PRESENT: B. Blanchard, G. Totman, T. Joseph, P. Penniman, M. Lane
ABSENT: C. Evans
STAFF: B. Benjamin, Deputy County Administrator; J. Miller, L. Shurtleff, Fire, Disaster and EMS; J. Kazda, Engineering; J. Wood, Deputy County Attorney; M. Shakarjian, EMC Coordinator; W. Skinner, Public Information Coordinator; J. Hanson, Planning Commissioner
GUESTS: D. Kiefer, Board of Representatives
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting opened at 11:05 a.m.
REPORT OF CONSULTANT SELECTION TEAM AND RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSULTING CONTRACT
Mr. Benjamin stated the selection team prioritized their top three preferences. The first preference, NYSTEC, was contacted to provide their scope of services so the County can begin price negotiations with them. The team met again this morning with NYSTEC and the scope of service is general in nature. NYSTEC has indicated they can adhere to the County's aggressive timetable and they will be able to provide their report at the January COMCAP meeting. He said that due to the timeframe, the team would like to recommend to the COMCAP Committee that County Administration be authorized to move forward with negotiating the contract. Ms. Blanchard suggested the contract be brought to the committee meeting on October 24 and then to the November 8, 2000, Board meeting for approval. Mr. Benjamin said that the team will be sitting down with NYSTEC to discuss the scope of work at length. He said that it is not possible to attach a price to the work until the scope of service is defined. Ms. Shakarjian has compiled a list of costs for consultants who have worked in other areas of the state, but this is limited for Tompkins County's use because the County needs the consultant to be involved in the environmental impact piece. He said there is a balance of $158,000 in the capital project for 2000 to pay for the consultant. It is possible that this will cover the majority of the consultant’s costs, but if they go over a recommendation would be made to pay the remainder from the $700,000 allocated in the 2001 budget.
Ms. Blanchard asked if it is anticipated that adjustments can be made to the project to allow for changes made by the State. Mr. Hanson said that there should be some flexibility to make adjustments to the work program. He said many facets have been discussed with the consultant, but there are still some areas that need to be defined.
Ms. Blanchard said that she would like an overview of the finalists and would like to know what the reasoning was to recommending NYSTEC.
Mr. Lane arrived.
Ms. Shakarjian stated that seven proposals were received and the list was narrowed to the three that best responded to what the County specifically asked for. She said that Concepts to Operations was interviewed and they had a very strong public safety background with a lot of experience, but it was felt by some on the interview committee that they did not have the expertise needed to do the environmental work. She said that the County’s project is different and when the three proposals were reviewed NYSTEC was the only firm that addressed all of the County’s issues. They had a very good presentation and went above and beyond what the County was asking for. They also have a very good relationship with the State and this is very beneficial. Their references were also very good.
Mr. Wood said that the three finalists were all very good, but NYSTEC was more imaginative and creative. He said any of the three finalists could have done the job.
Mr. Joseph said he would like to talk about the scope of work. He said that since he heard about the State’s plans he has had reservations about hiring a consultant to continue work on the environmental impact statement and look at alternatives for a system that the County may not build. He said that Ms. Blanchard has indicated that the first item of the scope of work would be to analyze the State’s proposal to see how real it is and how it will meet the County’s needs before moving ahead with work on our system.
Mr. Kazda said the consultant’s first task is to identify the County's needs and how they fit within the County and then look at the State’s system. The State has tower sites already located and those sites can be used by the County. The State isn’t at the point, however, where they can tell us if their system will work for the County and we need to know how the state’s system will affect us.
Mr. Joseph said that the County has done an analysis of its needs and the reason it was put in the proposal was because the analysis was challenged as not being objective. He said that he does not believe it is necessary to have that analysis done again if what we are doing is trying to figure out how it will fit in with the State’s system.
Mr. Wood stated that it is necessary to do needs as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Joseph stated that he is not convinced that the County is going to build a system and therefore the EIS may not needed. Mr. Wood said that the consultant needs to look at the County’s needs first and then look at alternatives, such as the state’s system, and also identify what the state will be giving the County. He said it isn’t clear that the County’s proposed system is a realistic system for the County at this point.
Mr. Lane said that he would like to look for a way where the County doesn’t need to spend the money, but doesn’t think we can avoid this. The information the County has received so far came from a group who was committed to having towers, and if the State system does not work out for us, there won’t be any analysis to fall back on. If the research is done now we won’t have to backtrack later.
Mr. Penniman stated that biggest issue for him is the timeline with the State. He said that if the State had a firm timeline -- for example a plan in six months and a system in two years -- he would be more ready to hold off on the County’s work, but it doesn’t seem possible to get a firm answer on when the State will be ready to work with us.
Mr. Hanson said that when the consultants were interviewed they all said that the County needs to move ahead. He said there is some inconsistency of where the State’s system is actually at. He said that NYSTEC has more knowledge about the State’s system than anyone else. Ms. Blanchard said that while the State has indicated their timeline is approximately two years, their actual timeline is unknown. They are going to build a system that provides certain things, but it will still be necessary for the County to supplement that system and the consultant will be instrumental in helping us find out what those things are.
Mr. Benjamin stated the goal in this process is to protect the County’s interest and maintain options. He said as we move along we are going to find more areas where it is appropriate to join with the State and other areas where it isn’t. He said one clear difference is about our need for mobile use. If we obtain more information about the State system where it serves the County’s needs and interests we will want to lobby the State for inclusion in Phase One of their system. He said the County needs to maintain a reasonable timeline and in order to maintain a level of independence it is necessary to hire the consultant and spend the money to get the analysis.
It was Moved by Mr. Totman, seconded by Mr. Penniman to approve the recommendation as submitted and return to the Committee for official action once the scope of work is defined. Mr. Joseph said that he will support the motion. His disagreement is not on hiring, it is on the scope of work. He said that his approach to dealing with the State system is to find out how real that system is, when it will be built, and what it will do. He said the County would like to have a system that provides 95 percent mobile and portable radio coverage. If this isn’t possible with the State system, we have to ask the question of how much money is needed to obtain that level of coverage and is it worth it to spend that money. Mr. Shurtleff said that some thought needs to be given on if the State can provide us with what we need, not only in coverage but also in the number of frequencies. He said he does not believe they can give the County what it needs in the way of frequencies and believes the State may have made assumptions about Tompkins County without fully knowing what we have and do. He said Tompkins County is above the rest of the State technologically. Mr. Kazda said that we need to have some type of measurement to ascertain what is appropriate for the County and this will be done by the consultant. Mr. Joseph said that if the State is going to provide a system for free the County needs to know what they are going to provide and if it will it be good enough for our needs. Mr. Wood emphasized that there are many issues that need to be coordinated with the State that go beyond the coverage issue. A voice vote resulted as follows: Ayes – 5, Noes – 0. MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Blanchard asked about the appropriateness of having the consultant participate in Committee meetings. Mr. Hanson stated that a lot of the information will be provided on the COMCAP web site and the consultant will be available when needed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Blanchard reminded Committee members that there will be a meeting on October 24, at 11:15 a.m. in the Scott Heyman Conference Room to discuss the centralized dispatch matrix.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:42 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held October 24, 2000 at 11:15 a.m. in the Scott Heyman Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted by Jennifer Luu, Administrative Assistant, Board of Representative's office.