Cortland County Buildings & Grounds Committee

 

Minutes

7/8/08

7:30 AM

courthouse Room 305

 

 

 

Meeting called by

Mr. Loomis @ 7:40 AM

 

Type of meeting

Regular Committee

 

committee Members present

Chad Loomis , Chairman; Gene Waldbauer; Tom Williams; Tony Piombo; Don Spaulding ; Newell Willcox

 

attendees

John Daniels , Legislative Chairman; Dennis Whitt , County Auditor; Brian Parker , B & G Supervisor; Annette Barber , Personnel; Mark Suben, County Attorney; Sandy Price, Majority Leader;

Carol Tytler , Legislator LD3; Dave Hartnett, District Attorney; Brianne Parker, Secretary I; Eric Mulvihill, WXHC; Evan Geibel, Cortland Standard; Brian Noteboom, Empire State Regional Council of Carpenters Representative

 

not present

Tom Hartnett, Legislator; Scott Schrader , County Administrator

 

Mr. Willcox moved for the adoption of the June 10, 2008 minutes as printed.

 Seconded by Mr. Spaulding

 All members in voting favor, none opposed; minutes approved as printed.

 

Agenda topics

 

Resolution ~ Buildings and Grounds

 No. 1 Abolish/Create

B&G Department Assistant Superintendent of B&G/ Building Maintenance Foreperson

 

Discussion

Mr. Loomis moved for the adoption of the resolution; seconded by Mr.

 

Spaulding.

Mr. Loomis stated that he had previously discussed what was being proposed with Mr. Willcox.  Mr. Loomis asked Ms. Barber to be present to elaborate on the position. 

Ms. Barber started by giving a brief history of the position.  She explained that in 2005, the chairman at that time had requested that the position be more administrative in nature.  Since then the position has been vacated twice.  Each time the discussion was had on whether or not to make the position more of a worker or leave it as an administrative position.  During the last discussion, it was taken into consideration the amount of projects the department was currently working on and what projects would arise in the future.  It was deemed that the position needed to be that more of a worker.  Therefore, leaving the administrative piece solely to Mr. Parker.  Ms. Barber then stated that the position was competitive.

Mr. Willcox then questioned why the individual would be compensated like that of a management position if the new position would be more of a worker. 

Ms. Barber explained that the new position would be similar to the position of the Landfill Operations Supervisor.  Whoever holds the position would be responsible for assigning projects, providing direction and planning.  The individual would need to be compensated for those duties.

Mr. Willcox inquired as to whether or not the new position would better serve the department. 

Ms. Barber stated that after considering all the projects of the department that it would be better to have someone in the field at all times.

Mr. Willcox asked if the individual would be supervising the CSEA members. 

To which Ms. Barber replied yes. 

Mr. Willcox then stated that it would be more like a “fox guarding a hen house.”

Mr. Loomis asked Mr. Parker for his opinion as to whether he thought it would better suit the department. 

Mr. Parker stated that it would better serve the department, but would not like to get into the specifics of why the position was vacant.

Ms. Tytler inquired whether or not the position would be a cost savings to the county.

Mr. Parker and Ms. Barber both responded that it would be although not significant.

Mr. Loomis asked what the timeline would be to fill the position. 

Mr. Parker stated that the position would not be created until July 24th. 

Ms. Barber included that the position would have to be posted and would be provisional on the individual passing the Civil Service exam.

Mr. Willcox inquired about what the process would have to be, if in case the new position did not work out, to change back to the current situation. 

Mr. Daniels responded by stating that it would be similar to what was being proposed today.  It would need to be in resolution form.

Ms. Barber added that they would also have to meet with the CSEA union.

Ms. Tytler inquired whether there would be a probationary period and if so how long would it be. 

Mr. Parker replied that there would be a probationary period and it would last 8-26 weeks. 

