Aging building / South Main Street Timeline

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 - 2^ND 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.

County Power and Chain of Command

Some of the issues surrounding the power and where it lies in Cortland County has to do with perception of who is running the ship. Some people believe that the Administrator carries the power; I do not. I never did, which I believe led to my removal as Chair of the Buildings and grounds Committee and re-assignment to Personnel.

This email follows some debate in regards to the Administrator considering the Clerk of the Legislature part of his staff. I felt that the title in itself was self-explanatory; the County Attorney validated my beliefs in a subsequent memo.

Here's an email I wrote to members of the Legislature on the matter:


date Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 4:30 PM
subject Administration

Good Afternoon friends-

I for one have been troubled since Thursday's Personnel meeting and the comments made related to the perceived structure of our County Government. I think some of the issues that we are experiencing have to do with the "chain of command", and who reports to whom. The article in last night's Cortland Standard pertaining to this prompted me to do a little research.

One doesn't have to travel far to look at how neighboring counties approach the County Administrator roles:
Tompkins County: http://www.tompkins-co.org/ctyadmin/
The County Administrator is responsible under the County Charter for ensuring that all Departments adhere to the policies of the Legislature. This is done through direct supervision of 24 Departments including Assessment, Human Rights, Mental Health, Office for the Aging, Planning, Public Health, Public Works, Personnel, Probation, Social Services, Youth Bureau, and more. Other County Departments report directly to the Legislature (Finance, County Attorney, Clerk of the Board); are accountable to the voters (County Clerk, District Attorney, Sheriff); or accountable to the political parties (Board of Elections). The Administrator maintains direct communication with these Departments and is responsible for ensuring that they, too, implement the policies of the Legislature.

ORG CHART - http://www.tompkins-co.org/ctyadmin/organizationchart.html

Also, St. Lawrence County ORG CHART - http://www.co.st-lawrence.ny.us/OrgChart.htm

I guess if we all agree we should ask for a more formal (written) ruling on this so we are all clear. I welcome your thoughts.

Thank you,
Chad

A Teaser - DMV Building Timeline

DRAFT DMV Building Timeline–

Below please find the timeline for the DMV Building. Each date has the corresponding type of meeting (B&G Committee, Legislature, etc.). The indented text that follows each date contains portions of the minutes that pertain to the DMV building project.

12/20/07 – Legislature meeting - Purchased the River street site (Resolution 374-07).

1/15/08 – B&G Committee meeting –

Discussion regarding the DMV project. Mr. Schrader indicated that we are able to compensate with the DMV being at the Courthouse by working around it. Ms. Tytler indicated that the State DMV requirements for a new facility are such things as License plates storage. They do not provide input regarding lay out and design. Mr. Williams would just like to see this project go forward. Members of the Committee requested that the Engineers be invited to next month’s meeting to discuss the DMV space. Mr. Schrader indicated that he will invite them.

2/12/08 – B&G Committee meeting –

Mr. Schrader indicated that he needs direction from the Committee as to how to design the new Department of Motor Vehicles Building. He indicated that they can use the existing agreement with Barton & Loguidice of which the County could contract for the development of the DMV building design or they could go out for RFP’s (Request For Proposal) for this design. Professional services do not have to go to bid. Time is an important issue. A RFP could take 90 days or more. We could get a fee schedule from Barton & Loguidice. Mr. Schrader indicated that we could use different firms for different projects. Mr. Williams commented that in a few years we are going to be having major construction and maybe going to a RFP would bring others on board. Mr. Schrader said that when we start the jail project we would go out to for RFP’s because that project is specialized. Ms. Price said that she would like to see the DMV project move forward. Mr. Waldbauer asked what the approximate cost would be. Mr. Schrader indicated that the cost is roughly between $100 and $150 a square foot and the design cost is 7% of that. Mr. Waldbauer agreed that we should get moving on this project. Mr. Loomis indicated that he is happy with Barton & Loguidice and Mr. Schrader commented that Joe Maryak is extremely good.

MOTION BY MR. WILLIAMS – 2^ND BY MR. HARTNETT TO DIRECT MR. SCHRADER TO TALK TO REPRESENTATIVES OF BARTON & LOGUIDICE REGARDING THE SIZE AND DESIGN OF A NEW DMV BUILDING – ALL PRESENT VOTING IN FAVOR – MOTION PASSES.

3/11/08 – B&G Committee Meeting – As part of discussions on the Aging project (DMV not specifically discussed) –

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 COB feasibility study is completed. Mr. Loomis asked that a report be submitted to this Committee in 2 months.

