Staff:  S. Whicher, County Administrator; K. Borgella, Planning; M. Shakarjian, 
Administration; J. Wood, County Attorney, L. Shurtleff, Emergency Response; D. 
Kiefer, Legislature; J. Wood, County Attorney; A. LeMaro, Facilities; K. Fuller, 
Recorder

Called to Order

 The meeting was called to order at 10:00 p.m.

Changes to the Agenda

 There were no changes to the agenda.

Chair's Report

 Mr. Penniman reported that the Dryden School Board has sent a letter asking for assistance in promoting a tax-sharing agreement between the City of Ithaca and Town of Dryden in relation to the New York State Department of Transportation Relocation Project.  Mr. Marx has made preliminary contacts with the City of Ithaca and will update the Committee as more information is received.

Approval of Minutes

It was MOVED by Ms. Robertson, seconded by Ms. Blanchard, and unanimously approved by voice vote, to approve the minutes of February 17, and March 18, 2004 as amended.  MOTION APPROVED.

Department of Transportation Relocation Project Status Update

Ms. Borgella provided a written report on the progress of the project.  At this time we are awaiting the Town of Dryden's filing the final annexation order, the Village of Dryden has already done so.  Upon filing of both annexation orders with the Clerk it is then official.  Ms. Borgella indicated the purchase option is extended until July 15, 2004. It is planned that the County will sign over the purchase option to another entity prior to taking title to the land to keep the County from being in the chain of title.  The original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in August 2003, with an amended MOU signed the end of March 2004.  Ms. Borgella spoke of the financing plan, noting that at this time $3.8 million of the $5+ million required is lined-up and discussions are taking place within the Industrial Development Agency, the New York State Department of Transportation, and the National Development Council (NDC), on how to handle the remaining cost.  The majority of time is now being spent on contracts to insure the money flow and they have had preliminary meetings, with a conference call to take place later in the day to continue these conversations.  In addition, regulatory approvals will have to be worked through, which will be the responsibility of the NDC.  Ms. Borgella reported that one is the approval of subdivision of the property in question as it will only require 10.8 acres of the total 21 acre parcel.  The Village Mayor and Planning Board will work with the County to determine how to move forward with this in order to comply with regulations.  Also, State Environmental Quality Reviews (SEQR) will have to be completed for subdivision and site plan review, working closely with Village officials.  The site plan review and design will be completed by the NDC architect, Highland Associates.  Ms. Borgella informed the Committee that as the land was annexed it has no zoning and it is up to the village to determine the zoning prior to approvals.  With regard to the tax-sharing arrangement requests Ms. Borgella said discussions are taking place with all parties with the hope to have a MOU regarding the matter.  It is hoped that the new facility will be completed by Summer 2005.

 Mr. Penniman clarified the tax sharing request, noting that the new location would have a loss of tax, with the City of Ithaca recognizing a tax gain.  The maximum amount to be provided to the Town/Village of Dryden, and Dryden School District would be the actual loss of taxes from the property.

 Mr. Todd asked what would happen to the portion of the parcel not purchased and was informed it would continue to be owned by the present owner, however it would be afforded the enhancements of municipal water.

 With regard to the shortfall of funds, Ms. Blanchard said it was believed it would be resolved through the long-term lease.
 

Emergency Response Center Building Project Update

 Mr. LeMaro reported the Emergency Response Center (ERC) administrative staff has moved into the building.  At this time there are minor punch list items to be completed and outside items such as the reseeding of the lawn, tree trimming, signage, the gravel parking area between the Crash/Fire/Rescue building and the ERC building, and the buffer between Brown Road and the gravel parking area as requested by the Village of Lansing.  At this time the final work with the contractors is taking place such as receiving final plan drawings, testing reports, and maps.  Mr. LeMaro said there have not been any major issues, however deadlines will be set for the completion of the punch list items.  He noted that while some lines went over budget, the overall project has come in within budget.  He then provided members with a draft of a dedicatory plaque for the building and requested they review and make any recommendations as soon as possible.

Phase I Project Update

Mr. Shurtleff reported at this time the Motorola final schedule for installation of equipment and consoles is proceeding and is being coordinated with the Positron telephone switch installation.  It is expected that all work will be completed by May 27, 2004, with a cut-over date of June 4, 2004.  A determination was made to postpone the cutover until after Memorial Day Weekend and the Cornell University graduation date when the highest traffic volume occurs.  Mr. Shurtleff is working with Verizon regarding the cutover work, and he noted all the telephone lines are in place and it is now the responsibility of the switching facility.  The training schedule has been drafted for the telephone and console systems.  He reported that the temporary link has been completed and initial reports are very favorable, with a very strong signal and good line-of-sight.

