There was much energy surrounding the South Main Street site when I took over as B&G Chair. I tried to take an open, transparent approach to figuring out the best way to make lemonade out of lemons.
Carol Tytler had been working with the Area Agency on Aging to determine the needs of that department our Committee decided it would work well to determine the feasibility of locating the AAA on South Main Street.
The goal was to take a holistic view of the County Office Building, using the space freed up from a potential AAA move to reorganize and remodel disjointed departments in the COB. We could apply for NYSERDA funds to offset costs as the COB is a very inefficient space with poor lighting and heating.
My assumption was that this did not sit well with some of the Legislators and the Administration, and it was an uphill battle during 2008. Much of the programming work and study was done directly with AAA and the Administrator and the Legislature / Committee did not get engaged until the end of the process, when an unexpected $90,000 bill came to the B&G Committee for approval. There was shock to say the least, but the minutes and timeline below tell the tale.
This was provided to all the members of the Legislature on January 27, 2009.
PLEASE NOTE THE BOLD TEXT AS RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 2008 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. This is very telling of how the Administration typically interacts with the Legislature.
Aging building / South Main Street Timeline –
3/11/08 - B&G Committee meeting - Authorizing Specialized Services Agreement Area Agency on Aging Feasibility Study – MOTION BY MR. SPAULDING - 2ND BY MR. HARTNETT - ALL PRESENT VOTING IN FAVOR – MOTION PASSES.
Discussion: Joe Maryak of JCM Associates will be conducting the feasibility study. The feasibility of moving Office of the Aging to the South Main Street property. Ms. Deloff indicated that the Office of the Aging is willing to re-locate to the South Main Street if the feasibility study shows that there is space and enough parking. Ms. Tytler commented that the reality is that Office of the Aging will probably be a 2 story building if it moves to the South Main Street property. Ms. Tytler asked if there is a possibility that the Board of Elections could go to the South Main Street property instead of sharing space with the DMV. Mr. Loomis commented that we will know more once the feasibility study is completed. Mr. Loomis asked that a report be submitted to this Committee in 2 months.
3/27/08 – Legislature meeting – Authorized Authorizing Specialized Services Agreement Area Agency on Aging Feasibility Study (Resolution 102-08).
April, May 2008 – No recorded activity or updates via Committee.
6/10/08 - B&G Committee meeting - space study, along with preliminary site plan layout was provided. Extensive discussion as recorded in the minutes:
Mr. Maryak reported on the AAA design. He provided an updated Executive Summary and reviewed it with the committee in detail. Mr. Maryak indicated that 17,630 square feet would be necessary to house the agency. He indicated that there has not yet been resolution on consideration of future space needs for the programs involved in AAA. The sketch shows maximizing the size of the building along Main Street . The building has a footprint of 11,000+ square feet. So, with two stories, the building could hold 22,000+ square feet. However, we need to provide 10 handicapped parking spaces. That means that only 90 parking spaces could be planned on site. There is the potential of 30 parking spaces on the streets. So, there is a potential of 120 parking spaces available. We are in three places for consideration: 1) future growth of the agency; 2) if the space is maximized with the building – who else would be brought in and how would that impact the parking; and 3) parking – which becomes an issue based on agency needs and the practicality of the site.