4/8/08 – B&G Committee Meeting –

Mr. Schrader provided proposal requested at the 2/12/08 B&G Committee meeting, and explained that this is a schematic design proposal only. The schematic design proposal would take 30 days. Mr. Schrader said that the closing date for the DMV property will be on or about July 1, 2008. The contract has been drafted and we are now waiting for Mr. Armideo’s attorney to review it. Mr. Schrader and Mr. Armideo went to the proposed site and walked around to agree upon the boundary lines for the parking. An environmental phase 1 with a history check will be completed and then an environmental phase 2 will be completed. Phase 2 consists of soil testing. There use to be an automotive shop at the site. Mr. Schrader does not see this as a big issue. If any clean-up is required, the County will receive 75% of state aid. Dan Dineen, Director of the County Planning Department will file for sub-division. B & L Engineering is aware that we would like a green building. Authorizing Specialized Services Agreement-Department of Motor Vehicles-Schematic Design – MOTION BY MR. SPAULDING – 2^ND BY MR. WILLCOX – ALL PRESENT VOTING IN FAVOR – MOTION PASSES

4/24/08 – Legislature Meeting - Authorized the Schematic design of the DMV (Resolution 128-08).

On motion of Mr. Loomis, second by Mr. Troy Agenda No. 8 was introduced. Ms. Tytler stated that the 2007 Ad Hoc Committee recommended that all documents be provided to the County in PDF format. Mr. Schrader said that we have a survey on this property on PDF form and we are doing that as part of our administrative policy and I can include it in the letter of commitment to this firm. Ms. Tytler added that a statement be included for follow up sessions for public forums. Mr. Schrader said he is sure they will do that at no cost and will also include it in the letter of commitment. Mr. Spaulding asked if the Port Watson address was correct. Mr. Schrader stated that the parcel is on the tax rolls as Port Watson however when sub division takes place it will formally be changed to River Street . With all members voting aye, Agenda No. 8 became Resolution No. 128-08 Authorizing Specialized Services Agreement Department of Motor Vehicles Schematic Design.

6/10/08- B&G Committee Meeting – DMV study presentation.

Mr. Maryak spoke about the DMV. He presented a drawing to demonstrate where we are on the project. They have looked at combining the DMV with the Elections Office. With the new guidelines for the storage of the new voting equipment, elections need over 2,500 square feet. DMV needs around 4,000 square feet. Therefore, they are looking at designing a 7,500 square foot building instead of a 6,000 square foot building. The projected parking spaces are approximately 75. Mr. Williams asked if these spaces will be segregated. Mr. Maryak indicated that the spaces could be segregated, however, consideration needs to be taken about snowplowing and clearing. Mr. Schrader indicated that the company that is currently plowing the parking lot will plow the County-owned parking spaces for free. The building on the diagram is shown at a project 7,500 square feet. Mr. Schrader indicated that he has a problem with the 50 feet setback the City is requiring for the building, but he will discuss that with the City. Mrs. Tytler asked if there will be a basement. Mr. Maryak responded that this will be on a concrete slab. He also indicated that there must be a loading dock in the building for the Elections Office. Mr. Williams asked about the storage of the voting machines – is the rack system still being considered? Mr. Maryak indicated that the voting machines themselves can be stacked, but remember there is additional equipment to be attached to the voting machine to provide a “booth” and to provide an actual ballot box. He also indicated that the papers that will be used for scanning for the ballot need to be maintained for a specific period of time. This storage space is included in the prospective plan. Mrs. Tytler asked if it is feasible to look at the AAA situation on South Main Street and could the machines be stored in the basement of that facility. Mr. Maryak indicated that it is feasible. Mrs. Tytler is concerned about using prime, first floor space for storage. Mr. Williams asked if there are storage considerations for the voting machines. The response was yes that there are temperature concerns, etc. Mr. Loomis asked Mr. Maryak where he felt the best location for storage of the voting machines is. Mr. Maryak indicated that he feels the machines should best be located with the Elections Office. Mr. Loomis asked what the next step is on DMV/Elections. Mr. Maryak indicated that if we go to the next step with the project, it is to actually design the space and meet with the departments involved (DMV, Elections). If both departments are included, it needs to be 7,500 square feet. If it is DMV only, then the building can be smaller. The County does own enough property to include both departments and to provide more than adequate parking. Mr. Spaulding stated that he feels that the committee needs to make a decision as to what departments are going to occupy the River Street building. Mr. Loomis asked how Elections moving out of the COB affects the master plan for the COB. Mr. Maryak indicated that it would free up valuable space. Mr. Willcox indicated that he is aware of a party that is interested in the Moose property that the County owns. He asked if it would be prudent to put a price on the building that would satisfy the taxpayers and provide the County some cash. Mrs. Price indicated that she feels we should hear the remainder of Mr. Maryak’s report and then could better make a decision.

Mr. Maryak spoke about the COB space plan update. He distributed a report on the Master Space Planning Project and reviewed it in detail with the committee. The primary conclusions were reviewed with the committee. Mr. Maryak indicated that he isn’t certain whether Buildings and Grounds actually belongs in an office building. He feels that Cooperative Extension, Public Health, and the Conflict Attorney could use their current space with a re-design of that space. Mr. Maryak also reviewed the “Personnel Forecast” and the “Summary of Space Projections”. Based on their projections, the need for increased space is now, there is not a projection for a large space increase in the next five years (2013). Mr. Maryak indicated that the real challenge is the building itself and the fact that it used to be a school.