Ms. Robertson inquired whether the trees will pose difficulty when full-foliage occurs and was informed by Mr. Shurtleff that the line-of-sight is far enough above the tree lines that it should not pose difficulty.  Mr. Penniman asked for an update on the City dispatchers being moved to the facility and was informed that all operational issues have been resolved with the City of Ithaca Police Chief and Fire Department Chief.  Mr. Shurtleff said Mr. Whicher, County Administrator, and Ms. Fitzpatrick, Personnel Director, will work with the necessary parties to finalize labor issues.  He said it may be July 1, 2004, that the City dispatchers will become County employees, however it may be a period of time before they actually make the physical move to allow for cross-training.  Although there is new City of Ithaca administration the commitment is still there to continue with the original agreement.  Mr. Whicher said that he will continue to inform the Committee on the negotiations as they proceed.  Mr. Penniman indicated he would like to see the City of Ithaca involved in any dedication ceremony since they will be utilizing the building as well.  In response to Ms. Robertson's question regarding Common Council involvement she was informed that the City Budget Committee approved the agreement and the full Common Council held it up pending any modifications by the new administration.  The City of Ithaca will provide Mr. Whicher with the agreement prior to it being brought forward to the entire Legislature. 

Ms. Robertson inquired how the testing of the system would take place.  She was informed that the training would take place the third week of May following Motorola testing.  At that time Positron will be installing the telephone equipment with training following the installation.  Upon completion of this training and the County acceptance of the system there is a ten-day period for County testing of the system.  Ms. Robertson inquired what type of warranty is in place following the acceptance.  Ms. Shakarjian said there is a one-year warranty for all products.  Mr. Wood responded to a liability question by notifying the Committee that normally companies build into their contract an accountability clause that would hold the manufacturer harmless for all but the equipment if the equipment were to fail.

It was believed that a dedication ceremony may take place in late May.  Ms. Kiefer inquired whether low ground cover could replace grass around the building to reduce maintenance and was informed that it was not what had been specified under the contract.  Mr. Penniman suggested the matter be brought to the attention of the Facilities and Infrastructure Committee.

Contract Procedures

In response to a previous request to clarify contractual procedures during a capital project, Ms. Kippola, Contract Coordinator, provided the Committee with a brief presentation to explain the process.  Written information regarding the County policy was handed out, with a historical overview of how the policy led to the present system.  Ms. Kippola first explained the E-Z Contract policy which has four criteria:  (1) the work must start and finish within 365 days; (2) contain appropriate insurance language; (3) appropriate language regarding payment terms; and (4) was not one of the contracts listed under the category of exceptions, and was not a capital project.  She noted that the procurement policy regarding contractual obligations can create confusion.  Ms. Kippola said the standard she follows is that if you are building something a resolution is required for contract approval; if the contract is to hire services for planning or consultant work a resolution is not required.  Copies of the administrative and procurement policies are on file in the legislative offices.  A brief discussion followed during which it was suggested that the policy be reviewed by the Government Operations Committee to determine if further refinement of the policy related to contracts is warranted.

Phase II

Mr. Whicher inquired of the Committee what procedure they would like to see during Phase II of this project.  

 Ms. Shakarjian reviewed for the Committee the Phase I contract summary that represented contracts/purchase orders that already exist.  It was requested that a listing of the full amount of funds expended to NYSTEC be provided for the Committee rather than those noted for the past year.  Ms. Blanchard noted she was concerned about what she referred to as "contract creep", which she described as many small agreements that add up.

Next, the Projected Project Costs and Services for work in progress such as the South Hill tower site were reviewed.  It was noted that a request to utilize the landowner's architectural firm as the consultant was made.  Work for this site includes site engineering, geotechnical studies, site survey, and obtaining a quote for the tower itself.  The other pending contracts are the previously discussed contract concerning co-location on towers at a cost of $1,500 that will provide a template for future use and a contract for grant writers that would not have any cost connected until grant funds were received.

The next area noted upcoming contracts connected with Phase II of this project.  Although it is known what contracts will be forthcoming it is unclear at this time what the overall costs will be.  These contracts include the recent Request for Qualifications for a Project Management contract that will provide an individual or firm to oversee the negotiations, implementation, civil oversight, act as vendor liaison, and overall operations management; a Request for Proposals related to the environmental impact statement; and for a proposal review regarding the engineering review directed to NYSTEC.  