Ms. Deloff indicated that she based the 130 parking spaces on – 44 staff on site each day; 79 participants in the daily meal program; additional visitors for recreation and other programs. She has major concerns about the parking. There is street parking available, but she does not know how much of that will be accessible. The future growth of the program is a potential problem for the space being designed. She does not believe that the current design allows for the addition of more programs. Mr. Loomis indicated he has two concerns – one is the primary entry and the exits drives and the fact that traffic will be routed through residential streets and the fact that it is “tight”. Mr. Loomis does not feel that the site is feasible – particularly given the current proposed designed. He is concerned about the primary access off the side streets and who owns that property and he is concerned about whether or not the City will buy in. Mr. Williams stated that the design appears to be a “silk purse” that we are trying to make out of a “sow’s ear”. We are trying to shoehorn something in to a space that will not work for our program. The program is going to expand and this design does not provide for easy additions. Mr. Williams feels we should look at getting out of ownership of the property gracefully and look at building another AAA facility in a different location. Mr. Maryak indicated that this is a tight site and the Director of the program feels uncomfortable with the room provided in the site design. Mr. Williams feels if we can walk way from these, with a party interested in purchase, he feels we should do it. Mrs. Tytler asked if we could look at the property for Mental Health alone and not include the Health Department in the space. We have a critical need for Horizon House space and we are leasing space for Mental Health. Perhaps we could look at this property for Horizon House for a standalone facility as well in this space. Mr. Ross indicated that he feels that South Main Street is prime property and he would like to see it back on the tax rolls. Mr. Willcox reiterated that he would like to see a price set for the property and have it open for consideration.
Mr. Loomis asked if there is any discussion about letting this company to continue to design. Mr. Schrader indicated that the issue that keeps coming up is growth – Carol spoke about program growth, Mr. Maryak spoke of space growth. Mr. Schrader indicated that we are in an economy where we should not be looking at growing – program, space, or otherwise. We should be looking at maintaining, not at expanding. Can we accomplish what we need to accomplish without growing – we need to reconfigure. If we do not locate Mental Health with the Health Department, we lose the economies of scale gained by co-locating. We need to have conversations about what we want to offer and how we do it most cost effectively. Mr. Loomis asked how we do it? Do we work with other committees? Mr. Loomis sees this committee’s role as addressing the needs of the departments. Mr. Schrader indicated that we need to look at “want” versus “need”. We need to adapt and we are not doing that. We need to look at providing services that we can afford to provide. Mr. Loomis reiterated that we need to work back through the other committees and define what we will be providing and then make a decision about what space is actually needed. Mr. Schrader is looking at a proposal with IKON to put all paper records on electronic means thereby eliminating storage requirements. This does not necessarily mean cutting back staff, but it does allow staff to work smarter. We need to accomplish what we are charged to accomplish, not necessarily what we “want” to accomplish. Mr. Williams asked how we get to the point that Mr. Schrader wants us to reach. How does this Legislature put all of this together. How do we discuss it and come together with a “Master Plan” for direction as to where are going with all of this. We as a body need to do what we are supposed to do, which is provide policy oversight. Mr. Schrader indicated that we have a roadmap, called the County Budget . This is stagnate; the budget needs to be dissected within departments and identify who and how we are serving and decide if that is appropriate. We need to look to see if the services we are providing are still timely and what is needed by today’s population; can we provide better services in a more cost-efficient manner. Each jurisdictional committee needs to carefully consider the programs under its oversight. Mr. Schrader would argue that the current AAA program would fit in the designed building. Are we appropriately providing a level of service? Or is there a level of service that we are not providing? Decisions need to be made along those lines. Tough decisions need to be made. Mr. Williams indicated that the entire Legislature needs to meet and have these conversations. Mrs. Price indicated that she and the Majority Leader will work with the Chairman to enact a meeting to hear the entire presentation from beginning to end and then offer an opportunity to ask questions so decisions can be made on programs and space. Mr. Schrader indicated that he believes the only way to sell surplus County property is through auction or sealed bid. He asked Mr. Suben to research this topic. Mrs. Tytler expressed her frustration about the lack of the Guido Summit and other communication opportunities. Mrs. Tytler reminded the members that government is here to serve the population.
Mr. Maryak indicated that he will meet with the DA to develop the need for that department. There will be a report available for the next committee meeting. The DMV site will be put “on hold” until direction is given by this committee. The COB project will be finished and a final report will be provided. AAA is complete as far as it can be until decisions are made about programs. The report can be directed through the entire Legislature.
Mr. Schrader thanked Mr. Maryak for the service he has provided to the committee.
6/19/08- Special Legislature Meeting - Called by Chairman to discuss selling the South Main properties.