6/19/08 – Special Meeting called by Chairman as there were various opinions on the final size to build the facility and what it should contain. These were listed as Resolutions 3, 4 and 5. Note that this meeting was called only 9 days after the B&G Committee received the COB Space planning study from JCM Associates; the entire Legislature had not seen the study. Based on this, B&G Committee Chair wrote a memo dated 6/19 requesting that the B&G Committee have another month to provide a recommendation to the Legislature.

Mr. Daniels entertained a motion for item number 1, which was for the sale of properties on South Main Street, also being considered at the Special Meeting. 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.

There was no decision made at that 6/19 meeting as to the final size of the building. Presentations were made of the DMV project and the Aging projects.

6/26/08 – Legislature Meeting –

On motion of Mr. Daniels, second by Mr. Cornell Agenda No. 4 was introduced. Mr. Tagliente said he is against a 7,500 or 6,500 building. It is obvious that there is space available for the Election Office at a different site. The 7,500 square foot building will cost taxpayers 1 million dollars; the 6,500 building ¾ million dollars more than we originally planned and urged legislators to stay with that plan. Mr. Willcox agreed. Mr. Waldbauer said this is different than the South Main Street proposal and seems to work for Elections and DMV people. He emphasized the need to store machines in a controlled environment. He urged support for this option. Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Tagliente citing the thorough study done that recommended the DMV move due to the Courthouse renovation project although he agrees that a master plan needs to be done. Ms. Arnold asked Mr. Loomis the rational for putting the larger footprint on this site. Mr. Loomis referred to the site plan map previously presented by Mr. Maryak citing the parking area; drive thru on River Street and election space. He stated that this all relates to the COB study revealing cramped space and asked Chairman Daniels to establish an ad hoc committee to study further areas of the COB space. Mr. Waldbauer asked for an explanation as to why DMV and Elections are compatible to be co located there. Mr. Howe spoke to the question saying that the motor-voter bill and statewide study recommended that DMV and Elections be together. It is necessary to test the machines on a monthly basis as well as a quarterly thorough rundown testing of the machines. Mr. Williams asked if there were any figures from last year that indicate that interaction. Mr. Howe said he didn’t have those numbers however the total registration for the County is 27,000. Ms. Larkin said that information was included in her annual report. They continued with incidences of their interaction. Mr. Tagliente stated that 2,500 square feet is needed for Elections and in terms of dollars to the taxpayer this does not justify the expansion at this site. Ms. Arnold said that putting Elections at the South Main Street site is not a sensible idea due to the high cost. Mr. Tagliente said there is space available in the basement for storage with elevators. Ms. Arnold questioned if we want to move these machines up and down via elevator. Roll Call was taken with Ms. Arnold, Mr. Cornell, Mr. Loomis, Mr. Piombo, Ms. Price, Mr. Spaulding, Mr. Troy, Ms. Tytler, Mr. Waldbauer, and Mr. Daniels voting aye and Mr. Dafoe, Mr. Hartnett, Mr. McKee, Mr. Ross, Mr. Steger, Mr. Tagliente, Ms. Wilcox, Mr. Willcox and Mr. Williams voting nay. Agenda No. 4 became Resolution No. 182-08 Engaging Barton and Loguidice and JCM Architectural Associates to Design and Prepare a Site Plan and Construction Drawings for a 7,500 Square Foot Building for the Department of Motor Vehicles on River Street.

Mr. Daniels pulled Agenda Nos. 5 and 6, Engaging Barton and Loguidice and JCM Architectural Associates to Design and Prepare a Site Plan and Construction Drawings for a 6,500 Square Foot Building for the Department of Motor Vehicles on River Street and Engaging Barton and Loguidice and JCM Architectural Associates to Design and Prepare a Site Plan and Construction Drawings for a 4,000 Square Foot Building for the Department of Motor Vehicles on River Street.

7/8/08 – B&G Committee Meeting – (Administrator not in attendance – on vacation)

Mr. Loomis informed the committee that he had received the drafts from Joe Maryak for the proposal for the Aging facility. 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 at 3:30 pm to discuss the draft Aging proposal. 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-

Mr. Loomis made a motion to receive and file a proposal from Barton & Loguidice for the design and construction of the DMV facility. A second was received from Mr. McKee.

Mr. Williams inquired what it meant to receive and file the report. Ms. Wilcox objected believing that doing so would lock the Legislature into spending roughly $153,000. Mr. Schrader explained that the motion would only be to receive and file the report. He stated that he was sure that Mr. Loomis would follow with a separate motion. Ms. Wilcox expressed a concern with the fact that the document had just been placed on their desks and there had been no opportunity to review it. Chairman Daniels informed the Legislature that if they approved this motion another motion would be made in order to discuss it. Mr. Williams stated that he had no problem receiving and filing the report as long as it did not encumber them. Chairman Daniels informed the Legislature that would not be. There was a unanimous vote to receive and file the report.