Ms. Barber corrected him by stating that due to the recent changes in the Civil Service regulations, the probationary period would be 8-52 weeks if the individual were hired from outside the county, if the individual received the position, as a promotion then the probationary period would be 8-26 weeks. 

 

 

 

Conclusions

Mr. Loomis called for a vote after it was decided there was no need

 

for further discussion on the topic.  The resolution was passed with all members voting aye; Mr. Willcox voting nay.  Motion carried.

 

 

 

Discussion ~ Cortlandville Training Facility Update

 

Discussion

Mr. Loomis asked Mr. Parker to give an update on the Cortlandville

 

Training Facility. 

Mr. Parker began with the main room of the facility.  He stated that the security door installed, walls are painted, floors are carpeted, HVAC unit is operational, and the ceiling lights have been installed.  Mr. Parker stated that the downstairs had some walls painted, but they still needed to install electrical outlets, circuits, heaters and then they would paint their way out of the room.  Mr. Parker informed the committee that he had received guidelines to install a handi-capped bathroom from Access to Independence of Cortland County, Inc. and the bathroom had been approved.  The sub-walls and flooring had been installed in the bathroom.  He stated that the inside walls and plumbing fixtures would be installed today.  Mr. Parker also stated that the Cortlandville Fire Department had requested additional painting to be done.  These special requests would extend the process.  He projected a 2 to 3 week completion date. 

Mr. Loomis questioned whether the 2 to 3 weeks projected completion date would account for the entire building. 

Mr. Parker informed the committee and Mr. Loomis that as of his knowledge that would be true, but it is inevitable that things come up.  He gave the example of a request to install a humidifier and a heater in the record room.  Mr. Parker did state that there has been a continued good working relationship between the department and the center.

Mr. Loomis inquired about the cost of the project and how it corresponded with the budget. 

Mr. Parker stated that the workers were under 1,000 man hours, but did not know the total cost of the project without going through the individual bills.  Mr. Parker also informed the committee that the project is spread over two Budget cycles, which would take time to review to get the correct cost of the project.

 

 

 

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion ~ CCOB NYPA Energy Audit

 

 

 

Discussion

Mr. Loomis asked for an update on the energy audit.

Mr. Parker began by inquiring whether or not the committee had received the e-mail, which he had sent them regarding the update.  He stated that the e-mail basically stated that the calculations have been completed and will begin contacting suppliers/venders for pricing on the equipment.  New York Power Authority will then review that information.  After the review is completed they will forward the information to this committee for review.  Mr. Parker indicated that the following projects would be included: update lighting in all buildings, replacement of the boiler in the Court House and the County Office Building ; update the HVAC system in the County Office Building , Public Safety building, and the Court House.

Mr. Loomis stated that there is a push because once the space is redesigned, can apply for funding. 

Mr. Parker stated that it had been indicated at a previous time that the lighting portion of the project could be done in-house.  He stated that if that was what the committee decided he was fine with it, but wanted the committee to be aware that the department had many other projects already scheduled.

Mr. Loomis stated that the lighting could be retrofitted in much less than a month.  He inquired when the project would start.

Mr. Parker replied that it could be possible to start in a couple weeks. 

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

Discussion ~ 5 Year Maintenance Plan

Discussion

Mr. Loomis introduced the discussion on the 5-year Buildings &

Grounds maintenance plan.  He asked the committee to recall that Mr. Parker had given them the preliminary information in January.  Mr. Loomis stated that it was asked that Mr. Parker develop the plan in conjunction with Mr. Schrader.  The plan would lie out what the cost might be and prioritize the work so it could be completed over a 5-year span.  Mr. Loomis wondered if there would be any monies available through grant funding or resources available to offset the costs.  He informed the committee that Mr. Waldbauer had spoken with Ann Hodgkins at Thoma.  Stated that Ann had indicated a possibility for the historic renovations/restorations to receive funding.  Then, he asked Mr. Waldbauer to elaborate about the conversations that he had with Thoma.