Chairman Daniels said that there have been some legislators advocating the sale of the Moose property so he directed a resolution to be prepared to dispose of the issue one way or another. Today we need to resolve that issue and Mr. Daniels entertained a motion for item number 1. Ms. Price raised a point of order referring to page 21 of the Cortland County Rules of Order that resolutions shall be available 48 hours before a Special Meeting. She said these were not available until this morning just prior to session. Mr. Daniels said he would entertain a motion to suspend the rules. For lack of a motion and a second, the rules were not suspended to allow consideration of the resolutions. There was a motion, second and vote to pull the resolutions. Motion passed.
6/26/08 - Legislature meeting –
On motion of Mr. Daniels, second by Ms. Price Agenda No. 1 was introduced. Ms. Wilcox said she doesn’t understand why we are considering a building for that site when we haven’t determined if it is appropriate. She stated that this is premature. Ms. Tytler said she was hoping to see other opportunities for building on the site and has been assured by Mr. Loomis that will be explored, therefore she will support it. Mr. Loomis said he shares the neighborhood concerns with Ms. Wilcox. His main concern is access and he hopes that they will be addressed by the architect. Concerning the COB space and aging study received earlier this week, the final figure for aging is just over 17,000 square feet. The additional square feet was added to maximize the site to allow for space for other departments relevant to the Master Plan. Ms. Price said she is willing to support this as the first step in the journey to complete South Main Street. We can’t know until we engage the firm to be sure. Mr. Loomis questioned if the next step will be scope, schedule and fee for the project. Mr. Schrader answered yes. Mr. Willcox asked how residents were to be involved. Mr. Loomis said the project will be open for comment once the plans and design are proposed. Ms. Wilcox spoke of having neighborhood representatives involved in the process. Mr. Schrader suggested inviting a representative to Buildings & Grounds Committee to participate in the discussions then later have public hearings once the draft product is developed. Ms. Wilcox said that access on Randall Street is not proper. Mr. Loomis said that the study has revealed that the program and parking fit the needs of AAA, however the orientation of the building may need to be altered. Mr. Wilcox asked what the ballpark figure is for the study. Mr. Schrader said he could not guess without conversations with the architect and engineering firms. That figure will come to the committee for approval. Ms. Wilcox said she didn’t believe the resolution was worded that way. It reads that we are engaging them for the design with an unknown cost. Mr. Schrader said that the resolution directs him to receive proposals which will have to be approved by the legislature; you are selecting the firm to do this building. Ms. Wilcox said that is not how it is worded. Mr. Willcox asked if we approve this do we then engage them. Mr. Schrader said no, the legislature would need to accept the proposal submitted and the proposal will be negotiated by the next session with a resolution to authorize their proposal. Mr. Waldbauer said he will support that if that is the case however he would prefer having a sub committee to determine all of the space planning needs of our county. Mr. Williams requested a roll call vote. The Clerk took a roll call vote with Ms. Arnold, Mr. Cornell, Mr. Dafoe, Mr. Hartnett, Mr. Loomis, Mr. McKee, Mr. Piombo, Ms. Price, Mr. Spaulding, Mr. Steger, Mr. Tagliente, Mr. Troy, Ms. Tytler, Mr. Waldbauer and Mr. Daniels voting aye and Mr. Ross, Ms. Wilcox, Mr. Willcox and Mr. Williams voting nay. Agenda No. 1 became Resolution No. 181-08 Engaging Barton and Loguidice and JCM Architectural Associates to Design and Prepare a Site Plan and Construction Drawings for a 22,400 Square Foot Building for the Office for the Aging Located on Main Street.
Chairman Daniels pulled Agenda Nos. 2 and 3, Directing the Sale by Public Auction of Randall Street (Rear); 157 Main Street; and 151 Main Street, Commonly Known as the Moose Property and Directing the Sale by Public Auction of Williams Street (Rear) and 159 Main Street, Commonly Known as the Wood Property.