Mr. Loomis made a motion to accept the proposal and authorize the work laid out in the term agreement. He respectfully asked for a second in order to keep the project on track. A second was received from Mr. Cornell. Mr. Tagliente stated that he didn’t believe this should pass the full legislature with 2/3 votes, as it authorizes a 7.5 million building as opposed to others. He stated that the Legislature should be looking into all options and did not need a building of that size. Chairman Daniels informed them that the building size had already been voted on. Mr. Tagliente stated that when it comes down to money the proposal would have to pass with 2/3 votes. Mr. Schrader informed him that it only needs to be approved by simple majority because the money has already been set aside. Mr. Tagliente inquired why a 2/3 vote was needed for approval of the Health facility. Mr. Schrader replied that part of the approval was authorizing a bond for the construction costs. He explained that bonding for a facility requires a 2/3 vote. He informed the Legislature that money has already been set aside for the project through the Tobacco Reserve. Mr. Daniels asked for further explanation of the cost. Mr. Schrader stated there was an understanding that the facility would be built between $150-$200 per square foot. He stated that 7,500 square feet was the maximum for the building and predicted the actual square footage to be between 6,000-6,500 square feet. He stated that the reason for the lower square footage was that the voting machines took up less space than originally anticipated. He explained that the design phase services were a little high due to the request to make the facility a green facility. As a result, the engineering costs for the design would be increased. Ms. Tytler inquired if it would be a green building or a lead certified green building. Mr. Schrader responded it would be just a green building. Mr. Williams inquired if the proposal would return to committee and then to full legislature if the contract for the design were approved. Mr. Schrader said no. He explained that a resolution was passed by the Legislature at the last meeting directing that a proposal be brought to full legislature for approval, which is what has been placed on your desks. In regards to a contract, a contract has already been established with Barton & Loguidice. He explained that the contract was used to derive the proposal. He further stated that the fees that are delineated in the agreement have been used to draft the proposal. Mr. Williams inquired if by accepting this they would be approving the design. Mr. Schrader stated that construction documents would be created per the schedule. Mr. Williams asked if it was too late to stop the project or if the next time they would have any contact with the project would be when they went done to get their licenses. Mr. Schrader stated that the project had already begun, but that didn’t mean the Legislature could not stop the project. He stated there were still contracts that still needed to be approved by the Legislature per the attached timetable. He stated that if the Legislature felt that the bids came in too high or if they felt the bids were unacceptable, they would have the opportunity to change it. 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. Mr. Willcox inquired what the final size of the building was. He was unsure if it was going to be 7,500 square feet, 6,000 square feet or 4,000 square feet. Mr. Schrader replied the final design would be approves in August by full Legislature. Mr. Willcox asked if the 4,000 square foot building was no longer being considered. Mr. Schrader replied that was a correct statement. For Mr. Willcox’s clarification, he asked if the building cost would be 6,000 – 7,500 square foot multiplied by $200. Mr. Schrader stated that would be true. Ms. Wilcox inquired if the full Legislature would be voting on a resolution on August 28^th for the approval of the project and authorizing a contract for A & E. Mr. Schrader stated only if it was the wish of the Legislature. Ms. Tytler inquired what A & E was. Mr. Schrader responded that it stood for architectural and engineering. He said it basically would approve the final design and the project. Ms. Wilcox inquired if it would be before the project goes out to bid. Mr. Schrader stated that was correct. Ms. Wilcox stated that the Legislature would be approving spending $101,000 for the design and if they didn’t like the design the money would be gone. Mr. Loomis inquired what was not to like. Ms. Wilcox responded there was a lot not to like as they had not seen the design. Mr. Loomis informed her that the design had to be paid for in order to have the design created. He stated that the Legislature has agreed on the size and had the intent to the project forward. He stated that they have the responsibility to provide the tax payers with a green building that may cost a little more in design, but will save them in the long run. We have a building: that provides what the DMV needs and is a place that can house the Elections’ voting machines which is climate controlled. He stated that the design was a basically an open floor plan with some outlets. He did not foresee the building cost being escalated by the price of lights and outlets. He urged the Legislature to move forward so other progress could be made in other areas of the County and encouraged all to vote in favor. Chairman Daniels stated that in terms of a timeline it was predicted to have the facility built by June 1^st. He stated that the longer the wait to approve, the higher the cost will be. Mr. Willcox agreed; stated that under the last administration they were looking into a 4,000 square foot building that would cost $600,000, now they were at 1.5 million. 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 – Presentation on the project by the consultant (JCM Associates) in preparation of public meeting. Site, floor plans and space layouts were discussed.

It was noted that Mr. Willcox asked if the costs for construction still were estimated at $200 per square foot. Mr. Maryak stated that he will know better in a few days as the design work moves forward.

8/20/08 - A public meeting was held at the CCOB Auditorium to disseminate the schematic design of the DMV/BOE project in conjunction with the Aging building.

9/9/08 - B&G Committee meeting - An open meeting was held with the consultant and the Legislature in Legislature chambers to present the nearly completed design drawings.

Mr. Loomis directed any specific comments or concerns to himself or Mr. Schrader’s attention. He stated that the concerns will be sent back to the consultant for review and consideration. He discussed an addendum if need and it taking two weeks if one was needed. He stated that if a concern or question does arise, please bring it the attention of himself or Mr. Schrader quickly so they can stay on schedule.