With regard to the RFQ for project management, nine responses were received and are being reviewed.  Ms. Shakarjian said the responses vary greatly in the scope of work provided and costs.  Interviews by the interview team of Mr. Whicher, Mr.  Shurtleff, Mr. McEwen, and Ms. Shakarjian, take place at the end of the month and it is hoped to have an appointment in early May.  In anticipation of the upcoming appointment a brief meeting has been scheduled for May 4, 2004, at 4:00 p.m.  It was reported that the majority of proposals were received from companies rather than individuals.   Mr. Whicher said that there are issues of experience offered and the money requested and it is hoped the individual/company selected will provide the best service for the money.  

The Committee briefly discussed again how contractual approval would be done with several of the contracts noted.  Staff guidelines indicate $15,000 or more would be brought to the Committee.  Ms. Blanchard said she feels it would be appropriate for contracts on large projects to be paid from a draw-down account that would be approved by the Committee, with review and approval to put additional funds within the account line.

The Committee discussed ACD Telecom's proposal to help obtain grants and indicated a sliding fee scale may be more appropriate than the ten percent suggested by ACD.  

The Committee discussed the RFP for SEQR work, with Ms. Shakarjian noting an EIS will be done according to County Legislature resolution.  Ms. Blanchard said she feels that a long-form EAF process would be more suitable.  Ms. Shakarjian noted a resolution had been previously approved adopting a positive declaration of environmental significance.  Ms. Blanchard feels it should be reviewed again for the project, feeling that it had been determined to do a complete review.  Mr. Wood said the EIS could always be done, but it is not required.  Ms. Blanchard said she feels it may be very expensive and time consuming to do the generic EIS and that it may be more appropriate to do the long-form.  She strongly feels it should be reviewed further.

Mr. Penniman suggested a subcommittee be formed to work on this issue.  Mr. Whicher noted it would need to occur in the immediate future as the work has been proceeding with the assumption that the EIS process would be taking place.  Ms. Robertson asked if tower locations need to be known prior to the EIS process and was informed it was not necessary if the generic EIS were done.  Ms. Kiefer said she wanted to satisfy the towns as previously indicated.  Following discussion consensus was reached that Ms. Blanchard, Ms. Kiefer, Mr. Penniman, Mr. Marx, and Mr. Wood will act as subcommittee to discuss the EIS process and will meet at 3:00 p.m. on May 4, 2004.  

Ms. Shakarjian said the South Hill site working group will meet on April 30, 2004, at 8:00 a.m. to discuss proposed site plans, review zoning, conservation zone, height limitations, alternatives analysis, and the Federal Aviation Authority determination.  

Mr. Whicher spoke to the Committee about the process and participation of the Phase II portion of the capital project.  Motorola recently provided several presentations regarding the project, walking through proposals to provide a level of expectation for the completed system.  Approximately thirty individuals attended the morning meeting with ten to fifteen participants in the afternoon.  This meeting was videotaped for those who were not able to attend.  Mr. Whicher and Mr. Shurtleff met with Motorola representatives, including Mr. McFaddon, Vice President of Motorola, and other Motorola representatives to discuss upcoming negotiations for Phase II.  Mr. Whicher noted that during this contractual phase he anticipates clarification of intent of each party during the negotiation process.  He will be meeting with Motorola on May 14 and May 20, 2004, to further discuss negotiations.  As all negotiations are confidential any issue to be discussed with the Committee will be in an executive session.  He said the project will be viewed over a ten-year period to plan for future transitions, as the technology evolves.

Mr. Whicher reported on a recent M/A-Com conference he attended in Pennsylvania, and his meeting with the coordinator of the statewide system that is being constructed by M/A-Com for Pennslyvania.  He went to the conference in order to fully understand what is happening within the industry in order to better understand the technological needs and concerns when proceeding with Motorola negotiations.  Mr. Whicher noted that M/A-Com has made significant improvements in their technology and operations following the collaboration with Tyco and ComNet Ericsson.  The Pennsylvania communication system is approximately seventy-five percent complete with the voice and data system and the infrastructure operational.  Mr. Whicher noted that the technology and theories being utilized in Pennsylvania are clearly where the industry is going, however there are some drawbacks.  At this time there is not complete user acceptance due to the changes in technology.  Mr. Penniman noted it appears that M/A-COM is setting the standard for the industry.