Mr. Waldbauer informed the committee that there is a 50/50 match if it’s a historical building and the work being done on the building could potentially impact the historical significance.  Stated that it could either be done the wrong way or the right way, usually the right way costs more.  He informed the committee that the grant application process for this year recently expired so all funding that is applied for would be utilized in future years.

Ms. Tytler inquired if it would include the facade of the County Office Building .

Mr. Waldbauer replied that he had specifically inquired about that, but there is no funding available, but it is included in the 5-year plan.

Mr. Loomis informed the committee that he would be meeting with Thoma and offered an invitation to join him to any committee member.  He stated that they are in a retainer with the city.  Thoma used to charge by month and then take a percentage of the grant funding.  He stated that since then the rules had changed and was unsure how it was processed. 

Mr. Daniels stated that it is usually by contract.

Mr. Parker believed that the money came out of the grant. 

Ms. Tytler agreed with Mr. Parker.  She stated that Thoma has definitely worked for the city via contracts for specific projects.

Mr. Loomis stated that it would be an advantage for some of our historic renovation projects.  He stated that Mr. Parker had indicated the following costs for updates: $75,000.00 to replace the Court House steps; $50,000.00 for the dome.  That would be $125, 00.00 in renovations that would have to be paid for.  The project is out a ways in regards to timeframe, but it would be good to get into the grant cycle.  It could be a possibility to receive funding for these projects.  He stated that he would like to sit down in a month or two to start the discussions and again offered an invitation to the committee members to join him. 

Mr. Waldbauer asked Mr. Parker if there was anything lese he would put into his 5-year plan.

Mr. Parker replied that if the Audit came through, there wasn’t anything he could think of.  He did state that there could be a possibility that some roofs would have to be replaced.  There are shingled sections of the Court House and the Public Safety building roof that will need to be replaced as the roofs are approaching their 10-year life.  They were originally 20-year life roofs.  The replacement may still be 5 to 10 years out yet.

Mr. Waldbauer inquired about the lighting in the Court House building.

Mr. Parker informed him and the committee that they have been retrofitting the lights with T-8 lights as they are renovating.  He stated that it was not only this area, but also all the spaces the department is renovating.  Mr. Parker stated that by piecemeal the department was getting there.

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

Discussion ~ Courthouse Report

Discussion

Mr. Loomis introduced the discussion on the Court House reports.

He stated that Mr. Hartnett had been working with Joe and developed some options that have been distributed to renovate and consolidate the space.  He inquired if Mr. Hartnett had any concerns.

Mr. Hartnett replied that he did not have any concerns.  Informed the committee that they had gone back and forth in discussions.  He stated that two weeks ago he had a nice meeting with Amy Daley to relay any concerns he might have had.  He stated that he was not sure where his project was on JCM’s priority list. 

Mr. Loomis informed Mr. Hartnett that if he had any questions or concerns to let him know.   

 

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

Discussion ~ Departmental Reports

Discussion

Mr. Loomis asked for the presentation of the Departmental Reports.

 

Mr. Parker asked the committee if they had received his report.

Mr. Waldbauer informed the committee that the report was on the front table if they had not received it. 

Mr. Parker said he would run through the report.  He asked Mr. Waldbauer if he had any questions about it since he had the document. 

Mr. Waldbauer asked what the Rabies Clinic was.

Mr. Parker stated that it was a free rabies clinic held at the County Office Building every year.  He continued that in June he had three days with full staff.  He stated that the custodial staff had done daily cleaning at the Court House, Horizon House and Recycling.  The custodian staff assisted with the moving prep downstairs and the DA’s office.  They also supplied some of the cleaning supplies for the 4th of July celebration.  The HVAC staff maintained working order of the system.  The maintenance staff has been out to the Cortlandville Training Center , but also managed to complete 54 work orders.  The staff also kept the lawns mowed, conducted generator test, and moved voting machines.  Mr. Parker informed the committee that the new voting machines are here and located at 99 Main Street .  He stated that the Election Commissioners have expressed a concern with the room being too humid.  Pete Fowler, the HVAC technician, conducted a test and recorded the humidity ranges at the facility to range from 42% to 54% at a constant temperature of 70 degrees because the air conditioning was running.  Mr. Parker stated that he had reviewed Sequoia specifications; according to those the humidity in the room cannot be above 85%.  He stated that 32 degrees Fahrenheit to 104 degrees Fahrenheit is acceptable with an exception of minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the short term.  He is expecting when moving the machines in November there might be an instance when the temperature is lower than 32 degrees Fahrenheit.  He stated that he had reported this information to Mr. Schrader.