9/30/08 - The project drawings were finalized and advertised for bids. Copies were provided to the Legislature for review in the Administration office.

10/1/08 - During the final design completion, B&G Chairman offered comments to the consultants that were to clarify conflicts on the drawings and request design clarification. They were reviewed via conference call and the consultant expressed gratitude to correct the discrepancies. This call did not delay the issuance of the Addendum or the receipt of bids.

10/3/08 - B&G Chairman received an email from Chairman regarding interaction with the consultants. B&G Chairman called the Chairman to discuss and was reprimanded for “overstepping bounds” in the Chairman’s opinion. B&G Chairman indicated that he did not feel that way, and it had no impact on the final product other than making them more coordinated and easier to bid by contractors. Correcting discrepancies and inaccuracies on the drawing would reduce additional change orders and cost in the field.

10/7/08 - B&G Committee Meeting –

Mr. Loomis reminded the committee that the opening of bids for the DMV project was to be held Friday Oct. 10 at 2 p.m. Mr. Willcox asked about the funding of the project. Mr. Schrader said the money came from the Tobacco Fund. Between $500,000 and $750,000 should be left over after the project is complete. Mr. Williams asked if the county would be better off bonding for a portion of the project and using more Tobacco money for other projects. Mr. Schrader said the county will not beat the interest rate it is currently getting on the Tobacco funds by bonding for money. Mr. Loomis asked if the River Street properties have been closed on yet. Mr. Schrader said no, but that one of the buildings has been demolished, and the other one will be down soon, and will be down before the property is acquired. Mr. Willcox asked if Phase 1 of the Environmental process has been done. Mr. Schrader said yes, it has been delivered to Mr. Armideo’s attorney, who is responsible for presenting it to the County Attorney’s Office. Mr. Schrader said Phase One did not determine a Phase Two Environmental Review was necessary.

10/10/08 - Bids were opened, and were found to be higher than anticipated. As the October7 B&G Committee meeting date was missed by three days, the Administrator recommended that the bids be reviewed at the November 7 B&G Committee meeting. B&G Chairman requested more information from the consultant in the interim as to cost comparison for discussion by the Committee.

10/14/08 – Email from consultant to Administrator regarding the bids-

Scott
Even thought the project bids came in within 3% of the B&L estimate (pretty good in this volatile economic times) there were some big ticket items that surprised me in terms of their costs when we were developing the documents. If you want to rebid and consider a September-October 2009 opening inlieu of June and let the contractor choose whether he works over the winter you could consider the follow:
1. Omit the drive thru and associated site work(this would be only the 2nd DMV drive thru in the state)...save +/-$100,000
2. Omit the skylights and associated roof work and increased number of roof drains...save +/-$100,000
3. Remove the FFE package from the contractor's price and pay for it with other funds...remove $90,000
4. We could tweak the finish packages and the electrical lighting package and save +/-$25,000
Even thought it will cost to have B&L rebid, it may be worth the reductions. The total bid package could be closer to $1,800,000. We would need a week to 10 days to modify the drawings.
Just some food for thought.
Joe

10/14/08 – Email from consultant to B&G Chairman in response to comparative costs; cc provided to Chairman, Administrator and B&G Superintendent-

RS Means reports that the average office building construction type of steel frame and masonry veneer built in Central New York in 2007 ranged from $185 to $225 per square foot for the building proper. If we look at the total of the contracts bid last week they total approximately $294 per square foot. In that number are the following attributed costs that are normally not a part of the building costs;

1. Furniture, fixture, equipment and contingencies of $17/ sf

2. Site work of $53/sf

Subtract the above 2 items and the building square foot cost drop to $224/sf. That puts the project on the high end of the average spectrum.

However we have 2 items that are not common to the average office building construction, the drive thru and the skylight system. Based upon the bid breakdown these 2 components account for approximately $28/sf of costs. Subtract those costs from the total and the approximate building square foot cost drops to $196/sf. Well within the average of the 2007 reported market. We had hoped to be closer to the $185/sf low end.

Joe

10/16/08 – Bid tabulation and recommendation letter sent from consultant.