7/8/08 – B&G Committee Meeting –
Mr. Loomis informed the committee that he had received the drafts from Joe Maryak for the proposal for the Aging facility (Administrator was on vacation). He said that he expected a proposal of the same for the DMV site. At that time he will call a special meeting for the Buildings and Grounds committee. Stated that the proposals for the DMV would be close to the same scope. Asked if the committee would rather have a meeting, days prior to legislative session or a day prior to session. Mr. Williams suggested that a separate meeting would be better. Mr. Daniels stated that a separate meeting would be more beneficial as more Legislators would be available to ask questions.
7/18/08 – Chairman, Administrator, County Auditor and B&G Chairman met in Chairman’s Office to discuss the proposals. Administrator indicated he would have timelines prepared for DMV and Aging projects, and that he would have the DMV proposal ready by Resolution as a Receive and File. Administrator indicated that he was still working on revisions to the Aging proposal and would follow up.
7/24/08 – Legislature meeting- refer to DMV timeline for detailed minutes of meeting. Below is summary of discussion related to the Aging building:
Ms. Wilcox inquired why the Aging facility timetable was attached to the proposal when that facility was not even being spoken on. Mr. Schrader replied it was there to address some concerns that were raised at the last Legislative Session. One specific concern with the timetables was the inclusion of public comment into the projects that the Legislature was considering. It is attached to show that the concerns are being addressed. … Ms. Wilcox asked for the Aging timeline to be pulled from the proposal. It was agreed to do so. Mr. Loomis informed the other members that the intent is to have the DMV proposal to be on the next Building and Grounds agenda for discussion. He urged all members interested to attend. Mr. Williams stated he was more comfortable voting knowing there would be prior committee and legislative review in August.
8/12/08 - B&G Committee meeting –
Mr. Loomis asked for the status of this project. Mr. Schrader informed that Committee that he had met with Barton & Loguidice who, with Mr. Maryak are finalizing three different orientation schematics of the building and the parking on the property which should be available by the end of the week. He indicated that these would be forwarded to the Legislators via e-mail. Mr. Loomis suggested that the public meeting on this building be done on the same night as the DMV/Elections building, if possible.
9/9/08 B&G Committee meeting - update by B&L after the DMV final design presentation;
9/9/08 -12/2/08 - Subsequent meetings were made with Aging and with Cornell Cooperative Extension along with the consultant; not made with nor updates provided to B&G Committee.
The Administrator added the “Future” (Cornell Cooperative Extension) space to the building at his own prerogative. Committee members were not made aware of this; B&G Committee Chair was copied on an email from JCM to Cornell Coop Ext which made him aware of this fact. Much discussion has revolved around the ability of the site to accommodate the Aging program and parking issues; more discussion entailed locating (the Cornell Cooperative) programs in the basement of the now almost 35,000 square foot facility.
12/2/08 – B&G Committee meeting - A resolution was drafted by the Administrator for approval by the B&G Committee, provided in hard copy (the emailed agenda of 11/26 did not contain the resolution). Questions were raised as to the amount to be approved and the corresponding scope, and it was stated by the Administrator that is was for the final study provided to the B&G Committee at the same meeting. (The original draft resolution amount was for the 7/7 proposal amount of $158,800. Note that Administrator was on vacation the week of 7/7.) The resolution sent to the Legislature was revised to reflect the amount of work done to finish the study, which was approximately $90,000.
12/18/08 Legislature meeting, agenda item #8 pertaining to this was tabled and sent back to B&G Committee.
1/6/09 B&G Committee meeting - Committee voted to send the resolution back to the floor. Administrator felt he was within his responsibilities to have the consultants perform the work. Formal Legislature approval was not provided to the Committee.
1/8/09 - Mr. Loomis called Administrator and spoke with him at approximately 5:30 pm to discuss the situation. Administrator indicated that he had a handwritten note from Sue Morgan that shows copies of the proposal were provided to B&G and B&F Committee members. Mr. Loomis indicated that if the question was raised again regarding authorization that the Administrator will have to explain how the work was performed.