Mr. Loomis questioned if there was enough power in the room.

Mr. Parker responded that the room was on a separate box.  He stated that they needed two 20-amp breakers for all the machines.

Mr. Waldbauer stated that the climate that Mr. Parker had described didn’t sound like it needed any climate control. 

Mr. Parker stated that according to the information that he received, there are monthly and quarterly tests.  Understand that if it is 90 degrees outside and the humidity is high that there are still people working within the building.  He stated that for staff comfort and the machines climate control would be necessary.

Ms. Tytler asked Mr. Parker to clarify his lack of staff for the month of June. 

Mr. Parker responded that the absences were a variety of things ranging from vacation to illnesses.

Ms. Tytler wanted to make sure Mr. Parker had adequate staff.

Mr. Loomis inquired how large Mr. Parker’s staff is.

Mr. Parker replied that he had a total of 18 individuals on his staff.

Ms. Tytler inquired who authorized the vacation time and whether the absences impacted work completed.

Mr. Parker responded that he authorized the time and tries not to let the absences impact the work, but usually a day before a holiday and after a holiday there are usually not a lot of people in the building.  Then there are cases in which the employee has called in or has had a family emergency, which he has no control over.

Mr. Loomis inquired about the bus shelter.

Mr. Parker projected completion to be towards the end of the month, but the concrete is currently still in curing stages. 

________________________________________________________________________________

Ms. Tytler inquired about the closing process for the DMV site.

Mr. Parker stated that he could not answer.

Mr. Daniels stated that he had a conversation with Liz Burns.   She had said that the owner of the property was out of the country.  Therefore testing could not be completed.  It is expected to happen mid August.

________________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Loomis inquired about the status of the Elm Street property. 

Mr. Suben stated that they are in the process.  They have received the appraisal; just received the abstracts back and plan to proceed. 

Mr. Parker inquired if the offer was approved by the legislature.

Mr. Suben stated that the offer had to be approved before they could move forward.

________________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

Discussion/Resolution ~ Celtic Festival (not on original agenda)

Discussion

Mr. Loomis informed the committee that there was a late entry to the

agenda.  He stated that Mr. Parker had brought him a letter regarding the use of the Court House park for the Celtic Festival.  Mr. Loomis then read the letter, which requested permission for the Celtic Festival to use the Court House park August 22nd, 23rd, and 24th. 

Mr. Spaulding stated that he had attended the festival last year and it was a great success.  The festival was great for not only the city, but also for the county.  He stated that anything to promote success in the county should be approved.

Mr. Willcox inquired as to whom would be liable. 

Ms. Tytler inquired as to whom would be handling the trash removal for the festival.

Mr. Parker responded that Buildings and Grounds did not remove the trash last year. 

Mr. Suben inquires as to whom would be receiving the Certification of Liability Insurance. 

Mr. Parker replied that either the County Administrator or the County Attorney would receive the certificate.  He also stated that in the past the committee had approved the use of the park prior to receiving the certificate of insurance.

 

Conclusions

Mr. Loomis called for a vote for the approval of the Celtic Festival to

use the Court House park.  All members of the committee voted aye and approval was granted.

 

 

Meeting Adjourned

Motion to adjourn @ 8:22 AM.

Special notes

** Meeting room was not conducive to recording. **

 

BACK