11/7/08 – B&G Committee Meeting –

Mr. Loomis introduced Mr. Mason and Mr. Lotito for Barton and Loguidice to discuss the next step in the DMV project. Mr. Lotito said the approximate cost of the four bids came to about $2.1 million. Mike said that B&L has worked with Joe Marioch about eliminating some aspects of the building that could reduce the costs. Mr. Daniels asked what the original estimate was for the project. Mr. Lotito said it was about $2 million. Mr. Willcox asked about the original estimates for a 4,000 square-foot building. Mr. Lotito said that estimate was around $1.4 million. Mr. Willcox asked how that number was estimated. Mr. Lotito said that they considered the cost of site development and the cost per square foot. Mr. Mason said that in this region and at this time of the year the average costs are between $180 to $220 per square foot. About a year ago the costs were much less, around $150 to $175 per square foot. Mr. Mason said material costs lag behind energy costs by about three months, and when this project was bid, material costs were at a peak. If the project were re-bid now, or in the spring, he would expect bids to be a bit lower with lower material costs. Mr. Mason said there are two different approaches to take. The first is scaling back the existing design, or a new design with a smaller building. Mr. Mason said there are three major items that could be reduced with the existing design, and they are eliminating the drive-through, which could save about $100,000, eliminating the day-lighting windows, which could save another $100,000 and substituting other interior materials like tiling and detail work, that could cut about another $100,000. This would bring the project cost around $1.8 million. Mr. Loomis pointed out that the $100,000 reduction is based on material costs now. Mr. Loomis talked about the potential cost savings of working during the summer months, rather than through the winter. Mr. Mason said that is difficult to calculate, depending on weather any type of heat the contractors use, but there would be some cost savings. Mr. Mason said relaxing the time frame for completion could also save some money. Mr. Mason said another alternative is to look at an entirely different, smaller building, just for the DMV, around 4,700 square feet, with different structural aspects, and a shorter life-span. An estimate for a project like that would be around $1.3 million. A re-design of a smaller building, there could be the potential for the Board of Elections to have a bid-alternate attached to the DMV building, which would push the price up, perhaps into the $1.4 million range. Ms. Larkin asked about how much money the county would save with the green incentives proposed in the design. Mr. Mason said this design is not meant to save money, but be more environmentally friendly, and it would be a 15-20 year payback on savings. Mr. Walbauer asked what the practical value of the drive through is. Ms. Larkin said there is only one other drive through in New York State, in St. Lawrence County, and that their drive through is kept busy, and that it is a convenience for constituents, and has the potential to be a revenue stream. Mr. Hartnett asked if there was a monetary value that could be provided of increased revenue by the drive through. Ms. Larkin said she did not have that number. Mr. Daniels asked about using different materials that could save on costs. Mr. Mason said that “quick and dirty” buildings are more commercial-type buildings and have a shorter, 30-year life-span. Mr. Waldbauer asked what Mr. Schrader’s opinion was. Mr. Schrader said he suggests rejecting all the bids as too high, and re-bidding in the spring to get better prices. He also suggested getting rid of some of the non-essential aspects of the building, like the day-lighting and the drive through, and that the drive-through would not generate the $100,000 that it would cost to create it. Mr. Schrader went on to say that if the costs don’t change, he is not sure the Board of Elections portion of the building should be constructed at all, as the county is now leasing space cheaper than it could ever build the space. Mr. Willcox said that with the cost of the property, and the design costs the price per square foot is closer to $400. Mr. Lotito said the $2.1 million only reflects the site-development costs, which is about $235,000. Mr. Schrader said the cost of the site-work is also too high. Mr. Willcox said that if the county did not already have $300,000 committed to the project, he would like to ask the private sector to complete the job. Mr. Schrader said that would save money, but the county is legally prohibited from doing that. Mr. Williams mentioned that there was previously discussion about renting or leasing space for DMV. Mr. Schrader said that project would not be eligible to use Tobacco Fund money. Mr. Williams said Tobacco Money could be used for other things. Mr. Schrader said if the county did that, the count would have to abandon the current site and the engineering costs. Mr. Schrader said he thought a 30-year building would suffice for this project. Ms. Larkin said the property has not yet been closed on, and the Mr. Armideo’s original offer was to building a building and lease it to the county. Mr. Loomis said that would come right out of the budget, not the Tobacco fund. Mr. Willcox asked if the county still had the option to lease space. Mr. Schrader said yes, but not on this property, because the county would be circumventing state law and trade unions would not allow it. Ms. Arnold asked about a smaller drive-through. Mr. Lotito said yes, that could save some money in a re-design. Mr. Ross said he would be against even a $50,000 drive through, when a drop-box could work just as well. Ms. Larkin said that the drop-boxes currently in use work well, but do not provide receipts. Mr. Willcox said he would like to see the cost of leasing the property from someone that would build to suit, with an option to buy. Mr. Schrader said finding a new site, a contract and term of a lease, another two years will have passed, and leasing with an option to buy is just like adding another 15 percent to the price. Mr. Loomis said that Cornell University has instituted a 90-day moratorium on building projects due to the costs of building materials, and recommended re-bidding in the spring. Mr. David Hartnett asked that the committee build a building that will last more than 20 to 30 years, as was first designed. Mr. Tom Hartnett made a motion to reject the bids. The motion was seconded by Mr. Spaulding. All members voted Aye and the motion was approved. Mr. Piombo made a motion to re-bid in the fall, with cost saving reductions, pending a proposal from Barton and Loguidice on the cost of a redesign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hartnett. Mr. Waldbauer asked how much the redesign would cost. Mr. Dean said it would cost less than $50,000. All members voted in favor, except Mr. Willcox. Mr. Williams made a motion for Barton and Loguidice to bring a proposal to the committee for the costs of a redesign for a scaled-down, smaller building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tom Hartnett. All members voted in favor and the motion passed.

11/20/08 - Legislature meeting - Legislature voted to reject the DMV bids (Resolution 332-08).