The Committee discussed the various differences in the technology, noting some areas noting that in some respects M/A-Com is setting the bar and/or indicating the direction the technology will take.  With regard to integrated mobile/data systems Mr. Whicher reported that the Motorola system proposed was not fully integrated, which had originally been requested in the RFP.  Upon review it was determined to have an integrated voice/data system at 9.6 kbs which is comparable to the present system.  Mr. Whicher said M/A-Com offers a system that is 19.2 kbs, however for an application such as ours may not be necessary to have the increased data transfer time.  Mr. Whicher said M/A-COM now has an IP (Internet protocol) system that deals with the actual networking system and he believes Motorola will also be developing this type of system, but he's not sure when.  Mr. Whicher will look at all these advances when negotiating with Motorola in upcoming meetings.

Mr. Whicher indicated that the negotiating team will be made up of Mr. Shurtleff, Ms. Kippola, Ms. Shakarjian, Mr. McEwen, Mr. Wood, the new project manager, and himself.  He also indicated that the user group and end-users will need to be aware and in agreement regarding the system expectations before the contract is finalized.

Mr. Todd asked if there is any estimated timeline for replacement of the equipment.  Mr. Whicher said there will be a sliding timeline between advanced technology and the equipment becoming obsolete.  

With regard to the State-Wide Network if the State did determine to go ahead with M/A-Com, it would be factored into the negotiation process. Ms. Robertson inquired whether other counties proceeding with projects might be in negotiations with Motorola and, if so, whether Tompkins County could benefit from their experience.  Westchester, Nassau, and Erie counties are working with Motorola at this time.  Mr. Whicher said he intended to utilize a consultant and contact other communities during the negotiation process.  Mr. Shurtleff commented that Cortland County wants our old frequencies.

Mr. Totman was excused at this time (11:45 a.m.).

Subscriber Equipment

 Mr. Penniman reported that he met with Mr. Shurtleff and Mr. Totman to discuss the budgeting and options for subscriber equipment.  He noted that the discussion included the County paying for part of the equipment with individual agencies contributing as well.  Mr. Penniman believes that within the next month he will have a proposed budget and cost sharing figures in hand.  Ms. Robertson inquired what agencies were being included and was informed it would be fire companies, police, and emergency services.  

Grant Update

 Mr. Shurtleff reported that the New York State 911 Board approved $318,000 for wireless upgrades to the communication system.  This approval has been forwarded on to the New York State Dormitory Authority who will bond this project.  This grant would cover 90% of the cost of the various equipment to bring the system to the level desired to receive wireless 911 calls.  Mr. Shurtleff said that this award represents approximately $228,000 already spent on the system coupled with an additional $90,000 for mapping upgrade and to provide a logging recorder.  

 A request was made that the Committee be provided written documentation of grants applied for and received.  Mr. Penniman spoke of how it may be helpful to be cognizant of various grants applied for to avoid competition that may hurt all parties.  Mr. Whicher also spoke of the need for outside agency equipment purchases to be coordinated with the County to avoid future difficulties once the system is in place.  

 Ms. Robertson reiterated her statement from a previous meeting that subscriber equipment is the responsibility of the users.  She feels that the County's participation level should be strictly by offering reduced cost through volume purchasing.  She does not want to see the grant funds going to subscriber equipment for outside agencies, stating that the County is paying for the entire system upgrade.  Mr. Penniman noted that some subscribers are County personnel such as the Sheriff's Department and Emergency Response.  He called attention to the Committee what the purchase of equipment would mean to municipalities and agencies' budgets, asking that it be taken into account that it may be necessary to assist in lessening the financial impact.  Ms. Robertson said the County is investing in the entire system and she does not believe Town Boards would have a problem funding the subscriber equipment for their agencies.  Ms. Blanchard said she believes that the County does need to pay for their own equipment, however, she believes several options should be available depending on the ability of each community to purchase the new subscriber equipment.  Mr. Penniman said the subject of subscriber equipment will be placed on the next agenda and that the specific grants will be reviewed to determine any restrictions on how they may be spent.  Ms. Robertson expressed her nervousness in applying for grants that do not first cover County costs before taking care of other agencies, noting that the Committee had not seen or approved the grant applications prior to submission.  Mr. Whicher noted that if the grants applied for are not inclusive, there is the potential for increased competition for grant funding due to outside agencies applying for grants to cover their costs.

Adjournment

 The meeting adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Karen Fuller, Deputy Clerk.