

Adele Finnemore, Journal Clerk