Motion made by Mr. Loomis. Seconded by Mr. Troy. Mr. Tagliente asked about the status of the DMV project, and where the voting machines are being stored. Mr. Schrader said the Buildings & Grounds Committee is looking at scaling back the scope of the building, and are getting proposals from the engineers. Mr. Schrader said the current proposal is to go back out to bid in the spring with a scaled back project, including cutting the skylights, a re-design of the roof and possibly eliminating the drive through, and drainage issues. He said that the voting machines are being housed in the basement of the CareerWorks building on Main Street that the county already leases. Mr. Tagliente questioned the size of the building. Mr. Schrader said the proposals are still for the same size building. Ms. Price said she thought it was excellent judgment to reject the bids. Mr. Waldbauer asked if the voting machines could be left at the CareerWorks building indefinitely. Mr. Schrader said yes, as the lease continues for another four years. All members present voting in favor; none opposed.

12/2/08 - B&G Committee meeting - the two proposals for the two options were reviewed and extensively discussed. The decision was made to proceed with a 7500 square foot reduced scope building (redesign proposal cost $35,000), following the decision of the Legislature on 7/26/08.

Mr. Dean Mason of Barton & Loguidice said that he has evaluated some cost savings measures and distributed a copy of these to the committee. (see attached). He said implementing these suggested measures would drop the price of the building to about $1.75 million, based on bid prices received. He said there may be additional savings if commodity prices go down. He said if the committee wanted to build the 4,500 square-foot building, the design would include the same cost reductions, and would be an estimated $1.3 million. Mr. Willcox asked what these costs estimated per square foot. Mr. Mason said it was about $200 per square foot. Mr. Loomis pointed out there was about $200,000 in allowances in the project as well, for signage and contingency. Mr. Loomis asked what can be done as alternates in a re-bidding process, and needs to be redesigned. Mr. Mason said most interior reductions could be done as alternates, but most exterior items need to be redesigned, and both plans would have to be included in the re-bidding process. Mr. Waldbauer asked if there was a potential revenue increase from the drive-through. Mr. Schrader said no, it was merely for convenience, but that the county clerk might disagree. Mr. Willcox asked about the cost of a redesign. Mr. Mason said the redesign for a 7,100 square foot building was $35,000, and the design for a 4,500 square foot would be about $85,500. Ms. Tytler asked what the original estimate of the building costs, and what the bids actually came in at. Mr. Mason said the two numbers were within three percent. The original estimate was $2 million, and the bids came in at $2.06 million. Mr. Maryak said it will take between two to three months for the re-design, and to get the best pricing the county should re-bid in March or April. Ms. Tytler asked by making the proposed changes if the durability of the building is being compromised, and if that would impact maintenance. She said she would like to leave the curbing in the project. Mr. Maryak said exterior pre-cast panels is just an aesthetic change, and would not change the life of the building. Interior changes, like the porcelain tiles with vinyl tiles, will have a reduced durability. Mr. Mason said the plan for this building is for a 50-year lifespan. He said a cheaper building could certainly be built, but it would be exactly that, a cheaper building with a shorter lifespan. Mr. Mason said he would not recommend reducing the curbing for maintenance reasons. Mr. Maryak said the biggest savings will be in eliminating the skylights, which will result in reduced costs in roof drains as well. Mr. Waldbauer asked if it would be practical to re-bid the building exactly as it is, as well as re-bid the new package with re-designs. Mr. Maryak said eliminating the skylights is a major re-design, and all the other options could be included as alternates in a re-designed bid package. He said that while re-bidding in the spring should save money due to commodity pricing, it will not save enough to build a $1.5 million building. Mr. Loomis said there seems to be about a $400,000 cost difference between the two buildings. He said cutting the gap between the buildings will include a $50,000 cost in engineering fees, the cost of leasing space for election machines at $20,000 per year, which over 5 years is $100,000. Mr. Willcox said if the county had leased a building for DMV it would be open already. Mr. Waldbauer said he would like to re-bid in the spring with the suggested cuts as alternates. Mr. Loomis asked how the fees addressed using alternates. Mr. Mason said the estimated fees were based on incorporating the suggested cuts into a redesign. He said while using them as alternates is a possibility, but that the skylights is a major aspect that needs to be redesigned. Ms. Tytler asked if there were any internal spaces that do not have windows, where the skylights were the source of natural lighting. Mr. Maryak said yes. Ms. Tytler noted that the staff lunch room would have no natural lighting, and she did not think this was a good idea, and suggested the possibility of a transom to allow natural light throughout the building. Mr. Miller said he would like the curbing to remain in for snow removal and summer maintenance. Ms. Tytler said that there were specific reasons that the county clerk wanted a drive through and that the company should not cut it from the project without input from Betsy Larkin. Mr. Loomis asked if the committee agreed to have the building redesigned eliminating the skylights and subsequent drainage, and leaving the other suggestions as alternates in the re-bidding process. He referred to the hand out and said the Mr. Maryak noted that if the bids are going to have that many alternates, it could make for a complicated process when the bids are awarded. He said the county will have to prioritize which alternates are the most important and award the bids in that manner. Mr. Loomis noted that there is time to do that, and said he thought the drive-through would be the last alternate to be accepted. Mr. Loomis asked about when the final bid package could be expected by the committee. Mr. Maryak said bids should be received around the first of April, and that re-designed plans could be expected by the first part of February. Mr. Schrader said a resolution could be drafted to authorize Barton & Loguidice to re-design the building with these recommendations. Mr. Schrader said previous resolutions have already directed this committee to carry out these actions, but being that there is a change in scope of the project it would be a better practice to have the full legislature once again bless the actions of the committee. Mr. Spaulding made a motion to forward a resolution for the Dec. 18 meeting to approve the $35,000 re-design proposal, as well as the cost reductions eliminating the skylights and including the other items as alternates. Seconded by Mr. Piombo. All members voting in favor. None opposed.

12/18/08 – Legislature Meeting - The B&G Committee meeting information and resolution was brought forward, debated on the floor of the Legislature. Legislature authorized the 7500 square foot redesign in the amount of $35,000 (Resolution 366-08).

Mr. Wilcox said a large amount of money has already been spent on the design of this project. Mr. Loomis said poor timing of the bid process lead to the county rejecting the bids, and this resolution allows for a reduced cost to the overall facility. He also said re-bidding in the spring has the potential to save the county money with a reduction in material costs. Mr. Daniels asked about the price of redesigning for a smaller building. Mr. Loomis said that has already been provided, and the cost for redesigning to a 4,000-square-foot facility would be about $85,000. Mr. Troy said that in the past he supported a larger building, but that now the legislature should be considering a smaller building. Mr. Loomis said the consultant said the difference in costs of actual construction between the 4,000 and 7,500 square-foot building is about $400,000. Ms. Wilcox made a motion to table the resolution and send it back to committee to consider. Seconded by Mr. Willcox. A roll-call vote was taken. All members voting against the motion to table, except Mr. Tagliente, Ms. Wilcox, Mr. Willcox and Mr. Williams. The motion to table failed.

Chairman Daniels called the vote on the resolution as it stands. All members present voting in favor, except for Mr. Willcox, Mr. Dafoe, Mr. Tagliente and Ms. Wilcox. The motion was approved

1/6/09 - B&G Committee meeting - it was again discussed to delay the DMV building due to confusion by the Administrator and some Committee members over the final size of the building and associated costs. At that time Resolution 366-08 was obtained by the Clerk of the Legislature and read for the Committee. Decision was made to proceed with Resolution 366-08 as was authorized. Discussion ended.

Note that corrections shall be recommended to be made to the minutes as noted below:

Mr. Loomis asked the committee their thoughts on the project as it stands. Mr. Schrader stated that the county as paid about $130,000 for the design of a 7,500 square-foot “green” building with a drive through. Mr. Hartnett asked if the Tobacco Money earmarked for this project could be used for bridges and roads. Mr. Schrader said that it could be used for bridges, but not roads. Mr. Hartnett asked if it was too late to consider renting property to house the DMV, and use the money for bridge repair. Mr. Schrader explained that there would be a capital cost associated with renting as well because there would not be an available building in move-in condition for the DMV. Mr. Daniels mentioned the possibility of reducing costs by building a lighter-frame building, though that would also reduce the life of the building. Mr. Williams said that for the purpose of a DMV building he agrees that a light-frame construction would be fine. Ms. Arnold asked about the long-term costs of building and owning a building, versus renting a building for 20 or 30 years. Mr. Schrader noted that this work and analysis had already been done by a DMV Ad-Hoc Committee. Mr. Williams asked what the revenue stream figures are for the DMV. Mr. Schrader said that there is about $200,000 in revenue per year. Ms. Wilcox said she would like to review the proposal from Mr. Armideo to build a building and lease it on River Street. Mr. Schrader LOOMIS told the committee the ASKED THE COMMITTEE WHY WE APPEARED TO BE REVISITING THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THE PROJECT VIABILITY ITSELF AS THE legislature had already voted on all of this at the December 18 meeting. Mr. Schrader indicated that he thought the Committee had been asked to revisit the 4,000 square foot building by Mr. Wilcox, which is why he did not sign the contract to proceed with the 7500 square foot building redesign after the last Legislature meeting. Mr. Loomis asked to have the Resolution provided. Mr. Boylan provided the committee with a copy of Resolution No. 366-08, “Authorizing Barton & Loguidice to Redesign Cortland County DMV Project.” Mr. Schrader asked the committee for further approval to sign the contract referenced in Resolution 366-08. Mr. Waldbauer made a motion to authorize Mr. Schrader to sign the contract. Mr. Piombo seconded the motion. Legislators Loomis, Waldbauer, Piombo and Williams voting in favor. Legislators Hartnett, Spaulding and Willcox voting against. The motion carried.

The B&G Committee was always proceeding at the direction and the will of the Legislature to complete the project with the best long term goals and lowest cost to the residents of Cortland County.

I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

Election season is coming! Although I have moved and changed Legislative Districts, I still know what's going on... and you can too.

You won't believe it, and you need to become active. Power in numbers, action in voices.

Check back for the NEWS and the REAL TRUTH.